So, about defenses aka. PHB2 defenses feats

[keterys]

One of the amusing things about trying to use Orcus as an example is that he's a Brute, so his attack bonuses are sometimes very low. Soldiers might have attacks 4 higher, for instance.

I think one of the trickiest things about these feats is that you're going to see a huge change in defenses in the 21-24 range, but before that and after that, oh well. Man, I hate feat patches.

I do think there are some deeper problems in monster and power design in a lot of cases - like monsters that just don't do enough damage, at all, or the ability to swing attack or defenses by 7-10 in one go, but it's very valuable to get the baseline right then work around that.

 

[Bayuer]

@Stalker0 and what you think about the math? You think it's broken? I saw you made some very nice mathematic calculations about skill checks and Skill challanges. I will be realy happy if you say something about this issue.

@keterys
I agree about Orcus, but this was an example of another user, well bad example. Some brutes are to weak to me. They don't do enough damage most of the time.

 

[Mistwell]

Meh. I am having a hard time getting worked up about this issue.

Right now, I do not plan on taking any of these feats (including expertise). I just find other feats to be superior. Eventually I will probably find room for some of them, but right now they just don't interest me.

Will this make me more vulnerable in higher levels? Sure (a bit), but I doubt I will even notice it.

 

[James McMurray]

@James McMurray
I don't forbid you to post, just to make it on topic. Anyway I don't replie on most of you text, couse it will make discussion stay not on topic. Btw Orcus was an example of another person, and I just pointed him, that his recharge power is deadly. The same wiht epic destinies features that gives you something when you drop to 0hp. We never discused it, you make it as an argument, but it is just not important. We talking still about feats from PHB2 and PCs defenses.

I'm talking about "the game as a whole". You're talking about "this tiny fraction I dislike. So I'll return the favor and ignore your post as well.

If you only examine a piece of a complex organism, you will never understand the whole, and will come to many incorrect conclusions. If you don't understand that, there's no point in us discussing further, because I am very much of a holistic mindset when it comes to rules.

Happy gaming!

 

[Stalker0]

@Stalker0 and what you think about the math? You think it's broken? I saw you made some very nice mathematic calculations about skill checks and Skill challanges. I will be realy happy if you say something about this issue.

My issue is that every math analysis I have seen at epic levels doesn't really consider powers in great detail. And there's a good reason, powers make the analysis very hard!!

At low levels, assuming powers don't make a big impact is reasonable. Powers aren't that impacting, and they are pretty rare in the combat.

At higher levels this is no longer the case. My group has just hit 11th, and I've seen several fights when its all dailies and encounters, no at wills. I would imagine that trend continues into epic.

You can't look at the math in a vacuum. If you are commonly seeing powers that can add +4 defense here, subtract -4 attack there, add this protection, vulnerability, etc you can not make conclusions about the system without seriously taking this into account.

I'll give you guys an example from my group. Two of my players both have a power that gives an enemy a -7 to their attack roll! That's a pretty large impact right there.

So without solid inclusion of this in the math analysis, I would fall back to playtest experience to see what is going on.


I will say this however, that I definitely disapprove of using feats to fix math errors. If the math truly is a problem, it should have errata, not band aided with feats.

 

[keterys]

At low levels, assuming powers don't make a big impact is reasonable. Powers aren't that impacting, and they are pretty rare in the combat.

Hrmm, Frigid Darkness (3) which gives combat advantage and -Int to AC, Lead the Attack (1) for (1+Int) to all attacks, Witchfire (1) for -(2+Int) to attacks, or Disrupting Strike -(3+Wis).

Low levels look like they've got the same type of thing to me...

I will say this however, that I definitely disapprove of using feats to fix math errors. If the math truly is a problem, it should have errata, not band aided with feats.

Definitely - either the math is bad, and it should be fixed a different way, or it's _not bad_ and the feats are themselves bad, with the huge untyped bonuses. Either way, it's a real shame.

 

[Runestar]

Could the feats have been deliberately made optional to account for the swingier nature of epic level gameplay?

If your party has a dedicated leader who has no problems doling out huge attack bonuses and dishing out massive attack/AC debuffs on the foes, then maybe you won't need purported patch feats such as weapon expertise and the epic defense feats.

But if you find that your stats are still lacking for same reason (maybe no one in your party wants to play a leader), you can then take those feats to shore up your inherent weaknesses and make up for the shortage. They leave it to your good sense to decide if you really need them.

If it was made a mandatory patch, everyone would get the bonuses, regardless of whether they felt they really needed it or not.

 

[Stalker0]

Hrmm, Frigid Darkness (3) which gives combat advantage and -Int to AC, Lead the Attack (1) for (1+Int) to all attacks, Witchfire (1) for -(2+Int) to attacks, or Disrupting Strike -(3+Wis).

Low levels look like they've got the same type of thing to me...

While the amount of power use is certainly lower, you do make a good point that there are still some solid buff and debuffing that goes on at the low levels.

Ideally, the math of every level would include power use, as not assuming their use already creates weaknesses in the model. You probably could make some estimation assuming the standard 4 roles in the party, and what powers each role is likely to take.

 

[KarinsDad]

You can't look at the math in a vacuum. If you are commonly seeing powers that can add +4 defense here, subtract -4 attack there, add this protection, vulnerability, etc you can not make conclusions about the system without seriously taking this into account.

I'll give you guys an example from my group. Two of my players both have a power that gives an enemy a -7 to their attack roll! That's a pretty large impact right there.

So without solid inclusion of this in the math analysis, I would fall back to playtest experience to see what is going on.

The question comes up:

How many powers does the average group have that give a bonus to hit or a bonus to defense or penalizes the opponents, AND, how long do those powers last?

It's great to give an enemy a -7 to their attack roll. If it is only a single attack roll, then 1 encounter in 3 (assuming it is an encounter power), that power does something to compensate for the math problem. 2 encounters in 3, that power does nothing to compensate for the math problem.

If it is a daily power and does not last for multiple rounds, then it helps one attack per 3 days.

So, one cannot just assume that the synergies of powers compensate for the math issue that people are definitely aware of.


One thing we do know (due to the math problem):

At level 30, there is a penalty to hit of 4 on every single attack.
At level 30, there is (typically) a penalty to the best defense of 4 on every single attack against that defense type.
At level 30, there is (typically) a penalty to the medium defense of 4 on every single attack.
At level 30, there is (typically) a penalty to the medium defense of 7 on every single attack.

So as a rough estimate, 100% of PC attacks are at -4 and 44% (non-AC attacks in the MM) of monster attacks are at -5 (on average) at that level. Shy of feats or Paragon Path abililties to overcome this by 1 or 2 pre-PHB II feats.


Are there really that many +x powers that compensate on average for all attacks made by the PCs and nearly half of the attacks made by the monsters for an entire encounter? To my knowledge, most bonuses and penalties are not for the entire encounter. They tend to be to the end of the next turn.


When one considers that most high level encounters last for many turns (often easily 15 to 20+), a power that lasts until the end of the next turn lasts for a very short portion of the encounter.

Ditto for powers that require a "to hit" in order to gain a bonus (e.g. Lance of Faith or Righteous Brand). The fact that they hit less often means that they also give their bonus less often.


So yes, it is important to consider powers. And powers, especially powers that create conditions, do help the party. But, monsters have powers too. Monsters can have auras or attacks that penalize the party or stun them or whatever. They just typically do not have as many such powers.

One cannot just assume that the synergies of powers make up for -1 PC to hit and -1 PC defenses (not AC) of each tier.

 

[Stalker0]

One cannot just assume that the synergies of powers make up for -1 PC to hit and -1 PC defenses (not AC) of each tier.

You also cannot assume that the synergies of powers do not make up for the loss in bonuses, especially based on math that makes the faulty assumption that powers don't have a strong influence in the combat.

Basically it would be awesome if someone tried to do a scientific study of the effect of powers on the math. Its a hard analysis, I did all those calculations with skill challenges a while back and those numbers had far fewer factors to consider. Even with that, it took me a lot of calculations and modeling to make any hard conclusions. The effect of powers is a much bigger beast.