NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jhaelen" data-source="post: 4752947" data-attributes="member: 46713">Alright. So I took a step back and tried to look at these issues with a fresh mind.What is complicating this discussion is that you cannot isolate a single aspect (PC defenses) and make any conclusions about the underlying math of the system.Some aspects that are relevant to this discussion:1) The gap between AC and the other defenses2) The gap between a character's highest and lowest defense3) The gap between the PC defense progression and the monsters' attack bonus progressionTo tackle these issues, I wanted to take a slightly different approach and look at some concrete examples. So I created example characters for all the PHB1 classes using PHB1 races using the standard array (16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10). I then examined their stats at levels 4, 14, and 24 and compared them against sample encounters straight out of the MM1.For level 4 I used the following encounter:- 1 human mage- 2 human bandits- 2 gravehound zombies- 3 zombie rottersFor level 14 I used the following encounter:- 1 githzerai mage- 1 githzerai zerth- 4 githzerai cenobitesFor level 24 I adapted the encounter template for the flameskull:- 1 greater flameskull- 1 eladrin lich- 2 rakshasa dread knights(I did this because the greater flameskull has been mentioned as an example before)I assumed a party of five covering all roles plus a second striker, because I think that's the most common setup. I didn't make any attempt to min-max them, I just did some of the more obvious optimizations.I've scribbled some 6 pages full of notes but I don't want to bore you with the minor details (and I'm too lazy to type it all up) and just tell you about my findings.At this point, I'd like to thank DracoSuave for his post #179. What he wrote is similar to my calculations.Getting back to the different aspects I mentioned above:1) The average gap between AC and other defenses remains fairly constant across levels. Defenses are on average 3-5 lower than AC.2) The average gap between highest (non-AC) defense and lowest increases across levels. Depending on how well the selected race fits to the important abilities for a given build the gap starts with a difference of 2-4. This difference increases by 1 with each tier, so at epic level the gap is 4-6.As DracoSuave already mentioned, this is easily compensated by taking one of the PHB1 paragon feats granting +2 to a defense.As an aside: Though obvious in hindsight, I found it interesting that the gap will be larger if the race fits well to the build, assuming you use your stat increases to only increase the two most important abilities for your build.I think for builds with a slight MAD it might be a reasonable variant to use your second stat increase to alternate between two abilities.3) The average chance for the monsters to hit characters increases across tiers:At heroic tier: 45% (30-35% to hit AC, 55-60% to hit other defenses)At paragon tier: 60% (50-55% to hit AC, 65% to hit other defenses)At epic tier: 65% (45-50% to hit AC, 80% to hit other defenses)For characters it's the opposite: their average chance to hit drops across tiers:At heroic tier: 80%At paragon tier: 60%At epic tier: 45%Then I used those numbers to calculate the (normalized) average damage output:For a monster: - 4.5 at heroic levels, - 9 at paragon level, and - 14 at epic levelFor a pc: - 9 at heroic levels, - 12 at paragon levels, - 15 at epic levelsOne thing that's worth noting: I didn't include anything but static effects in the calculations for the pcs. I also only used the characters' at-will powers for this.I did assume, though, that the party's strikers would be able to add their bonus damage on every attack.Next I compared the monsters' total hit points to the party's total hit points. I added 50% to the party's hit points, the equivalent of two healing surges (without applying any other bonuses).Total monster hp:- 223 for the level 4 encounter, - 785 for the level 14 encounter, and - 1066 for the level 24 encounter.The level 24 encounter is worth mentioning because both the flameskull and the lich can regenerate hit points, the lich can heal itself once, and the rakshasas have an aura that makes healing surges less effective.Now I looked at the expected number of rounds these combats would take and decided that at least for the paragon and epic encounters critical hits might be relevant for the calculation (the expected number of rounds is 13 - 14, i.e. there'd be about 6 - 8 crits).I also recalculated the DPR taking some of the monster abilities into account:- I assumed area effects would on average hit half of the party- I added the lich's aura damage- I took the rakshasa's increased accuracy into account- I included the effect of the githzerais' trace chance abilityThe new DPR numbers:For a monster: - 5 at heroic levels, - 9.5 at paragon level, and - 15 at epic levelFor a pc: - 9.5 at heroic levels, - 13 at paragon levels, - 16.5 at epic levelsThe net result, though remains the same: comparing the dpr values the party will win every encounter even if they're using only at-will powers!This leaves one question open: what about non-numeric affects, like the daze powers that are involved in some of these encounters?I actually think they don't matter a lot. I'd rather say the odds are stacked in the pcs' favour when you're looking at paragon or even epic tiers:Pcs start out with fewer or the same number of powers than monsters and quickly overtake them:- at L4 a pc has at least 2 encounter, 1 daily, 1 utility powers and can use 2-3 item dailys*- at L14 a pc has at least 4 encounter, 3 daily, 4 utility powers and can use 3-4 item dailys*- at L24 a pc has at least 4 encounter, 4 daily, 6 utility powers and can use 4-5 item dailys**: depending on the number of milestones reached. I think 3-5 combat encounters should be feasible for a party. They'll typically also have at least one skill challenge per day.This means, the party as a whole can use an average of 3, 6, or even 8 daily powers in every encounter.Considering some of the very powerful effects that can last for the entire encounter, I have a hard time believing epic parties will have any trouble with level equivalent encounters.Add the paragon and epic abilities and things look better still! They'll have ways to deny enemy actions and ignore attacks and damage or negate it with healing effects.As I mentioned in my previous posts, I also expect experienced players to be prepared for all kinds of encounters. E.g. they _will_ have ways to deal radiant damage to the lich every round, even if they don't have a divine character in the party (which for a pure PHB1 party is unlikely).This is something I've seen in my 3E campaign a lot:When encountering a certain monster type or specific combat tactic the first time, my players may have a hard time. But they immediately realize this, analyze the reasons for their problems and take steps to prevent having these problems ever again:They'll retrain feats & skills, learn new spells and powers, buy items, and/or take levels in other classes.In 4E they'll do exactly the same thing and probably be doing fine.I'd only expect problems if- an encounter is of a significantly higher level than the party, and/or- the number of enemies with action-denial abilities is higher than the number of pcs.Anyway, my conclusion remains the same: the math works.It just works in different ways than people expect. The guidelines as presented in the DMG1 are somewhat misleading, because they don't give you the whole picture. But wasn't that to be expected, considering the goal of these guidelines? I.e. to present a simple rule-of-thumb which can be used to modify existing monsters and create new ones.So what's the reason for the PHB2 feats if they aren't a math fix?Imho, they are a fix for bad or disadvantaged character builds. Choosing a MAD build with two abilities that add bonuses to the same defense and min-maxing the character can lead to problems in the epic tier that a player may not have been aware of when creating the character. So the feats are a way to fix those specific problems particular characters may have without the player having to create a new character from scratch.But they're neither required nor must-have for balanced characters created with a bit of foresight. Players worried about their defenses may of course take them to be hit (slightly) less often, but this is only a perceived problem.Likewise Weapon Expertise is not required by game math but it _will_ help to take some of the grind factor away that will become noticeable at high levels. Shortening combats will probably mean they're more enjoyable for players. But it will also make epic combats a lot easier. Then again, they'll allow a DM to use more difficult encounters. So, all in all, they may have a positive net effect.</blockquote>

Verification