"WoTC admitted they got the defenses/attack of PCs wrong."

[Mystic Muse]

I hear this mentioned about the reason that improved defenses and X expertise exist. However, I don't really see anybody link something where Wizards actually says this. Could somebody point it out please? I'm not saying I don't believe it, but I thought maybe I could convince my DM to give them to us for free if I could show him that.

I know some people will probably respond with "Don't worry about it just play the game." but in my experience with this campaign, improved defenses at least is absolutely necessary to even have a chance of not being hit by our enemies. I swear, enemies miss maybe 10% or 15% of the time in the game. This isn't a DM created campaign either, it's the Scales of War campaign made by WoTC.

[Drachasor]

I don't have recent books, what do these feet do exactly?

[Mystic Muse]

They give you a tier scaling bonus to attack (For expertise) and a tier scaling bonus to your Fortitude, Reflex and Will (Improved defenses)

[Drachasor]

Wow, and they make you spend a feat on those fixes?

If they did that, they'll never admit they were wrong.

[Mystic Muse]

That's what I've been told. Hence why I wanted a public admission of their alleged screw-up rather than hearsay.

[NecroRebel]

I think the existence of those feats are taken to be an admission that WotC got the math wrong rather than an explicit admission of guilt being given. It seems reasonably clear just from the game design itself that the intent was for monster and PC capabilities to increase at parity, but monsters increase at 1 per level and PCs, without those feats, increase at only about .9 per level.

More specifically, to your primary attacks you get +1 per 2 levels from levels themselves, +1 per ~5 levels from magic items, and +1 at 8, 14, 21, and 28 from stat ups; that works out to +24 to those attacks at level 28 relative to level 1, or an increase of .888 per level (you've gained 27 levels in that time). Your secondary defense increases similarly, but your tertiary defense - the one keyed off a stat pair you have little use for, like Will for an Infernalock - probably doesn't get increases from stats except at level 21, so it's lower. AC may or may not be affected by stats, but masterwork heavy armor bonuses are similar in intensity, so AC increases at roughly that rate as well.

Assuming around a 55% chance to hit with most attacks at level 1, which is fair, you're about half as likely to hit equal-level enemies with your attacks at level 30 as you were at level 1, and, again, half as likely to avoid enemy attacks. The expertise feats and defense boosters help to compensate for that. Of course, the increased power availability and the increased power of your powers, as well as the availability of more attack boosters that aren't feats can compensate as well, but the fact remains: the math doesn't work out quite like WotC probably wanted it to.

[Kurald Galain]

I hear this mentioned about the reason that improved defenses and X expertise exist. However, I don't really see anybody link something where Wizards actually says this. Could somebody point it out please?
To my best knowledge they've never publically said anything of the sort.

At any rate, the necessity (or lack thereof) and existence of these feats are one of the most controversial debates of 4E. While giving Expertise for free is a fairly common house rule, it is by no means universal, and your DM is not in the wrong for denying it. Giving anything else for free (such as Improved Defense) is less common.

Note that people tend to vastly overstate what these feats actually do, especially in heroic tier. If monsters miss you 15% of the time now, they'll miss you 20% of the time with Improved Defense, or still 15% if they attack AC. This difference is small enough that the feat is clearly not "absolutely necessary" as you claim.

I would expect that your actual problem is (1) being underleveled, (2) lacking magical items, (3) lacking a defender, or (4) tactics.

[Mystic Muse]

At any rate, the necessity (or lack thereof) and existence of these feats are one of the most controversial debates of 4E. While giving Expertise for free is a fairly common house rule, it is by no means universal, and your DM is not in the wrong for denying it. Giving anything else for free (such as Improved Defense) is less common. I'm aware that he's not in the wrong for not doing so. I just thought maybe it would give us a decent boost and increase our survivability, which has been low lately.



Note that people tend to vastly overstate what these feats actually do, especially in heroic tier. If monsters miss you 15% of the time now, they'll miss you 20% of the time with Improved Defense, or still 15% if they attack AC. This difference is small enough that the feat is clearly not "absolutely necessary" as you claim.

I would expect that your actual problem is (1) being underleveled, (2) lacking magical items, (3) lacking a defender, or (4) tactics.

1, 2, and 4 aren't it. (3) is possibly it. We did have a fighter for a bit, but he wasn't as useful as you claim a defender would be. Honestly, the enemies hit us by just one often enough that improved defenses would actually be fairly significant. Weapon expertise seems less important, but would still be a fairly nice boost.

Hmm. I'll see what I can do about introducing a Warden next session though. Thanks for the tip anyway.

Oh, and we're halfway to level 14. Probably should have mentioned that.

[MeeposFire]

The penalty is actually the least of the defender ability. The threat of extra attacks is the main deterrent in most fighter builds. Of course if your fighters attacks were not scary then it is easier to ignore them unless you invest in ways to prevent attacks from hitting like shield push.

[NecroRebel]

A properly-played Defender can largely prevent one enemy from attacking anyone but the Defender at all, and the Defender themself should quite naturally have good defenses overall. Some players of that role can even prevent many enemies from effectively attacking, especially in the Paragon tier; those typically fight with a polearm of some variety, often a Glaive, and rely heavily on forced movement attacks that work with opportunity attacks to create a sizable zone that forces back those who attempt to move through it.

You also might not have a suitable Controller. Controllers are the second line of defense against enemy attacks; while they typically lack a good Defender's ability to completely remove an enemy's options, they can severely limit what the whole enemy group can do. A Slowed or Immobilized melee enemy is quite harmless just so long as your party is smart enough to move away from them every round, and a Dazed enemy is basically limited to charging for a basic attack if their target is out of their reach.



I suspect that the problem is a lack of a Defender combined with a lack of good tactics when you had a Defender. Fighters should be crazy sticky, to the extent that their target can't get away from them much at all.

[Mystic Muse]

Alright. Which type of defender would you guys suggest? I was thinking Warden, but you guys know better than I what's good.

[Kurald Galain]

Honestly, the enemies hit us by just one often enough that improved defenses would actually be fairly significant.
That may be the feeling you get, but mathematically this is impossible.


Weapon expertise seems less important, but would still be a fairly nice boost.
Most characters should be attacking more often than they're being attacked (and in some cases, much more often).


Alright. Which type of defender would you guys suggest? I was thinking Warden, but you guys know better than I what's good.
Primarily, a well-played one :smallbiggrin:

How about a shielding swordmage? Sure, the enemy can hit your allies, but he'll do very little damage.

[Mystic Muse]

Most characters should be attacking more often than they're being attacked (and in some cases, much more often).

That's kind of hard to do when we're constantly outnumbered. Recently, it's been between being outnumbered 3 to 1 and sometimes being outnumbered 6 to 1.




Primarily, a well-played one :smallbiggrin:

How about a shielding swordmage? Sure, the enemy can hit your allies, but he'll do very little damage.

This will be taken into consideration. And yes, I plan on playing them well.:smalltongue:

[Drachasor]

That may be the feeling you get, but mathematically this is impossible.

If the enemies have a 50% chance to hit you, then a +2 to AC will reduce incoming damage by 20% (50%*Damage to 40%*Damage), so it can make a big difference, actually.

Edit: Swordmages are fun, but they have a problem with the punch of their abilities at higher level. That's how it looked to me anyhow. In the game I ran, one of my players was a Swordmage, but we didn't get out of the Heroic Tier.

[Kurald Galain]

That's kind of hard to do when we're constantly outnumbered. Recently, it's been between being outnumbered 3 to 1 and sometimes being outnumbered 6 to 1.
With those numbers, I would first invest in a solid controller (preferably a wizard), and have as many characters as feasible pick up area attacks.

Wizards specialize in holding off half of the enemies while the party kills the other half. This does require good tactics though, a poorly played wizard doesn't help much.


If the enemies have a 50% chance to hit you, then a +2 to AC will reduce incoming damage by 20% (50%*Damage to 40%*Damage), so it can make a big difference, actually.
You're missing the point. Mathematically it's impossible that "the enemies hit us by just one often". They will hit you by just one exactly 5% of the time.

[Mystic Muse]

With those numbers, I would first invest in a solid controller (preferably a wizard), and have as many characters as feasible pick up area attacks.

Wizards specialize in holding off half of the enemies while the party kills the other half. This does require tactics though, a poorly played wizard doesn't help much.

I'm actually planning on retiring my current character and bringing in both a defender and a wizard. Another player played 2 characters before, and I specifically asked the DM about playing 2 characters last session and he said it would be fine.

[Drachasor]

You're missing the point. Mathematically it's impossible that "the enemies hit us by just one often". They will hit you by just one exactly 5% of the time.

Granted, but that doesn't mean a "small" increase in AC doesn't make a big difference.

[MeeposFire]

If mobs are a problem you might want a paladin. Paladins can mass mark using divine sanction powers and can punish all of them for ignoring you. If they are minions they have to attack you or be killed before they do anything.

Other options may be knights or cavaliers though those require more teamwork since you need to keep people adjacent to them but they can punish all the enemies attacking you. If you lack controllers I would not recommend them.

If you had more experience you could do a fighter paragon multiclass wizard for crazy attack penalties but I wouldn't recommend it unless you have a lot of experience in 4e.

[NecroRebel]

That's kind of hard to do when we're constantly outnumbered. Recently, it's been between being outnumbered 3 to 1 and sometimes being outnumbered 6 to 1.

Sounds like your DM is minion-heavy, then... Level-appropriate encounters with normal enemies should have roughly one enemy per PC, maybe somewhat more for tougher encounters. In that case, it's likely a problem with your Controller not being effective, either due to their own tactics or due to the DM's.

Minions are disproportionately dangerous for the xp value, since their attack bonuses are usually equal to a Soldier's of the same level and their damage is usually slightly above an equal-level Soldier's average, but there are 4 of them per equal-level Soldier. If your DM is using them a lot, they can be quite troubling.

If minions are the problem, a Swordmage would likely be a good choice for a Defender; they have a large number of AoE powers that can help clear the field.

[Meta]

That may be the feeling you get, but mathematically this is impossible.

While not what the OP is experiencing, most likely, it's certainly not impossible.

If a monster hits on a 16 and you take improved defenses in paragon, the same monster will only hit on an 18. Before 5 rolls on the ol 20 connected; now to 3.

Going from 25% to 15% hit rate: 60% of what the monster's accuracy would have been without ID. I would qualify that as significant.

Edit: Bah, swordsaged.

[Kurald Galain]

Minions are disproportionately dangerous for the xp value,
Unless you've got a controller - then they become disproportionately weak for their xp value :smallbiggrin:


While not what the OP is experiencing, most likely, it's certainly not impossible.
You're missing the point. Mathematically it's impossible that "the enemies hit us by just one often". They will hit you by just one exactly 5% of the time.

[Mystic Muse]

If you had more experience you could do a fighter paragon multiclass wizard for crazy attack penalties but I wouldn't recommend it unless you have a lot of experience in 4e.

Don't have nearly enough experience to do this effectively.

So, main suggestions so far are Paladin and Swordmage with Knights and Cavaliers as option.

[Drachasor]

You're missing the point. Mathematically it's impossible that "the enemies hit us by just one often". They will hit you by just one exactly 5% of the time.

Not if you are only counting the hits. If you just look at the hits then you can get hit by just one a LOT. In actual practice, I am sure they are remembering the hits a lot better than the misses.

[Surrealistik]

Polearm Fighters rape minions, besides being one of the very best Defender archetypes out there (and straight up broken if your DM rules that Polearm Gamble triggers off forced movement in the right party).

Also, while Expertise and Improved Defenses aren't strictly 'necessary', and you can technically get by without them, they are a factually a math fix to the game's broken scaling, and should be given for free.

[Mystic Muse]

You're missing the point. Mathematically it's impossible that "the enemies hit us by just one often". They will hit you by just one exactly 5% of the time.

Yes, because dice always end up on each of their sides an equal amount. Oh wait.:smalltongue:

Also, I didn't say "Often" which would imply it happened more than any other hit. I said "Often enough" which means that it has happened enough, that raising our defenses with that feat would have a noticeable effect.

[huttj509]

Yes, because dice always end up on each of their sides an equal amount. Oh wait.:smalltongue:

Also, I didn't say "Often" which would imply it happened more than any other hit. I said "Often enough" which means that it has happened enough, that raising our defenses with that feat would have a noticeable effect.

If you have good dice, they basically will.

That said, most RPG dice are not that good, due to artefacts of their construction/manufacture/material.

Not like "literally rolls 20 half the time", but biased decently towards a set of numbers.

[Mystic Muse]

If you have good dice, they basically will.



True, but from what I've heard, the good dice have perfectly straight, as opposed to rounded edges, and I rarely see those dice used. I doubt my DM even has any like that, and I know I don't because I like the way the round edged ones look better. Are the straight edged ones more popular than I expected?

[Coidzor]

You're missing the point. Mathematically it's impossible that "the enemies hit us by just one often". They will hit you by just one exactly 5% of the time.

Which has what to do with observed reality? If you had started out with the perception bias your insistence might make a bit more sense at least...

If the dice that the DM uses favor a certain range, then potentially moving out of that range can have an impact disproportionate to what the raw probability would suggest anyway.

[Leolo]

I really don't like to call the Expertise feats a math fix, because most of the calculations does not include all variables. While it is true that Monster Attacke & defenses scale better than those of Players this is neccessary. Because Players also get better ways to increase their defense and offense values as they level.

[Epinephrine]

You're missing the point. Mathematically it's impossible that "the enemies hit us by just one often". They will hit you by just one exactly 5% of the time.

"Of the times that they hit, they hit by just one" can happen much more than 5% of the time. That's probably the point, and is much more important.

[WickerNipple]

Sounds like you need both a Defender and a Controller really...

A Paragon tier Swordmage w/ Mark of Storm, Resounding Thunder, Arcane Admixture (Thunder on Sword Burst) and an item like Rushing Cleats gets to attack all enemies within burst 2 at-will and slide them two squares.

Adding Fighter MC, Shield Proficiency and Hindering Shield will now Slow all those in the Sword Burst.

Alternatively adding Warden MC, Heavy Blade Opportunity and Sudden Roots will let you use Sword Burst as an Opportunity Attack which then slows everything within the Sword Burst.

At 17 you pick up the encounter power Thundering Vortex which lets you do this in a burst 4 that also slides more and marks everything in the burst.

That character should easily solve both the "our defenders don't do much" and "there's way too many mobs".

[Surrealistik]

You should definitely go for the Polearm Fighter. Polearm Momentum + Polearm Gamble + Heavy Blade Expertise + Talenta Sharrash (for more accuracy)/Glaive or Halberd + Rushing Cleats + Footwork Lure or Cleave with Longhand Student. If you opt for Footwork Lure over Cleave, you may want something like Mark of Passage so you can end your movement non-adjacent to your target. As for your Paragon Path, Polearm Master is the obvious choice.

You also may want items and feats that improve the accuracy of your opportunity attacks. Blade Opportunist as an example, or Combat Reflexes as feats go. Helm of Opportunity, Bahamut's Protective Ward, Strikebacks, Lightning Reflex Gloves for items.



I really don't like to call the Expertise feats a math fix, because most of the calculations does not include all variables. While it is true that Monster Attacke & defenses scale better than those of Players this is neccessary. Because Players also get better ways to increase their defense and offense values as they level.

There are very few consistently accessible non-conditional boosts outside of the math fix feats or their specialized equivalents (Lightning/Superior Reflexes, Iron/Superior Will, etc...). So yes, it is appropriate. Your typical mobs will have 44 AC at 30. With a +6 weapon, even level PCs will normally have a 29-30 attack bonus (primary ability score of 26-28), requiring 13-14+ to hit (65-70% miss/30-35% hit). Even if you factor in +2 to the primary ability score from an Epic Destiny, that's still a 60-65% miss chance. Getting +3-4 to your attack roll so that your odds of a hit are about 50% with consistency to the point where this bonus is essentially non-conditional is difficult if not impossible for the majority of builds without the math fix feats.

[Shatteredtower]

If the system continued beyond level 30, you could call these feats math fixes. They'd make a difference 20% of the time at levels 31-40, increasing by 5% per additional 10 levels above 31st until you reach the insanity of them making a difference 105% of the time at levels 151-160.

But something that makes a difference 5% of the time at levels 1-10 should not be required, not even if the difference is 10% at levels 11-20 and 15% at levels 21-30. You think you're doing players a favour, but what you're really doing is taking away their ability to make a choice. It doesn't matter that you think it's a bad choice, even if you can demonstrate how it's not in their favour. If they want it, they'll take it. If they don't, they won't.

The end result is little more than the difference between having a fighter start with play with a 16 Strength and an axe instead of 18 and a sword. If a player does go the former route, then sure, emphasize how much ground the Expertise feat is going to have to cover now.

Take two strikers of 10th level. One has a primary ability score of 22, the other 18. The first uses a weapon with a +3 proficiency bonus, the second a +2 (and maybe it took a few levels to convince the player that using a chair as an improvised weapon should be saved for special occasions). Only the first took an Expertise feat for his main weapon. Thankfully, both have +2 weapons. We'll leave other adjustments out of the equation for now.

Now put them up against your completely average level 14 soldier, with its armor class of 30 and all other defenses at 26. Assuming they only take AC, the first player will hit his target only a roll of 13 or better, or 40% of the time. The second hits only on a roll of of 17 or better, or 20% of the time. If the pair have means of targetting Reflex instead at these same modifiers, their chance of hitting climbs to 60% and 40% respectively.

Now bump them up to 20th level, facing off against the average level 24 soldier. Their ability score modifiers have each increased by 1 and their weapon enhancements by 2. Now the first hits only a roll of 14 (or 10) or better, while the latter needs a 19 (or 15) or better. Take these two up to that big finale at level 30 against a level 34 soldier, where only the first of them takes an epic path granting a +2 bonus to the primary ability score. The first now has the same odds of hitting all defenses that he did back at 10th level against a 14th level opponent, while the second only hits AC on a roll of 20, and can only score a critical hit on that if he's got combat advantage. The other defenses would be hit only 25% of the time.

At no point was the difference between the attack modifier for these two players determined mainly by an Expertise feat. It only becomes the single biggest one at epic level, and barely by then. Now if you want to insist that the math demonstrates that a player character must take each and every one of the listed advantages selected by the first player (and more) as soon as possible, by all means--but are you going to force those onto the player too?

If we're going to "fix" the math, then give every weapon a +3 proficiency bonus. Tuck those other properties (such as reach and high critical) into feats or class options. Give every player a 20 in their primary ability score for free at level 1. Let the point buy and racial adjustments apply only to the other ability scores. Increase it by another +2 at epic tier with no regard to what epic path your player chooses.

Or don't. Just try to be consistent in this regard.

[Surrealistik]

Since my arguments have been more or less stated for me elsewhere, I feel it's better just to throw up some links:

http://www.robertjschwalb.com/2011/03/feats-do-we-need-them/

Yes, they're math fixes, and even if they're not, they're too powerful not to take at L11 and beyond. +10-15% is huge, especially for classes with strong secondary effects on hit like Wizards.

Further, it is important to keep in mind that it is extremely rare that PCs will face purely even level monsters. Almost without exception they will fight monsters 1-4 levels above them, which means there's an additional 5-20% miss chance.


If we're going to "fix" the math, then give every weapon a +3 proficiency bonus. Tuck those other properties (such as reach and high critical) into feats or class options. Give every player a 20 in their primary ability score for free at level 1. Let the point buy and racial adjustments apply only to the other ability scores. Increase it by another +2 at epic tier with no regard to what epic path your player chooses.

Complete hyperbole; honestly, to the point it's silly. These 'fixes' have little in common with the expertise and defense feats, and here's why: there is essentially nothing that can compete with the power of the latter options. As stated, they are so strong that they are feat taxes, even if they're not math fixes (which they are). +2 weapons make up for their lack of accuracy in a variety of ways. Epic Destinies that don't feature stat bumps usually have one or more compensatory strong features/powers to make up for it (though obviously there are poorly designed ones you wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole). Not maxing out your primary usually means you have access to game changing feats that grant you far more power in the long run (Polearm Cheese for example). In otherwords, there are legitimate tradeoffs. There is no legitimate tradeoff in contrast, for a single feat that gives you an unconditional +2-3 to all defenses and attack rolls.

[Kurald Galain]

Yes, they're math fixes, and even if they're not, they're too powerful not to take at L11 and beyond. +10-15% is huge, especially for classes with strong secondary effects on hit like Wizards.
I'd say that whether or not they're "math fixes" is academic; the point, however, is that every sensible build will have taken an expertise feat by level 11, and this is a mandatory choice that reduces character variance. (Yes, except for lazylords, of course).

The point is also that in heroic tier, these feats are nice but ultimately not necessary yet. So a DM who gives expertise for free at level 11 is improving character variance, whereas a DM who gives it at level 1 is simply being generous.

Also, while this clearly applies to expertise feats, it is less clear with regards to the Improved Defense feat. This is because the ID feat has several valid alternatives, which expertise does not. For example, a character with two or three Superior defense feats, or high temp HP generation, or perma-stealth, may simply not want ID. Its status as a "feat tax" is debatable, whereas that of expertise is clear-cut.

[Surrealistik]

The point is also that in heroic tier, these feats are nice but ultimately not necessary yet. So a DM who gives expertise for free at level 11 is improving character variance, whereas a DM who gives it at level 1 is simply being generous.

Expertise feats, _especially_ the new ones are easily amongst the very best feats for the Heroic tier; you will almost always want to take one ASAP, barring certain niche, class specific exceptions (Enlarge Spell, Backstabber, etc...). Nearly all have unconditional gold ratings for a reason. Even if they're not as blatant a feat tax as they are in Paragon+, they remain taxes nonetheless.


Also, while this clearly applies to expertise feats, it is less clear with regards to the Improved Defense feat. This is because the ID feat has several valid alternatives, which expertise does not. For example, a character with two or three Superior defense feats, or high temp HP generation, or perma-stealth, may simply not want ID. Its status as a "feat tax" is debatable, whereas that of expertise is clear-cut.

High, consistent THP generation is niche. Superior defense feats I group with Improved Defenses. Perma-stealth is a misnomer; unless you have a way of consistently moving after your Standard action attack and move to stealth (Kobold Shifty cheese for example), your position will be autoguessed. It by no means constitutes reliable protection from attacks; monster walks into your last known square wearing a trollface.jpg, you're no longer stealthed and you get attacked. Obviously AoEs ignore Stealth entirely.

[Shatteredtower]

+10-15% is huge...

The former is the difference between starting with an 18 and an axe vs. starting with a 20 and a sword. The extra 5% beyond that is nothing.

This isn't optimization. It's overcompensation.


Further, it is important to keep in mind that it is extremely rare that PCs will face purely even level monsters.

First of all, my examples were all of soldiers (monsters with higher than average AC) with a four level advantage on the characters facing them.

Second of all, both you're "extremely rare" and "almost without exception" claims about the levels players will fight are real examples of hyperbole. If they are nearly always fighting higher level monsters, it is only because that is what the DM and players want.

In other words, that's their choice. If their choice requires maximum optimization all the time, every time, for them to have any hope of success on a regular basis, it is only because they chose that.

Basing requirements on the choice sets of the overcompensating subset of players is very poor design when you play a game in which winning is nothing.


+Complete hyperbole; honestly, to the point it's silly.

That's not what hyperbole means. I've demonstrated that the accumulation of small advantages overall outweighs the benefit of one feat. Each one of them equals or exceeds that benefit within the heroic tier. One continues to match it into paragon, and the others are only differences of 5%.


These 'fixes' have little in common with the expertise and defense feats, and here's why: there is essentially nothing that can compete with the power of the latter options.

A four point difference in ability scores falls only 5% behind the difference you get from Expertise at 30th level. Five per cent. If that's the difference between success and failure, you clearly aren't cut out for this game.

I'm going to make this simple for you, however. If you don't feel you've played the game properly unless can routinely take on encounters rated four levels above you with at least even chance of success on every attack, then you should take every single advantage you can get your hands on.

If, however, you can enjoy playing a gnome barbarian or an orc wizard and are perfectly content with ending your campaign with a fight against an even level encounter, you aren't missing out on anything that the guys who face a team-up of Ogremoch and Orcus get.

Bigger numbers do not make better encounters. Reliance on them just limits the choices available to you. It's not hard to build yourself up to face higher level opponents--if all you want to do is face higher level opponents.

Sadly, some players actually think that's the entire point of the game. Pity.

[Mystic Muse]

This is Scales of War. The final boss of the campaign is Tiamat. Additionally, the DM is modifying her to have 8 heads instead of 5.

[Shatteredtower]

This is Scales of War. The final boss of the campaign is Tiamat. Additionally, the DM is modifying her to have 8 heads instead of 5.

You say that like you can't play D&D if you don't play Scales of War, and in its unmodified state. Really, so what? At least the guy who bought a car to overcompensate for something else has a car to show for it.

[Surrealistik]

The former is the difference between starting with an 18 and an axe vs. starting with a 20 and a sword. The extra 5% beyond that is nothing.

In otherwords, the difference is substantial.


First of all, my examples were all of soldiers (monsters with higher than average AC) with a four level advantage on the characters facing them.

Looking at your examples.

L14 Soldier AC is 30.

The L10, +3 proficiency, 22 stat user, with +2 enhancement should have a +16 to hit: 5 level + 2 enhancement + 3 proficency +6 ability. A 14 (not 13) is required to hit for a hit chance of 35%, miss of 65%. Pretty horrible. The 18 score axe user (why he has an 18, I don't understand, extremely suboptimal) indeed hits on a 17+.

They will rarely if ever target NAD since they're using weapon attacks, some niche cases excepted. In the event of implement attacks, they will do better by +10% overall (normally it's a saw off, but since this is a Soldier, his AC drops by 2 more than normal). Still sub 50%. Miss chances become more pronounced as levels accrue.

At 20 versus an L24 Soldier the figure for the 'high accuracy' build is 10 level + 7 primary + 4 enhancement + 3 proficiency or 24 vs 40 AC; 16+ needed to hit. Ouch. The axe wielder? 19+ to hit (assuming his primary modifier continues to be 4 points below the sword wielder's). Horrible. Even if we made that a much more reasonable and common CL+2, 14+ and 17+ to hit, we're right back where we started at L10 with an CL+4 soldier! In the event of non-soldiers for CL+2, 12+ and 15+. This should pretty clearly demonstrate how the scaling is broken. Initially the effects aren't notable, but over time they become significant.

At 30 versus an L34 Soldier the figure for the 'high accuracy' build is 15 level + 9 primary + 6 enhancement + 3 proficiency or 33 vs 50 AC; 17+ needed to hit. The poor axe man needs a 20.


Second of all, both you're "extremely rare" and "almost without exception" claims about the levels players will fight are real examples of hyperbole. If they are nearly always fighting higher level monsters, it is only because that is what the DM and players want.

In other words, that's their choice. If their choice requires maximum optimization all the time, every time, for them to have any hope of success on a regular basis, it is only because they chose that.


No, it is actually anything but hyperbole; consider the majority of official modules. CL+1-4 encounters _are the norm_.


That's not what hyperbole means. I've demonstrated that the accumulation of small advantages overall outweighs the benefit of one feat. Each one of them equals or exceeds that benefit within the heroic tier. One continues to match it into paragon, and the others are only differences of 5%.

Hyperbole as in you are exaggerating the similarities and comparability between Expertise and your 'fixes' to the point of silliness. I have shown that the parallels you are attempting to draw are completely inapplicable because of the sheer, indisputable power of Expertise vs its minimal opportunity cost as contrasted with 'fixes' you suggest as being 'consistent'. What you've really demonstrated is why a low accuracy weapon with a sub-maximal primary ability is an exceedingly poor choice, particularly given lack of the Expertise feat.


A four point difference in ability scores falls only 5% behind the difference you get from Expertise at 30th level. Five per cent...

As mentioned above, official campaigns routinely feature CL+1 to 4 encounters. Very rarely are even level encounters used, first off.

Second, yes, a likely suboptimal, low accuracy build as contrasted with an accuracy optimized build features a slightly smaller accuracy spread as compared to that between two identical characters, one with Expertise level 21+; I should hope so. What's your point precisely? The hit chance spread between an accuracy optimized character, and the low accuracy character is substantial. Tacking on another +5% results in an even more substantial difference.

[Leolo]

There are very few consistently accessible non-conditional boosts outside of the math fix feats or their specialized equivalents (Lightning/Superior Reflexes, Iron/Superior Will, etc...). So yes, it is appropriate. Your typical mobs will have 44 AC at 30. With a +6 weapon, even level PCs will normally have a 29-30 attack bonus (primary ability score of 26-28), requiring 13-14+ to hit (65-70% miss/30-35% hit). Even if you factor in +2 to the primary ability score from an Epic Destiny, that's still a 60-65% miss chance. Getting +3-4 to your attack roll so that your odds of a hit are about 50% with consistency to the point where this bonus is essentially non-conditional is difficult if not impossible for the majority of builds without the math fix feats.

Well, and this is exactly the point. There are so much conditional boosts to your attacks that you will have every round at least one on higher levels. If it is the possibility to have combat advantage, to attack the lowest defense, to have additional attacks or to reroll them, to add some bonus to your attack....

Such things are part of the game, and as higher level the characters are as more capable they become using such things.

Just comparing the to hit scales and the defenses of the monsters is a milkmaidens calculation that simple does not calculates anything in that could be the reason why higher level monsters need better defenses.

[Surrealistik]

Well, and this is exactly the point. There are so much conditional boosts to your attacks that you will have every round at least one on higher levels. If it is the possibility to have combat advantage, to attack the lowest defense, to have additional attacks or to reroll them, to add some bonus to your attack....

Such things are part of the game, and as higher level the characters are as more capable they become using such things.

Just comparing the to hit scales and the defenses of the monsters is a milkmaidens calculation that simple does not calculates anything in that could be the reason why higher level monsters need better defenses.

Prove it. Prove that conditional bonuses are reliable and standard to the point that they should be factored into the scaling on average (no, niche/cheese builds don't count), not to mention that this is even level. Generally it's much more realistic to assume CL+2.

Also, I think from a game design perspective, it makes much more sense to assume that conditionals should allow for better than normal rather than baseline performance.

[Leolo]

They wouldn't be conditional if they are reliable. But that does not mean such things does not exist. And there are to many of such things to "prove" something. Every build and every group has it's own options to accomplish such. The talk about math fixes is nice and sounds good as long as you do compare only 2 numbers at higher and lower levels.

But that has nothing to do with the real game. To just show one small example: The lowest defense is often about 4 points lower than the best. Combat advantage alone brings another +2, to not calculate things into that your Leader might grant.

If it is good to calculate such benefits in and use them in the monster scaling? I would say yes, because they are not rare but very common at higher levels. You will nearly always use them, either by your own options or those of your group members. If the monster defenses wouldn't grow faster as the players "normal" to hit bonus, than they wouldn't be a risk at all.

[Surrealistik]

They wouldn't be conditional if they are reliable. But that does not mean such things does not exist. And there are to many of such things to "prove" something. Every build and every group has it's own options to accomplish such. The talk about math fixes is nice and sounds good as long as you do compare only 2 numbers at higher and lower levels.

"To the point that they should be factored into the scaling."

I have no doubt that an optimized party will score round after round conditional bonuses; in fact, that's probably the least it will do. Whether your _average_ party will is another matter entirely, and that needs to be shown.


But that has nothing to do with the real game. To just show one small example: The lowest defense is often about 4 points lower than the best. Combat advantage alone brings another +2, to not calculate things into that your Leader might grant.

It's not the difference between highest and lowest that's important, it's the difference between baseline and lowest.


If it is good to calculate such benefits in and use them in the monster scaling? I would say yes, because they are not rare but very common at higher levels. You will nearly always use them, either by your own options or those of your group members. If the monster defenses wouldn't grow faster as the players "normal" to hit bonus, than they wouldn't be a risk at all.

Unless the data suggests that an average party will manage to score enough round after round situational bonuses to the point where a better than 50% hit rate is achieved virtually all the time against a CL+1-2 opponent (as this is the most common encounter level in official material), then no, it probably should not be factored into scaling.

[MeeposFire]

Thinking like that leads to some bad situations.

1) What was once a bonus turns into part of the basic math. For instance that bonus your warlord gives you put you ahead of the curve at level 1 but fails to be a bonus later in the game and is needed to get to base math.

2) This thinking requires certain classes using certain powers. Not every party should have to use warlords and the few other classes that can reliably give you attack bonuses and even if you use those classes you should not be forced to only use powers that grant attack bonuses to fix the math. That is far less diverse than the game should be. The game should work at the basic level with any combo of classes and powers. With the expertise feats this mostly holds true without them you need to employ certain classes with certain powers to make up the distance just to get back to par.

3) Many attack bonuses granted by powers require hits to work so if you need the accuracy boost to enable the accuracy boost you are once again falling behind.

[Mystic Muse]

Hmm. Maybe I could at least convince my DM to give our cleric player improved defenses and/or an expertise feat for free if he wants them. He's not nearly as optimized as me or the other player.

Polearm fighter sounds kinda cool. I wish the mount based Paladin hadn't been errata'd out of existence though.

[Leolo]

To bring an example:

From level 1 to 15 the monster defenses raises by 14, and the attack bonus of the players raises by about 12. (7 level, 2 ability score increase, +3 magic equipment)

(In fact you could have a +4 better weapon until then, but let's stay normally equipped)

That's the calculation normally given when people are talking about a math error in the game.

But the point is: a +2 difference is really small. Combat advantage will gave you it all alone. A cleric can gave it to you all day with the right power. And without the right power? Well, every additional power gaves the players more options. It does not really matter if it is an attack bonus or some other benefit.

I have played in many games on those levels from 12-20, and i have never seen any player who has really hit worse on his level 16 than he has hit his opponents on level 1. Most of the time just attacking the right defense let's you hit better.

You should note that i am not saying the expertise feats would be a waste. They are not, they are good feats and i think most players will choose them at one point of their characters career. But if we are talking about math fixes we should use all variables for the math, and no one could deny that higher level characters have better options than lower level characters. It simple has nothing to do with mathematics if we ignore all other factors.

And this is not a question of optimized characters. If you look at the optimization boards optimized characters hit with nearly every strike. We are just talking about the normal characters that also gain additional options that let them either hit better, let others hit better or compensate this by other benefits.

[Leolo]

2) This thinking requires certain classes using certain powers. Not every party should have to use warlords and the few other classes that can reliably give you attack bonuses and even if you use those classes you should not be forced to only use powers that grant attack bonuses to fix the math. That is far less diverse than the game should be. The game should work at the basic level with any combo of classes and powers. With the expertise feats this mostly holds true without them you need to employ certain classes with certain powers to make up the distance just to get back to par.


Attack benefits from a leader are just one way to compensate the better monster defenses, and there are many others, too.

But that's not the point, the game math has to calculate the usual case, and this would be: Your party has a leader. Otherwise the math would be really broken as soon as those normal case occurs.

Same is true for the other ways to increase your chance to hit. The game has to include them into the calculations. And that's the reason why monster defenses raises faster than the player characters to hit bonus.

[NecroRebel]

To bring an example:

From level 1 to 15 the monster defenses raises by 14, and the attack bonus of the players raises by about 12. (7 level, 2 ability score increase, +3 magic equipment)

(In fact you could have a +4 better weapon until then, but let's stay normally equipped)

That's the calculation normally given when people are talking about a math error in the game.

But the point is: a +2 difference is really small. Combat advantage will gave you it all alone. A cleric can gave it to you all day with the right power. And without the right power? Well, every additional power gaves the players more options. It does not really matter if it is an attack bonus or some other benefit.

The problem is that the vast majority of the things that are easily available for an attack boost at level 15, like combat advantage and (to a certain degree) leaders' powers, are also available at level 1. Saying that use of those things can make up for the actual loss in chance to hit and chance to avoid enemy attacks isn't a very useful claim, because the difference between attack bonuses with those advantages exists at levels 1 and every level beyond.

Also? +2 to attack rolls and defenses isn't that insignificant. When you're running with a 50-80% chance to hit or avoid attacks at level 1 and you're talking about a 10% reduction either way, that's a 1/8-1/5 reduction in the damage you deal and a similar increase in the damage you take. Are you honestly saying that you believe that going from a 65% chance to hit at level 1 to a 55% chance to hit at level 15 isn't a significant change in a character's effectiveness? That seems simply wrong to me.

Finally, saying, "well, you can just target the enemy's weakest defense" is completely invalid because, again, that's something you can do at every level. The fact that you're significantly less likely to hit the enemy, even on their weakest defense, as you level up is a significant problem regardless of all other concerns, and the possibility of better powers when you do hit doesn't entirely compensate for that. You need strictly better tactics to make up for it, which, admittedly, many powers assist with, but, again, you can use better tactics at level 1 if you're capable of them at all, so, again, why are we penalizing people for leveling up with weaker relative bonuses?

[Leolo]

That's true, many of the things that grant you a better chance to hit can be used at level 1, too.

But how often?

At level 1 you might get +1 to hit and damage with fire powers. At level 15 all your attacks might be fire powers and ignore damage resistance and immunity.
At level 1 you might get combat advantage. At level 15 your leader might give the whole group combat advantage.
At level 1 you might attack the weakest defense with one of your attacks if you have the right opponent. At level 15 you might change the defense you attack by an item, or simple have more combat options so you can choose the right.


Are you honestly saying that you believe that going from a 65% chance to hit at level 1 to a 55% chance to hit at level 15 isn't a significant change in a character's effectiveness? That seems simply wrong to me.

No i believe that including all benefits and with a normal build and played character in a normal build group you will have about the same chance to hit than at level 1.

But that wasn't really my point. My point was that many people talk about a math fixed based on an incomplete calculation. The calculation above, where you see that 12 is a smaller number than 14 is incomplete. It has nothing to do with the real gameplay, it is just what you get if you ignore some variables.

To bring a similar (milkmaiden) calculation:


Given a level 1 character does about 1d8+5 damage with his at will at level 1. He will need about 4 hits to kill a monster with 35 HP. But at higher levels the monster might have 150 HP. The character gains no level bonus to his damage, so his damage will increase just by his ability modifier increase (say +2) and his magic sword (say +3). So he is doing 1d8+10 damage now, and will need over ten hits!

The math is incorrect!

It is the same pattern. By focussing on a certain part of the game and ignoring all other options you come to a calculation that has no errors in itself - but makes a false assumption.

If you would now say: "But the players will have more options to increase their damage, like feats, items and powers" i could even use your argument and say: Yes but they have the same options at level 1!

It would be true - but nevertheless it wouldn't really describe the reality in game. And you could use my argument and say that the options the players have at level 15 are better than those at level 1. That they can be used more often. And you would be right, same as i am right if i say the same thing.

In fact no one can say if the additional options the players get from 1 to 15 are worth a +2 bonus. Or more. Or less. WotC does not know it, too - they seem to simple appraise it. And it depends on the build. But even if i don't know if the numbers are always right i would still say: The monster defenses have to raise faster than the players offenses, to compensate the additional options the players get.

[turkishproverb]

"To the point that they should be factored into the scaling."

I have no doubt that an optimized party will score round after round conditional bonuses; in fact, that's probably the least it will do. Whether your _average_ party will is another matter entirely, and that needs to be shown.


Heh. And they said 4e would put an end to such comments. :smallamused:

I'm not a big 4th Edition player, but I can say in groups around me these are widely considered a bit of a feat Tax.

[Kurald Galain]

I'm not a big 4th Edition player, but I can say in groups around me these are widely considered a bit of a feat Tax.

There was a discussion about feat taxes recently on the WOTC forum. While the two most popular opinions were "Expertise only" and "Expertise + Improved Defenses", there were also comments in the full range from "there are no feat taxes" to a list of up to a dozen feats that were apparently all considered a tax.

YMMV.

(edit) actually, it would be interesting to hear from somebody who's played epic tier before the PHB2 was printed.

[Leolo]

(edit) actually, it would be interesting to hear from somebody who's played epic tier before the PHB2 was printed.

If level 22 counts i could claim this. Though i do not know if this can be helpfull, as this was only a testing round for epic levels. At this time we haven't had some of the other erratas. Like the errata that avoid the cleric to grant attacks with absurd high combat modifiers or things like the save modifier abuse erratas.

The general statement of me regarding the topic might be still the same: You will feel other modifiers more than the expertise feats. And the feats does not really changed the game for me.

But i don't think that this (short) experience without the PHB2 was really enough to say something that can be true in general and not only for our game at this time.

If you want a example from "PHB1 Only" times: The first Orcus killer build was based on a ranger attack that continues until you fail an attack - and the ability to never fail an attack. That was an optimized build, but it still shows how many options where already available from the start to increase to hit chance.

[Surrealistik]

Again Leolo, you have not demonstrated whether, for the average party, conditional bonuses are high and are applied consistently enough to actually compensate for hit-rate decay.

You can talk about milkmaiden calculations all you like, but you are not showing your work. If you want to assert that those calculations are incomplete, and that the gap is and should be bridged by conditional bonuses, prove it.

Perhaps the simplest way to demonstrate that your assumption is wrong is to compare L1 and L30 hit rates.

We start with +8 vs 15 AC. 70% chance to hit even level with a +3 prof weapon (6 or lower misses), 60% chance to hit CL+2. This declines to 50% at 30 with a +3 prof weapon to hit an even level opponent or 40% to hit CL+2. Even if we assume a +2 'conditional bonus' at L30, it's still 60/50 vs 70/60.

[Kurald Galain]

Surr, you're making way too big a deal out of small variations in percentages.

[MeeposFire]

Attack benefits from a leader are just one way to compensate the better monster defenses, and there are many others, too.

But that's not the point, the game math has to calculate the usual case, and this would be: Your party has a leader. Otherwise the math would be really broken as soon as those normal case occurs.

Same is true for the other ways to increase your chance to hit. The game has to include them into the calculations. And that's the reason why monster defenses raises faster than the player characters to hit bonus.

Most groups will have a leader (almost all), but they may not have attack boosting powers. The idea that the game assumes that a leader will give you attack bonuses to make up the accuracy loss is not born out in the power analysis. If this was the case it would need to be mandatory for leaders to grant attack bonuses since in your opinion they are part of the basic math. Considering it is easy to make a leader with little to no attack bonus granting powers basing the progression on using those bonuses is frankly foolish.

From what I recall from pre PHB2 epic optimization involved emphasizing and optimizing miss effects. Scimitar dance and the hammer feat used to be among the best feats in the game for damage since you would miss that often. After PHB 2 those feats disappeared from the optimization scene. I think that is telling.

[Tankadin]

Surr, you're making way too big a deal out of small variations in percentages.

I don't know, the mindset always reminded me of the DPS math over at places like Elitist Jerks for World of Warcraft, where +Hit was the most valuable stat a damage dealer (with some very rare exceptions) could get until they reached the hit cap, at which point any additional +Hit was taking away from either +Damage or +Crit Chance. In that sense, getting your striker to be able to hit on a 3 instead of a 4 is more valuable than an additional point of damage per hit.

I always thought of stuff like expertise or magical items in relative rather than absolute terms. On a d20, sure, +1 only represents a 5% increase to my hit rate. But if I'm hitting on a 6 and get a +1 so I now hit on a 5 I cut down my miss chance by 20%. Maybe that's part of the fallacious mindset that overvalues expertise. But that's what is going on in my head whenever this comes up.

[NecroRebel]

That's true, many of the things that grant you a better chance to hit can be used at level 1, too.

But how often?

The main ones, at every level, are combat advantage and proper defense targeting. At level 1, you'll get the former most of the time, because combat advantage is easy to get, and the latter either none of the time or practically all of the time, depending on whether you have an at-will that targets the weakest defense. That, in turn, largely depends on whether you're playing a meleer or not; they tend to target AC the most, while ranged attackers target other defenses. At higher levels, the chances to exploit both go up to "practically all the time," but doesn't actually make up for the drop in attack bonuses before you apply those bonuses.


It is the same pattern. By focussing on a certain part of the game and ignoring all other options you come to a calculation that has no errors in itself - but makes a false assumption.

If you would now say: "But the players will have more options to increase their damage, like feats, items and powers" i could even use your argument and say: Yes but they have the same options at level 1!

It would be true - but nevertheless it wouldn't really describe the reality in game. And you could use my argument and say that the options the players have at level 15 are better than those at level 1. That they can be used more often. And you would be right, same as i am right if i say the same thing.

Trouble is, players don't have the same options at level 1 as at level 15 in terms of damage. At level 1, you'll almost immediately devolve to using at-will powers, but at level 15 the battle will be half over before people stop using higher-damage encounter powers. The comparison to attack bonuses isn't applicable because the main attack bonuses (again, combat advantage and targeting the right defense) are as available, without much if any cost, at level 1. The costs of many damage boosters are also too high to take at level 1, so they actually aren't available - this includes things like magic weapons, obviously, but also paragon-tier feats and, quite naturally, higher-level encounter attack powers.

Not to mention that average damage per round has to take into account to-hit chances, so despite higher damage per attack, your damage per round doesn't increase as much as it possibly should. It absolutely does take significantly longer to kill a paragon-tier monster as a heroic-tier monster, and the time a battle takes only increases as levels go up. That last may not be a problem; it gives more chances to show off your awesome higher-level powers if a battle lasts long enough to use them. The fact that your awesome higher-level powers are increasingly likely to not do anything is a problem, however.


In fact no one can say if the additional options the players get from 1 to 15 are worth a +2 bonus. Or more. Or less. WotC does not know it, too - they seem to simple appraise it. And it depends on the build. But even if i don't know if the numbers are always right i would still say: The monster defenses have to raise faster than the players offenses, to compensate the additional options the players get.

True enough, except that monster defenses include HP which more than outstrips the additional players options. Even if monster defenses less HP and player attack bonuses increased at parity, the higher HP they get would still make battles last long enough to use most things. Regardless, you're right when you say that no one can definitively say that the lack of expertise feats wasn't impossible to compensate for prior to their introduction.

[its_all_ogre]

we are playing through scales of war and it has a reasonably high kill rate in my group.
the area you're fighting through though created a walk through for my pcs, a particular boss monster destroyed the party in two separate fights. first time they all managed to flee with their lives, second time 2 of them died and one narrowly escaped.

we are now level 22.
otherwise a decent defender and maybe a controller would work plenty where you are now (i assume you're fighting tons of githyanki?) but later the minion hordes stop when suddenly the controller will need to be useful against non-minions too.
i think controller is the hardest role to play well.

let the hair splitting-math-based arguments continue :smalltongue:

[Leolo]

We start with +8 vs 15 AC. 70% chance to hit even level with a +3 prof weapon (6 or lower misses), 60% chance to hit CL+2. This declines to 50% at 30 with a +3 prof weapon to hit an even level opponent or 40% to hit CL+2. Even if we assume a +2 'conditional bonus' at L30, it's still 60/50 vs 70/60.

Until level 30 we are talking about many options for rerolls, additional attacks and many ways to increase your attack rolls.

Or powers that let someone simple automatically hit. Not speaking of ways to lower defenses.

And let's look at your calculation: The monster defenses raises by 29 over those levels. The player attack will raise by 6 (magic weapon) + 15 (Level) + 4 or 5 (ability increase). That's without any feat and your calculation is already wrong if your epic destiny grants you another +2 to one score. Like many do.

If you have a simple feat that grants you a +1 to attacks with a specific keyword and the ability to use this keyword always (possible with only phb ressources) we would be talking about only a +2 difference. You should note that the expertise feats would grant you +3 to your attacks until then - so with them you would already have a higher attack chance than at level 1 without even using one of the additional options your last 30 levels grant you or your allies. Without even one conditional bonus. And those are just simple, common ways to increase your attack bonus. There are much more. And those are fix bonuses, not conditional bonuses.

But assume we would really have those difference of 10% or -2 to the attack rolls. Are those conditional bonuses higher than +2? Sure. And useable more often than once per round at those levels, because you have so many of them. You'll add 1d6 from this item, then 1d6 from this ability, gain a attack bonus from your leader, gain a attack bonus from a feat, the next round one from your prestige class or some other action...

And if you don't you will get other benefits. For example additional attacks, that are just another way to increase the chance that you hit during the round. And you will still have options to lower the monsters defenses or attack a lower defense. And have those options more regulary than at level 1.

The point is not that this is possible, or the question if an average group will use those options. There is no average group, every group is unique. The point is that people claim the attack calculation to be false by a calculation that ignores such options.

[Leolo]

Most groups will have a leader (almost all), but they may not have attack boosting powers. The idea that the game assumes that a leader will give you attack bonuses to make up the accuracy loss is not born out in the power analysis. If this was the case it would need to be mandatory for leaders to grant attack bonuses since in your opinion they are part of the basic math. Considering it is easy to make a leader with little to no attack bonus granting powers basing the progression on using those bonuses is frankly foolish.


If they do not grant attack bonuses they grant other benefits. Maybe additional attacks? Rerolls? Extra damage? Maybe they lower defenses? Grant you better defenses so you can fight longer and hit more?

It's all the same, a way to increase the players effectivness. And of course every leader has some powers that boost the allies attacks.

[Shatteredtower]

In otherwords, the difference is substantial.

If the difference between assured failure and a chance of success is 1 in 6, it would be. That's not the case.

{{scrubbed}}


No, it is actually anything but hyperbole; consider the majority of official modules. CL+1-4 encounters _are the norm_.
If the modules trump the guidelines provided by the core books, then you've forgotten to include Game Day and Encounters material in your equations.

[Surrealistik]

The point is not that this is possible, or the question if an average group will use those options. There is no average group, every group is unique. The point is that people claim the attack calculation to be false by a calculation that ignores such options.

The point is that it is an incredibly bold claim to assume that by L30 your average party will be able to consistently pull down an effective +3-4 or better conditional bonus (depending on ED, assuming +3 prof AND primary stat maxing which will not describe many characters by L30) to hit turn after turn in order to equalize with hit rates at L1. Unless there's proof that yes, this is indeed the norm, then no, I think it's safe to categorically reject the notion of hit rate decay being 'just as planned'.


If the difference between assured failure and a chance of success is 1 in 6, it would be. That's not the case.

A 10% differential is significant. 15% differential is yet even more significant. Furthermore, the significance of even smaller percentiles compounds with the magnitude of the effect on hit.


If the modules trump the guidelines provided by the core books, then you've forgotten to include Game Day and Encounters material in your equations.

Actually I believe the core books define an even level encounter as being easy, not moderate or baseline difficult.

Also, Game Day and Encounters material both feature CL +1-4 far more commonly than CL+0.

[The J Pizzel]

Yeah....

I can't contribute to all this math and percentages discussion, but I can tell the OP that I played a level 12 Shielding Swordmage in a 2 session 'one-shot' campaign and had an absolute blast. He was by far the most fun defender I've played. What makes him fun, to me at least, is that you dont' just stand there and take a beating. You mark a bad guy, then fight another one (or the same one if you choose). My DM got so tired of hearing this..

DM: Alright...Player A you take 25 fire damage.
Me: No he doesn't. I had him marked. The damage is reduced by 16. He only takes 9 damage.
Player A: YES! Still alive!
DM: Damn...

And the whole time that was happening, I was off fighting a whole other bad guy.

In fact, the DM is about to start running Scales of War and I'm playing the same thing.

Hope that helps.

[Leolo]

The point is that it is an incredibly bold claim to assume that by L30 your average party will be able to consistently pull down an effective +3-4 or better conditional bonus (depending on ED, assuming +3 prof AND primary stat maxing which will not describe many characters by L30) to hit turn after turn in order to equalize with hit rates at L1. U

Wait, your argument is that if you do not put your ability increases into your main stat and use a worse weapon than at lvl 1 you will hit worse?

And to do otherwise would not describe many characters? That's weird. And why exactly are you continuely ignoring that there are other options to increase the hit rate, even static options? There are so many character builds that hit on very low numbers, even without conditional bonuses.

Just because there are many options to increase to hit rate. The expertise feats are one way to do this, in fact they are (at higher levels) the best way to do this and still a good way at heroic tier. But not the only way. There where already chars that hit everything on a 2 before expertise feats where even existing.

Monster defenses has to raise faster. They have to compensate the additional options the players get, otherwise the game would get to easy.

[Mystic Muse]

Decided to go with an Aegis of Shielding Swordmage for the defender. It looks quite fun.

DM: "Ouch, 17 damage"

Me: "Actually, I have the aegis of shielding up which can prevent 19 damage. He's unaffected"

DM:.....

[Sir Homeslice]

Decided to go with an Aegis of Shielding Swordmage for the defender. It looks quite fun.

DM: "Ouch, 17 damage"

Me: "Actually, I have the aegis of shielding up which can prevent 19 damage. He's unaffected"

DM:.....

Non-damage effects still happen.

[lesser_minion]

Actually I believe the core books define an even level encounter as being easy, not moderate or baseline difficult.

Haven't been obsessively checking the errata, but here's the guideline as printed:


An easy encounter is one or two levels lower than the party level.

A standard encounter is of the party's level, or one level higher.

A hard encounter is two to four levels higher than the party's level.

The table on the next page assigns a different encounter budget to parties of different sizes, and the encounter templates note that:


If you have three or four players, you can also use the easy encounters as standard encounters, and the standard encounters as hard encounters. Likewise, if you have six or seven players, use the hard encounters as standard encounters and the standard encounters as easy ones.

Treasure can be calculated at up to four levels above the party's level, although I don't particularly agree with the rationale for that.


If the enemies have a 50% chance to hit you, then a +2 to AC will reduce incoming damage by 20% (50%*Damage to 40%*Damage), so it can make a big difference, actually.

No. Your maths isn't wrong, but your statistics are well off. You've started with a meaningful and useful figure and converted it to a meaningless and misleading percentage.

How likely you already are to be hit doesn't make any difference to the value of a +2 bonus to AC -- it's already an absolute figure. It tells you that you can expect one fewer hit from every 10 attacks directed at you. That's its value -- "20% less damage" is completely meaningless.

[Surrealistik]

Wait, your argument is that if you do not put your ability increases into your main stat and use a worse weapon than at lvl 1 you will hit worse?

And to do otherwise would not describe many characters? That's weird. And why exactly are you continuely ignoring that there are other options to increase the hit rate, even static options? There are so many character builds that hit on very low numbers, even without conditional bonuses.

Just because there are many options to increase to hit rate. The expertise feats are one way to do this, in fact they are (at higher levels) the best way to do this and still a good way at heroic tier. But not the only way. There where already chars that hit everything on a 2 before expertise feats where even existing.

Monster defenses has to raise faster. They have to compensate the additional options the players get, otherwise the game would get to easy.

No. Quite contrary to your willful misreading/understanding, my arguments are that:

A: Even when a character chooses to maximize accuracy, there will be notable gap in hit rates of a 3-4 point differential.

B: Many if not most characters, will not (or even cannot depending on the build) choose to maximize accuracy at every step; in otherwords it's a distinct possibility that the accuracy of your average character decays even further
by the time it reaches 30.

C: You have in no way proven that these differentials are eliminated on a round after round basis by conditional benefits for your average party by Epic.



An easy encounter is one or two levels lower than the party level.

A standard encounter is of the party's level, or one level higher.

A hard encounter is two to four levels higher than the party's level.

Honestly they could have fooled me given the CLs of official material. CL+1 I've seen often along with CL+2. CL+0 is uncommon to rare. I don't think I've ever seen CL-1 or 2.

[Drachasor]

No. Your maths isn't wrong, but your statistics are well off. You've started with a meaningful and useful figure and converted it to a meaningless and misleading percentage.

How likely you already are to be hit doesn't make any difference to the value of a +2 bonus to AC -- it's already an absolute figure. It tells you that you can expect one fewer hit from every 10 attacks directed at you. That's its value -- "20% less damage" is completely meaningless.

+2 AC if the enemy needs 2 to hit you is a LOT different from +2 AC if the enemy needs a natural 18 to hit you. The effectiveness of an AC bonus is highly dependent on how hard you are already to hit. The fact that AC is measured on a linear scale is extremely misleading, because the effects of changing it are not linear at all.

Consider, a +2 AC bonus if the enemy needs an 11 or better to hit you (before the bonus) decreases expected damage by 20%. Another +2 bonus on top of that will decrease the remaining damage you take by 25%. Another +2 will reduce the remaining damage by 33%. Then 50%, then 100% (ok, actually 50% again since 20s always hit and I AM ignoring crits..minor issue). This isn't some mathematical wizardry either. Those later increases will dramatically effect how long you can stay active in a fight.

If initially you could survive for 5 rounds (on average), then a +2 AC bonus lets you survive for 6 (falling on the 7th). Another +2 on top of that lets you survive for nearly 9. Another +2 on top of that is almost 13. The increase in survival is not at all linear, despite the AC increasing at a linear rate.

Monsters of course benefit the same way.

[Kurald Galain]

+2 AC if the enemy needs 2 to hit you is a LOT different from +2 AC if the enemy needs a natural 18 to hit you.
No, Minion is correct. A +2 AC bonus will help you exactly one out of ten attacks on AC, regardless of how high your AC actually is.

This is because the way 4E is designed, the extreme situations should never occur in gameplay. For example, in a normal game, to-hit chance will never go above 90% or below 10%. Furthermore, the average combat lasts four rounds, not thirteen. That makes these examples academic: they're theoretically correct, but practically irrelevant.

[Drachasor]

No, Minion is correct. A +2 AC bonus will help you exactly one out of ten attacks on AC, regardless of how high your AC actually is.

This is because the way 4E is designed, the extreme situations should never occur in gameplay. For example, in a normal game, to-hit chance will never go above 90% or below 10%. Furthermore, the average combat lasts four rounds, not thirteen. That makes these examples academic: they're theoretically correct, but practically irrelevant.

I never said she was wrong about that first statement, just horribly wrong about the implications. There's a huge difference between going from being hit 9/10 times to 8/10 times and from going from being hit 2/10 times to 1/10 times. This DOES matter in the game as well, even if combat lasts 4 rounds (which it seldom did for the group I ran). Multiple combats over the day stress healing surges, so fewer hits over multiple battles mean less stress.

[Surrealistik]

No, Minion is correct. A +2 AC bonus will help you exactly one out of ten attacks on AC, regardless of how high your AC actually is.

This is because the way 4E is designed, the extreme situations should never occur in gameplay. For example, in a normal game, to-hit chance will never go above 90% or below 10%. Furthermore, the average combat lasts four rounds, not thirteen. That makes these examples academic: they're theoretically correct, but practically irrelevant.

The average combat based on consensus I've seen lasts 5-6 rounds not 4.

[The J Pizzel]

Decided to go with an Aegis of Shielding Swordmage for the defender. It looks quite fun.

DM: "Ouch, 17 damage"

Me: "Actually, I have the aegis of shielding up which can prevent 19 damage. He's unaffected"

DM:.....

Hey dude, post your build so I can compare to mine. I've read lots of swordmage handbook to help me build mine and I want see what your thoughts were on your build.

[Mystic Muse]

Hey dude, post your build so I can compare to mine. I've read lots of swordmage handbook to help me build mine and I want see what your thoughts were on your build.

Greth, level 14
Githzerai, Swordmage, Wandering Swordmage (Increasing my Aegis to close burst 5 and four corners attack are awesome)
Swordmage Aegis: Aegis of Shielding (Increases my defendery-ness)
Versatile Expertise: Versatile Expertise (Heavy Blade)
Versatile Expertise: Versatile Expertise (Orb. No reason for this. I had to choose something though.)

FINAL ABILITY SCORES
Str 14, Con 18, Dex 13, Int 22, Wis 16, Cha 9.

STARTING ABILITY SCORES
Str 13, Con 14, Dex 12, Int 16, Wis 13, Cha 8.


AC: 33 Fort: 26 Reflex: 28 Will: 26
HP: 111 Surges: 12 Surge Value: 27

TRAINED SKILLS
Arcana +18, Insight +15, Endurance +16, Athletics +16 (No specific reason for these)

UNTRAINED SKILLS
Acrobatics +10, Bluff +6, Diplomacy +6, Dungeoneering +10, Heal +10, History +16, Intimidate +6, Nature +10, Perception +10, Religion +13, Stealth +8, Streetwise +6, Thievery +8

FEATS
Level 1: Githzerai Blade Master (A weapon focus type feat combined with free Bastard Sword proficiency)
Level 2: Versatile Expertise (Don't have heavy blade expertise in my builder)
Level 4: Aegis Vitality (Feeling kind of iffy about this one.)
Level 6: Intelligent Blademaster (Feeling kind of iffy about this too.
Level 8: Dakshai's Body-Mind Union (Being able to make a saving throw with a +5 bonus is nice)
Level 10: Rose King's Run (retrained to Improved Swordmage Warding at Level 11. Only reason I chose it.)
Level 11: Greater Aegis of Shielding (Boosts my Aegis up to 19)
Level 12: Greater Swordmage Warding (Seemed like a solid feat.)
Level 14: Double Aegis (Being able to mark two enemies is friggin' sweet.)

POWERS
Swordmage at-will 1: Sword Burst (At will burst? Yes please)
Swordmage at-will 1: Frigid Blade (Not quite a slow effect, but still pretty nice)
Swordmage encounter 1: Sword of Sigils (retrained to Silverlight Strike)
Swordmage daily 1: Dimensional Thunder (Looked kinda nice, but there are probably better ones.)
Swordmage utility 2: Arcane Mutterings (We don't really have a party face right now)
Swordmage encounter 3: Dimensional Vortex (Making my enemy attack his allies? Yes please)
Swordmage daily 5: Swordmage Shielding Fire (mark an enemy until the end of the encounter, and if whenever I use my Aegis, I deal 19 fire damage to them.)
Swordmage utility 6: Armathor's Step (Teleport + attack bonus = very nice for an encounter)
Swordmage encounter 7: Echoes of Sword Magic (mass mark ability)
Swordmage daily 9: Blade Bolt (Love the flavor, and having an attack with a bit of range)
Swordmage utility 10: Impenetrable Warding (+4 to my NADs? Yes please)
Swordmage encounter 13: Silverlight Strike (replaces Sword of Sigils)

ITEMS
Feytouched Drowmesh +3, Blade of the Eldritch Knight Bastard sword +3, Seashimmer Cloak +3, Boots of the Fencing Master (heroic tier), Diamond Cincture (heroic tier), Gauntlets of Blood (heroic tier)

Seashimmer cloak sounded like it would be useful later, the boots make me harder to hit if I shift, the blade sounds like I can turn all my melee attacks into range 5 attacks, the armor, and gauntlets were suggestions by the guide.

[lesser_minion]

+2 AC if the enemy needs 2 to hit you is a LOT different from +2 AC if the enemy needs a natural 18 to hit you. The effectiveness of an AC bonus is highly dependent on how hard you are already to hit. The fact that AC is measured on a linear scale is extremely misleading, because the effects of changing it are not linear at all.

That still means you're quoting the wrong figure. The figure you should be giving in that case is "you'll last 25% longer", which makes your meaning clearer than "you'll take 20% less damage".

And there are plenty of reasons why even that's the wrong figure to give. If your opponent uses a different attack, what happens? What if they have combat advantage?

To arrive at "you'll last 25% longer", you've made so many assumptions that the figure is nowhere near as helpful as it sounds.

"You can expect one extra attack to miss for every ten directed at you" is far more helpful here.

[The J Pizzel]

Greth, level 14
Githzerai, Swordmage, Wandering Swordmage (Increasing my Aegis to close burst 5 and four corners attack are awesome)
Swordmage Aegis: Aegis of Shielding (Increases my defendery-ness)
Versatile Expertise: Versatile Expertise (Heavy Blade)
Versatile Expertise: Versatile Expertise (Orb. No reason for this. I had to choose something though.)

FINAL ABILITY SCORES
Str 14, Con 18, Dex 13, Int 22, Wis 16, Cha 9.

STARTING ABILITY SCORES
Str 13, Con 14, Dex 12, Int 16, Wis 13, Cha 8.


AC: 33 Fort: 26 Reflex: 28 Will: 26
HP: 111 Surges: 12 Surge Value: 27

TRAINED SKILLS
Arcana +18, Insight +15, Endurance +16, Athletics +16 (No specific reason for these)

UNTRAINED SKILLS
Acrobatics +10, Bluff +6, Diplomacy +6, Dungeoneering +10, Heal +10, History +16, Intimidate +6, Nature +10, Perception +10, Religion +13, Stealth +8, Streetwise +6, Thievery +8

FEATS
Level 1: Githzerai Blade Master (A weapon focus type feat combined with free Bastard Sword proficiency)
Level 2: Versatile Expertise (Don't have heavy blade expertise in my builder)
Level 4: Aegis Vitality (Feeling kind of iffy about this one.)
Level 6: Intelligent Blademaster (Feeling kind of iffy about this too.
Level 8: Dakshai's Body-Mind Union (Being able to make a saving throw with a +5 bonus is nice)
Level 10: Rose King's Run (retrained to Improved Swordmage Warding at Level 11. Only reason I chose it.)
Level 11: Greater Aegis of Shielding (Boosts my Aegis up to 19)
Level 12: Greater Swordmage Warding (Seemed like a solid feat.)
Level 14: Double Aegis (Being able to mark two enemies is friggin' sweet.)

POWERS
Swordmage at-will 1: Sword Burst (At will burst? Yes please)
Swordmage at-will 1: Frigid Blade (Not quite a slow effect, but still pretty nice)
Swordmage encounter 1: Sword of Sigils (retrained to Silverlight Strike)
Swordmage daily 1: Dimensional Thunder (Looked kinda nice, but there are probably better ones.)
Swordmage utility 2: Arcane Mutterings (We don't really have a party face right now)
Swordmage encounter 3: Dimensional Vortex (Making my enemy attack his allies? Yes please)
Swordmage daily 5: Swordmage Shielding Fire (mark an enemy until the end of the encounter, and if whenever I use my Aegis, I deal 19 fire damage to them.)
Swordmage utility 6: Armathor's Step (Teleport + attack bonus = very nice for an encounter)
Swordmage encounter 7: Echoes of Sword Magic (mass mark ability)
Swordmage daily 9: Blade Bolt (Love the flavor, and having an attack with a bit of range)
Swordmage utility 10: Impenetrable Warding (+4 to my NADs? Yes please)
Swordmage encounter 13: Silverlight Strike (replaces Sword of Sigils)

ITEMS
Feytouched Drowmesh +3, Blade of the Eldritch Knight Bastard sword +3, Seashimmer Cloak +3, Boots of the Fencing Master (heroic tier), Diamond Cincture (heroic tier), Gauntlets of Blood (heroic tier)

Seashimmer cloak sounded like it would be useful later, the boots make me harder to hit if I shift, the blade sounds like I can turn all my melee attacks into range 5 attacks, the armor, and gauntlets were suggestions by the guide.

For the second option of Versatile Expertise, I took Light Blade. Since swordmage powers work with all blades, I wanted to have that in case I'm ever stuck with a short sword or dagger or something. If we ever lose our stuff and I can grab a short sword and still benefit from the feat and use my powers.

Intelligent Blademaster is awesome. Int for basic attack is too good to pass up.

In place of Frigid Blade I chose the one where if they move they take damage. We have a melee heavy party and we'll usually be all within a couple of squares of each other. So reducing the baddies speed doesn't help much. Making him take damage for leaving me does though.

For level 1 daily I took Blade of Judgement. Teleport marked bad guy to me and I whack him for 2[w] plus ongoing.

Dimensional Vortex is the bomb.com

Everything else is pretty similar. Cool. I shot for githzerai but the DM turned me down. I went Genasi instead. I'm starting with fire but I might take extra manifestation to get some more versatility.

[Drachasor]

That still means you're quoting the wrong figure. The figure you should be giving in that case is "you'll last 25% longer", which makes your meaning clearer than "you'll take 20% less damage".

And there are plenty of reasons why even that's the wrong figure to give. If your opponent uses a different attack, what happens? What if they have combat advantage?

To arrive at "you'll last 25% longer", you've made so many assumptions that the figure is nowhere near as helpful as it sounds.

"You can expect one extra attack to miss for every ten directed at you" is far more helpful here.

It's not at all the wrong figure to give. It correctly looks at AC (or any other defense) in regards to how much it increases SURVIVAL, which is what defense stats are all about. Looking at it your way doesn't help in that regard at all, because it says little that's useful in that regard.

Given how enemies work with regards to their attack bonus, this IS a good way to look at things. You'd just subdivide enemies into different categories.

[Surrealistik]

Greth, level 14
Githzerai, Swordmage, Wandering Swordmage (Increasing my Aegis to close burst 5 and four corners attack are awesome)
Swordmage Aegis: Aegis of Shielding (Increases my defendery-ness)
Versatile Expertise: Versatile Expertise (Heavy Blade)
Versatile Expertise: Versatile Expertise (Orb. No reason for this. I had to choose something though.)

FINAL ABILITY SCORES
Str 14, Con 18, Dex 13, Int 22, Wis 16, Cha 9.

STARTING ABILITY SCORES
Str 13, Con 14, Dex 12, Int 16, Wis 13, Cha 8.


AC: 33 Fort: 26 Reflex: 28 Will: 26
HP: 111 Surges: 12 Surge Value: 27

TRAINED SKILLS
Arcana +18, Insight +15, Endurance +16, Athletics +16 (No specific reason for these)

UNTRAINED SKILLS
Acrobatics +10, Bluff +6, Diplomacy +6, Dungeoneering +10, Heal +10, History +16, Intimidate +6, Nature +10, Perception +10, Religion +13, Stealth +8, Streetwise +6, Thievery +8

FEATS
Level 1: Githzerai Blade Master (A weapon focus type feat combined with free Bastard Sword proficiency)
Level 2: Versatile Expertise (Don't have heavy blade expertise in my builder)
Level 4: Aegis Vitality (Feeling kind of iffy about this one.)
Level 6: Intelligent Blademaster (Feeling kind of iffy about this too.
Level 8: Dakshai's Body-Mind Union (Being able to make a saving throw with a +5 bonus is nice)
Level 10: Rose King's Run (retrained to Improved Swordmage Warding at Level 11. Only reason I chose it.)
Level 11: Greater Aegis of Shielding (Boosts my Aegis up to 19)
Level 12: Greater Swordmage Warding (Seemed like a solid feat.)
Level 14: Double Aegis (Being able to mark two enemies is friggin' sweet.)

POWERS
Swordmage at-will 1: Sword Burst (At will burst? Yes please)
Swordmage at-will 1: Frigid Blade (Not quite a slow effect, but still pretty nice)
Swordmage encounter 1: Sword of Sigils (retrained to Silverlight Strike)
Swordmage daily 1: Dimensional Thunder (Looked kinda nice, but there are probably better ones.)
Swordmage utility 2: Arcane Mutterings (We don't really have a party face right now)
Swordmage encounter 3: Dimensional Vortex (Making my enemy attack his allies? Yes please)
Swordmage daily 5: Swordmage Shielding Fire (mark an enemy until the end of the encounter, and if whenever I use my Aegis, I deal 19 fire damage to them.)
Swordmage utility 6: Armathor's Step (Teleport + attack bonus = very nice for an encounter)
Swordmage encounter 7: Echoes of Sword Magic (mass mark ability)
Swordmage daily 9: Blade Bolt (Love the flavor, and having an attack with a bit of range)
Swordmage utility 10: Impenetrable Warding (+4 to my NADs? Yes please)
Swordmage encounter 13: Silverlight Strike (replaces Sword of Sigils)

ITEMS
Feytouched Drowmesh +3, Blade of the Eldritch Knight Bastard sword +3, Seashimmer Cloak +3, Boots of the Fencing Master (heroic tier), Diamond Cincture (heroic tier), Gauntlets of Blood (heroic tier)

Seashimmer cloak sounded like it would be useful later, the boots make me harder to hit if I shift, the blade sounds like I can turn all my melee attacks into range 5 attacks, the armor, and gauntlets were suggestions by the guide.

Get Booming Blade and Rose King's Shield. 10 THP on hit? Yes please. Requires you use a longsword though. Unfortunately it loses its lustre at epic, and it may not be the best choice since you're a Githzerai and have efficient superior weapon training.

[Mystic Muse]

Get Booming Blade and Rose King's Shield. 10 THP on hit? Yes please. Requires you use a longsword though. Unfortunately it loses its lustre at epic, and it may not be the best choice since you're a Githzerai and have efficient superior weapon training.

I'll get booming blade, but I'd really rather use the bastard sword. Didn't realize booming blade was untyped. Thought it was fire for some reason.