Here is the thing: The original DCs? In my opinion, they were pretty much perfect.
The problem was, there was a footnote on the bottom of the chart saying to increase DCs by 5 for skills. Now, it seems clear to me that this was only intended for when using the chart for skill Stunts, rather than Skill Challenges. (And it did result in appropriate DCs for stunts, from what I could tell.)
Okay, maybe I use them not as they were presented. I either overlooked that footnote or completely missed it. Worked out for me in the end, though.
|
Thanks for the personal insult, your post has been flagged.hey Gary, any chance we can get him banned? Sebastian cannot help but derail threads he thinks should be over and insult people in the process.
Can I flag that I would like fries with that please Gary... Come on people stop running to dad, we are mainly all adults here. If I flagged all the things people did/said I didn't 100% like I would look like the front of the United Nations.
But, the game I'm playing in, we have four 2nd level characters, and the DM is running us through a published adventure that includes a Level 4 Solo Young Black Dragon that can cloak itself in darkness AND sit in the middle of a pool of water (which we have no idea how deep it is). So, it sits there in the dark, blasting us, and we can't hit it. If we run into the water, who knows what's going to happen to us, and, if we run into the darkness to attack it, it gets total concealment for another +5 to it's already very difficult to hit AC of 22. With an AC of 27, a second level character is going to need some damn good rolls to hit the dang thing, unless just completely optimized. I'm not even sure you can get combat advantage to it if you can't even see it. So, if they are going to be publishing foes that are that freaking tough, well, then they are encouraging optimization, which sucks.
One of my peeves with 4e is that +2 to defenses that elites and solos get. I mean, their HP are already multiplied appropriately so they really don't need any higher defenses. I guess it's just a design impulse left over from earlier editions when tough monsters had to have higher ACs than regulars. Anyway, WotC may have realized their mistake here because I've heard that MM2 elites and solos don't have the defense boost.
Can I flag that I would like fries with that please Gary... Come on people stop running to dad, we are mainly all adults here. If I flagged all the things people did/said I didn't 100% like I would look like the front of the United Nations.
Thanks for the personal insult, your post has been flagged.hey Gary, any chance we can get him banned? Sebastian cannot help but derail threads he thinks should be over and insult people in the process.
Flagged because you have cooties! :P
|
|
Flagged because you have cooties! :PCan I flag that I would like fries with that please Gary... Come on people stop running to dad, we are mainly all adults here. If I flagged all the things people did/said I didn't 100% like I would look like the front of the United Nations.
Thanks for the personal insult, your post has been flagged.hey Gary, any chance we can get him banned? Sebastian cannot help but derail threads he thinks should be over and insult people in the process.
Only until the PHB14 comes out, rumor has it that there will be a ritual "Remove Cooties".
|
Derek's the man to quote by my book. Aside from the "inhales" (although I *will* have some twinkies and pizza, thanky!) this is my stance as well. I didn't pick up this game to optimize, and our group of DMs are more than capable of handling any raging math issues at upper levels through insightful, creative encounter building.
Geez, I'll happily be 'ignorant'. It seems to require less Peptobismol.Yeah, but it apparently *inhale* requires more Hostess Twinkies and Pizza...*cough*
Ok, so the "controversy" is basically this: 4e is a game system that isn't perfect and people can min/max - optimize like any other edition? That, maybe, since they only had a couple of years to develop the system, there may be a kink or two?
Is this what I'm reading here? If not let me know, but, if so, um, yeah? It's a game? It was published? No game I've ever seen published was perfect? (Sorry for the upspeak, the mood just hit me...)
So, I guess I need to go with #4 or #5. Meh.
It's a sound system. It was written by people. Maybe they made a math mistake or two. Maybe they're trying to be cute as to how to address the "problem". No big deal, and no controversy I can see.
;)
To weigh in myself, it seems obvious to me that basic PC stats scaling at a different rate than basic monster stats is counter to the spirit of 4e's design, and that Expertise & Company are a slipshod backdoor form of errata. I can understand the 'meh, whatever' attitude especially from players who don't play beyond the heroic tier, but I'm still amazed that some players actively advocate this particular area of RAW.
When I DM, my first house rule is to ban masterwork armor, Expertise and all the NAD boosting feats. Then I give PCs +1 to all attacks and defenses at levels 11, 15, 21 and 25. A PC who puts on heavy armor doubles the bonus for the purpose of AC.
Then, if my players want to play at Hell (or beginner) difficulty, I can tweak monster stats across the board rather than working out a scaling tweak.
Though I stated my case back on page 1 - something else mathematical for everyone to consider:
A +3 bonus is not a 15% variation but actually feels something more like 30%. Why, you ask? Because the system is built such that hitting an enemy of your own level and ability will be roughly a 50/50 thing. The exact percentage is based on the enemy's type (soldier, skirmisher, etc) and which defense you're hitting, but you can eyeball the whole concept as being basically 50-50 on any one 'average' hit with a well-built character.
Thus if you are behind 3 points, you have in total a 35% hit chance. However, what you're going to feel is not the total -15% but the hit rate relative to what you "should" be doing. So when 3 of the 10 values you're used to rolling for success are no longer successes, it comes across as a -30% (ish) loss in accuracy, not simply 15. You were never going to hit on the 1-10 anyway, so you've lost almost a third of what you were used to hitting on: the 11-20 is now 14-20.
It's the same phenomena as increased crit range, but backward. An 18-20 crit range is only technically a 10% increase but feels like you've tripled.
Thread chills out or thread goes away. Be nice, folks. :-)
I'm puzzled. The thread seems to be going very well now. There are several other threads were 'raging dick' syndrome is going on full pelt and they have no comment.
I'm puzzled. The thread seems to be going very well now. There are several other threads were 'raging dick' syndrome is going on full pelt and they have no comment.
It is because there was flags raised in this thread and the response seems to be instead of addressing the issue and people responsible for the flags they will just close the thread down. An example of the common one person can ruin it for the rest of us.
I'm puzzled. The thread seems to be going very well now. There are several other threads were 'raging dick' syndrome is going on full pelt and they have no comment.
I think it is part due to this happening over immediately prior to the weekend and this being the first work day since then, in addition to the tendency for someone to feel the need to throw their own opinion on this argument even at this late stage, causing the fight to start all over again. Also and other threads may not really starting into arguing over who is a jerk yet.
*sniffs* Do I smell fried kobold tongue?
*sniffs* Do I smell fried kobold tongue?
Sorry that was me.
|
...something else mathematical for everyone to consider:
A +3 bonus is not a 15% variation but actually feels something more like 30%. Why, you ask?
...what you're going to feel is not the total -15% but the hit rate relative to what you "should" be doing. So when 3 of the 10 values you're used to rolling for success are no longer successes, it comes across as a -30% (ish) loss in accuracy, not simply 15. You were never going to hit on the 1-10 anyway, so you've lost almost a third of what you were used to hitting on: the 11-20 is now 14-20.
Thank you. I don't claim to be any great statistician, but it makes me want to bang my head on the table when I hear some of the arguments out there.
Like 'A +2 in your best, prime stat is totally outweighed by a -2 in an average, unnecessary stat...'.
'It's only a +1; that's, like, only 5% better. What's the big deal?'.
So, yes, many bonuses (especially untyped ones) are much better than they may first appear.
Having said that, I still don't tend to take them very often, as I find them boring.
I'd rather take feats and abilities that allow me to do something totaly new, than do the same old thing a bit better.
|
|
I think some basic pointers on stats should be part of the advice to any new DM.
Remember the analysis and graph of bell-curve distribution, in the 1E DMG? That really put things into perspective, and gave me a leg-up when I came to do statistics in school.
It also helped in calling players' bluff over suspect results.
"Yeah, course I rolled 18 STR! It's not that rare! There's, what 16 possible results, so I'm in the top, what, 6% of the population?"
"No, I think you'll find the chance is 1 in 216 on 3d6, so it's the top, ooh 0.4%. And that means that you should get one actual 18 every 36 characters. How do you account for the fact that your last six PCs have had eight 18s between them?"
"Errrrr....."
"Right, and your only witness is Ken, who, surprisingly, has two 17s, three 16s and a 15?"
"Errrr...."
"Right, everybody re-roll, in front of me. No more rolling stats at home."
"Aaawwwww...."
I think some basic pointers on stats should be part of the advice to any new DM.
So...you're saying that the DMG should point out how PC bonuses are supposed to scale from level 1 to 30? Well, that'd sure help settle this controversy. :)
*sniffs* Do I smell fried kobold tongue?Sorry that was me.Where you been, man? Good to see you again!
:)
I've still been kicking around. If you dig hard enough, you might stumble over a few other posts in the area. Mostly though I do the majority of my DnD message boarding at ENWorld now since this side of Paizo just doesn't get much traffic.
Also, getting a Masters is a serious time sink. Seriously!
Cheers! :)
I think what you're describing, and I largely agree with, is the result of "fixing" the math with target assumptions that are too tight. A little more slip in the gears, while vulnerable to exploitation, would serve the more casual players better, I think.
I really disagree unless all the players are casual and the DM is being very careful with things like encounter design.
In a situation where you have a mix of players some of whom take the game seriously and really enjoy trying to min-max their characters to a greater or lesser degree or were the DM is not necessarily really versed in the underlying math of the game having the system itself take on the hard work of making sure the math lines up is very beneficial.
Essentially good core math means that players that don't care to much about their character design or are focusing on more diverse aspects for role playing reasons are only a tad weaker then the 'Mad Munchkin'. If things are working properly he can munchkin out to his hearts content but, since he only gets a slight power boost, he simply can't disrupt the game. It functions fine if Fred's favorite part of the game is making a uber bad ass character while his wife, Joanne, is not really one to study the books and just wants to play a Ranger with a Panther as her friend. Both can make their characters and play in the same party without one really overshadowing the other or the DM having to either assign a 'coach' for Joannes character or jump through hoops to make the encounters challenging to both players without being overwhelming.
I think I must be missing something here. It is +3 to hit at the maximum right? +15% is that really so huge? Perhaps just because I haven't played high level yet? Is it that you can't possibly hit creatures at high level without this feat?
Confused,
S.Here's the deal with 4e bonuses -- of any source. A serious optimizer will say he needs that 20 at 1st level, that he needs a +3 proficiency bonus, etc... The horrible truth is that he's, well, partly right.
4e balance is about stacking up lots of little bonuses. So no single bonus is going to make or break a PC; we all know that a 16 in your attack stat doesn't make you a putz. But if you neglect enough bonuses you're definately going to notice a problem. For example, if you neglect to jack up your attack stat at level-ups, if you neglect to take Expertise, if your DM neglects those regularly scheduled deliveries of bling, the loss of those bonuses do add up. By epic level, you will be a putz, and you and/or your DM will need to compensate somehow (lower level monsters, tactics of SWAT-level efficiency, using a lot of extra character resources).
Exactly how many bonuses you need to lose to become a putz is up to debate, but I think four of them is at least touching on putz territory. And at the cost of a single feat, I can't imagine ever NOT taking Expertise in a RAW game; it's just too good of a deal to pass up. They don't do much to define my character, but I can do that with my zillion other PC options. And with straight role playing.
I've hardly done much play testing at 30th level but I have a hard time seeing how this +3 is some how necessary to keep the players equal to the monsters.
Sure the players loose 3 BAB over the period from 1st through 30th when compared to the monsters but they pick up about a dozen more powers and then, on top of these, get a slew of magic items, many of which come with powers tacked on. They should be able to more then make up for that +3 loss in BAB with all the extra stuff they can do - while the monsters are distinctively limited in this regard.
By the time we are getting to 30th level you have a some what more complex monster but its now got 6 or 8 powers instead of 2 or 3. Its now facing 5 players each of whom might have an average of something like 24 powers once all the magic items and potions and such have been factored in. Many of these powers can be worked in as synergies with each other - both with their own powers but especially with the powers of the other players. If the Rogue has a 'Slide Through The Enemies Legs Before Attacking' power then he can use a power to set up combat advantage (via flanking) for a bonus right there and this is the kind of power that ones only likely to get at higher level. its even more powerful when its now his flanking buddies turn and he uses the 'Devastating Blindside; power that lets him net uber bonuses when dealing with an opponent he has combat advantage against. This kind of combo could easily even take place before the bad guy has a chance to do anything. Rogue goes and uses his power for a bonus quickly followed by the fighter who now has a chance to use his power for a bonus.
The number of ways high level characters can use synergies like this with their huge array of powers seems to make the loss of +3 to BAB compared to monsters (that don't have access to anything like as many powers as players) comparatively minor.
Hence I'm slowly shifting into the camp that its just an overpowered (and hence badly designed) feat. The only circumstance that one is likely to run into where a feat like this 'balances out' the players versus the monsters is if the fighter is all alone, near naked and and bumps into a 30th level hobgoblin. Now without all his gear and no way to pull off synergies with his fellow party members he might feel the loss of that +3 to BaB against the monster Hobgoblin (who did not loose 3 BAB while being upgraded to a 30th level monster). Even here however our fighter still has a lot more powers then our upgraded Hobgoblin. Probably enough to compensate for the loss of 3 BAB.
|
|
I think some basic pointers on stats should be part of the advice to any new DM.
So...you're saying that the DMG should point out how PC bonuses are supposed to scale from level 1 to 30? Well, that'd sure help settle this controversy. :)
Indeed. Every game needs a chapter, or even just sidebars, where the designers share their assumptions.
"We've set the level of all the monsters on the assumption that all PCs are using X-value point-buy, have Y gp-worth of gear."
"All frontline PCs have total attack bonuses between A and B (from BAB C, stat bonus D, equipment bonus E, buffs F, and situational factors between G to H)."
Etcetera.
Now, these may already be there. But the fact that so many people can disagree over what is a 'normal' PC, and what is overpowered, seems to imply that these guides aren't as visible as they could be.
My main point though, was that we need guidance for new DMs on how probability itself works.
To weigh in myself, it seems obvious to me that basic PC stats scaling at a different rate than basic monster stats is counter to the spirit of 4e's design...
Why?
In fact I'd say the opposite was originally the case. Monsters are not PCs and PCs are not monsters. There is no underlying philosophical reason that they need to follow the same design principles. The only rule is that whatever design principles each does follow it should all work out when they actually interact with each other if their levels are appropriate.
As I said above in a much more long winded post. I think WotC has made a mistake here...the players get their +3 to BAB in the form of more then a dozen extra powers they acquire between 1st and 30th level. Since the monsters don't get anywhere near as many extra powers they need better basic bonuses in order to remain roughly equal in power to the PCs.
I'm puzzled. The thread seems to be going very well now. There are several other threads were 'raging dick' syndrome is going on full pelt and they have no comment.
He's just dealing with the flags that a couple of posters fired off at each other. Moderation is nice but I suspect that Mr. Frost has other things he has to do besides monitor the boards all day just waiting for some one to flag some one else. Presumably he shows up and makes an announcement when he gets around to checking up on the flag status of the boards at which point he makes the rounds and tells varous people in various threads to settle down.
In a situation where you have a mix of players some of whom take the game seriously and really enjoy trying to min-max their characters to a greater or lesser degree or were the DM is not necessarily really versed in the underlying math of the game having the system itself take on the hard work of making sure the math lines up is very beneficial.
I think what you're describing, and I largely agree with, is the result of "fixing" the math with target assumptions that are too tight. A little more slip in the gears, while vulnerable to exploitation, would serve the more casual players better, I think.
Well said, Jeremy!
I've hardly done much play testing at 30th level but I have a hard time seeing how this +3 is some how necessary to keep the players equal to the monsters.
I've mentioned this at least twice before, but I guess I need to spell it out: PCs lose 4 from attacks, 2 from AC and 4 from NADs. Not just 3 from attacks. The rest is arguable, but this is not so please, let's keep it straight.
Attacks: 15 (level) + 6 (weapon) + 4 (stat) = 25
AC: 15 (level) + 6 (armor) + 4 (stat) + 2 (masterwork) = 27, or...
15 (level) + 6 (armor) + 6 (masterwork) = 27
NADs: 15 (level) + 6 (amulet/cloak) + 4 (stat) = 25
Monster Stats: 29
Anywho, I've heard the "other factors make up for the lost bonuses" argument before, but I've yet to see examples of how it actually works. Combat Advantage is usually part of the argument, but you can flank to gain CA at level 1 so that's a wash. Leadership bonuses and various other bonuses might help but they have problems: (1) they usually require a PC to hit in the first place and/or (2) they grant bonuses to only one PC and/or (3) they only grant bonuses to one stat and/or (4) the bonus only lasts for a round and/or (5) they require the loss of a limited resource.
I'm not arguing that high levels are unplayable, but I am arguing that monsters are tough enough without requiring more and more optimization and intense focus on deathsquad tactics. Monsters don't have the sheer number of powers that high level PCs have, but they do have a ton more hp than PCs have damage and they have at least a couple scary powers that refresh every few rounds.
I really disagree unless all the players are casual and the DM is being very careful with things like encounter design.In a situation where you have a mix of players some of whom take the game seriously and really enjoy trying to min-max their characters to a greater or lesser degree or were the DM is not necessarily really versed in the underlying math of the game having the system itself take on the hard work of making sure the math lines up is very beneficial.
Essentially good core math means that players that don't care to much about their character design or are focusing on more diverse aspects for role playing reasons are only a tad weaker then the 'Mad Munchkin'. If things are working properly he can munchkin out to his hearts content but, since he only gets a slight power boost, he simply can't disrupt the game.
But the only way to really "fix" the math in a tight way is to remove choices. Whenever you get choices, whether it be in generating the stats, picking feats, or even when a player rejects a more powerful weapon because the current one is more in his idiom, you get inequality. The only way to really fix it, is to remove those choices.
Better to build the game to tolerate a little more swing and not sweating it when someone's got a higher bonus. Failure to do so, plus the failure to remove the decision points that lead to the inequality, and you end up patching with feats like these.|
|
But the only way to really "fix" the math in a tight way is to remove choices.
I agree completely. 4e is great in that everyone does something during a combat, I fail to see it really matters that everyone do exactly the same in terms of say damage output. It's not a "who's got the best character" competition it is a roleplaying game (and a darn good one).
S.
Attacks: 15 (level) + 6 (weapon) + 4 (stat) = 25
AC: 15 (level) + 6 (armor) + 4 (stat) + 2 (masterwork) = 27, or...
15 (level) + 6 (armor) + 6 (masterwork) = 27
NADs: 15 (level) + 6 (amulet/cloak) + 4 (stat) = 25Monster Stats: 29
Are you seriously assuming that a character's stat bonuses will remain at +4 (i.e., 18) all the way to level 30? Please tell me I'm reading that wrong, otherwise your whole argument goes down the toilet.
But the only way to really "fix" the math in a tight way is to remove choices. Whenever you get choices, whether it be in generating the stats, picking feats, or even when a player rejects a more powerful weapon because the current one is more in his idiom, you get inequality. The only way to really fix it, is to remove those choices.
Better to build the game to tolerate a little more swing and not sweating it when someone's got a higher bonus. Failure to do so, plus the failure to remove the decision points that lead to the inequality, and you end up patching with feats like these.
Possibly but the d20 system on which the game is based only tolerates so much variance before a problem sets in.
Not also that even with 4E the system will still break if Player A goes out of his way to make a sub optimized character while Player B goes out of his way to make an optimized one. Trying to create an underlying mathematical base that has both of these characters line up would be so constraining that it would really harm the game.
From my understanding the goal was to create a system where one player who had a fighter could optimize to their hearts content (emphasis attributes that effect combat even if it hurts other attributes, focus all feats on combat, pick a race that enhanced this attribute etc.) while another player, also with a fighter, could choose to have a good, but not great combat attribute, choose a race that did not enhance the combat attribute and choose only to put half their feats into combat related options and still be a factor when the fighting broke out.
To make this possible the difference between Player As combat stats and Player Bs combat stats needs to be somewhat limited. Being +4 better and having an extra 2d6 worth of damage is reasonable while being +12 better and doing an extra 10d6 is not.
To achieve this its not necessary to limit to many choices but it is necessary to make sure that the choices available are reasonable and its probably necessary to insure that what amounts to the same choice can't constantly be available. A feat that grants a +1 to hit or +1d6 to damage is fine but there can't be to many feats that all do this or optimizers will do nothing but take them until they strain the system past the breaking point - i.e. until they can't reasonably adventure together with a character that is not doing the same thing.
Essentially the optimizers need to be kept in check or those that don't want to optimize actually loose their choices. Its no longer possible to have one character make a brainy fighter that has lots of knowledge in dungeonering as well as good parley skills and have him still be reasonably good in combat when side by side with the optimized character.
Its from the perspective of keeping optimizers in check that makes me think this feat is really annoying because any single feat that grants something as extreme as a +3 at 25th level results in everyone having to take it (or alternatively no one take it) because the difference between those that have it and those that don't is to much.
Are you seriously assuming that a character's stat bonuses will remain at +4 (i.e., 18) all the way to level 30? Please tell me I'm reading that wrong, otherwise your whole argument goes down the toilet.Attacks: 15 (level) + 6 (weapon) + 4 (stat) = 25
AC: 15 (level) + 6 (armor) + 4 (stat) + 2 (masterwork) = 27, or...
15 (level) + 6 (armor) + 6 (masterwork) = 27
NADs: 15 (level) + 6 (amulet/cloak) + 4 (stat) = 25Monster Stats: 29
No, what he is calculating is the difference between starting ability score bonus and final ability score bonus, which comes out to +4. (Since there are 8 stat bumps: 4,8,11,14,18,21,24,28).
Now, this doesn't address other possible bumps (such as from Demigod, etc), but it is a representation of pretty much the base increase for any character outside of any additional options.
Gotcha. Please disregard my earlier statement.
|
|
Finally, one more point is possibly made up simply in improved tactical play. By epic levels, the players should have a lot of tricks up their sleeves and be very comfortable with their characters and how their party fits together as a whole. Now, this won't be true for a group that simply jumps into a level 30 one-shot... but I think that for a group that has become familiar with what their characters can do by epic levels, that does make up for a bit of numerical loss in play.
That's right.
Each player is responsible for one PC, and maybe the odd cohort, who they've practiced with for months.The DM has a bunch of creatures of varying races and roles, who he may have only read up on the night before.
They need an edge to make up for the fact that the guy running them is playing catch-up.
Hmm, don't care. I make decently maximized characters, much to my annoyance when one of my pre-gens steamrolls an encounter I am DMing. Still I have never felt any compunction about taking less than 20 in a main stat or taken the very best feat/power at every level. You don't need to.
This is not a computer game where an extra 1% increase in dps can mean the difference between success or failure, it is a storytelling game with a living, breathing Ref to provide a challenge and also to keep things flowing. If your DM is not very tactically minded a very weak character in a decent team will do fine. If your DM is a balls-busting rules nut who overloads his encounters and your teammates are disorganized the most maxed uber character in the world will not help.