WotC's hesitation on tackling the feat tax.

Meh, I think the picture you paint is a little bit extreme. Most of the changes you list really had very little impact overall.

Maybe you are playing the game differently than I am. In our Paragon campaign at level 16, we use up about 150 to 200 temporary hit points in a major encounter. That's 2 to 3 strong healing surges of healing without using up a single healing surge. People couldn't do that with the core rules. That's a major swing toward PC survivability.

Cloak of Courage is a 16th level Cleric power that came out in Divine Power (we don't use it in our game because we do not have a Cleric, but it's real potent for PC parties that have a Cleric).

Before combat even starts in a 5 party team, it saves 2 healing surges per encounter by handing out 25% of PCs hit points in temporary hit points. Except for the Cleric, the monsters have to do 125% of the damage that they previously had to do. That one power usable pre- every encounter makes the Toughness feat look like a total joke.

The list of avoiding damage and surgeless healing goes on and on and on. The Leader is now the PC that stops a lot of damage before it even happens instead of the healer after it happens. Healing that requires a healing surge is now primarily used late in difficult encounters for emergencies, and for mop up healing during a short rest.

PHB1 OOTB was pretty heavily tilted towards the players, you needed level+4 encounters at all but low level to challenge decent players and challenging epic PCs was basically impossible if you played even close to RAW.

Most of the changes to PCs since then have narrowed the gap between optimized and non-optimized characters, but doesn't do anything in terms of making the PCs overall stronger. The average PC effectiveness has possibly even dropped some since it was dominated by certain builds.

Although some builds have gotten weaker, they aren't played much anymore, so they don't matter. In the real world, our PCs rarely go unconscious anymore, even with the increased monster damage.

PC effectiveness is through the roof because of the sheer number of synergies between feats, powers, and items (and even classes). Sure, a few classes fell by the wayside, but the ones that are played are more effective than ever.

The boost to monster damage is really the most significant change BY FAR. This does improve monsters, but mostly it allows the DM more flexibility in being able to use less overleveled encounters to create interesting challenges. If a specific party is really tweaked the result would be more challenging overall. Things like Themes have a pretty minor effect. You get an extra power, but these powers are rarely BETTER than what you had before, just more interesting. Again, if you're talking about 1-3rd level PCs you'll see a bit more impact, but still not much.

Yes, the monster damage change is significant. I used to see about 1 player in 10 or so take Toughness for his PC. Now, I see at least half of them doing it. But I see nearly 100% of players taking Expertise. Why is that?

It's because the sheer influx of temp hit points, multiple Daily item powers per day, Expertise, etc., all of these add up. I can guarantee you that you can take the same core classes and races today, build the best possible PCs without the splat books/Dragon and the best with the splat books/Dragon and the ones with all of the options can easily get 2 or 3 more encounters in at any level, and the PCs will fall unconscious a lot less.

The option of thousands of extra feats, thousands of extra powers, and thousands of extra items will do that.

I'm not really able to agree about Essentials PCs either (the 'E-martial' ones). They're somewhat front-loaded in terms of benefits they get, but they have limited chances to really make a big impact in a given encounter. By Epic tier the lack of a really robust alpha strike means even a totally optimized E-martial character is JUST about keeping up with reasonably optimized classic characters from what I can see. They'll do OK, but they certainly don't represent some kind of power boost. Their nice accuracies are good, but the problem is they simply don't have the chances for amplifying damage, so they NEED that accuracy just to try to keep up overall.

Yeah they can't nova as well, but they don't need to. Nearly auto-hitting and taking out an NPC most every single round is sufficient. And, they survive to Epic levels better (more average damage per round until early Paragon), so nova is not as important after all when one considers that the average damage per round includes the non-Essentials strikers nova damage.

With regard to the E-Martial classes, I see a significant difference between a Rogue that has to get into melee range and usually has to get flank in order to get CA, and a Thief who can hang back at range and auto-get CA. The first class could get a real nice decent to hit and damage, but he had to often risk himself in order to do that. The Thief is, to me, the epitome of class style for the laid back lazy entitled 4E player who wants his cake and eat it too. Many players who played Rogues when core first came out switched to a different class because of the melee issue. I even had a player quit because his original core Rogue (even with core low monster damage) got the snot kicked out of his PC game in and game out. It was very frustrating for that player.

A core first level Rogue typically walked around with AC 16, but had to hang out with the Fighters and Paladins who had ACs in the 17 to 20 range (plus fewer hit points for the Rogues). Sure, the defenders usually had one foe marked, but the rest of the up front monsters were free to whale on the Rogue. If the Rogue held back and stayed out of melee when injured, he typically didn't do sneak attack damage. The Thief doesn't have this issue. And it's not just the damage that the Thief avoids, it's the rider effects as well.

It really is frustrating to easily be bloodied and having to be making a ton of saving throws nearly every single encounter when your class isn't really designed to do that. Rogues and Thieves are night and day with regard to effectiveness, purely because of the risk factor. The leader doesn't have to heal the Thief as often as the Rogue, hence, has more healing reserves for the rest of the team (and hence, fewer leaders are needed).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Monsters gain +1 to every defense and +1 to-hit every level. SO, a monster is +29 to-hit vs 1st level at 30th. A PC gets +1/2 levels. They would also normally get around +4 from ability score increase, and +6 from enhancement. that's +25. Thus a PC by default has effectively lost 4 points of to-hit over 30 levels. Some EDs shrink this to 3 points (by giving a +2 to your ability score). Expertise feats fill in that slippage, giving +3 at Epic, 'fixing' the 'math error'. A similar but slightly more complex analysis shows that even the most ideally built PC will also fall considerably short of gaining +29 on all their defenses over 30 levels, meaning at least one defense will be quite weak, and sometimes 2.

The argument then boils down to "do epic PCs really need that 3 points of to-hit or do other things make up for it?" and "do epic PCs really need all their defenses to be high or do other things make up for it?" IMHO in the case of to-hit you don't really need it. Defenses are more complicated but overall you really DO probably need some added defense.

The final dimension of the whole thing is then the fighting about whether or not the Expertise feats are bad game design and if it really is something worth getting haired out about (and basically the same for the defense feats).

Just checking the PC math here:

1/2 level = +15
Enhancement = +6
Stat = +8 (Starting with 18 stat) or +9 (Starting with 20 stat)

Total = +29 or +30
 

As a comparative newbie to 4, I'm honestly finding this conversation between the two of you utterly fascinating. Please continue. :)

But do you think this is ultimately a case of different play experiences more than anything else?

I know that, in my group, players would have to be drastically mismatched in a way that I'm not sure 4e is even capable of to notice or care, and I think that makes me fortunate.
 

As a comparative newbie to 4, I'm honestly finding this conversation between the two of you utterly fascinating. Please continue. :)

But do you think this is ultimately a case of different play experiences more than anything else?

I know that, in my group, players would have to be drastically mismatched in a way that I'm not sure 4e is even capable of to notice or care, and I think that makes me fortunate.

Our experience is similar to yours. We have never noticed a glaring whole in the math at any level of play.

I think most of the math holes come from those that cant play unless fully optimized.
 

I'm coming late into this conversation, but can someone explain to me what justifies bumping up player attack bonuses and defenses? Specifically, why is this a good thing for "the math of the game" (or however you'd like to phrase it).

Check the link in my signature; it explains everything.
 

Our experience is similar to yours. We have never noticed a glaring whole in the math at any level of play.

I think most of the math holes come from those that cant play unless fully optimized.

Then your players have probably made characters using the math fix feats.
 



Which gives you a difference of +25, compared to a monster difference of +29, yep.

Your use of the word difference and the +25 confuses me here.

A PC minus any proficiency bonus will be +29 or +30 to hit at level 30.

With the new monster math a monster will be +34 to hit at level 30.

That is a difference of 4 or 5 to hit in favor of the monster not a 25 difference.
 

Someone noted that monsters gain +1 per level, for a difference of +29 over 29 levels.

Over those same levels, PCs gain +25 (+15 level, +6 enhancement, +4 stat)

Your response was not mathematically correct for what you were responding to, so I attempted to point it out. That's all.
 

Remove ads

Top