[4e] AC vs attack - a table

[Tengu_temp]

Assuming that we start with 18 in our important ability score, we're using a weapon with +2 prof bonus, we get the best enchantment available for our level, and the enemy has an average AC of 14+level...

Spoiler

Show

What am I missing? Is the average die roll required to hit the enemy supposed to grow by five over the course of 30 levels?

[Arbitrarity]

Yes. Magic item bonus, is +1/5 levels or so.

[Crow]

Yes. Magic item bonus, is +1/5 levels or so.

He factored that in.

[Mando Knight]

I guess that makes Demigod and +3 prof. bonus weapons necessary to reliably hit high-level enemies...

Or Warlord/Cleric leadership bonuses...

[Yakk]

Other bonuses, like the Fighter Paragon path, Demigod stat bonus, Leader bonuses, bonuses from powers that lower AC or increase to-hit, etc etc become more and more common as you gain levels.

These are supposed to make up for that +5 to hit "lag" you are detecting, I suspect.

[TeeEl]

That's the baseline. Your party gets access to more and better buff/debuff powers as you level, though, many of which also scale with ability score increases.

[RandomLogic]

I suppose you can justify it either way.

A) You are more 'powerful' so it should be easier to hit things at higher level, in which the statistical progression as you show it, is stupid. (ie it should be in reverse, needing 13 on average down to 8, as level increases from 0 to 30)
B) Things are now equally powerful as you progress. So its a way to stabilize difficulty at higher levels by making it statistically harder to hit things.

Unless you could get one of the 4E designers to confirm for you either way, I doubt you'll be able to conclusively prove either...

Also, I suppose it would have stayed even throughout all levels, but don't know if they should have shifted it above or below the statistically average d20 role....

[NecroRebel]

You are supposed to be able to pretty reliably hit equal-level enemies for your entire career, and 8-13 is a 60-35% chance to land a hit, which is generally fairly reliable.

Incidentally, if you look at the monster creation guidelines and the actual monsters in the MM (which oftentimes don't mesh well with the guidelines), the other 3 defenses tend to be around 2 less than the monsters' AC, which happens to match up superbly with the expected chance to hit if you do not include proficiency bonuses.



Unless I'm misunderstanding you and you think it remarkable that the to-hit chance decreases that much over 30 levels... In which case I wonder what you would consider a small increase

[ghost_warlock]

Ye gods.

I hope the other defenses don't scale like this, considering you often need a 10-13 to hit Fort/Ref already at 1st level. Will is a bit easier to hit, on average, but still generally tougher than AC.

[Crow]

I wouldn't consider a 65% chance of wasting my action "fairly reliable" at all.

[Grynning]

I was noticing this discrepancy as well. It also looks like the monsters to-hit bonus against player AC scales up similarly (i.e. the monsters have a much better chance of hitting you than you do of hitting them) since their attack bonus increases at a flat +1 per level. I suppose the parties greater ability to heal and mitigate damage with powers somewhat makes up for this, but still, it seems that the monsters often have the advantage in this supposedly "PCs as super-heroes" game design.

Edit: I can't quite tell because it's late for me, but did you factor in the +1 to all stats increases at paragon and epic tier?

[TheOOB]

I wouldn't consider a 65% chance of wasting my action "fairly reliable" at all.

Well then you better be flanking with your party rogue and piling on those bonuses from your leaders.

[Grynning]

Well then you better be flanking with your party rogue and piling on those bonuses from your leaders.

Leaders don't have *that* many abilities that actually add to attack rolls, and if they do they're often pretty situational. Party buffs can't be considered a reliable source of attack bonus in 4th ed. - they exist, but they can't be counted on.

[TheOOB]

Leaders don't have *that* many abilities that actually add to attack rolls, and if they do they're often pretty situational. Party buffs can't be considered a reliable source of attack bonus in 4th ed. - they exist, but they can't be counted on.

Yes, but a level 30 party should have no shortage of powers/magic items that either power up your party or weaken the enemy, I mean a clerics righteous brand alone at that level will add a huge to-hit bonus. Not to mention that the higher level you get the more powerful and rare your foes get, and the more likely you are to fight lower level foes.

I still find it odd just how big of a difference there is, too big in my mind, but I understand the idea that you can assume the players will find other assorted bonuses.

[Tengu_temp]

Edit: I can't quite tell because it's late for me, but did you factor in the +1 to all stats increases at paragon and epic tier?

Yes.

I'm thinking of making a similar table to compare player AC vs monster attack, but it will probably give similar results. It seems that a leader's buffs are indeed indispensable at higher levels.

[Belial_the_Leveler]

[joke] Yeah, 4th edition sucks. Revert to 3.5 [/joke]


Seriously, if you expect to hit every time why play a game with dice? Especially the d20 dice.

The ONLY reason mechanics-wise that a high-level creature is more difficult to hit is the number of powers. At level 1 you only got 2-3 expendable powers. At level 30 you have 10 so it doesn't matter if you miss a bit more.

[Tequila Sunrise]

Yes, but a level 30 party should have no shortage of powers/magic items that either power up your party or weaken the enemy, I mean a clerics righteous brand alone at that level will add a huge to-hit bonus. Not to mention that the higher level you get the more powerful and rare your foes get, and the more likely you are to fight lower level foes.

I still find it odd just how big of a difference there is, too big in my mind, but I understand the idea that you can assume the players will find other assorted bonuses.

Righteous Brand requires the cleric to hit the monster's AC before he can grant the bonus to another PC, so I don't think it's fair to use that power as an example of consistent leadership bonuses.

I've noticed this discrepancy too and haven't been able to justify it, so I'm actually building five 30th level PCs to play test against the red dragon. Haven't decided which role to double up on, but I'm thinking striker. Should be interesting.

TS

[fractic]

I think combat advantage is also easier to gain at higher levels because you have more powers that slide enemies around, allow you to move around or cause various status effects that make them grant combat advantage.

[Person_Man]

Ignore the encounter guidelines. In order to create a more interesting campaign and give the players a chance to both shine and be challenged, some fights should be easy, some even, and some hard. Most DMs do not want monsters to scale on a 1:1 level, otherwise it destroys verisimilitude and makes combat much more monotonous. You can also run into the Oblivion problem, and there is no reason to gain levels.

For example, let's say that the PCs town is surrounded by hills filled with ogres. At 1st level killing an ogre might be ridiculously hard or impossible to beat, so the PCs stay safely behind the town walls and do quests to help locals. By 3rd level an ogre is a challenge, but still manageable. They venture beyond the walls to rescue a sheep herder who was abducted by an ogre, and somehow manage to succeed. By 5th level ogres are a joke. So the PCs take it upon themselves to clear them all out, bringing peace and prosperity to the town. The Ogre Mage who leads them is a tough fight, but in the end the PCs have little trouble overcoming any individual ogre. That's a pretty standard campaign arc.

Now imagine what it would be like if Ogres scaled with PCs on a 1:1 basis. Combat would quickly become boring and monotonous. Or Ogres might just disappear from the landscape altogether once the PCs reach a certain levle. Or worse yet, Ogres still exist but have their facades changed with no explanation as to why - at 1st level you fight generic Ogres, at 3rd level you fight only Barbarian Ogres, at 5th level you fight Ogre Mages, at 7th level you fight Fiendish Ogres, then Dragon Ogres, then...

It's nice to have some sort of CR mechanism in place to that a DM has clues on to how tough each encounter might be for PCs of a given level. But its rare to always present PCs with only CR appropriate enemies. It would have been nice if WotC had gotten the math correct, so that the CR would be more accurate at higher levels. But it won't be that much of a problem for a DM who knows what they're doing.

[Oslecamo]

AYEEEE YOU NEED TO DO SMART OPTIMIZATION IN 4E RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!!!!

Sarcasm aside, like said by the other guy, the monsters assume the players are geting more and better powers, prestige classes and special equipment that makes hiting easier.

Thus you would need to take those details in acount when making the table for it to be 100% acurate.

Anyway, it seems like this is another argument in the suport of leader being the most indispensable job in the party.

[nagora]

Ignore the encounter guidelines. In order to create a more interesting campaign and give the players a chance to both shine and be challenged, some fights should be easy, some even, and some hard.

Speaking as someone about to throw 200 Kobolds at a party of 4 1st level characters (and a villiage), I totally agree. If they survive, it will be a great story. Actually, even if they all die it'll probably be fairly epic. It will be interesting to see how they handle it.

The thing I've found over the years is that players are alway more inventive as a group than a single DM, and "level appropriate" tends to mean "no real challenge" to a cohesive group while it can mean TPK to a disorganised party.

[Mando Knight]

Hm... I was wondering why the AC gets higher than the attack bonuses as the level increases, then I remembered Smash Bros.

In Smash, the better players are harder to hit, and their fights may last fairly long as they try to grab, smash, and dodge their opponents. Even the CPU opponents show this tendency: Lvl. 9 CPUs will use their shields and dodge to try to avoid every attack, while lower levels are fairly susceptible to fairly obvious attacks. 4E has powers and scaling AC and attack bonuses to show increased defenses and offenses through game mechanics rather than player reflex and skill.

[Saph]

What am I missing? Is the average die roll required to hit the enemy supposed to grow by five over the course of 30 levels?

Seems like it does.

Very interesting! Thanks for doing the math. :)

To those saying that the PCs will have extra powers by level 30: yes, but so will the monsters. And lots of monster powers either give penalties to attack rolls or effectively make it harder to attack them, so I think the PCs will still be hitting less.

I haven't tried high-level combat in 4e, but those who have have mentioned repeatedly that it can take a long time to kill the monsters off. This might be a big part of the reason why.

- Saph

[Edea]

Somewhat OT, but look at the new Fighter powers in the last Dragon compilation. Almost all of them add Str AND Dex to the attack roll, and work with, of all weapons, light blades and heavy blades (hello, +3 Prof. bonus and Brutal Scoundrel multiclassers). That could end up being as high of a to-hit bonus as +8. Some of the Warlock powers have built-in accuracy modifiers as well (+2 ftm, I believe). Methinks compensation for monster defenses going up is the beginning of 4e's power creep (now to see how the Swordmage handles it).

[Oslecamo]

I haven't tried high-level combat in 4e, but those who have have mentioned repeatedly that it can take a long time to kill the monsters off. This might be a big part of the reason why.

- Saph

I like that. The fight with the last big bosses should last much longer than the fight with the first lowly minions, even if you have become much stronger on the way.

[Saph]

I like that. The fight with the last big bosses should last much longer than the fight with the first lowly minions, even if you have become much stronger on the way.

Well, the problem (from what I've heard) is that you can have fights where most of the time is spent on cleanup. The fight's basically over, the monsters have lost, but you still have to take half-an-hour to an hour of game time to actually finish them off. But I haven't played 4e at high levels enough to check.

- Saph

[Oslecamo]

The problem (from what I've heard) is that you can have fights where the battle is basically decided - the PCs are guaranteed to win, it's pretty much routine - but you still have to take half-an-hour to an hour of game time to actually finish them off. But I haven't played 4e at high levels enough to check.

- Saph

You don't need to go all the way up to lv30 for this to happen. It also happens at low levels.

Example:
Half the monsters were taken down by the party, the enemy leader is out of tricks and all the party members are standing with a decent life.

The party is going to win whitout effort, but it's still going to take several rounds to hack the survivors to pieces, because each can still soak up a decent size of damage and have respectable AC, despite the brute being already dead.

And those rounds are gonna be specially boring, because all the ecounter powers have been used, nobody's gonna waste a daily in a battle that's already won, and all the tactical movement has been done.

[Tengu_temp]

stuff

With all due respect, I think you're completely missing the point of this thread.

[Artanis]

The only thing I can think of is the "magic threshold" thing on page 174 of the DMG. The numbers in the OP's chart match up very closely with the levels that the thresholds change. If you subtract said thresholds from those numbers, the roll needed to hit stays virtually flat.

So to me, it looks like the rules are based on the assumption that the advancement of monsters includes some sort of magic bonuses being added to their armor as they went along. If you subtract that "magic threshold" from the monsters' AC, it should work out perfectly. WotC seems to have forgotten to mention that, though, as well as forgetting to account for it in the numbers given, leading to the problem mentioned in the OP.


Subtracting the "magic threshold" from a custom monster's AC gives:

Spoiler

Show

Level     Needed Roll
1         8
5         10
10        9
15        9
20        9
25        9
30        8

Edit: Also, I have no clue why the hell the spoiler is so wide when it opens

[Yakk]

While the power bonuses are not reliable, they should be factored in.

...

Player stat modifiers go up by +5 over 30 levels. (with demigod).
Player enchantment modifiers go up by +6 over 30 levels.
Player level bonus goes up +15 over 30 levels
----------------------
+26 over 30 levels.

Monster defenses from level 1 to level 30 go up 29 points.

This leaves a gap of merely +3 between monster defenses and player static bonuses, and ignores all powers and features that the character earns over those 30 levels that might increase accuracy.

(Yes, not every player picks Demgod -- but the alternatives are, in theory, at least as good in other ways.)

The Kensai paragon path is an example of such as-yet-unfactored in sources of additional bonus -- another +1, which reduces the edge monsters have from +3 to +2.

At level 1, you might have an AC debuff on the target, or an ATK buff on yourself, an average of 1 round per fight. By level 30, you might have it 3 rounds per fight.

The size of the debuff at level 1 might be +4, while at level 30 it can easily hit +9.

In an 8 round fight, that's +0.5 average per round at level 1, and at level 30 it might average +3.375. Which brings the average ATK vs AC edge down to +0.875 on the side of the level 30 player.

If you didn't leave room for these effects (Demigod, Paragon path features, Epic features, Defense debuffs, Attack buffs), you could easily end up with at level 30 having a much better attack landing chance than at level 1. But they did leave room for these factors -- and, with reasonable values of them, it ends up matching up quite reasonably.

Note that Defense debuffs are much better, in terms of player-action-benefited, than buffs. So the Leader who boosts a players to-hit roll is, in a sense, less powerful than the Striker or Controller who reduces the monster's AC.