So, about defenses aka. PHB2 defenses feats

[DracoSuave]

Actually, more importantly, given that a party's opportunity to deal with inconveniences is much greater at level 30 than it is at level 1, how would -you- balance that so that a party can be adequately challenged at higher levels?

If you think that things should get -easier- for the players as you get into the epic tier, then I submit you might not understand what the epic tier is supposed to be about.

 

[Elric]

Actually, more importantly, given that a party's opportunity to deal with inconveniences is much greater at level 30 than it is at level 1, how would -you- balance that so that a party can be adequately challenged at higher levels?

Is this in response to my point above? PC AC scales 2 points worse than the monster's to-hit over 29 levels. Certainly I don't think it's true that "Since AC doesn't scale 4-5 points worse than monster to-hit there's no way to create challenging epic-level opponents who attack AC." By extension, FRW does not have to scale by an average 5 worse than to-hit to create challenging opponents who target FRW.

If you think that things should get -easier- for the players as you get into the epic tier, then I submit you might not understand what the epic tier is supposed to be about.

When have I said that the game should be easier in the epic tier than at earlier tiers?

 

[DracoSuave]

Is this in response to my point above? PC AC scales 2 points worse than the monster's to-hit over 29 levels. Certainly I don't think it's true that "Since AC doesn't scale 4-5 points worse than monster to-hit there's no way to create challenging epic-level opponents who attack AC." By extension, FRW does not have to scale by an average 5 worse than to-hit to create challenging opponents who target FRW.

The thing is, this problem has yet to be proven to be unbalancing. Players getting hit is just -one- number and variable out of many. The argument has focused purely on a single number and pointed out 'This r a problem, yes?' without actually -proving it.-

So let's. Level 3 S&B Human fighter, 14 Dexterity, 15 Constitution, 16 Reflex defense, 42 hps. Kobold Wyrmpriest, level 3 artillery, +6 vs Reflex (10 or better to hit, or 55%), 1d10+3 damage. Average damage per hit, 8.5. Expected DPR, 4.675. %Threat value to fighter: 4.675/42 = 11.131%.

Level 24 Fighter, 16 Dexterity, 17 Constitution.
+6 item, +11 level. Total Reflex Defense: 33.
Hps: 110.

Great Flameskull: 2d8+10, and dazed, +28 to hit. (5 or better to hit, 80% to hit). Average damage per hit: 19. Expected DPR: 15.2. %Threat: 13.8182%

So, compare. Heroic monster's threat: 11%. Epic monster's threat: 14%. Not a huge difference.

And then consider: Abilities that heal are more effective at higher levels, and there is more of them. So, that 14% threat is less of a danger than it would be at level 1.

Seems to be the math is exactly how it should be.

When have I said that the game should be easier in the epic tier than at earlier tiers?

That comment wasn't directed at you specificly. But someone else felt he didn't feel 'heroic' at epic levels. I dispute that's the point behind higher levels. You're saving the world at that point. Sounds like it should be difficult labor at best.

 

[KarinsDad]

The thing is, this problem has yet to be proven to be unbalancing. Players getting hit is just -one- number and variable out of many. The argument has focused purely on a single number and pointed out 'This r a problem, yes?' without actually -proving it.-

All we have to go on is:

1) WotC claimed pre-release that the sweet spot was the same for all levels. This was listed as a design goal. Hence, since this is not true, it appears that WotC is now adjusting for the sweet spot with feats.

2) Many players do not like getting hit on a 2 or only hitting on a 16. It feels wrong.

From that, it appears that the burden of proof is for those who claim that the sweet spot should no longer exist at Epic level due to the plethora of PC abilities.


So, the counter claim appears to be: Sweet spot? What sweet spot? The rules do not discuss a sweet spot, so although the WotC designers talked about it for months pre-4E release, it doesn't have to exist. Uh huh.

My reponse. Prove it. Prove that the original design goals are not still the design goals.

That comment wasn't directed at you specificly. But someone else felt he didn't feel 'heroic' at epic levels. I dispute that's the point behind higher levels. You're saving the world at that point. Sounds like it should be difficult labor at best.

When I think Epic combat encounters, I think Tiamat, Vecna, even wimpy Orcus.

30th level demigod PCs get hit very very easily by these "deities".

One thing you keep discussing is that "a party's opportunity to deal with inconveniences is much greater at level 30 than it is at level 1".

Of course it is.

What you keep failing to discuss is that "a monster's opportunity to deal with inconveniences is much greater at level 30+ than it is at level 1".

I look at Tiamat and think: "Heck, she hits so often and so easily that I cannot even dream of having her consorts with her".

Her Aura alone does 25 points of damage per round in a range of 10 and is mostly unstopable. How the heck can I use her if she hits 30th level PCs on a 2 with 2 of her 5 heads and hits on a 6 with her other 3 heads? She's easily doing 75+ points of damage per round versus multiple PCs who have 175 to 200+ hit points and debuffing them as well.

Sure, the PCs can cure like mad or jump back up partially healed due to an Epic ability or power, but they will run out eventually.

 

[Elric]

The thing is, this problem has yet to be proven to be unbalancing. Players getting hit is just -one- number and variable out of many. The argument has focused purely on a single number and pointed out 'This r a problem, yes?' without actually -proving it.-

Suppose we started from the premise that FRW attacks were fine as is, with their better scaling being an internal part of the system's math, and looked at my question "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.”

You haven't said whether you think the answer is no or yes here. I think the answer is "no", and if you thought otherwise you'd have probably said so by now, so we'll go with that.

If I look at AC attacks and think "These AC attacks don't get anything versus FRW attacks to compensate for the fact that FRW attacks are way more likely to hit. However, I think that FRW attacks are just right. Clearly, AC scales much too quickly and this was a mistake! It should lose 4-5 points over 29 levels instead of 2 points so that attacks against AC don't fall behind compared to FRW. Scrap those Masterwork Armor fixes!"

Now, I don't think that. I think that WotC simultaneously messed up by making many epic monsters deal too little damage, and also messed up by making FRW scale so poorly. From what I can see the DMG gives no guidelines on scaling AC attacks differently from FRW attacks- there's not a single mention about this in the "creating monsters" section. There's nothing like "at higher levels, make AC attacks use a higher damage table than they would at lower levels given the attack and the monster's role."

WotC has also errata'd a number of MM monsters to increase their damage totals. They messed up Masterwork Heavy Armor's progression (but not its overall scaling) in the PH and added more MW armors in AV and PH-II, solving the problem (this is a very strong indication that "AC is too high" wasn't on their minds). They messed up the Death Giant on the first try, and they messed up FRW scaling on the first try and they messed up the fix on their second try, PH-II.

Do you think that the better scaling of FRW attacks was an intentional part of the game's internal balance between FRW and AC attacks? The preponderance of the evidence suggests that WotC is trying to fix previous mistakes (if doing so in a terrible manner with the PH-II feats).

Level 24 Fighter, 16 Dexterity, 17 Constitution.
+6 item, +11 level. Total Reflex Defense: 33.
Hps: 110.

Great Flameskull: 2d8+10, and dazed, +28 to hit. (5 or better to hit, 80% to hit). Average damage per hit: 19. Expected DPR: 15.2. %Threat: 13.8182%

So, compare. Heroic monster's threat: 11%. Epic monster's threat: 14%. Not a huge difference.

Nitpick: the level 24 fighter's HP is badly off. It's unreasonable to assume a +6 FRW item at level 24; level bonus is +12, though, so these cancel out. As a Human with a Shield, he's much better off than most characters for their weakest FRW, so he's hit 80% of the time. His HP are 153 + Con= 170. The average DPR as a percent of HP goes down to 9% with these corrections.

Of course, the Great Flameskull also dazes the fighter for a round 80% of the time. No more opportunity attacks or immediate interrupt attacks, you grant CA, and you're only going to get a standard action a round (you may have to do a lot of charging, and you're not going to get much out of stances without being able to keep enemies near you). Your leader? He can't do a thing to remove the daze.

 

[Neubert]

That comment wasn't directed at you specificly. But someone else felt he didn't feel 'heroic' at epic levels. I dispute that's the point behind higher levels. You're saving the world at that point. Sounds like it should be difficult labor at best.

I suppose it was my comment about being hit on a 2 that does not feel heroic.

As you mention, the party may grow in power and be able to deal with inconveniences more easily at level 30, but the threats to them should also grow evenly in power.
I don't believe the game should be any easier at the higher levels. It may be different tests and tasks you encounter (such as saving the world rather than the village), but I am sure we can all agree that people also play to be challenged.

 

[DracoSuave]

Nitpick: the level 24 fighter's HP is badly off.

You're right. But my error was in a direction that, upon correction, only increases my point.

It's unreasonable to assume a +6 FRW item at level 24

Not at all. You start getting them at level 22. By level 24 you have 6 +6 or better items. And, if the math disparity is as bad as claimed, you're damn right I'll want mine to be a neck-slot!

; level bonus is +12, though, so these cancel out. As a Human with a Shield, he's much better off than most characters for their weakest FRW, so he's hit 80% of the time. His HP are 153 + Con= 170. The average DPR as a percent of HP goes down to 9% with these corrections.

9%, is a lot worse than what I had.

Of course, the Great Flameskull also dazes the fighter for a round 80% of the time. No more opportunity attacks or immediate interrupt attacks, you grant CA, and you're only going to get a standard action a round (you may have to do a lot of charging, and you're not going to get much out of stances without being able to keep enemies near you). Your leader? He can't do a thing to remove the daze.

Of course, in this case the flameskull, in order to weaken the fighter's Defenderness, would have to be exclusively targetting the fighter.

I'll give you fifteen minutes to figure out how this isn't exactly a problem, and may be, in fact, -what you want.-

Regardless, the daze is a trade-off for the much lower damage outlay. It'll take three hits from this kid before the fighter even has to consider spending a healing surge.

But the general point still stands. Getting hit more often is a trade-off for the greater proportion of damage the monsters do.

I'll also agree that certain monsters had their damage dice doubled in order to become threats. This, of course, shows that Wizards is willing to issue errata to cover problems like the FRW-hit-disparity.

They haven't done so.

What does that tell you?

 

[Elric]

You're right. But my error was in a direction that, upon correction, only increases my point.

Indeed. I don't refrain from pointing out your errors when your errors weaken your point. I'm not a lawyer or debater tasked with advancing a particular side of this argument; rather, I've taken a position based on my judgment of the situation. There's no value in strengthening my position with false premises, or strategic omissions.

I'll also agree that certain monsters had their damage dice doubled in order to become threats. This, of course, shows that Wizards is willing to issue errata to cover problems like the FRW-hit-disparity.

They haven't done so.

What does that tell you?

Three questions.

Many brutes were very poorly designed, even at levels at which scaling issues for AC and FRW hadn't yet arose (Ogres, at level 8, received errata). Even counting the errata to the MM to fix some badly designed brutes, I would argue that attacks against FRW do not become weaker over time relative to attacks against AC in a way that compensates for the better scaling of FRW attacks. You've avoided answering this question a lot of times. 1) What do you think?

It seems quite clear the designers decided to use PH-II epic feats with untyped bonuses to deal with the perceived issue. It's very hard to come up with an explanation for the Expertise feats that doesn't involve "math fix", and Epic FRW being untyped screams "math fix" as well, particularly in light of Expertise. However, just because I haven't seen an explanation for the Expertise feats that doesn't involve "math fix" doesn't mean there isn't one. If there were such an explanation, it would certainly cast doubt on the "huge untyped bonus from feat==math fix" line of reasoning. 2) Got any in mind?

As I said before, it's also very hard to find any evidence that FRW attacks were intended to scale better on to-hit and AC attacks were supposed to scale better in other ways to compensate.

From what I can see the DMG gives no guidelines on scaling AC attacks differently from FRW attacks- there's not a single mention about this in the "creating monsters" section. There's nothing like "at higher levels, make AC attacks use a higher damage table than they would at lower levels given the attack and the monster's role."

3) Why would the DMG be completely silent about what would have been a major (intentional) factor in the design of higher level monsters?

 

[DracoSuave]

Three questions, and one further nitpick.

Many brutes were very poorly designed, even at levels at which scaling issues for AC and FRW hadn't yet arose (Ogres, at level 8, received errata). Even counting the errata to the MM to fix some badly designed brutes, I would argue that attacks against FRW do not become weaker over time relative to attacks against AC in a way that compensates for the better scaling of FRW attacks. You've avoided answering this question a lot of times. 1) What do you think?

You've made a blanket statement, that you -would- argue. However, in truth, you haven't. The method for doing so is easy--calculate the threat value of various brutes' attacks over levels. You've made a statement that can be proven without providing evidence to back this point. I can't respond to dispute or rebut your statement because, in truth, you haven't presented any premises to dispute/rebut.

You're presenting theories as facts, and that's not the same as presenting facts. See below.

It seems quite clear the designers decided to use PH-II epic feats with untyped bonuses to deal with the perceived issue.

It also seems there is no issue, given the only -actual- evidence presented. Everything else has been an incomplete argument, disputed when real math gets involved.

It's very hard to come up with an explanation for the Expertise feats that doesn't involve "math fix", and Epic FRW being untyped screams "math fix" as well, particularly in light of Expertise.

Here's a simple explanation. Those feats are parallels for the equivalent Epic feats from 3.x. People wanted feats to bolster their stuff, Wizards decided to do so. There's no evidence presented that it's a 'fix' when Wizards has shown -multiple times- that they're willing to institute fixes with errata.

However, just because I haven't seen an explanation for the Expertise feats that doesn't involve "math fix" doesn't mean there isn't one. If there were such an explanation, it would certainly cast doubt on the "huge untyped bonus from feat==math fix" line of reasoning. 2) Got any in mind?

Popular demand? Look at all the Char-Op. It's -all- based on maximizing to hit, and maximizing defenses. Char-Op players -are- a signifigant number of players of D&D, and perhaps Wizards wanted to toss them a bone?

That's the easiest explanation.

As I said before, it's also very hard to find any evidence that FRW attacks were intended to scale better on to-hit and AC attacks were supposed to scale better on damage.

I'll be honest, I don't see a lot of looking from the 'math-fix' camp. Perhaps I'd find a lot more weight to their arguments if they actually bothered to look behind the to-hit number.

It's really difficult to find something with your eyes closed.

3) Why would the DMG be completely silent about what would have been a major (intentional) factor in the design of higher level monsters?

Let's take a look at this from a different angle.

If the to-hit was supposed to be 50/50 (ish) across all levels, then you'd expect damage to remain proportional to character hitpoints.

Let's examine this 15 Con fighter again. I like him. He's rugged and has a cool name: Smishface. He has a neat cape too.

At level 1, Smishface has 30 hps.

A monster, according to the DMG on page 184, can (if he is using a high-damage normal attack) be expected to have a damage of 2d6+3 to hit, or 10hps. This gives an effective damage-per-hit of 33%.

The interesting thing is we can go level by level and calculate effective threat-per-hit according to this table.

1 Damage = 2d6+3 = 10, hps = 30, threat = 33.3%
4 Damage = 2d8+4 = 13, hps = 48, threat = 27%
7 Damage = 2d8+5 = 14, hps = 66, threat = 21%
10 Damage = 3d6+5 = 15.5, hps = 84, threat = 18%
13 Damage = 3d6+6 = 16.5, hps = 102, threat = 16%
16 Damage = 3d8+7 = 20.5, hps = 120, threat = 17%
19 Damage = 3d8+7 = 20.5, hps = 138, threat = 14%
22 Damage = 4d6+8 = 22, hps = 156, threat = 14%
25 Damage = 4d6+9 = 23, hps = 174, threat = 13%
28 Damage = 4d8+10 = 28, hps = 192, threat = 14%

So, the effective threat to hps of a single hit goes down as the monster goes up in level.

So, for the monster's attacks to have equal effectiveness over levels, the chance to hit -must- go up as the monster gains levels.

Therefore, the concept of 50/50 chance to hit is intended is either incorrect, or broken. However, we've proven that monsters don't have 50/50 to hit. Which means that expecting 50/50 is a falsehood.

It doesn't even get mentioned in the book.

Now, then, let's look at the FRW vs AC debacle.

To hit FRW and to hit AC should according to the same page be within 2 points of each other for a monster. Using light armor as a base (as heavy armor is balanced with light armor in mind) we can see clearly that:

For cloth wearers, the disparity between AC and Reflex (best save for light armor wearers) is 0 at heroic, 1 at paragon, and 2 at epic. For leather, it's 2/3/4 and for hide it's 3/4/5. Everything else is derived from statistics that affect both AC and FRW.

Where the disparity is less than 2, there's no problem:

Cloth wearers, Leather wearers at heroic.

Where it is greater than 2, there might be a problem:

Leather wearers at paragon, hide wearers.

So let's look at the difference. It ranges between 1-3 points of difference...

...so for any feat to be a 'fix' it would have to be between 1-3 points of difference.

In other words....

...Your 'fix' was already included in the PHB1. It's called Lightning Reflexes, Iron Will, Great Fortitude.

For what it's worth, this logic is wrong. It is not the case that FRW boosts become especially valuable because FRW scales poorly. I could think of some reasons why said fighter might pick up a +6 neck slot item before Armor or Weapon, but this isn't one of them.

If these boosts aren't valuable because of poor scaling, then they aren't exactly fixes for the problem, are they?

You can't have a case where they are logically fixes for the problem and yet, are not valuable -because- of the problem. This is a logic fail.

I counter with this: If I believe that my FRW is lower than they should be, and that my other defenses and offense is just fine, then I'm more likely to shore up my weakness, even if it is by a little bit.


EDIT:

I'm going through the Monster Manual, and doing some quick comparisons between equivalent level monsters' FRW attacks and AC attacks. So far, just looking at Terrasque and Red Dragon, the pattern of 2 off seems to mostly fit. Comparing Crownwing and Storm Gorgon (both brutes of the same level) also shows a 2 point difference between an attack vs AC and vs FRW.

It appears that 'these feats are an obvious fix' isn't obvious when looked at with any level of rigor.

 

[keterys]

Either they're fixing a math disparity, or they're completely overpowered. Either way, they're junk.

The theory that it's necessary to increase monsters' chance to hit by ~6 against FRW to make damage catch up doesn't hold up when considering status effects. If you're making it more likely to players to be continually dazed and stunned to catch up monster damage, you're addressing the wrong problem. Up the damage of creatures if need be.