So, about defenses aka. PHB2 defenses feats

[keterys]

Ah, the Phane. Nothing like an insubstantial elite that stuns, dazes, and weakens (pretty much all at the same time), with a ~3 round duration on the weaken. You want to do damage? Craziness!

 

[Jhaelen]

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?

You're right of course. But the numbers are not the much conjured spectre of 'you get hit on a 2' and 'you only hit on a 20'.

I specifically disagree with the OPs conclusions because
- they're based on the DMG guidelines to design monsters
- the calculations don't properly model a standard party in a standard encounter
- the calculations neither take powers, nor terrain, nor tactics into account

Basically, my original position is that calculating to-hit chances and dpr is not a useful tool to decide if encounters in the epic tier are unbalanced. To prove my point I decided to play the OPs game.

Surprisingly, I found, that even when I'm just crunching the numbers, I come to completely different conclusions.

Though, hmm, it appears that all of the githzerai actually have low attack bonuses for their level, so that's slightly flawed

And that is a perfect example of what I'm criticizing in this argument:
The githzerai are _not_ flawed because they don't exactly match the numbers given in the _guidelines_ for DMs when they want to design their _own_ _new_ monsters. Do you really believe that the numbers in the DMG are the ones the designers used for the MM1 monsters?

If they used them at all, they were only used as a starting point. Then, after eyeballing the results and maybe some playtesting they tweaked the numbers to get the result they wanted.

I also believe the guidelines are simplified to make them easy to use. OF COURSE they don't give you all the minor details required to properly create a balanced monster.

Apart from that: No guidelines can do that because difficult encounters can sometimes turn into a cakewalk if a single specific power is available to the party and successfully used. The opposite can also happen (though less likely, imho).

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.

Well, if the githzerai represent a flawed design it's because of their at-will stun ability. But that's a problem with the stun condition and _not_ with flawed math.

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.)

I don't remember anything of that kind. I do remember a poll on these boards asking what was generally considered a 'good chance' to hit. IIRC, the average was at about 60%.

Wait, who said that monsters should only have a 50/50 chance to hit at higher levels?

Well, KarinsDad did.

PCs have even more ways to heal, often without taking up surges, as they go up in levels.

If anything, monsters should hit MORE often if you want to keep the balance.

And high level combats don't take 10+ rounds (at least not at 18th level).

The only times I've seen that happen was when the encounter was built like it was a 3e encounter (with an EL of 2-4 higher than the party's average level).

Or if you fight a room full of insubstantial controllers that dominate/blind/stun/daze your party...round...after...round.

And that is exactly the point I'm trying to make and which my calculations so far seem to support.

The math works. It just doesn't work the way many people expected.

KarinsDad asked two interesting questions:
1) Do the increased resources (items, powers, abilities) of pcs make up for the attack/defense disparity?
2) Are epic level combat encounters fun?

Originally, I thought the answer to 1) would be: Yes they do.
After my calculations I'm inclined to say: The increased resources aren't even necessary to make up for the disparity. The math works even without them. So, basically, they're just there to make encounters more fun.

2) I'm not actually sure about this one. Epic level combats ARE on average longer than combats in the heroic tier. Not hitting as often is also probably less fun than hitting often. So, I'm inclined to agree, it might be worth trying to change the numbers so combats become shorter and pcs hit more often.
But these changes have to be offset by something, otherwise things become _way_ too easy.

As a slightly related afterthought, there's one oddity I noticed:
In the epic tier (and probably before that) effects that last for a single turn are actually _worse_ than effects with a duration of (save ends). There's tons of powers, items, and feats that grant extra saves or improve saves.
But there's very few ways to actually negate conditions. The only PHB power I found was the Warlord's Level 22 Utility Power 'Heart of the Titan'.

There are other ways to avoid getting affected by them though:
There are quite a few immediate interrupt powers that can help.
And of course: Gaining the initiative and making sure the monsters don't even get to use their nasty powers.

 

[KarinsDad]

Well, KarinsDad did.

Actually, I said that they should be closer to 50/50 than they currently are.

PC AC at first level is typically 14 to 20 without any feats with same level monsters hitting on a 6 to 16. Right in the middle of the chart, slightly on the high side.

PC AC at 30th level is typically 41 to 47 without any feats with same level monsters hitting on a 4 to 14. Slightly on the low side of the chart.

This is good because there are a few ways to bump AC up by a few points (e.g. just taking Leather Armor to replace Cloth takes these to 8 to 16 and 6 to 14), but (and this is the important point) players do not HAVE to bump up their AC with feats if they do not want to and the AC defense is still viable.

So the question becomes, why is a 2 AC drop good and a 4 to 7 NAD drop also good? Or put another way, why are attacks against AC approximately the same curve and NAD ones shifted so significantly?

Ditto for to hit.

Why is it fun to hit a same level foe only on a 15 when the PC used to hit a same level foe on a 12?

KarinsDad asked two interesting questions:
1) Do the increased resources (items, powers, abilities) of pcs make up for the attack/defense disparity?
2) Are epic level combat encounters fun?

Originally, I thought the answer to 1) would be: Yes they do.
After my calculations I'm inclined to say: The increased resources aren't even necessary to make up for the disparity. The math works even without them. So, basically, they're just there to make encounters more fun.

2) I'm not actually sure about this one. Epic level combats ARE on average longer than combats in the heroic tier. Not hitting as often is also probably less fun than hitting often. So, I'm inclined to agree, it might be worth trying to change the numbers so combats become shorter and pcs hit more often.
But these changes have to be offset by something, otherwise things become _way_ too easy.

1) I do think that the PC's additional abilities do a LOT. The Epic encounters are not that challenging. They are long, but they are not challenging. PCs almost always have some rabbit they can pull out of their hat for any given situation. But with the increased number of hit points at Epic level, it seems reasonable to adjust the PC to hit math in order to drill through monster hit points faster.

2) I think they can be a lot of fun. But, I do think that they are longer than they need be (well out of the sweet spot) and I think a lot of that is because PCs do not hit as often and monsters hit too often.

The bottom line here is that PCs do get so many options at higher levels. My contention is that the monsters should have stronger attacks and slightly more options to compensate for that. Even something as simple as increasing recharge rate would help quite a bit.

I think the math should work right out of the box. I think the new feats are there because the math does not work right out of the box. I think the low number of monster options (to help the DM) and the weak high level monster attacks allow the opposing POV supporters to think it is balanced. I don't think it is.

Like I said before, the foundation should be the math first and then the potency of monster attacks should be determined. Not the other way around.

As a slightly related afterthought, there's one oddity I noticed:
In the epic tier (and probably before that) effects that last for a single turn are actually _worse_ than effects with a duration of (save ends). There's tons of powers, items, and feats that grant extra saves or improve saves.
But there's very few ways to actually negate conditions. The only PHB power I found was the Warlord's Level 22 Utility Power 'Heart of the Titan'.

Not only are they more difficult to get rid of, they are also more difficult to do bookkeeping on. Lose lose.

 

[DracoSuave]

[quoteracoSuave]
AC 38, Fort 35, Reflex 34, Will 38.

As you can see Draco, withou Rebust Defense you NADs sucks..[/QUOTE]

Without Robust Defense and without the Paragon level Defense feats, you mean. Yes, without spending feats on your defenses they will be low. That's a no-brainer.

One: You can't really use level 25 or 26 for comparison for broken defenses. That's the level you get abilities that say, literally 'You cannot die.' There's no defense more powerful than that.

Do your numbers crunch -that- tidbit in? That many Epics cannot die?

Without Robust Defenses, I'm still in Iron Will and Great Fortitude, and Shield spec for +2/+2/+1. I noticed you didn't include those feats in your character build. At all. Good job.

I suppose you -could- look at it that I took a lot of feats to boost defense... I look at it that I had a -lot- of feat space that I could -spend- on defense.

Look at it this way... in the build I have I have room for other feats as well to boost whatever side of my character I want.

 

[ObsidianCrane]

The math works. It just doesn't work the way many people expected.

Pretty much 100% right. (Because its not just about raw math but total game interaction.)

As a slightly related afterthought, there's one oddity I noticed:
In the epic tier (and probably before that) effects that last for a single turn are actually _worse_ than effects with a duration of (save ends). There's tons of powers, items, and feats that grant extra saves or improve saves.

True at all tiers in my experience. S/E effects are often bigger in effect, but the EoNT effects are far better generally because they always stick.
(Also a string of bad luck with a S/E effect can ruin an encounter for 1 or 2 players, eg being stunned for 4 or 5 rounds. While EoNT effects can be countered by shifting targets etc to spread the effect around.)

 

[KarinsDad]

Without Robust Defense and without the Paragon level Defense feats, you mean. Yes, without spending feats on your defenses they will be low. That's a no-brainer.

Then why is it not that way for AC?

One: You can't really use level 25 or 26 for comparison for broken defenses. That's the level you get abilities that say, literally 'You cannot die.' There's no defense more powerful than that.

Do your numbers crunch -that- tidbit in? That many Epics cannot die?

Totally non-sequitor to the NADs defense discussion. And yes, Epics can die.

Without Robust Defenses, I'm still in Iron Will and Great Fortitude, and Shield spec for +2/+2/+1. I noticed you didn't include those feats in your character build. At all. Good job.

I noticed that you did not use a median build, but instead used a slightly tricked out build at the best possible Epic level for your POV. What percentage of PCs have Demigod? What percentage of PCs have a Shield? What percentage of PCs have +5 neck items at level 21? What percentage of PCs can boost all 3 NAD defenses because they can use one stat for AC and Fort, and then use a Shield for AC and Reflex? And, what percentage of PCs have all of these?

And why didn't you pick level 20 where all of those NADs would have been 3 lower?

Effectively what you did was do a build where you could balance all 4 defenses. That's not quite typical.

Not so good job at being objective.

When one wants to investigate balance, one should take a low end build, a median build, and a high end build and see if the system works for them all.

I suppose you -could- look at it that I took a lot of feats to boost defense... I look at it that I had a -lot- of feat space that I could -spend- on defense.

Look at it this way... in the build I have I have room for other feats as well to boost whatever side of my character I want.

And that's fine for a PC, but not really that relevant either.

What's relevant is that your example is on the far extreme of average PCs.

Not every 21st level PC has those types of defenses, so your example, while interesting, doesn't illustrate much other than that a PC can be tricked out to have reasonable defenses.

To me, it seemed like you went out of your way to support my POV.

 

[DracoSuave]

If it's possible to push the envelope and be ahead of the curve, and it's possible to do titsall nothing and be behind the curve, then it's possible to go a more median route and be -where you want to be.-

Let's repeat that.

If -more- effort puts you ahead, and -no- effort puts you behind, then -some- effort can put you nicely in the middle. The sweet-spot. Where you want to be.

Or are you -honestly- insinuating that it's 'all-or-nothing'? Just like you're honestly insinuating that Robust Defenses is a math fix while claiming the paragon tier level feats that provide the -same number- aren't?

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

PC starts with a 12 in an ability score. He doesn't raise it because he is raising two other scores. 12 is not unreasonable.

His ability score at level 30 is 14. He has a +6 item. His defense is 33.

The Tarrasque has a +32 Fort attack (and this is a Brute, Brutes have the worse to hits against NADs).

The Ancient Red Dragon has two +35 Reflex attacks (and a +35 Will attack). Even if the PC took Lightning Reflexes, he would still get hit 95% of the time.


And what if the PC is fighting a higher level foe?


So, I just proved it. Same level Epic attacks can hit 95% of the time, let alone higher level Epic attacks.

I'll bet that you will claim that this is extremely poor character design.


Sure, the PC could average his ability score boosts and up the 14 to an 18 (and lower another defense by 2). He would still get hit 95% of the time with the Paragon feat (+35 vs. 37).

But, this is not an unusual PHB I build. Sure, some people trick out their builds. But, everyone does not do this.


By definition, this PC would NEED the PHB II +4 feat to have a reasonable defense. If the feat is NEEDED and is not in PHB I, then by definition it is a fix.


One other point. Let's look at all of the Epic levels for a Brute (worst to hits vs. NADs) and an Artillery (best to hits vs. NADs) for this 14 ability score PC (assuming he gets a +5 item at level 23 and a +6 item at level 27) and he takes the Paragon +2 feat:

21: 28 75% 95%
22: 29 75% 95%
23: 30 75% 95%
24: 31 75% 95%
25: 31 80% 95%
26: 32 80% 95%
27: 33 80% 95%
28: 34 80% 95%
29: 34 85% 95%
30: 35 85% 95%

Same level foe. Chances of getting hit increase with any higher level foes.

So, it can often be 95%, especially since Epic foes can often get Combat Advantage or be in groups which have other ways to raise to hit.


And yes, not every monster in the MM follows the DMG guidelines 100%. They often drop the to hit, especially for close and area attacks that can hit multiple foes.

Then again, not every encounter is against same level foes. 95% is not that uncommon against the weak NAD.

Note: The assumption here is that the class and/or racial bonuses to the weak NAD is 0.


This wasn't that hard to prove.

 

[keterys]

And that is a perfect example of what I'm criticizing in this argument:
The githzerai are _not_ flawed because they don't exactly match the numbers given in the _guidelines_ for DMs when they want to design their _own_ _new_ monsters. Do you really believe that the numbers in the DMG are the ones the designers used for the MM1 monsters?

I'm not saying the githzerai are flawed... I'm saying you choosing them as the example combat is flawed. It's an entire group that is behind the average that is generally followed. It's very normal for some to be higher or lower, but it's not helpful for testing to pick an entire group that is lower The fact that they're going to have combat advantage basically _always_ easily makes up the gap but it's hard to factor into your testing. Similar to why I said DracoSuave's example PC was inherently flawed for testing (and the counterexample I gave). You can't test using outliers and respect the data that much.

I mean, I also suspect that fights average at least n+1 (and possibly higher in some games), as well, so it'd probably be most useful to look at n+1 fights against a party for testing purposes, but really... as I said things are really complex enough.

 

[DracoSuave]

No, but if your outliers are either too good, or too bad, then you have a situation where somewhere in between is 'just right'. So... the question should not be 'Why is the bad so bad?' or 'Why is the good so good?' but rather 'Where is the middle ground and what can we do to attain it?'

16/16/12 might not be the means to that end.