The pendulum swings back: Humans suck once again

[Kobu]

So, you posit that at 20th level, any single +1 bonus will be less valuable than it was at 1st level when bonuses were harder to come by.

OK, so far so good. Now, what singles out the +1 a human gets as "suckage", while all the micro-bonuses that other races get qualfiies as "awesome"? Isn't part of your arguement that other races receive two +2 bonuses to ability scores? Isn't a +2 to an ability score just another crummy +1 bonus?

That's why your position seems like one big canard. You're trying to undervalue a +1 bonus or an extra feat by trying to use an epic character as your baseline. In general, higher-level characters have access to great resources. That 20th-level character could have an item or power that eclipses any racial benefit, be it a +1 bonus, or a bonus feat, or the eladrin's dimension hop, or the dragonborn's breath.

OK, at least one person basically understands the diminishing utility and scarcity vs. abundance view. It's kind of amazing how many people want to try to teach me middle school math.

However, I don't see how my position is a canard. It's a fact that the economy of the character changes at higher levels. I see a bonus like Dwarven Resilience as just as good at 20th as it was at 1st. Nothing at that level would really replace or supersede that type of bonus.

A second +2 to an ability score I see as pretty good because those are harder to come by. However, I am not equating the second +2 to the defense bonuses. The race bonuses have to be viewed as a whole, and I find the humans lacking in power, and they are because they were designed for versatility. If there was no trade off in between power and versatility by design, they would actually be overpowered as they were in 3rd. I don't see the necessity in having a race's purpose be versatility, but the designers did.

 

[Kobu]

No need to exagerrate... it could never be worth more than 7. From 16 to 18 is exactly 7 points. From 17 to 18 is four, but you can't start with two 17s, not with 22 point buy. So you either start with a 14 and a 18, or two 16s. In the first case, the additional +2 would give you what amounts to an extra 4 building points, in the latter it amounts to 7 points.

Oh?

So what is 18 to 20? I'm guessing it would be more than 7.

 

[Spenser]

People were jumping all over your "The defense bonus? Eh. Survivalist characters rarely bring the awesome and the bonus will hardly be felt at later levels." Which according to middle school math, is not correct. If your point is that +1 to defenses is boring and not flavorful, sure, fair enough. But it's not weak by any means.

As for the point cost from 18-20, that's not relevant. No human character would blow the points to get an 18 and then put their +2 somewhere else. In fact, the floating +2 is a point in the human's favor, because ONLY the human can pull off the 20-at-1st-level trick for any class you desire.

 

[HP Dreadnought]

There are some cosmological theories, developed from the mathematics of quantum mechanics, that posit an infinite number of alternate universes, covering all possibilities. Every possible outcome of every event, everything we can imagine, and uncountable googleplexes of universes more strange and wonderful than we can imagine.

It is awesome to think, that somewhere out there in that infinite sea of realized possibilities there exists a world where Hong's words were actually a useful comment.

While to some extent I agree with Hong. . . this post is just too hilarious to ignore. Consider it sigged!

 

[keterys]

OK, at least one person basically understands the diminishing utility and scarcity vs. abundance view.

Sure, that's a point in favor of why the bonus feat is less useful than it used to be (and a reason why the at-will is often more useful)

It's kind of amazing how many people want to try to teach me middle school math.

Try, and fail. That's the frustrating part.

 

[silentounce]

Oh?

So what is 18 to 20? I'm guessing it would be more than 7.

It doesn't matter, because no character can start with two 18s using point buy. As I pointed out, they can't even start with two 17s. The differences between one +2 bonus and two +2 bonuses can never exceed 7 points of point buy. The best a second +2 can get you is from 16 to 18, and that's worth 7 points. No character with 22 point buy can ever start with two 20s, regardless of race. You get it now?

If you're doing 4d6 or some other method, and you happen to roll very well, then they may have an advantage, but that's a rare occurrence.

 

[Keenath]

OK, at least one person basically understands the diminishing utility and scarcity vs. abundance view. It's kind of amazing how many people want to try to teach me middle school math.

You're misapplying it. Diminishing utility only works when the increasing abundance is not matched by increasing needs.

In other words:
You would be right that a +1's utility fades as you level up ONLY IF your enemies' defenses remained static. This was somewhat the case in 3rd edition; HP and attack bonuses generally increased much faster than defenses, so at high level a +1 attack bonus wasn't such a big deal. A full BAB class was normally hitting on 3's and 4's anyway, and hitting on a 2 or 3 just doesn't make that big of a difference.

In 4th edition, defense and attack scale at the same rate; if you can hit a 1st level Soldier type creature with a 12 when you're 1st level, you can probably hit a level 22 Soldier creature with a 12 when you're 22nd level. In other words, the supply of attack bonus and the AC's demand increase together, and that +1 remains equally useful across all levels.

What it really comes down to is that a +1 bonus becomes less important the lower the enemy's level is below yours, which is pretty much obvious in the first place.

You position depends entirely on the unproven assumption that it's easier to accrue a large stack of attack bonuses at high level; I would posit that it is NOT easier, but that large attack bonus powers will still be limited to a single attack roll and encounter or daily.

 

[Kobu]

You're misapplying it. Diminishing utility only works when the increasing abundance is not matched by increasing needs.

In other words:
You would be right that a +1's utility fades as you level up ONLY IF your enemies' defenses remained static. This was somewhat the case in 3rd edition; HP and attack bonuses generally increased much faster than defenses, so at high level a +1 attack bonus wasn't such a big deal. A full BAB class was normally hitting on 3's and 4's anyway, and hitting on a 2 or 3 just doesn't make that big of a difference.

In 4th edition, defense and attack scale at the same rate; if you can hit a 1st level Soldier type creature with a 12 when you're 1st level, you can probably hit a level 22 Soldier creature with a 12 when you're 22nd level. In other words, the supply of attack bonus and the AC's demand increase together, and that +1 remains equally useful across all levels.

What it really comes down to is that a +1 bonus becomes less important the lower the enemy's level is below yours, which is pretty much obvious in the first place.

You position depends entirely on the unproven assumption that it's easier to accrue a large stack of attack bonuses at high level; I would posit that it is NOT easier, but that large attack bonus powers will still be limited to a single attack roll and encounter or daily.

Other way around actually--I'm looking at an abundance of defense bonuses rather than attack bonuses which is what gives a lower relative value. i.e. it is easy at higher levels to get a +3 bonus from a neck slot, a +5 bonus from attributes, etc. I'm basing my numbers off the defense section of the book which gives examples very close to what I wrote.

Taking a view of the larger character economy, I would be tempted to trade in the human defense bonuses for a paragon or epic feat or other bonus. Not so much with some of the other race's bonuses. Thus, a diminished utility at higher levels.

The variance at higher levels is also higher going from just a few defense points to +/- 10 or so from the median at 30 from what I can tell. I think the attack variance is smaller, but adding that in would increase the overall variance. Maybe I'm wrong on this, but I am seeing increasing variance at higher levels which is not indicative of a static point for point relationship between attack and defense. That gets into the "is it in or out of range" thing though which is really not what I am addressing.

 

[Makaze]

it is easy at higher levels to get a +3 bonus from a neck slot, a +5 bonus from attributes

True however all of the monsters at that level are statted in such a way that they take those bonuses into account, thus essentially nullifying them. The +1 from humans though is not something everyone is assumed to have and therefor always gives you an extra 5% chance to avoid things, at levels both high and low.

I would be tempted to trade in the human defense bonuses for a paragon or epic feat or other bonus. Not so much with some of the other race's bonuses. Thus, a diminished utility at higher levels.

While it may "feel" minor to you the math irrefutably states that the bonus is just as good at level one as it is at level 30.

The variance at higher levels is also higher going from just a few defense points to +/- 10 or so from the median at 30 from what I can tell.

Take another look at the MM. The overwhelming majority of monsters have a basic melee attack bonus of between 8 and 12 lower than their AC. A 4 point variance that tends to hold up from 1 to 30.

Maybe I'm wrong on this

No maybes about it

 

[Surgoshan]

Okay, level one fighter with 18 strength. All of his powers are strength vs ac. Only one is str+2 (precision over power). So that's a +4 to hit. Most weapons are +2 to hit and a fighter gets +1 to hit with his chosen weapon style. Take the stormclaw scorpion, AC of 16. The level one fighter needs a 9 to hit. The fighter will have a fortitude of 16, and the scorpion gets +6 vs. fortitude, so will need a 10 to hit.

So a bonus of +1 to hit means hitting that enemy 8.3% more often. A bonus of +1 to fortitude means being hit 11% less often.

Now we go to thirtieth level against a tarrasque. The fighter's at will powers are still just strength vs. ac. So now the fighter's +8 from strength, +3 for weapon style, +6 from magic weapon, and +15 from level mean a +32 to hit the tarrasque's AC of 43, or an 11 to hit. A +1 to hit means hitting 10% more often. The fighter's +20 godplate, +15 from level, and +2 shield bonus give him an AC of 47, which the tarrasque will hit on a 13 or better. If you were to specialize and get a +1 bonus to AC that would mean getting hit 12.5% less.

In other words, a bonus of +1 always matters. If it matters against a level 30 solo, it matters everywhere.