So, about defenses aka. PHB2 defenses feats

[MrBeens]

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) normal monster, a Brute solo, an Artillery (best to hits vs. NADs) normal monster, and an Artillery solo 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% 85% 95% 95%
22: 29 75% 85% 95% 95%
23: 30 75% 85% 95% 95%
24: 31 75% 85% 95% 95%
25: 31 80% 90% 95% 95%
26: 32 80% 90% 95% 95%
27: 33 80% 90% 95% 95%
28: 34 80% 90% 95% 95%
29: 34 85% 95% 95% 95%
30: 35 85% 95% 95% 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.

But your guy there with the weak defense has 3 other defenses that would be much better. The system is designed for any given character to have 1 or 2 good defenses one or 2 medium and 1 poor by default.
You are working under the assumption that a character being easily hit on their worst defense is a bad thing.
The new feats are there to give people the OPTION to balance out their defenses if they desire - they are not required.

You guys have been arguing back and forth for 11 pages now, each one "proving beyind a shadow of a doubt that the other one is wrong".
You are both right (in a way) - it just depends on your point of view.

PS I happen to agree with Draco

 

[KarinsDad]

But your guy there with the weak defense has 3 other defenses that would be much better. The system is designed for any given character to have 1 or 2 good defenses one or 2 medium and 1 poor by default.
You are working under the assumption that a character being easily hit on their worst defense is a bad thing.
The new feats are there to give people the OPTION to balance out their defenses if they desire - they are not required.

You guys have been arguing back and forth for 11 pages now, each one "proving beyind a shadow of a doubt that the other one is wrong".
You are both right (in a way) - it just depends on your point of view.

PS I happen to agree with Draco

So, you think a same level 95% chance to hit is ok throughout all of Epic (and even earlier)?

You think that's anywhere NEAR a sweet spot?

You think that a player who takes a feat to up his defense should still be hit 95% of the time? You think that's fair for a player who isn't into the math like the people on these boards and just wants to play the game?

I think people on your side of the fence are arguing to argue. How can you think that this is fair to an average player who just wants to play?


Here's how the conversation went:

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.

This wasn't that hard to prove.

I wonder if Draco thinks that 95% is ok for a player who took a feat to shore up his weakness.

 

[Bayuer]

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

They based on the DMG guidlines and I used medium monster to this calculations. You see. Skirmisher have almost all of his stats in middle. That's why I used this numbers. Now some monsters are flawed and balanced by designers to be more fun, and some numbers my vary, but it's not -5 to +5 changes! It's -2 to +2 for attacks and it's ok! You find one monster that attack isn't the same as in DMG guide. So what if almost 99% of them are correct?

Ok so give me this? You think that you DPR calculation is showing something? It shows even less, becouse it's not including many factors. The fight is too situational. I just made simple (even baby can do it I think, calculation, nothing realy big) and saw that when levels go higher the chance of hitting NADs compared to hitting AC is drasticly lowered. I just don't buy that this is what designers have in they mind, if this was realy what they intended they change they minds, becouse we have PHB2 feats.

The calculations don't take it into account becouse monsters should always have more benefit from terrain or slighty better than PCs, cover etc. can be maintainded by everyone, monsters to have tactics, powers are temporary and they occasional (unless some players just take every NADs boosting powers with aren't too many). Amazingly there are more powers that boos you AC than NADs... What for if they are good enought!
---
Maybe it's time to sumarize, why I thing math is broken:
1)Average math shows that your NAds, AC and to hit chance is lower than on epic. The gap is huge for NADs specialy.
2)The attacks vs. AC compared to NADs attacks do the same damage, but NADs attack place nasty effects and have very, very easier time to hit than AC attacks.
3)The PHB2 feats came out and they fix the gap my math showed to me. To be realy precize I think paragon +2 feats are alos feat fixes (or at least must have feats).
4)Fight on epic becouse of this math gaps make game longer and grindy.
5)Hitting on 2-5 isn't fun at all! Hitting in response on 15+ too. As KarinsDad said I don't think that this is sweet spot designers were talking about.
6)I saw too many errated thing that should work from beginning. a) The first example are Skill Challanges that even after errata are so bad... I don't know who do the math there, but he just made so many mistakes. b)Adventurers Vault masterwork armors.

About Epic being not difficult. It's the designers fault again that they gave to many healing options and the DMs who thorws n-1, n fights on epic party! With current math I no wonder why, becouse the more compex fights will last toooooo many time. If the math is fixed you could make PCs fight at n+1 fight (as easy) and so one and all will be just fine!

Cheers!

 

[keterys]

For example, a lvl 26 Phane could stand next to the lvl 26 orb wizard, trickster rogue, laser cleric, archer ranger, fey warlock _etc_ all with Fort around 29, 31 with the PHB1 feat, with its +29 close burst that stuns and dazes/weakens on the aftereffect, so it'll also have combat advantage most of the time, and have a 95% chance to stun them every round... and even if they do still have an ability to give out free saves that far into the combat, they'll just be dazed and weakened afterwards... and it can just restun again on its turn. Every turn.

I'm sure that'll be enjoyable to those players

But, hey they can get the +4 from PH2 to that weak defense to stop the death spiral.

And the fighter with his Fort 38, 40 if he took the feat will probably take the +4 as well. In every single one of the three spots. Cause then it'll need to roll more like a 13/15 to hit him and every other round he can do his job by not being dazed or stunned

 

[Nail]

I will get to that level. I WILL!!!!

Dagnabbit.

I hear ya.

I will reach that level and then become god.

In 3.xe, I know that many of us managed to play through to 20th level...and on into Epic. It's rare, but it happens. So...a toast: see you at 30th! <clink glasses>

 

[Jhaelen]

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

Okay.

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?

For the same reason it's good for monsters, I guess. Your weak NAD(s) will not be attacked in every encounter. Your weak NAD could be zero and you would never notice the effect if it's never attacked by anyone.

When I created my set of sample pcs there's only been one character that actually had a NAD drop of 5: the halfling rogue. For all other race/class combos the NAD drop was at most 4. Simply choosing appropriate combinations will help to alleviate the problem. If the player is sensitive about the problem he will create the character in a way that will minimize his weaknesses.

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.

We are actually in agreement here.

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.

And this is where we disagree

I'm not saying the githzerai are flawed... I'm saying you choosing them as the example combat is flawed.

Ah, I'm sorry then. If that's what you meant, I'm inclined to agree.

as I said things are really complex enough.

Indeed!

You guys have been arguing back and forth for 11 pages now, each one "proving beyind a shadow of a doubt that the other one is wrong".
You are both right (in a way) - it just depends on your point of view.

Maybe. I'm getting a feeling I'm not going to convince anyone no matter what numbers I come up with...

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.

Again: This is a completely theoretical construct. First: if the character chooses to completely neglect one of his NADS, he _deserves_ to be hit 95% of the time in the end game (if he should ever get there, which I doubt). Extremely low NADs are a direct result of too much min-maxing. If the player decides to put his two weakest ability scores into stats that define one of his defenses and he never increases any of them, whose fault is it that the NAD is low?

That's like complaining that your Fighter never hits after putting a 10 into Strength.

Now, it's true that there are character builds that concentrate on two stats that add to the same defense. This means you've been put at a disadvantage by the build's design and are going to be in trouble if you don't take some measures to increase your other defenses. And that's precisely the reason why there are new feats that increase defenses: To fix certain, disadvantaged builds.

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.

The Tarrasque's Fort attack is not an at-will and it can no longer be used when it's bloodied. And what if you're facing the Tarrasque and your weak NAD is Will?

The dragon's Will attack is usable once per encounter. And if you avoid flanking the dragon, it's Reflex attacks aren't at-will either.

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

Well, you proved, that, yes, same level epic attacks _can_ hit 95% of the time, but not that they actually _will_ in a realistic encounter.

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

How did you guess?

Let me ask you a question: How do you feel about aura powers that do auto-damage?
Isn't it incredibly unfair and a sure sign of broken math that they will hit you 100% of the time, no matter how high your defenses are?

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.

Define reasonable!
You're also ignoring the effect of powers again. And I won't let the argument count that you may have run out of dailies or picked the wrong-party setup or whatever. You're talking about a level 30 party here! They will _never_ be in a fight against an Ancient Red dragon if they're completely unprepared.

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

I noticed

 

[Jhaelen]

*takes a deep breath*

They based on the DMG guidlines and I used medium monster to this calculations. You see. Skirmisher have almost all of his stats in middle. That's why I used this numbers.

All right. Take a function with n variables, each of which may range from negative infinity to positive infinity. Obviously choosing a zero for every variable will give you a good idea about the function, since zero is right in the middle of the parameter range, right?

So what if almost 99% of them are correct?

Surely, you don't expect me to take that guess seriously, right?

Ok so give me this? You think that you DPR calculation is showing something? It shows even less, becouse it's not including many factors. The fight is too situational.

Well, actually my calculations include more factors than yours, like actual characters

I just made simple (even baby can do it I think, calculation, nothing realy big) and saw that when levels go higher the chance of hitting NADs compared to hitting AC is drasticly lowered.

I'll ignore the rudeness for a moment to point out that this is precisely why I don't think your calculations show anything useful: they're simple. Too simple. You simplify a complex problem until it's no longer properly modeled by your numbers.
If I simplify the range of possible colors by assuming that the red, green and blue components of a colour are either zero or one, I get a total of 8 colours. Do you believe that's an accurate representation of the possible colour range?

About Epic being not difficult. It's the designers fault again that they gave to many healing options and the DMs who thorws n-1, n fights on epic party! With current math I no wonder why, becouse the more compex fights will last toooooo many time. If the math is fixed you could make PCs fight at n+1 fight (as easy) and so one and all will be just fine!

Damn those stupid designers! If only they'd hired you to do the math for them!

I'll be happy to hear about your proposed solution

For example, a lvl 26 Phane could stand next to the lvl 26 orb wizard, trickster rogue, laser cleric, archer ranger, fey warlock _etc_ all with Fort around 29, 31 with the PHB1 feat, with its +29 close burst that stuns and dazes/weakens on the aftereffect, so it'll also have combat advantage most of the time, and have a 95% chance to stun them every round... and even if they do still have an ability to give out free saves that far into the combat, they'll just be dazed and weakened afterwards... and it can just restun again on its turn. Every turn.

I'm sure that'll be enjoyable to those players

But, hey they can get the +4 from PH2 to that weak defense to stop the death spiral.

Not really, since it would still be a 75% chance to stun them every round (if your assumed 95% chance was accurate, which it doesn't seem to be since none of my eight example characters on level 24 had a defense lower than 31 (32 if human)).

And the fighter with his Fort 38, 40 if he took the feat will probably take the +4 as well. In every single one of the three spots. Cause then it'll need to roll more like a 13/15 to hit him and every other round he can do his job by not being dazed or stunned

Well, even if the fighter is only hit every other round it would still be a fight that's dragged out, compared to others fights at that level that don't invlove stun powers, right?

Have you checked out the thread about the dracolich?

I think, the problem is the stun condition, not the to-hit chances. (Too) High to-hit chances just exacerbate the problem, they're not the cause.

 

[keterys]

Even if the fighter were only dazed and weakened, he's still not able to do his job.

And yes, you can find my posts in the dracolich thread about how I think stun should be mostly stricken from the system

As for why your 8 characters all had 31+, I have no idea. I can say that a 25th to 26th level character of the several builds I listed will have a Fort of approximately 29-33, and that the Phane will hit them more than 90% of the time and very often 95% of the time. 13 to 15 Con, +0 to +1 class bonus, +0 or +2 feat bonus, +12 to +13 from level, +5 from item. Feel free to give another +1 from race if you want.

Fwiw, it's _not_ min/maxing to spend your stat points in such a way that you end up poor in one defense. It's just an aspect of system design.

 

[Bayuer]

All right. Take a function with n variables, each of which may range from negative infinity to positive infinity. Obviously choosing a zero for every variable will give you a good idea about the function, since zero is right in the middle of the parameter range, right?

Too many jokes and insults... Ok.
I opened DMG, looked at the guidlines how to make monsters. Even babe can sit here and look at the numbers and tell that Skirmisher stats are in medium range of all stats...
Attack vs. AC (Skirmisher: Level + 5 Brute: Level + 3 Soldier: Level + 7 Lurker: Level + 5 Controller: Level + 5 Artillery: Level + 7). So as you can see the range is from 3 to 7. That's why 5 is correct number to calculate the average to hit bonuses vs. AC for all monsters. This number can vary but they will never be lower than level +3 and higher than level +7.

Let's look at... well 21 lvl monsters from MM. Compared to DMG average numbers should look like this:
Skirmisher +26 vs. AC; Brute +24 vs. AC, Soldier +28 vs. AC; Lurker +26 vs. AC, Controller +26 vs. AC and Artillery +26 vs. AC

Her's what MM states:
Ghaele of Winter (Artillery) +25 vs. AC (-1 from average)
Larva Mage (Ellite Artillery) +26 vs. AC
Giant Mummy (Brute) +24 vs. AC
Dark Naga (Elite Controller) +24 vs. AC (-2 from average)
Deathpriest Hierophant (Elite Controller) +24 vs. AC (-2 from average)
Tormenting Ghost (have no vs. AC attacks)
Angel of Valor Legionnaire (Minion) - +26 vs. AC
Legion Devil Legionnaire (Minion) +26 vs. AC
Wild Hunt Hound (Skirmisher) +26 vs. AC
Yuan-Ti Anathema (Elite Skirmisher) +26 vs. AC
Fire Titan (Elite Soldier) +26 vs. AC (-2 from average)
Marut Blademaster (Soldier) +27 vs. AC (-1 from average)

As you can see my average math works just fine when I say that most common attack bonus of 21 lvl monsters vs. AC is +26! Ok I will just make you a favor and count the NADs attacks the same way for you.

From DMG this are the average numbers:
Attack vs. other defenses (Skirmisher: Level + 3 Brute: Level + 1 Soldier: Level + 5 Lurker: Level + 3 Controller: Level + 4 Artillery: Level + 5). We take our example on 21 lvl and this is what the average stats should look like:
Skirmisher +24 vs. AC; Brute +22 vs. AC, Soldier +26 vs. AC; Lurker +24 vs. AC, Controller +25 vs. AC and Artillery +26 vs. AC

Her's what MM states:
Ghaele of Winter (Artillery) +25 vs. REF (+1 from average) +23 vs. WILL (close burst; +1 from average)
Larva Mage (Ellite Artillery) +24 vs. WILL (-2 from average) +24 vs. FOR (-2 from average) +26 vs. WILL +24 vs. REF (area attack)
Giant Mummy (Brute) +22 vs. FOR (close burst; +2 from average)
Dark Naga (Elite Controller) +25 vs. WILL (close burst; +2 from average) +26 vs. WILL (close burst; +3 from average)
Deathpriest Hierophant (Elite Controller) +24 vs. WILL (-1 from average) +24 vs. FOR (close burst; +1 from average)
Tormenting Ghost (Controller) +24 vs. REF (-1 from average) +24 vs. WILL (-1 from average) +24 vs. WILL (close burst; +1 from average)
Angel of Valor Legionnaire (Minion) (no NADs attacks)
Legion Devil Legionnaire (Minion) (no NADs attacks)
Wild Hunt Hound (Skirmisher) (no NADs attacks)
Yuan-Ti Anathema (Elite Skirmisher) +24 vs. REF (multiattack power; +2 from average) +26 vs. FOR (close burst; +4 from average)
Fire Titan (Elite Soldier) +24 vs. REF (-2 from average) +24 vs. REF (close burst)
Marut Blademaster (no NAD attacks)

As you can see my simple math works again. I stated that +24 will be average NAD bonus to attack at this level and... suprisely it is true!

I just found the Ghaele of Winter attack. I will post it here for you:

Chilling Defiance (standard; at-will) ✦ Cold, Healing
Close burst 3; targets enemies; automatic hit; the target takes 10 cold damage and is slowed until the end of the ghaele’s next turn. The ghaele of winter regains 2 hit points for each enemy who takes damage from this power.

I hope that will be final answer that hitting on 2 wasn't intended. We already have autohit powers! And don't forget about auras that are nasty and make monsters more threatening! Creating zones by monsters is a fact to.

Well, actually my calculations include more factors than yours, like actual characters

Actually I made some characters to see how my math works. I will post them again:

I was wonder what NADs have any given classes. I was bulding characters at 25 lvl, when NADs HIT is at +28 on Average (+30 artillery):

====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&DI Character Builder ======
level 25
Tiefling, Warlock
Eldritch Blast: Eldritch Blast Charisma
Eldritch Pact: Infernal Pact

FINAL ABILITY SCORES
Str 10, Con 20, Dex 13, Int 20, Wis 12, Cha 25.

Starting Ability Scores
Str 8, Con 14, Dex 11, Int 15, Wis 10, Cha 16.


AC: 27 Fort: 32 Reflex: 33 Will: 35
HP: 152 Surges: 11 Surge Value: 38

TRAINED SKILLS

FEATS

POWERS

ITEMS
Piwafwi +5
====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&DI Character Builder ======

FOR 4 on die; Ref 5 on die; Will 8 on die.

====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&DI Character Builder ======
level 25
Half-Orc, Rogue
Build: Brawny Rogue
Rogue Tactics: Brutal Scoundrel

FINAL ABILITY SCORES
Str 24, Con 12, Dex 24, Int 10, Wis 13, Cha 17.

Starting Ability Scores
Str 15, Con 10, Dex 16, Int 8, Wis 11, Cha 14.


AC: 29 Fort: 34 Reflex: 36 Will: 30
HP: 144 Surges: 7 Surge Value: 36

TRAINED SKILLS
Stealth, Thievery.

FEATS

POWERS

ITEMS
Piwafwi +5
====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&DI Character Builder ======

FOR 6 on die; REF 8 on die; Will 2 on die

====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&DI Character Builder ======
level 25
Human, Warlord
Commanding Presence: Inspiring Presence

FINAL ABILITY SCORES
Str 24, Con 10, Dex 14, Int 18, Wis 12, Cha 20.

Starting Ability Scores
Str 16, Con 8, Dex 11, Int 13, Wis 10, Cha 16.


AC: 26 Fort: 36 Reflex: 32 Will: 34
HP: 142 Surges: 7 Surge Value: 35

TRAINED SKILLS

FEATS

POWERS

ITEMS
Abyssal Adornment +5
====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&DI Character Builder ======

I'll ignore the rudeness for a moment to point out that this is precisely why I don't think your calculations show anything useful: they're simple. Too simple. You simplify a complex problem until it's no longer properly modeled by your numbers.
If I simplify the range of possible colors by assuming that the red, green and blue components of a colour are either zero or one, I get a total of 8 colours. Do you believe that's an accurate representation of the possible colour range?

Big smile again. I will ask it very polite... If NADs attacks vs. PCs DEF have better chances to hit than AC attacks, do the same amount of damage and offten place nasty effects on PCs this is too simple evidence to you, to be true. Come on. We are not a babies here. If you want talk about complexity ok.
Cover/Concealment -2 to PCs and monsters to attack.
Superior Cove/Total Concealment -5 to attack for PCs and monsters to.
Combat adventage the same. Monsters can get it more offten becouse of nasty effects.
Tactics? Well, PCs will do they best. Why not monsters? They make ambushes, use terrain for they adventage etc.
Powers. Most powers that give bonuses to defenses gives bonuses to AC only... There are very few powers that give bonuses to NADs! Attack penalty powers and giving to hit bonuses powers are incorporeted to special builds and avalible from 1 lvl of play, so this is obvious they have the same impact on game thrue all 30 lvls. Do you want to add something to this? If so make it more clear to me, what complexity I forget in my simple calculatons. You see... If powers will have such a big impact to the math on epic play, we will not have them avalible at lvl 1, but on paragon or epic! Why swordmage have power that give him his warding to other NADs on heroic? Why we have rightous brand at-will of STR cleric that can give +4/+5 to melee hit at first level (and +8 at late epic)? why is Distrupting Strike on heroic? You see this is why I ignore to powers impact, becouse they have the same impact on heroic like on epic!

Damn those stupid designers! If only they'd hired you to do the math for them! I'll be happy to hear about your proposed solution .

Please don't be sarcastic. Maybe they will need you as a public relationship guy...
Anyway. There are threads like "Can a player get to many healings" "Solos not threating" "Grind" etc. I didn't take those assumptions from... vacum Yeah, it's definitly my new favorite word.

And if we have a discussion here why you don't answer to my arguments? You simply can't or what?
Maybe it's time to sumarize, why I think math is broken:
1)Average math shows that your NAds, AC and to hit chance is lower than on epic. The gap is huge for NADs specialy.
2)The attacks vs. AC compared to NADs attacks do the same damage, but NADs attack place nasty effects and have very, very easier time to hit than AC attacks.
3)The PHB2 feats came out and they fix the gap my math showed to me. To be realy precize I think paragon +2 feats are alos feat fixes (or at least must have feats).
4)Fight on epic becouse of this math gaps make game longer and grindy.
5)Hitting on 2-5 isn't fun at all! Hitting in response on 15+ too. As KarinsDad said I don't think that this is sweet spot designers were talking about.
6)I saw too many errated thing that should work from beginning. a) The first example are Skill Challanges that even after errata are so bad... I don't know who do the math there, but he just made so many mistakes. b)Adventurers Vault masterwork armors.
7)The autohit powers already exist! There are auras too and zones in the game. We got plenty of autohit powers already.

 

[KarinsDad]

Again: This is a completely theoretical construct. First: if the character chooses to completely neglect one of his NADS, he _deserves_ to be hit 95% of the time in the end game (if he should ever get there, which I doubt). Extremely low NADs are a direct result of too much min-maxing. If the player decides to put his two weakest ability scores into stats that define one of his defenses and he never increases any of them, whose fault is it that the NAD is low?

What does the player do?

He wants to play a Wizard. He needs good Intelligence. The book also tells him that he needs Wisdom and Dexterity. So, he beefs up Wisdom and Dexterity after Intelligence. The book tells him that Eladrin make good Wizards. So, he takes an Eladrin. Oh boy, +1 Will and +2 Will for Wizard. He also put 12 into Constitution because that's hit points baby.

He's not Jhaelen. He does not know the ins and outs of the game system.

He just puts together what looks to be a reasonable Eladrin Wizard. He then bumps Intelligence along with Wisdom and Dexterity because the book told him to do that.

He takes the Paragon level Great Fortitude feat. It doesn't help at all. He is still getting hit all of the time when that Fort is targeted.

So, I ask again. How exactly is this player supposed to get three balanced NADs?

There is only ONE feat in the book and that one does not help significantly. He followed the guidelines in the PHB and still got screwed. He is even more screwed if he doesn't bump Int at every opportunity because of the to hit math problem.

You are sitting here blaming him. I blame the game system. The game COULD have 3 ability score increases every 3 to 4 levels instead of 2. That would help alleviate the issue and there is nothing to indicate that this is unbalanced.

The game system COULD have been designed like any other good system. Work out an incredibly stable system mathematically first, then add the extras instead of the other way around.

And it is easy to see that this was not done. If this had been done, the designers would not have had to fix Heavy Armor.

The designers would not have had to add in ridiculously potent permanent +2 to all 3 defenses, permanent +4 to a single defense, and permanent +3 to hit feats. I cannot even comprehend how people cannot see how mathematically unbalanced these are in a game system that is littered with only permanent +1s and +2s (for a single game element, not 3 defenses simultaneously). To suddenly throw permanent +3s and +4s into the system shouts screw up correction.

I think people are so used to the old 3E concept of +4 here and there (e.g. prone +4) that +3 and +4 do not seem as large as they actually are. Either that, or the power gamers are just having wet dreams over these feats.

4E cut the modifiers in half from 3E, just to get down to +1s and +2s. To suddenly throw in permanent +3s and +4s is a 180 degree turn around in bonus modifier philosophy.

In fact, when one reads of the vast plethora of different ideas and systems that they tried out and later discarded, it is not surprising that they got a mathematical hodgepodge out of it in the end.

Let me ask you a question: How do you feel about aura powers that do auto-damage?
Isn't it incredibly unfair and a sure sign of broken math that they will hit you 100% of the time, no matter how high your defenses are?

Aura damage does a lot less damage than attacks.

Aura damage can partially or fully be negated by magical items.

There are ~23 Auras in the MM. There are ~219 Reflex, ~138 Will, and ~184 Fort attacks in the MM.

The weak NAD does not have these advantages to this level. They tend to take 2 to 4 times the amount of damage of an aura with the same monsters, often take a conditional as well, and happen a LOT more often.

An aura is a rare annoyance. A weak NAD attack, especially when the monster concentrates on that PC is a lot more serious and a lot more frequent.

This is an apples and oranges comparison.