So, about defenses aka. PHB2 defenses feats

[CapnZapp]

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.

But this would mean the designers have resigned from their responsibilities?

If you don't "need" an option but you are allowed to take it anyway chances are you break the system.

As a designer, you can't leave it up to the system to balance itself. That simply doesn't work.

(The proper way of solving the example situation you're bringing up is to make the feat and the leader power give bonuses of the same type, so that they don't stack.

Now you have a situation where the party with the dedicated leader can skip the feat other parties would love to take, without making it possible for a minmaxer in the first party to take the feat anyway.

Thinking this through before publishing those feats and powers is what we pay designers to do... )

 

[CapnZapp]

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!!

<snip>

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.

But do we really need to do this (very hard) analysis?

Can't we simply look at the PHB2 feats and assume WotC has crunched the numbers for us and come up with the conclusions we are already assuming? That indeed the math is broken?

How else explain the presence of those feats? We all agree they are fairly broken (i.e. over-powered) taken at face value. The consensus seems to be that only by explaining them as math patches can we justify including them in our games...?




Edit: Like KarisDad said:

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

 

[CapnZapp]

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...

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...

Sorry for interrupting, but really I think this is a separate discussion, not really relevant to the issue at hand.

In fact, I think that "monsters are far from perfectly balanced" is something we all agree to. So I would like you to not allow yourselves to get side-tracked like this.

Your posts on the central issue, on how to increase non-attack defenses are far too interesting...!

 

[Bolongo]

Non-Attack Defenses

Just a quick note: that's not what the acronym stands for. Because that wouldn't make any sense - a defense against something that's not an attack?

It's Non-Armor Defenses, or Non-AC Defenses.

 

[DracoSuave]

But do we really need to do this (very hard) analysis?

It isn't necessary to do a thurough analysis. But it helps if you're making a point that mathematical computations are broken if you actually mathematicly prove the brokenness. Otherwise you're only theorizing, and have no stand point to make a statement as tho it were fact.

Without mathematical proof, you merely have opinion.

Can't we simply look at the PHB2 feats and assume WotC has crunched the numbers for us and come up with the conclusions we are already assuming? That indeed the math is broken?

No, you can't. You can rationally come up with the conclusion that developers wanted to produce epic versions of the Lighting Reflexes-style feats, either by increasing the bonus given, or spreading the bonus out amongst all three NADs. Without some form of mathematical evidence that the numbers don't work, you cannot make a statement that the feats prove the brokenness of the math with any real authority. (and no, to-hit bonus anayisis is not sufficent evidence to mount a proof that the system is broken; This requires either a rigorous mathematical examination of all pertinent variables, or observation of a sample of test cases in order to prove a trend.)

How else explain the presence of those feats? We all agree they are fairly broken (i.e. over-powered) taken at face value. The consensus seems to be that only by explaining them as math patches can we justify including them in our games...?

We don't all agree, and saying so is an incorrect statement that is designed to exclude those that disagree with you from the argument. It is no more valid than me saying 'We all agree that the math isn't broken.' What is true is that I see a thread of some people declaring them broken, and other people saying that high level play isn't just decided by to-hit bonuses and that it's a lot more complicated than that. Fact is, these feats already existed in 3rd edition and functioned -exactly the same.- The only difference is that you got them earlier.

When I start seeing errata to how to design monsters and assign defenses, and errata to problematic monsters with high attack bonuses, that's when I can believe the 'math is borked and wizards knows it' conspiracy.



Edit: Like KarisDad said:[/QUOTE]

 

[Bayuer]

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.

Post some arguments why they don't "must-have" feats? Even in 90% roleplay 10% combat game, when you have the only fight in that night, and the enemy rolls an attack, and hits you on 2 die, and you are dominated/stunned and can't do nothing, it's not fun! Even if you can deeply describe what your character feels when his under such an effect.

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

Even blind man can say that 3E was so broken and gives so many overpowered things that this shouldn't be on topic. Anyway, it's not comparing older editions to 4E.

About powers that impact the game. Sure, some of them gives bonuses/penatlties. Most of them are small or last until the end of next turn. Even classes that gives to hit bonuses, gives it to malee attacks only, with hurt NADs attack. I don't saw any other power like Lead the Attack that gives (1+INT on all attack rolls until the end of encounter, but just versus single target). It's 1 lvl warolord daily. Now if we go to epic level we will not see any power like this. There are some minor +hit powers that last for one attack or untile the end of next turn. But this is only warlod. The str cleric with overpowerd rightous brand can work from 1 lvl too givine +4 on 1lvl to melee attack and +7/+8 on epic. There are no more builds that gives to hit (maybe bard I didn't looked into it). Even so, the to hit options works from 1lvl, when the math looks fine. On epic there aren't daily powers that grant ongoing bonuses to hit (I'm lookin at warlord). So you can conisder that if powers have such a strong impact from the beginning of game they influence on game mechanic is not important, couse we can assume it will be much the same as on 1 lvl, and even with scaling it will be fine, couse on epic our to hit chances decrased by 3/4 (the same amount to hit powers will grove +3/+4).

I'm lookin at 29 daily power of warlord now. Stand Invincible. You and each ally within 5 squares of you gain a +4 power bonus to all defenses and resist 5 to all damage until
the end of your next turn. Sustain Minor: The effect continues. Now that's great daily! +4 to all DEFs (even AC) make it very cools. But it gives +4 bonus to AC, with at this level will be much better than our NADs. So the monster will have real hard times hitting our AC. If so for AC, the same should by for NADs. But without feats our NADs, still be very behind, even with this bonus. Let's just say that on epic NADs attacks are very offten.

@James McMurray
Well my english isn't good (it's not my primary language) and maybe you didn't understand my. I didn't ignore your post, I just ignore (I will not answer) on things that wasn't related to topic. As you can see I did replay to your posts. I didn't want to be rude or something. Anyway pity you didn't answered to many of questions I asked in my post.

 

[Bayuer]

It isn't necessary to do a thurough analysis. But it helps if you're making a point that mathematical computations are broken if you actually mathematicly prove the brokenness. Otherwise you're only theorizing, and have no stand point to make a statement as tho it were fact.

Without mathematical proof, you merely have opinion.

Didn't I pointed you your arguments were wrong? The pure math crunch is done. The feats from PHB2 are here. They fit into gap making math good. About powers I wrote above. What any proofs you need more? People belive in religions withou proof, you have 3 here

No, you can't. You can rationally come up with the conclusion that developers wanted to produce epic versions of the Lighting Reflexes-style feats, either by increasing the bonus given, or spreading the bonus out amongst all three NADs. Without some form of mathematical evidence that the numbers don't work, you cannot make a statement that the feats prove the brokenness of the math with any real authority. (and no, to-hit bonus anayisis is not sufficent evidence to mount a proof that the system is broken; This requires either a rigorous mathematical examination of all pertinent variables, or observation of a sample of test cases in order to prove a trend.)

There are such a fets that make Lighting Reflex etc. better at epic. But this aren' Epic RFW feats. They give +4 bonus without "feat bonus" and we have Robust Defense.

 

[MrBeens]

Didn't I pointed you your arguments were wrong? The pure math crunch is done. The feats from PHB2 are here. They fit into gap making math good. About powers I wrote above. What any proofs you need more? People belive in religions withou proof, you have 3 here


There are such a fets that make Lighting Reflex etc. better at epic. But this aren' Epic RFW feats. They give +4 bonus without "feat bonus" and we have Robust Defense.

I agree 100% with what Draco said above.
What you keep failing to understand is that just because you have crunched some numbers, that is not a 100% "proof" that the system is broken as you keep on claiming.
There have been many other people in this thread stating the fact that they have run epic level games and have not noticed a problem, along with other people pointing out that your pure maths are flawed as they don't take in to account all of the other variables.

 

[KarinsDad]

I agree 100% with what Draco said above.
What you keep failing to understand is that just because you have crunched some numbers, that is not a 100% "proof" that the system is broken as you keep on claiming.
There have been many other people in this thread stating the fact that they have run epic level games and have not noticed a problem, along with other people pointing out that your pure maths are flawed as they don't take in to account all of the other variables.

A few bad assumptions here:

1) We did not just run numbers. I ran a high level test as well.

2) Nobody in this thread has stated that they have run an epic level game and not noticed a problem. This is a falsehood. I went back and re-read all of the posts. The only person to state that he ran high level was James and he said that high level was grindy and giving the players +3 to hit would have lowered the grindiness because they miss a lot.

His concern is that increasing nads will make high level too easy.


High level play is extremely grindy. Anyone who has not run a high level game might not realize this. The maths here bear that out. The feats that WotC added to PHB II bear that out.

So far, the best the opposing POV has to show is: you have not taken into account every variable, hence, your math is wrong. Err, no.

The math illustrates the grindiness of Epic play and so does anecdotal evidence so far and so does the fact that WotC added the feats to PHB II.

The evidence is on the side of the math.

 

[Jhaelen]

Post some arguments why they don't "must-have" feats? Even in 90% roleplay 10% combat game, when you have the only fight in that night, and the enemy rolls an attack, and hits you on 2 die, and you are dominated/stunned and can't do nothing, it's not fun!

But that's pure conjecture on your part! (and the ratio of combat to roleplaying in a game is completely irrelevant to this discussion)

I'll believe they're must-have feats if I happen to play an epic level campaign and the pcs are hit on a 2 in every encounter. Until then (or until someone else can provide some empirical data that supports your view) I'm unconvinced.