So, about defenses aka. PHB2 defenses feats

[KarinsDad]

I'm not going to dispute this information at all. I agree with it. What I disagree with is the idea that the '50/50' hit rate creates that sweet spot. In fact, given the damage presented by monsters according to all sources, a 50/50 attack rate would -not- present that sweet spot, and cannot.

Just because monster damage is out of whack does not indicate anything.

The sweet spot is about fun, not about monster damage.

If monster damage is too low even without adjusting the math and at the same time, PCs have an easy time getting hit, it means that the sweet spot should be pushed closer to 50/50 for the enjoyment of the players and that the monster damage should be increased.

If monster hit points is too high even without adjusting the math and at the same time, PCs have a hard time of hitting, it means that the sweet spot should be pushed closer to 50/50 for the enjoyment of the players and that the monster hit points might not need to be decreased (because PCs are hitting easier).

It does not mean "screw the players". They are going to get the "have to roll a 17 to hit" sweet spot that we give them.

That POV is just plain assine. WotC would lose market share with that POV and therefore, it is obvious why they added the Expertise feat. To fix the math and not tick off their players.

I fully agree with the 'sweet spot' theory, and the math shows it cannot happen with a solid 50/50 attack rate. The mistake is thinking that the hit rate must remain constant over all levels. That is simply -not true- and cannot be true when player resources are constantly improving.

What math would that be? I haven't seen any math that illustrates that. I have seen claims that since PCs get more powers, the math should be worse.

But, how is that sweet spot? How is missing on a 16 fun in any way, shape or form?

Nobody said anything about it remaining constant. We are talking about it not going crazy though. +7 is crazy. +2, no big deal.

You claimed that there was no evidence.

Let’s review what evidence we have:

Fact: High level combat tends to take 15 to 20 rounds.
Fact: WotC in the pre-release explicitly state that they do not want long encounters because it is outside the sweet spot.
Fact: Having a -4 to hit or having the monster have a +4 to +7 to hit lengthens the encounter by definition.

Number of rounds of combat was explicitly listed as part of the sweet spot. It doesn’t make sense that +/- 8 rounds of combat is the sweet spot at low level and 15+ rounds of combat is the sweet spot at high level.

This is solid evidence of being out of the sweet spot that you ignore. From your position, 20 rounds encounter ARE the sweet spot. Sorry, but that’s just silly.


Fact: Many if not most players do not have fun with the PC getting hit on a 2.
Fact: WotC added two new feats that can change that so that the PC gets hit on a 6 to 8.

If getting hit on a 2 were in the sweet spot, WotC should not have added these feats. It would just be part of the game. There would have been no need, but evidently WotC saw a need. Not only did they see a need, but they saw a need for +6 more to defenses and +3 more to attacks. +3 and +6 are HUGE mods in a D20 game system.

Why add such imbalanced and large bonuses if there were no need? Doing so without a need would be tantamount to blowing balance out the window. +6??? That’s so huge and unbalancing if the game were balanced to begin with.


Fact: WotC adjusted the heavy armor tables in Adventurer’s Vault and PHB II.
Fact: The math indicates that there is a problem if one does not make an adjustment.

It’s apparent that WotC is making changing to fix math problems. Here is one example. Why would we conclude that the feat changes are not another when what they do is significantly adjust the math by definition if used.

If they wanted 50/50, then monster damage would scale with healing power (it doesn't), or at very least, with party hp (it doesn't).

One cannot assume this. The general consensus for people who have played high level is that monster damage at high levels is low, monster hit points at high level are high, etc. We cannot make any assumptions about how monster damage should scale with healing power when all indications are that monster damage is screwed up.

Claiming that this is so is the equivalent of claiming that that sweet spot is correct for high level and we have high level players that disagree with this. 20 round high level encounters shouts disagreement with this.

The bottom line appears to be that they screwed up high level and are now fixing it. Just like they screwed up heavy armor paragon level AC and fixed it.

Summary: The 'Sweet Spot' isn't referring to having the same to-hit rate for monsters and players, and insinuating that it does when the very same math uses the term 'math and complexity.' Complexity. That implies that it's not reduced to one number.

Obviously there are many factors.

But, it’s also obvious that the math is one of those. They fixed the math for Heavy Armor at Paragon level. Obviously if the math were not a factor, they would not have done that.

They stated that both math and complexity are important. That means not just complexity as you are implying.


And, their very actions (adding the feats and fixing the heavy armor) indicate that a major adjustment is needed.

Not that they wanted PCs that already have good defenses to use two feats and rarely get hit on a given NAD. That's nonsensical.


As a wise man once said: "If it looks like a horse and smells like a horse and sounds like a horse, I'm not going to go looking for a zebra".

Occam's Razor. We take the simplest explanation that fits the evidence, not the complex one that satisfies our personal POV.

 

[Jhaelen]

@Jhaelen
You made some math. That's nice. But:
1)Compare AC to DEF of PCs and damage that is dealt with both attacks.
Flameskull (24 lvl Artillery):
+28 vs. REF; 2d8+10 dmg and the target is dazed until end of next monster turn.
Highest (36) - 8 on die
Medium (33) - 5 on die
Lowest (29) - 2 on die

Fell Wyvern (24 lvl Skirmisher):
+29 vs. AC; 2d8+10 dmg or 2d6+10 dmg and knock target prone
Plate (without shield) (40) - 11 on die
Hide (without shield) (37) - 8 on die

Well, the thing is: you're still looking at a single monster in isolation. But this is useless, unless you're proposing the party will always encounter 5 monsters of the same type. Instead I'd propose to look at level-equivalent encounters, preferrably straight from MM1.

Ideally, every encounter will have some monsters that are slightly tougher than average for their level and some that are slightly weaker. If you're averaging across every possible encounter, this will definitely be the case.

In my previous L24 encounter example I simply picked random monsters. Now, I looked through MM1 to look for L24 sample encounters, and look what I found on page 50:
level 24 encounter:
- 1 Dragonborn death knight (L25 elite soldier)
- 1 Great Flameskull
- 1 Fell Wyvern
- 6 Abyssal Ghoul myrmidons

That's pretty perfect, I'd say. So I'm going to use this as my L24 example encounter.

Since my previous method was producing inaccurate results, I've now recalculated the average party DPRs by role. I also decided to ignore any minions since they tend to have lower defenses than standard monsters and will only be relevant for a very short part of the encounter.

Apart from that I used the same basic assumptions as before, i.e. strikers being able to add their bonus damage every time and the controller being able to hit 2 enemies with every attack. The party still consists of one of every role + 1 striker. Everyone only uses basic attacks.

I'll ignore the monster's side for the moment to make sure you agree with the numbers for the Pcs first.

Here's the new results:

L4 (see MM1 p.163):
Average chance to hit: 75%
Leader: 65%
Defender: 70%
Controller: 80%
Striker: 85%

Average DPR of a single PC:
10.36 + 1.065 (crits) = ca. 11.5; that's 57 for a party of five.

Comparing that to the monster hp total of 223 the combat would be over in 5 rounds (this includes 1 round using second wind).


L14 (see MM1 p.131):
Average chance to hit: 65%
Leader: 60%
Defender: 60%
Controller: 70%
Striker: 72.5%

Average DPR of a single PC:
12.4 + 2.0 (crits) = ca. 14.5; that's 72 for a party of five.

Comparing that to the monster hp total of 785 the combat would be over in 12 rounds (this includes 1 round using second wind).


L24 (see MM1 p.50):
Average chance to hit: 52.5%
Leader: 45%
Defender: 45%
Controller: 55%
Striker: 65%

Average DPR of a single PC:
17.24 + 3.4 (crits) = ca. 20.5; so that's 103 for a party of five.

Comparing that to the monster hp total of 874 the combat would be over in 10 rounds (this includes 1 round using second wind).


Let me know if you'd like to know anything else about these numbers before I look at the other side of the equation.

P.S.: To be honest the calculation for the monsters is probably going to be a bit tricky. I'd definitely appreciate some help with these. Since all of the monster stats are in the MM that shouldn't be a problem.

 

[keterys]

You'll probably lose some DPR to folks stunned by cenobites, in the L14. Which is sad, since it's already 12 rounds. Also, all of the gith have iron mind which likely results in several missed attacks.

What is it that you're trying to prove or for which use do you intend that data, Jhaelen?

I mean, you did already establish that hit chances went down, as expected. I imagine it's not hard to similarly prove that chance to be hit increases, as expected?

Though, hmm, it appears that all of the githzerai actually have low attack bonuses for their level, so that's slightly flawed - 1 or 2 low on the cenobite, 1 low on inner spark on the zerth though the rest are fine, 2 low on the mindmage. Though I guess ignoring cover and concealment maybe makes that up in some way.

That plus all of the gith can attack someone who is dazed or stunned or prone for combat advantage, until all of the cenobites and the mindmage is dead. Man, this gets needlessly complex quickly.

 

[Regicide]

Just because monster damage is out of whack does not indicate anything.

It's not out of whack. It's in whack. Their DPS is consistent when you take to hit into account.

The sweet spot is about fun, not about monster damage.

If monster damage is too low even without adjusting the math and at the same time, PCs have an easy time getting hit, it means that the sweet spot should be pushed closer to 50/50 for the enjoyment of the players and that the monster damage should be increased.

You claim 50/50 is a sweet spot and fun. You're completely wrong. Getting pounded for 3 rounds for high damage isn't fun. Getting missed for 3 rounds and taking nothing isn't fun. 50/50 isn't a sweet spot, it isn't fun. Having wildly unpredictable combats with random death isn't fun. It's why they fixed criticals from doing a potential double damage, it's why they removed massive damage saves, it's why they dumped save or dies. 50/50 with high damage *IS* *NOT* *FUN*, it's random death. It is 100% intentional that damage lowers and hit rate increases on players because it sucks if it isn't.

PC's hitting monsters is a different story. 50/50 can work. It's not as good as a higher hit rate, I think someone posted some psych tests that show a 66/33 is actually more "fun", but either way it can work. Besides, players have a lot of options for making it easier to hit the opponent, and if they want to make it very easy to hit, they can use powers and feats that will do it.

Fact: High level combat tends to take 15 to 20 rounds.

Nope. That isn't a fact, nor is everything you said that follows. HARD combats take longer, regardless of level, easier combats are shorter. Many high level combats are frequently over in 5 rounds or less. High level combats can TAKE A LONG TIME because people have 30 power cards in front of them and if they're inexperienced or clueless and they screw around reconsidering every power every round once their turn comes up, but the number of rounds doesn't necessarily increase.

Fact: Many if not most players do not have fun with the PC getting hit on a 2.

Wrong. Utter rubbish. Players don't like not having control. Getting hit on a 2 doesn't mean lack of control, falling over dead randomly means lack of control. Getting hit on a 2 if anything gives MORE control because it's more predictable.

If a player doesn't know if ending a turn beside a monster means he'll die or not, THAT isn't fun for them, they have less control over their character as a result. If the monster rolls 3 hits on 50/50s and does 90 damage and outright kills them because they moved beside it, that sucks. If it instead rolls 3 hits on a 95/5 and does 45 damage but they live, that doesn't suck.

It’s apparent that WotC is making changing to fix math problems. Here is one example. Why would we conclude that the feat changes are not another when what they do is significantly adjust the math by definition if used.

At the cost of feats. Are we then to assume that WotC feels players have too many feats so they're fixing that math too? If not then it's not a fix.

One cannot assume this. The general consensus for people who have played high level is that monster damage at high levels is low, monster hit points at high level are high, etc. We cannot make any assumptions about how monster damage should scale with healing power when all indications are that monster damage is screwed up.

WotC has to make monsters that don't 1-shot wizards but at the same time aren't completely feeble and can challenge battleragers. Monster damage can be pretty ugly to a wizard, it's just we as players compare it to the battlerager. Good, the battlerager is doing it's job.

Besides, if theres one mantra for 4E it's "let he players win." There are AT LEAST 2 epic destinies now that situationally pretty much make players unkillable regardless of the damage thrown at them. Epic play is pretty much off the handle already. I think people are pretty much going to stop even looking at it soon for comparisons and stop campaigns when they hit 20.

 

[KarinsDad]

You claim 50/50 is a sweet spot and fun. You're completely wrong.

HAHAHA.

The designers came up with the idea of a sweet spot to make the game fun. Sometimes one hits. Sometimes one misses.

That's fun.

Hitting most of the time, not fun.

Hardlly ever hitting, not fun.

Getting hit most of the time, not fun.

Hardly ever getting hit, not fun.

You seem to be focused on the concept of 50/50. I'm not. 60/40 is ok. 40/60 is ok.

95/5 is not.

And, since you claim I am wrong, I can easily prove it.

Have your monsters hit your PCs 85% of the time. Have your players hit the monsters 15% of the time. See how well the players like getting the snot beat out of them.

Then, turn around on the next encounter and change the odds. See how well the players like winning so easily.

You are so focused on your POV that you are missing the reason the designers wanted a sweet spot across all levels. The entire point of the sweet spot is to not be at an extreme. Not too many rounds per encounter, not too much time per round, hitting not too easy, hitting not too hard, not too many options, not too few.

It's all about balance.

And the designers knew that fixing the math across all levels would be the first step. One needs a good foundation to build a house. The foundation starts with the math.

All well designed systems start this way. Bad math = bad design. Engineering 101. No different for a game system.

 

[Nail]

You seem to be focused on the concept of 50/50. I'm not. 60/40 is ok. 40/60 is ok.

95/5 is not.

As an aside: "Have the designers ever specificly said where they think the FUN hit-miss ratio is?"

I thought I had read 50/50.....Maybe "Races & Classes"? Dunno.....(EDIT: Skimmed through it, and...nope.)

 

[DracoSuave]

So I decided to put my money where my mouth is, and I put together a character just to see where its defenses lie.

21st level Human Sorcerer/Arcane Wellspring/Demigod.

24 Strength, 16 Dexterity, 26 Charisma.

Relevant feats:
Armor Prof: Leather
Shield Prof: Light
Shield Prof: Heavy
Robust Defenses (to replace Iron Will and Great Fortitude)
Shield Specialization

At level 21, getting +5 gear for neck and armor is trivial. (Ritual Caster is but one way to do it)

AC 38, Fort 35, Reflex 34, Will 38.

Now, firstly, my best NAD is not lagging anywhere behind my AC. It is, in fact, -ahead- of the curve. But that's beside the point. I went through the list of level 21 monsters to see who -could- hit this guy with a better chance than 10 or better.

I didn't find one.

So, I looked at the DMG for inspiration.

Soldiers have the best attack vs NADs at Level+5, with decending attack as follows: Soldiers L+5, Artillery L+5, Controllers L+4, Lurkers L+3, Skirmishers L+3, and Brutes at L+1. At level 21, that means a +26 to hit for Soldiers and Artillery, then +25 for 'trollers, +24 for Skirmishers/Lurkers, and +22 for Brutes.

The soldier then, with +26 needs 8 or better to hit according to this. Compare this to level 1 where the soldier would be needing a +6 to hit a NAD...

However... often that lowest NAD isn't a 14. It's usually a 10 or at most 11 or 12. That means that the soldier's geared to hit on a 6+ at level 1!

Moving further, a lot of level 1 monsters actually have a +9 to hit AC, meaning that the only way to get 50/50 parity with them is to have 19 AC or better... which leaves out a -lot- of classes, especially those that aren't sporting a shield, or plate, or AC bonuses from class.

If you're complaining that soldiers are hitting on a 6 or better against your weak defense at epic level, maybe you weren't paying attention to when it had that against you at heroic?

But of course, -all this- is based on the idea that it's your -worst- NAD that is the problem. But people here are saying it's the -best- NAD that's lagging behind.

Well, this same Soldier's hitting this sorcerer's best NAD (not that soldiers go after Will often) on a 12 or better.


Can some one point out where the system broke here, because I -cannot find it-.

Oh, and yes, this guy WILL be taking the Epic feats, because a 4 point swing at his level is certainly -not- trivial... and neither will his Divine Miracle allowing him to spam Sudden Scales every round for +11 to whatever Defense is hit....

You're worried about characters being autohit, I'm worried about how the heck this guy can go down in the first place!

 

[DracoSuave]

HAHAHA.

The designers came up with the idea of a sweet spot to make the game fun. Sometimes one hits. Sometimes one misses.

That's fun.

Hitting most of the time, not fun.

Hardlly ever hitting, not fun.

Getting hit most of the time, not fun.

Hardly ever getting hit, not fun.

You seem to be focused on the concept of 50/50. I'm not. 60/40 is ok. 40/60 is ok.

95/5 is not.

Now you need to prove:

a) That the numbers are in fact, 95/5 (they aren't in any character I've build)

b) That if the numbers are 95/5, that this isn't the result of -extremely- poor character design. No game system can make up for a lack of design-prowess on the part of the player. Make a foolproof system and a bigger fool will bring proof it isn't.

 

[keterys]

...

You realize, of course, that you chose the race with the best defense bonus, took a feat that is being pointed at as part of the problem, and went with a heavy shield and specialization build, and demigod, and a +5 basic magic neck when it's actually fairly unlikely to occur, on top of having a base 14 in a tertiary stat which is actually fairly abnormal?

I mean, it's mostly a valid example, but I'm not sure it's any better than the opposing side of the argument using the following example:

21st Dwarf Laser Cleric / whatever / not demigod with a +4 neck (because he only has a 20th, 21st, and 22nd item and at least one of the 21st/22nd is his holy symbol, so he'll hang onto that +4 survival cloak or whatever)

Con 17 / Dex 10 / Wis 24 (Cha 22)

All sorts of non-defense feats, like all the domain ones from divine power, channel divinity, toughness, dwarven durability, etc

AC 33, Fort 27, Ref 24, Will 33

Not exactly a valuable contribution to the discussion, though.

P.S. If it helps, an equal level soldier would need a 5 to hit AC, 2 to hit Fort and Ref, and a 7 to hit Will. An equal level brute would need 9 for AC, 6 for Fort, 3 for Ref, 12 for Will. In the extraordinarily likely event of fighting a creature 3 levels higher, that'd be 2/2/2/4 for the soldier and 6/3/2/9 for the brute.

 

[Regicide]

AC 38, Fort 35, Reflex 34, Will 38.

Now, firstly, my best NAD is not lagging anywhere behind my AC. It is, in fact, -ahead- of the curve. But that's beside the point. I went through the list of level 21 monsters to see who -could- hit this guy with a better chance than 10 or better.

Which is why Epic isn't exactly hard. But people are comparing to L+4. A naga for instance would be hitting on a 4. Without the +2 FRW defenses that would be a 2. And thats on a character thats spent 3? feats on upping AC/reflex defense. Few other characters are going to have defenses that high... at least without the new feats.