Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FireLance" data-source="post: 5696928" data-attributes="member: 3424">I think the difference in our approaches is that I'm coming from a purely mathematical angle.However, from the mathematical perspective, the variation is the problem. 4E's monster math for defenses actually works out to:Defense = 10 + (monster type modifier) + LevelThis discrepancy in the formulae is why some players believe that the Expertise feats are "taxes" and that without them, the players' attack bonuses fall behind monster defenses by too much as the PCs gain levels for them to enjoy playing the game.Removing the attack bonus from magic weapons from both formulae doesn't actually expand the design space. Don't mistake the consequence for the cause. If you want the PCs to have a certain chance of victory over the monsters, and you want fights to last a certain number of rounds on average, you need to have a certain relationship between monster defenses and PC attack bonuses, and monster durability and PC damage output. Given the simplicity of the monster defence formula, I suspect that it is the base formula, and the PC attack bonus formula was put together based on traditional sources of PC bonuses: ability scores, level, magic items and feats. Like I mentioned, there is some scope for trade-offs - lower defences can be offset by higher durability, for example, but the trade-offs are quadratic (or possibly asymptotic), not linear, and the difference between trade-offs at extreme ends of the "to hit" probability scale can be quite substantial. When you hit 50% of the time, a +1 bonus to hit increases your damage output by 10%. At this to hit chance, reducing monster defences by 1 point can be offset by a 10% increase in durability. However, when you hit only 5% of the time, a +1 bonus to hit increases your damage output by 100% (ignore the effect of critical hits for now). At this to hit chance, monster durability needs to double to compensate for a 1 point reduction in monster defenses.Math will not expand your design space. Willingness to accept more varied outcomes will. Math will tell you what are the likely consequences of tinkering with the default elements, though. If you are willing to accept that some fights will take half as long (or twice as long) math will tell you that you can halve (or double) monster durability, or you can adjust monster defenses so that the PCs hit twice as often or half as often. Nope, the answer is to reduce the variation in bonuses from magic items so that what weapon you are using matters less to your hit chance. Exactly. The math doesn't care where you get the bonus from, as long as you have the bonus. If you want more freedom to vary the PCs' equipment while maintaining the same battle outcomes, just make sure that the bonus that the PCs should have got from equipment comes from another source.They solve a problem. Admittedly, it might not be the problem you have in mind.Sure, but the question is: how significant is his advantage? Most people would be hard pressed to tell the difference between a fair coin and a coin with a 55% chance of turning up heads until after they have flipped both coins several times. Most games also tend to feature monster vs. player battles more than player vs. player, and the PCs would also tend to be similarly equipped. A player with a 15th level PC and a +3 magic weapon fighting a 15th level monster would usually only know whether or not he defeated the monster, and not whether he would have done better with a 17th level PC and a +1 magic weapon.</blockquote>

Verification