So, about defenses aka. PHB2 defenses feats

[KarinsDad]

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.

Actually, I think I can. For three reasons:

1) The bonuses that you have been talking about are mostly sporadic in nature. Many of them last for only a single attack or often at best to the end of the PC's next turn.

The penalties I am talking about occur in every encounter. Every round. For every PC.

So, I think the burden of proof has to be that powers do indeed overcome that known penalty, not that they do not.


2) One very important factor here is that WotC put in +4 feats which stack with everything to boost defenses (and you yourself stated were broken) along with a feat that give +3 to hit (after WotC explicitly stated that plus to hit feats and abilities would be rare).

Bottom line: it appears that WotC thinks that the high level math is broken.


3) People who play Epic have indicated how grindy it is. Part of the reason for that is obviously because high level monsters have too many hit points. But, the fact that PCs have -3 to hit and -3 to 3 of their defenses is obviously another factor in the grindiness. If they could hit easier and not get hit as often, they would use up fewer resources per encounter and the encounters would be shorter in duration.


The information we have is not that the PCs cannot handle high level encounters. They can. It's that they hit infrequently, get hit frequently, and have to use many resources and many rounds to overcome the hit points of the monsters. This causes a grindy situation. But because they have so many options and powers, they can handle it. It's just slow and long and resource heavy and grindy.

 

[keterys]

Which is interesting, because it implies that higher level math should be redressed... and then the monsters should be made more dangerous (and not, obviously, via more defenses and hp

Part of the problem, I'll say, are things like Legion's Hold... I can understand where they might have thought monsters getting higher relative defenses was a good idea with things like that around.

 

[Elric]

Which is interesting, because it implies that higher level math should be redressed... and then the monsters should be made more dangerous (and not, obviously, via more defenses and hp

Very similar level/role monsters have a wide range for how powerful they are. I've already mentioned Bodak Reavers vs. Death Hags at level 18 Soldier. Looking to epic, compare the Swordwing and Dragonborn Champion (which is 1 level higher).

The Dragonborn Champion has 1 worse AC for its level and slightly fewer HP for its level. Its FR are a little better for its level, and its Will is much higher. It is quite a bit less mobile, since its flying is clumsy. However, it has very good resistances, its at-will does more damage (20 vs. 16) and includes a very likely to hit secondary that stuns and knocks prone and its other special abilities are better as well. There's no comparison.

Similarly, I think the Pit Fiend (level 26 Elite Soldier) would be noticeably stronger than Doresain the Ghoul King (level 27 Elite Skirmisher) even without the Pit Fiend's very powerful summon ability.

 

[KarinsDad]

Part of the problem, I'll say, are things like Legion's Hold... I can understand where they might have thought monsters getting higher relative defenses was a good idea with things like that around.

Maybe.

Or, maybe it is just a decent Daily power. Say one did have a 50% chance to hit with it and was able to get 8 enemies in the radius.

2 dazed for one round, 2 stunned for one round, 1 dazed for two rounds, 1 stunned for two rounds, 1 dazed for three rounds, 1 stunned for three rounds.

Give or take.

So sure, it slows up the monsters. But in 20 round encounters and 8 monsters in the encounter (probably at least 120 monster rounds), this stuns for 6 monster rounds and dazes for 6 monsters rounds. That's 5% to 10% (and closer to 5%) less attacks by the monsters. Or, the equivalent of -1 to hit over the course of the encounter for all of the monsters.

In the course of 4 encounters in the day, it's the equivalent of -0.25 to hit over the course of the day for all of the monsters.

It's definitely a nice spell, but it's probably not as potent as it seems. It lasts for very few rounds in an entire adventuring day. 1 to 3 rounds for some monsters out of a 60-80 round adventuring day.

 

[KarinsDad]

Similarly, I think the Pit Fiend (level 26 Elite Soldier) would be noticeably stronger than Doresain the Ghoul King (level 27 Elite Skirmisher) even without the Pit Fiend's very powerful summon ability.

I think Soldiers in general are the best combat monsters. It's hard to compare most soldiers with similar level anything else and find them lacking. They might do less damage, but they stick around a lot longer in which to make up for that.

If the PCs are having too easy a time at any level, throw some soldiers into the mix.

 

[Elric]

I think Soldiers in general are the best combat monsters. It's hard to compare most soldiers with similar level anything else and find them lacking. They might do less damage, but they stick around a lot longer in which to make up for that.

If the PCs are having too easy a time at any level, throw some soldiers into the mix.

Soldier AC-level is 1.7 points higher than Skirmisher AC on average (from kerbarian's excellent thread of statistics), and Fort-Level is 2.2 points higher than Skirmishers, which is the biggest relative Defense disparity. Kerbarian doesn't have statistics on to-hit by role, but we can assume roughly the same is true of to-hit bonuses. That means a Skirmisher 2 levels higher than a Soldier should be better on average with all its to-hit and defense numbers, except a tiny loss in Fort.

Even a one level difference for Skirmisher ahead of Soldier should make up most of the number gap. So raw durability based on higher defenses shouldn't explain more than a 1-level gap. That said, it's easy to explain why Doresain is so weak; he has pitiful offense unless he uses his Recharge 6 power, and little else that he can do. A Pit Fiend has a strong double attack routine, multiple powerful Auras, useful minor action abilities, and a very strong summoning power, on top of the excellent to-hit and defenses that come from being a Soldier.

The Dragonborn Champion and Swordwing from above are both Soldiers. The Bodak Reaver and Death Hag are both soldiers. Even within a role, there are major disparities, because the monsters have similar base numbers for level and role without considering how special abilities can change their power (Needlefang Drake Swarms are perhaps the most egregious example).

 

[Jhaelen]

I think that this is even greater problem than Expertise.
[...]
I just really hope that WotC will not give us plenty more "must-have" feats, to make the math works, couse this will make the characters so boring and predictable.

I disagree. I also don't understand why you people get so worked up about the issue.

These aren't must-have feats and I think the math works well enough. You're right though, that the feats are boring which is yet another reason why I don't see many players taking them.

3E had similar feats (adding +2 to a saving throw). No player in my games ever took one of these. At least they were useful for monsters (since they don't add complexity)... but in 4E?

Now, do you think, the 3E feats indicated that the 3E math didn't work?

 

[MrBeens]

Maybe.

Or, maybe it is just a decent Daily power. Say one did have a 50% chance to hit with it and was able to get 8 enemies in the radius.

2 dazed for one round, 2 stunned for one round, 1 dazed for two rounds, 1 stunned for two rounds, 1 dazed for three rounds, 1 stunned for three rounds.

Give or take.

So sure, it slows up the monsters. But in 20 round encounters and 8 monsters in the encounter (probably at least 120 monster rounds), this stuns for 6 monster rounds and dazes for 6 monsters rounds. That's 5% to 10% (and closer to 5%) less attacks by the monsters. Or, the equivalent of -1 to hit over the course of the encounter for all of the monsters.

In the course of 4 encounters in the day, it's the equivalent of -0.25 to hit over the course of the day for all of the monsters.

It's definitely a nice spell, but it's probably not as potent as it seems. It lasts for very few rounds in an entire adventuring day. 1 to 3 rounds for some monsters out of a 60-80 round adventuring day.

I think this analysis is why there are 2 camps in this discussion - the maths vs the game.

Legions hold boiled down to that in the maths and dismissing it as a insignificant bump in the overall scheme of things vs Legions hold looked at in the game where it is a way to take a number of monsters out of the fight for a few rounds so the party can concentrate on other monsters.

Seriously, just play the game and ignore the maths. You'll probably have more fun.

 

[CapnZapp]

What about instead:

• At-Wills work as normal.
• Encounter powers double the normal bonuses from feats, attributes, and enhancements.
• Dailies triple the normal bonuses from feats, attributes, and enhancements.

It affects all the classes equally, so (among other things) means the Warlock, who normally does the least damage of the 3 core strikers, isn't doubly hurt. It also puts a limit on the characters' ability to output massive amounts of damage.

I see what you're trying to accomplish. However, making dailies too attractive only weakens the 4E design where the "15 minute adventuring day" was (rather successfully) eliminated.

That is, if Dailies get much better than in the core game, this might mean players feel forced to stop for a rest when these have been used up, even when they otherwise would not have to (plenty of surges left etc...)

 

[CapnZapp]

Making the PCs hit more often or harder would be great at reducing grind. Lowering monster hit points would work as well.

Making monsters hit less often would have much less of an effect on grind, except in the case where the monsters are stunning, dominating, or weakening since none of the other common status effects will stop you from dealing damage. The hit point damage the monsters do isn't a big portion of the grind, as it either has 0 effect on the character's combat worthiness, or is healed via a minor action and/or a side effect of another attack.

What increasing PC defenses would have done to our campaign is make the encounters that felt dangerous (but really werent) not even feel that way. The only times the players got worried was when a monster was able to do one of those. Weakening was just an annoyance, and didn't really scare them apart from "great, we'll never kill this thing." Even stunning was only scary because it meant you had to sit there and do nothing. The real fear came from domination, because it meant that they were now facing a real threat: another PC.

Upping defenses isn't the way to fix epic levels. The way to fix epic levels IMO is threefold:

1) Make PCs hit more often. The damage they can deal is fine, it's the whiffs that make a fight go from fast and furious to "when will this end".

2) Make monsters hit harder. This way the PCs have something to fear besides just themselves or boredom.

3) Fix problematic conditions. This could be a few separate lines, but they're all related so I put them under one heading.
a. Reduce the frequency of stunning attacks or their durations. This makes some monsters still scary, but it'll be because they're combining stunning with big attacks, not because they can chain stun you and make you go watch TV.
b. Make domination shorter duration. With monsters dealing more damage there's less of a need to turn the party against each other.
c. Never, never, never, ever put Insubstantial creatures in a fight alongside creatures that can weaken on a hit. (This includes ones that have both in the same package). Nothing slows a fight down faster than PCs doing 1/4 damage. Even stunning everyone over and over again isn't as bad as this, because at least when you're stunned your turn is on autopilot and goes by fast.

I've never seen it in play, though before I had epic experience I created a creature that did it... insubstantial + weakening + swarm. Just. Don't. Do. It.

Great advice!

But... I still haven't understood why you're arguing against NAD fixes...?

Even if it because you feel it is beside the real issue and/or focusing on the wrong problem, why do you keep bringing up the issue in this thread?

Or, more to the point: if we for the moment disregards those other points you bring up, do you feel it would hurt the game to fix Non-Attack Defenses?

Because if you don't - and perhaps even agree it provide some benefit even if these benefits aren't as crucial as your own points - then perhaps you could allow the discussion to proceed?

I am sure you can see how attacks that hit on a 2 make some of us wince...?