75 posts / 0 new

## Pages

A lot of people have been saying that the thing they love about BA is that it lets them continue to use low-level monsters throughout their campaign.  Specifically avoiding the question of whether this is BA's doing or related to the narrower and perhaps unrelated issue of the flatter attack/AC math, I wish to challenge this belief.  Monster relevance is determined by power scaling, regardless of whether that power scaling comes from HP/damage or AC/attack.  To illustrate:

1) When it comes to whether a low level monster is still relevant, their damage number doesn't matter.  What matters is their damage as a proportion of your HP; this determines how many hits it would take them to kill you on their own (or with their brethren), but also how many of their hits it would take to add up to the hit of an at-level monster and how likely the damage they do will make the difference between you dropping to zero and you not dropping to zero at some point today (because ultimately how close you are to dropping to zero is the only part of HP that matters, even if it won't matter for 3 more encounters).

2) Removing or largely removing AC/attack scaling means pushing more of your power scaling into HP.  If next had more scaling in AC/attack, then it could reduce the rate at which you gained damage/HP and still allow you to fight tougher and more numerous monsters as you level.

Putting 1 and 2 together: When you're measuring monster damage as a % of PC HP, reduced PC HP means monsters do more damage even if their damage number is the same (2 damage means more if you've only got 2HP than if you've got 200).  Thus, reduced HP scaling means low level monsters do more damage when they hit.   By fiddling with exactly how fast PC AC and HP grow, you can actually make it so that monster DPR stays exactly the same in either system.  So when you fight a monster that is, say, 10 levels below you, it could be doing 1/10 of your HP in damage on a hit and hitting 10% of the time, or it could be doing 1/50 of your HP in damage but hitting 50% of the time.  Either way, you can survive 100 attacks from such a monster.  Similarly, against a level+10 monster, it could be hitting you 90% of the time and doing 55% of your HP in damage, or it could be hitting 50% of the time and doing 100% of your HP in damage.  Either way, on average you can survive 2 attacks from such a monster.

Either way, their relevance is the same.  However, in the accuracy-scaling system, low level monsters rarely hit but do real damage when they do it, which makes them less tedius to run because a miss is resolved more quickly than a hit for meaningless damage.  Granted a rarely-hit system means that a single kobold is unlikely to survive long enough to hit at all and therefore have truly 0 impact on the game rather than a negligibly small one, but even if the mooks are only backing up their dragon overlord there are likely to be enough of them that one will hit before they all die, so it works out even if you have a problem with that difference.  I also think it feels more heroic to be able to dodge/parry (yes, I think parry belongs in AC) 90% of their attacks even if in the aggregate 20 of them are equally dangerous.  I also think that it both makes more sense and makes the game work better if you can hit the low level monsters more often, as it corrects for the overkill problem that even without MDD a fighter is doing enough damage to kill a kobold three times over so that an 11th level fighter is no better at killing kobolds than a 20th level fighter.  Against a high level monster, yes, it's a little annoying to miss all the time, but I believe it's even more annoying to have his damage so high that he'll one shot you when he hits - too much swing.

Now there is one point that I have thus far glossed over.  With accuracy scaling, the relevance of off level characters is not linear the way it is with damage scaling.  When you reduce a monster's hit rate from 50% to 45%, you reduce his DPR by 10%; when you reduce it from 25% to 20%, you reduce DPR by 20%.  Thus, if you set the scale rates to keep the power ratio of PCs vs monsters of +/- 1 level the same in either an accuracy or a damage scaling system, the PC will be more powerful relative to +/- 5 level monsters.  This is the one and only reason why an accuracy scaling system has less relevance for low-level monsters.  However, this difference is relatively small until you reach the extremes.  Provided monsters are still hitting at least 30% of the time, the disparity is really pretty small, and is partially made up for by the fact that monsters are faster to run when they miss instead of hitting for pittance.  If AC on average increases every other level, you can still dip a solid 7-8 levels below you.  If monster accuracy varies within a given level (which by all means it should) there will be monsters that fall out sooner but also ones that stay relevant longer.  Similar numbers on the upside.

But what about the monsters beyond that range you say?  In a damage/HP scaling system, those monsters are still a pain in the butt to run as written.  The sheer numbers of low-levels you need to add up to even one at-level monster are just tedius, while the high level ones are one-shotting your party because their damage is too concentrated.  Now, you can effectively run low-levels by aggregating them, as has been suggested: lump'em together in 10s and roll once for their attack, multiplying the damage by however many are left in the group.  But once you're doing that, you can add a few points of accuracy too (it's a lot harder to dodge ten spear thrusts than 1, even if they are wielded by incompetents).  As to high-level monsters, any monster that high in level was going to kill you anyway, and I don't have a problem with saying you don't get to hit them at all before they do instead of you hit them for negligible damage.  You should be running away anyway, and the kinds of things that should help you run away either don't target AC (spells) or really shouldn't work as easily as they do on a low-level monster anyway (hurricane strike).

TL;DR: persistent threat level is determined by power scaling, not accuracy scaling.  Accuracy scaling is only one variable in the equation, and dialing that up doesn't mean you need to have more power scaling.  You can have a system where monsters are viable threats - both in their damage output and their practicality - for as long in a system with more accuracy scaling than we have now.  Doing so would create fewer problems in other areas: problems like the poison blade, the monk's bi+c#, the archery contest, like a blurred line narratively between hit and miss that, wherever it is, is nowhere near the sharp mechanical line between the two, like characters who get better at pinpointing your vital organs but are equally likely to miss you so thoroughly that you don't even need to expend HP to avoid the blow, like damage bloat that makes us roll 8 dice for a single attack and adds extra steps to our damage math, like HP bloat that exacerbates the wierd areas that have always lurked at the fringes.  Doing so would not put us on any more of a treadmill than we are on now, even if you are of the opinion that challenges scaling equally with PCs is a treadmill.  Doing so would not require +30s to hit, and would allow us to avoid +30s to damage.  And you know what, it would make a lot of people on these boards happy.  So if it costs more or less nothing, why in gods' name wouldn't we?

I would like if possible to avoid another thread about whether attack/AC scaling is better/worse/necessary.  I list my problems with a nearly pure-HP scaling only to set the context for the debate, we have plenty of other threads where we can argue whether those problems are real, and I and others are happy to engage those debates on those threads.  This thread is about the practicality of fighting high and low level monsters in a system with and a system without meaningful levels of AC/accuracy scaling.
mellored
Joined Jul 2008
22695 Posts
You are corrrect, it's a matter of % difference. However, when you scale accuracy and HP, you end up with quadratic scaling.

Thus if you double your AC % (50%->25%), double your To-hit % (50%->75%), double your damage, and dobule your HP. The monster is now (2x2x2x2) = 16x weaker.

They can fall out of usability very fast that way.

BA slows one of those down.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

lokiare
Joined Dec 1969
You are corrrect, it's a matter of % difference. However, when you scale accuracy and HP, you end up with quadratic scaling. Thus if you double your AC % (50%->25%), double your To-hit % (50%->75%), double your damage, and dobule your HP. The monster is now (2x2x2x2) = 16x weaker. They can fall out of usability very fast that way. BA slows one of those down.

Actually it doesn't, because the number of attacks you take goes up geometrically the more low level monsters you use. So while your multiples go down in your equation, the number of attacks you take goes up to compensate. Focus fire can easily kill any character with 20+ monsters of any level...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
I think people have been so used to the idea that low level = low accuracy = easily becoming insignificant that the moment they see "Look! No defense scaling!" some of them all like "hooray! we can use our low level monsters against high level PCs!", forgetting that it's a combination of reasons that make low level monsters insignificant.

With AC no longer auto-scaling, monsters now have to rely more on HP than AC to stay relevant for more than one turn.  While it does achieve what was advertised before -- elites becoming standards becoming minions by virtue of HP/damage not scaling -- it also results in a couple of other things:

• bloated HP

• if you want your monster to last for more than one round, especially when you're looking at 4+ level 20 PCs doing what, 1d12+6d6+28 damage (average: 55.5 damage) per round, not counting accuracy/damage boosts and PCs eventually hitting 75% of the time?

• Unless you don't mind Asmodeus being killed in one round by 3 level 17 Fighters who have +3 silvered greatswords or something to that effect, that is.  That, and having PCs facing gods as if they were just regular cannon fodder.

• technically Asmodeus cheats Bounded Accuracy by forcing PCs to either fight at disadvantage [lowering accuracy, which is effectively the same as giving him more AC], or having PCs deal minimum damage among other disadvantages [which makes his bloated HP even more apparent, turning the 55.5 average damage into 34 damage]

• bloated damage

• the only means to compensate for bloated HP is bloated damage (as seen done in the latest playtest as of post time)

• because each point in accuracy has such a huge impact, fighting with advantage makes bloated damage even more phenomenally bloated (since it almost assures a hit)

• combat becoming easier as PCs progressed

• PCs get to do more damage, likely enough to take out low level monsters so quickly and easily that they are rendered insignificant anyway.

• Unless you utilize bloated HP or monster numbers, you still end up with monsters becoming irrelevant at higher levels

• Except if you're a firm believer of "death of a thousand cuts"

• Ironically, this is exactly how D&D 4E minions were made relevant, except at least you could feel the "high level" part of a high level minion by virtue of them being hard to kill, while in this setup the only time you'd feel that a high level minion is actually a minion is if you eventually deal enough damage to make them minions

If we were designing D&D Next as if we were designing AD&D 2E -- with no monster levels (in which case, we should drop the pretense of levels and remove them entirely in the next packet) and focusing on EXP as a relative determinant of monster capability -- we'd probably have more justification for how Bounded Accuracy works.  But honestly, I'm not really sure how to approach D&D Next at the mechanical level, especially when it comes to designing monsters... or am I just to throw in some random numbers and then just tell the TPK'ed group that all is fair in love and war, and at least they were hitting it easily?
Show

57047238 wrote:
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
I Don't Always Play Strikers...But When I Do, I Prefer Vampire Stay Thirsty, My Friends
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery. What I hope to be my most useful contributions to the D&D Community: DM Idea: Collaborative Mapping, Classless 4E (homebrew system, that hopefully helps in D&D Next development), Gamma World 7E random character generator (by yours truly), and the Concept of Perfect Imbalance (for D&D Next and other TRPGs in development) Pre-3E D&D should be recognized for what they were: simulation wargames where people could tell stories with The Best Answer to "Why 4E?" Fun vs. Engaging
MechaPilot
Joined Oct 2007
13102 Posts
@OP: I generally like bounded accuracy, but you are right about some of the flaws of it's current execution.

Low level monsters are really meaningless against high level characters.  In melee, they won't live long enough to get in more than a single hit for rather insignificant damage.  At range, even focus-firing, their damage is low enough that it takes a virtual army of them to be any kind of immediate threat (about 10 of them per PC if we're talking about Gnolls from the current package).  Given that this was the whole point of bounded accuracy, I am forced to conclude that it is currently a failure.  Minions, monster advancement, and entries for single monsters throughout the entire level range seem better suited to maintaining relevence than the current iteration of BA does.

##### You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

Save the breasts.

Mand12
Joined Dec 1969
You have a different definition of "relevance" than the devs do.

You seem to believe that relevance means "capable of putting up a fair fight."  That's not the goal.

The goal is participation.  Something with a 5% hitrate is a non-combatant.  Meaning, it's not worth even bothering running their turn as a DM.

Something with a modest hitrate is still a combatant, even if it's an anklebiter.  And those bites add up, which means they're worth tracking.  Sure, you can expand the HP/damage scaling to levels that make those bites totally irrelevant, but the HP/damage scaling isn't that severe and it's not going to be that severe.  And if it is that severe, then it needs to be fixed.  Your argument here is very near to a reduction to the absurd, saying that with extreme HP/damage scaling the thing breaks down.  Well, yes, it does.  That's why they're not going to do that.

"Persistent threat level" does not mean that the creature is still the same kind of threat.  To put in 4e terms (for convenience, don't get your edition wars in a bunch), a monster might be a Solo for a level 1 party, an Elite for a level 4 party, a Standard for a level 7 party, and a Minion for a level 10 party.  The very same monster - no adjustment to stats - is still functional for all ten levels, yet the impact the monster has on the fight is changing by an enormous degree.  This is what the goal is.  The goal is not that something that's a good fight alone for an entire party at level X is always going to be a good fight alone at level X+Y.  The goal is that the monster is still functional, albeit in a completely different way than it was before.

You really have a distorted understanding of what the actual goals of the system are.  You're then complaining that it's not doing what it's supposed to do, but you're thinking it's supposed to be doing something the devs aren't trying to do.

Furthermore, you're basing all this analysis on the current state of monsters, and trying to claim that the current relationship between players and monsters is the intended relationship.  It's not.  Monsters aren't done yet.  They're not even close to done yet.  And they can't even try to work on making them done until they get the classes finished, because the classes will determine everything about the monster math:  where they start, how fast they grow, every number whatsoever.  And given that they're making severe iterations on class design, the idea that monsters will ever be in a good enough shape to evaluate whether they're hitting their targets for the player-monster interaction is just folly.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Rhenny
Joined Dec 1969
You have a different definition of "relevance" than the devs do.

You seem to believe that relevance means "capable of putting up a fair fight."  That's not the goal.

The goal is participation.  Something with a 5% hitrate is a non-combatant.  Meaning, it's not worth even bothering running their turn as a DM.

Something with a modest hitrate is still a combatant, even if it's an anklebiter.  And those bites add up, which means they're worth tracking.  Sure, you can expand the HP/damage scaling to levels that make those bites totally irrelevant, but the HP/damage scaling isn't that severe and it's not going to be that severe.  And if it is that severe, then it needs to be fixed.  Your argument here is very near to a reduction to the absurd, saying that with extreme HP/damage scaling the thing breaks down.  Well, yes, it does.  That's why they're not going to do that.

"Persistent threat level" does not mean that the creature is still the same kind of threat.  To put in 4e terms (for convenience, don't get your edition wars in a bunch), a monster might be a Solo for a level 1 party, an Elite for a level 4 party, a Standard for a level 7 party, and a Minion for a level 10 party.  The very same monster - no adjustment to stats - is still functional for all ten levels, yet the impact the monster has on the fight is changing by an enormous degree.  This is what the goal is.  The goal is not that something that's a good fight alone for an entire party at level X is always going to be a good fight alone at level X+Y.  The goal is that the monster is still functional, albeit in a completely different way than it was before.

+1   I agree

A Brave Knight of WTF

The goal is participation.  Something with a 5% hitrate is a non-combatant.  Meaning, it's not worth even bothering running their turn as a DM.

It is if there is enough of them.

Something with a modest hitrate is still a combatant, even if it's an anklebiter.  And those bites add up, which means they're worth tracking.  Sure, you can expand the HP/damage scaling to levels that make those bites totally irrelevant, but the HP/damage scaling isn't that severe and it's not going to be that severe.  And if it is that severe, then it needs to be fixed.

Ah, so if people are finding that the current HP/damage scaling is not really having much of an effect in making these monsters "relevant for longer", then the designers need to reduce the HP/damage scaling as well, and then these anklebiters can truly be "relevant for longer"?

Well of course. If you drastically reduce both forms of mathematical scaling (both the HP/damage scale and the AC/attack scale), then these monsters can indeed remain significant over more levels. But you could also accomplish that by not "bounding" either scale, and instead just using only 6 or 8 or 10 levels from the progressive 20-level system. It will have pretty much the same effect.

In other words, why advocate for the total destruction of the progressive system that we want, when you can actually still do what you want within the progressive system: just instead of using 20 levels, you choose to use only 6 or 8 or 10. Then those monsters that you so desperately want to use for longer will be relevant for a much larger percentage of the levels you are using. Problem solved, and we don't irreparably fracture the community in doing it.

And so we could get the progressive 1-20 system that we want, and you could get your more limited system because you are using only levels 1-8 or 1-10 or whatever from that progresssive system. In other words, people can effectively decide how "bounded" they want their game to be, by simply choosing a subset of levels to use from the progressive 1-20 system.

The other option is to bound the entire system, levels 1-20, and while this may suit your needs, it makes it utterly impossible for us to get what we want, period.

Only one of those options keeps the community intact.
Leadership and class choice should have NOTHING to do with each other, EVER. Conflating the two is simply horrendous game design.
Dwarfslayer
Joined Oct 2010
2659 Posts
You have a different definition of "relevance" than the devs do.

You seem to believe that relevance means "capable of putting up a fair fight."  That's not the goal.

The goal is participation.  Something with a 5% hitrate is a non-combatant.  Meaning, it's not worth even bothering running their turn as a DM.

Something with a modest hitrate is still a combatant, even if it's an anklebiter.  And those bites add up, which means they're worth tracking.  Sure, you can expand the HP/damage scaling to levels that make those bites totally irrelevant, but the HP/damage scaling isn't that severe and it's not going to be that severe.  And if it is that severe, then it needs to be fixed.  Your argument here is very near to a reduction to the absurd, saying that with extreme HP/damage scaling the thing breaks down.  Well, yes, it does.  That's why they're not going to do that.

Yeah, basically it's a more natural way to turn weaker monsters into 4E style minions. Yeah, you drop them in one hit and they do only minor damage, but that damage can rapidly add up if you're facing multiple monsters.

Overall the system seems to achieve that pretty well. The real problem it seems to have is the higher level monsters, which just don't seem to live up to what they should be.

lokiare
Joined Dec 1969
You have a different definition of "relevance" than the devs do.

You seem to believe that relevance means "capable of putting up a fair fight."  That's not the goal.

The goal is participation.  Something with a 5% hitrate is a non-combatant.  Meaning, it's not worth even bothering running their turn as a DM.

Something with a modest hitrate is still a combatant, even if it's an anklebiter.  And those bites add up, which means they're worth tracking.  Sure, you can expand the HP/damage scaling to levels that make those bites totally irrelevant, but the HP/damage scaling isn't that severe and it's not going to be that severe.  And if it is that severe, then it needs to be fixed.  Your argument here is very near to a reduction to the absurd, saying that with extreme HP/damage scaling the thing breaks down.  Well, yes, it does.  That's why they're not going to do that.

"Persistent threat level" does not mean that the creature is still the same kind of threat.  To put in 4e terms (for convenience, don't get your edition wars in a bunch), a monster might be a Solo for a level 1 party, an Elite for a level 4 party, a Standard for a level 7 party, and a Minion for a level 10 party.  The very same monster - no adjustment to stats - is still functional for all ten levels, yet the impact the monster has on the fight is changing by an enormous degree.  This is what the goal is.  The goal is not that something that's a good fight alone for an entire party at level X is always going to be a good fight alone at level X+Y.  The goal is that the monster is still functional, albeit in a completely different way than it was before.

You really have a distorted understanding of what the actual goals of the system are.  You're then complaining that it's not doing what it's supposed to do, but you're thinking it's supposed to be doing something the devs aren't trying to do.

Furthermore, you're basing all this analysis on the current state of monsters, and trying to claim that the current relationship between players and monsters is the intended relationship.  It's not.  Monsters aren't done yet.  They're not even close to done yet.  And they can't even try to work on making them done until they get the classes finished, because the classes will determine everything about the monster math:  where they start, how fast they grow, every number whatsoever.  And given that they're making severe iterations on class design, the idea that monsters will ever be in a good enough shape to evaluate whether they're hitting their targets for the player-monster interaction is just folly.

Problem is we have that already. With 4E you can still use monsters that are +/- 4 levels That means at level 10 you can still fight weak level 6 monsters or strong level 14 monsters.

If you go below that you run into the same problem in 4E as you do in 5E. The monsters are either too weak to matter and you can mop them up in a few rounds or they are plentiful enough to focus fire your characters to death. 50 attacks that deal 1 point of damage is still 50 points of damage. In 5E's case we are talking 20-30 attacks that deal 4-5 points of damage on average which is as much as 150 damage enough to take out any 10th level character.

So the whole, 'they last longer' is just a pipe dream. You either end up with too little or too much...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Reinhart
Joined Dec 1969
I'm putting together a new design article about scaling systems and "treadmills" and I'm glad to see people here actually hitting the same issues and tradeoffs I've noticed. This is a debate that the design team should have had and resolved six months ago.
lokiare
Joined Dec 1969
I'm putting together a new design article about scaling systems and "treadmills" and I'm glad to see people here actually hitting the same issues and tradeoffs I've noticed. This is a debate that the design team should have had and resolved six months ago.

Wait, I thought the developers were gods, how can this not be?
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
I'm putting together a new design article about scaling systems and "treadmills" and I'm glad to see people here actually hitting the same issues and tradeoffs I've noticed. This is a debate that the design team should have had and resolved six months ago.

Indeed, especially considering that many of us noticed some of the glaring flaws in bounded accuracy as soon as it was announced.

How did no one on their design team notice this stuff?
Leadership and class choice should have NOTHING to do with each other, EVER. Conflating the two is simply horrendous game design.
Orzel
Joined Aug 2007
5092 Posts
You have a different definition of "relevance" than the devs do.

You seem to believe that relevance means "capable of putting up a fair fight."  That's not the goal.

The goal is participation.  Something with a 5% hitrate is a non-combatant.  Meaning, it's not worth even bothering running their turn as a DM.

Something with a modest hitrate is still a combatant, even if it's an anklebiter.  And those bites add up, which means they're worth tracking.  Sure, you can expand the HP/damage scaling to levels that make those bites totally irrelevant, but the HP/damage scaling isn't that severe and it's not going to be that severe.  And if it is that severe, then it needs to be fixed.  Your argument here is very near to a reduction to the absurd, saying that with extreme HP/damage scaling the thing breaks down.  Well, yes, it does.  That's why they're not going to do that.

"Persistent threat level" does not mean that the creature is still the same kind of threat.  To put in 4e terms (for convenience, don't get your edition wars in a bunch), a monster might be a Solo for a level 1 party, an Elite for a level 4 party, a Standard for a level 7 party, and a Minion for a level 10 party.  The very same monster - no adjustment to stats - is still functional for all ten levels, yet the impact the monster has on the fight is changing by an enormous degree.  This is what the goal is.  The goal is not that something that's a good fight alone for an entire party at level X is always going to be a good fight alone at level X+Y.  The goal is that the monster is still functional, albeit in a completely different way than it was before.

You really have a distorted understanding of what the actual goals of the system are.  You're then complaining that it's not doing what it's supposed to do, but you're thinking it's supposed to be doing something the devs aren't trying to do.

Furthermore, you're basing all this analysis on the current state of monsters, and trying to claim that the current relationship between players and monsters is the intended relationship.  It's not.  Monsters aren't done yet.  They're not even close to done yet.  And they can't even try to work on making them done until they get the classes finished, because the classes will determine everything about the monster math:  where they start, how fast they grow, every number whatsoever.  And given that they're making severe iterations on class design, the idea that monsters will ever be in a good enough shape to evaluate whether they're hitting their targets for the player-monster interaction is just folly.

Problem is we have that already. With 4E you can still use monsters that are +/- 4 levels That means at level 10 you can still fight weak level 6 monsters or strong level 14 monsters.

If you go below that you run into the same problem in 4E as you do in 5E. The monsters are either too weak to matter and you can mop them up in a few rounds or they are plentiful enough to focus fire your characters to death. 50 attacks that deal 1 point of damage is still 50 points of damage. In 5E's case we are talking 20-30 attacks that deal 4-5 points of damage on average which is as much as 150 damage enough to take out any 10th level character.

So the whole, 'they last longer' is just a pipe dream. You either end up with too little or too much...

But that has little to do with the to hit/AC. The issue existed in earlier editions.

The main difference is DDN doesn't have bloated HP (4E) or Damage Resistance (Pre4E). Either the underleveled monster had a 4% hit rate or did <1% of the monster's heath in damage

Without bloated HP, AC, and DR, every monster can harm every other monster.

The issue it seems it that a portion of the fanbase hates the idea.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

lokiare
Joined Dec 1969
You have a different definition of "relevance" than the devs do.

You seem to believe that relevance means "capable of putting up a fair fight."  That's not the goal.

The goal is participation.  Something with a 5% hitrate is a non-combatant.  Meaning, it's not worth even bothering running their turn as a DM.

Something with a modest hitrate is still a combatant, even if it's an anklebiter.  And those bites add up, which means they're worth tracking.  Sure, you can expand the HP/damage scaling to levels that make those bites totally irrelevant, but the HP/damage scaling isn't that severe and it's not going to be that severe.  And if it is that severe, then it needs to be fixed.  Your argument here is very near to a reduction to the absurd, saying that with extreme HP/damage scaling the thing breaks down.  Well, yes, it does.  That's why they're not going to do that.

"Persistent threat level" does not mean that the creature is still the same kind of threat.  To put in 4e terms (for convenience, don't get your edition wars in a bunch), a monster might be a Solo for a level 1 party, an Elite for a level 4 party, a Standard for a level 7 party, and a Minion for a level 10 party.  The very same monster - no adjustment to stats - is still functional for all ten levels, yet the impact the monster has on the fight is changing by an enormous degree.  This is what the goal is.  The goal is not that something that's a good fight alone for an entire party at level X is always going to be a good fight alone at level X+Y.  The goal is that the monster is still functional, albeit in a completely different way than it was before.

You really have a distorted understanding of what the actual goals of the system are.  You're then complaining that it's not doing what it's supposed to do, but you're thinking it's supposed to be doing something the devs aren't trying to do.

Furthermore, you're basing all this analysis on the current state of monsters, and trying to claim that the current relationship between players and monsters is the intended relationship.  It's not.  Monsters aren't done yet.  They're not even close to done yet.  And they can't even try to work on making them done until they get the classes finished, because the classes will determine everything about the monster math:  where they start, how fast they grow, every number whatsoever.  And given that they're making severe iterations on class design, the idea that monsters will ever be in a good enough shape to evaluate whether they're hitting their targets for the player-monster interaction is just folly.

Problem is we have that already. With 4E you can still use monsters that are +/- 4 levels That means at level 10 you can still fight weak level 6 monsters or strong level 14 monsters.

If you go below that you run into the same problem in 4E as you do in 5E. The monsters are either too weak to matter and you can mop them up in a few rounds or they are plentiful enough to focus fire your characters to death. 50 attacks that deal 1 point of damage is still 50 points of damage. In 5E's case we are talking 20-30 attacks that deal 4-5 points of damage on average which is as much as 150 damage enough to take out any 10th level character.

So the whole, 'they last longer' is just a pipe dream. You either end up with too little or too much...

But that has little to do with the to hit/AC. The issue existed in earlier editions.

The main difference is DDN doesn't have bloated HP (4E) or Damage Resistance (Pre4E). Either the underleveled monster had a 4% hit rate or did <1% of the monster's heath in damage. Without bloated HP, AC, and DR, every monster can harm every other monster.

The issue it seems it that a portion of the fanbase hates the idea.

4E doesn't have bloated hit points. You start with more, but end up with less. This is because in previous editions you started low but got your con mod to hit points. 4E you didn't, so you actually ended up with many more hit points in previous editions. Monsters had enough hit points to last 3-4 rounds at level and 2-3 below level in 4E. It seems the problem is some posters don't understand previous editions 4E included. 5E also has DR in the form of resistance and immunities. Monsters have bloated HP in 5E.

It might help if you brushed up on the rules of 5E and possibly 4E and previous editions before you start commenting...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
mellored
Joined Jul 2008
22695 Posts
Many people hate it because it's different. Nothing you can do about that.

Others just think it's too bounded. And that low level monsters should NOT be able to kill high level ones. Even in vast numbers.

Personally i think it just needs some tweaking. One vs an army should be a good battle. But right now it's one vs a small village.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

lokiare
Joined Dec 1969
Many people hate it because it's different. Nothing you can do about that. Others just think it's too bounded. And that low level monsters should NOT be able to kill high level ones. Even in vast numbers. Personally i think it just needs some tweaking. One vs an army should be a good battle. But right now it's one vs a small village.

Yes, all of our arguments instead of being based on facts and number crunching are entirely dependent on us having a ludicrous 'hate' because its 'different'. Yep, totally.

Some people need to reason before they post though...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
You are corrrect, it's a matter of % difference. However, when you scale accuracy and HP, you end up with quadratic scaling. Thus if you double your AC % (50%->25%), double your To-hit % (50%->75%), double your damage, and dobule your HP. The monster is now (2x2x2x2) = 16x weaker. They can fall out of usability very fast that way. BA slows one of those down.

But it accellerates the other two, that's the whole point.  If we doubled AC/attack scaling and halved HP/damage scaling, we'd be in exactly the same place power scaling ("double" and "halved" not to be taken literally, the math would need to be done more precisely).
You have a different definition of "relevance" than the devs do.

You seem to believe that relevance means "capable of putting up a fair fight."  That's not the goal.

The goal is participation.  Something with a 5% hitrate is a non-combatant.  Meaning, it's not worth even bothering running their turn as a DM.

Something with a modest hitrate is still a combatant, even if it's an anklebiter.  And those bites add up, which means they're worth tracking.  Sure, you can expand the HP/damage scaling to levels that make those bites totally irrelevant, but the HP/damage scaling isn't that severe and it's not going to be that severe.  And if it is that severe, then it needs to be fixed.  Your argument here is very near to a reduction to the absurd, saying that with extreme HP/damage scaling the thing breaks down.  Well, yes, it does.  That's why they're not going to do that.

"Persistent threat level" does not mean that the creature is still the same kind of threat.  To put in 4e terms (for convenience, don't get your edition wars in a bunch), a monster might be a Solo for a level 1 party, an Elite for a level 4 party, a Standard for a level 7 party, and a Minion for a level 10 party.  The very same monster - no adjustment to stats - is still functional for all ten levels, yet the impact the monster has on the fight is changing by an enormous degree.  This is what the goal is.  The goal is not that something that's a good fight alone for an entire party at level X is always going to be a good fight alone at level X+Y.  The goal is that the monster is still functional, albeit in a completely different way than it was before.

You really have a distorted understanding of what the actual goals of the system are.  You're then complaining that it's not doing what it's supposed to do, but you're thinking it's supposed to be doing something the devs aren't trying to do.

Furthermore, you're basing all this analysis on the current state of monsters, and trying to claim that the current relationship between players and monsters is the intended relationship.  It's not.  Monsters aren't done yet.  They're not even close to done yet.  And they can't even try to work on making them done until they get the classes finished, because the classes will determine everything about the monster math:  where they start, how fast they grow, every number whatsoever.  And given that they're making severe iterations on class design, the idea that monsters will ever be in a good enough shape to evaluate whether they're hitting their targets for the player-monster interaction is just folly.

1) You're right, ankle biters add up.  When you have a lot of them.  But when you have a lot of them, 5% accuracy adds up to.  It's not that I'm trying to suggest that a kobold should still be a threat to a level 10 PC, it's that I'm denying that a kobold who hits 5% of the time for 10 damage is less of a threat than a kobold who hits 25% of the time for 2 damage.  I deny that something with a 5% hit rate is any more a non-combatant than something with a 30% hit rate that does 1/42 of your HP in damage when it does hit.  I deny that the latter monster is more functional, or more of a participant.  Especially if he's only fielded in groups.

2) I'm not actually basing this on the current state of monsters.  I'm basing it on math.  Wherever they choose to put the monster numbers, whatever the power scaling rate, it remains true that that power scale can be achieved with a mixed scale, not just a HP scale.

I really feel like much of this is a non argument.

Scaling accuracy and AC up while scaling hp & damage down can place mobs in the exact same place, even low levels mathematically as far as "percent damage done per round."

Adding half level to all defenses and to your accuracy is boring and evens out mathematically and doesn't make me feel more heroic.

I like the bounded accuracy.

(to contradict someone earlier):
I like being able to set a plus to hit at any level, set hps at any level, set damage at any level and know that that mob is balanced for that level and thus usable as a solo, minion or whatever for an appropriate level below or above that mob. It isn't hard. It is simpler to design this mob than one who has to have all those things scale to match its level and status. Allowing a small number of things to scale makes mob creation on the fly MUCH simpler. I don't need a monster maker to tell me what the damage points, hps, AC, accuracy or anything should be.

As far as HP bloat? What? Did I miss something here? We have 3e hps as far as I can tell and honestly, 2e con modifiers weren't all that much different either - sorta. No clue about 4e. My 4e phb is buried under 7 kids of xmas presents and a car - literally. However, my 4e MM says that a green dragon at 5th level has over 200 HPS <--- bloat! The balor in this packet has 207. I'll grant that Asmodeus is at 250 with the disadvantage stuffs - but come on its Asmodeus. I'm missing some of the math on that argument.
Currently running a playtest, weekly, online D&D Next Session using a virtual table system called roll20.
My point here is when creating a monster, I can say:

how hard it is to hit? and write down a number that is relevant regardless of the PC level
how often should it hit? and write down a number that is relevant regardless of the PC level

Without bounded accuracy I must do more careful investigation on this. It is simply easier to design monsters when some of these things are bounded.

Without bounded accuracy, it is a little weird to have 1000 kobolds  attack you and can't do damage, but when they do they deal max damage. It is simply strange. Although I will admit, that is a much easier fight to run.
Currently running a playtest, weekly, online D&D Next Session using a virtual table system called roll20.
Orzel
Joined Aug 2007
5092 Posts

4E doesn't have bloated hit points. You start with more, but end up with less. This is because in previous editions you started low but got your con mod to hit points. 4E you didn't, so you actually ended up with many more hit points in previous editions. Monsters had enough hit points to last 3-4 rounds at level and 2-3 below level in 4E. It seems the problem is some posters don't understand previous editions 4E included. 5E also has DR in the form of resistance and immunities. Monsters have bloated HP in 5E.

It might help if you brushed up on the rules of 5E and possibly 4E and previous editions before you start commenting...

I meant the Monsters had boated HP.

The reason why a town coudn't take out a dragon was because the dragon might have over 500 HP and an AOE breath weapon every 3 turns.
But 4E wasn't designed for monsters vs monsters.

But it you made the PC equivalent of commoners, you'd have to give the dragon even more HP.

----

As a test I have a pit fiend DR5 via the black draon amror and had 100 hobgoblin shoot him with shortbows. The pitfiend kills hobgobs ~10 at a time via spells and attacks. Whie the hob army plicks of ~6 HP a turn due to damage reduction and disadvantage. With equal XP 2000 hobs coud eventuay kill a pit fiend, if he doesn't wish for an earthquake and kill every hobgobin in a 100ft radius or wish for piering immunity.

And that is where math fails. Math doesn't account for tactics and versatiity. Thousands of sodiers might be abe to add up their scapes and deal good damage to a powerful being but "high level" is about big effects and countermeasures.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

mellored
Joined Jul 2008
22695 Posts
@lokiare: hate might be too strong for most people. But i've definitely seen it.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

You can't simply bound one aspect of the system, you must bound it all to succeed in what bounds intend to accomplish.

Bounded numbers need to impact accuracy, defense, damage, HP; all of it.

The length of combat should be set around 4-5 rounds when facing level-equivalent monsters, and those 4-5 rounds should feel like a rough tumble.

If all numbers are bound, facing lower-level monsters results in a fight that is a round or two shorter, and facing higher-level monsters is a round or two longer. No threat is irrelevant or insurmountable unless it is an outlier at either end of the spectrum, or it's intentionally designed to be an 'out of bounds' threat.

Monsters get easier to deal with as you level, but they're never rendered pointless mooks.

Danny

I think BA shouldn't be considered in a vacuum; compare it to previous editions and look at what they have actually changed.

For example, let's look at damage and HP. Comparing this edition to 3e, characters gain HP at pretty much exactly the same rate. Spellcasters improve their damage at a SLOWER rate than 3e, because you get so few spell slots and because spells don't auto-scale in damage (so you can't do 10d6 damage with level 3 slots). The only people who get a big damage buff are non-casters, because that's what the math requires for them to be able to not suck without attacking 4 times per round.

In other words, the swollen damage dice for martial classes are NOT a direct result of BA. They're a result of attempting to balance martial classes against spellcasters without re-introducing something annoying like 3e iterative attacks or complex 4e power damage formulas.

lokiare
Joined Dec 1969
I really feel like much of this is a non argument.

Scaling accuracy and AC up while scaling hp & damage down can place mobs in the exact same place, even low levels mathematically as far as "percent damage done per round."

Adding half level to all defenses and to your accuracy is boring and evens out mathematically and doesn't make me feel more heroic.

I like the bounded accuracy.

(to contradict someone earlier):
I like being able to set a plus to hit at any level, set hps at any level, set damage at any level and know that that mob is balanced for that level and thus usable as a solo, minion or whatever for an appropriate level below or above that mob. It isn't hard. It is simpler to design this mob than one who has to have all those things scale to match its level and status. Allowing a small number of things to scale makes mob creation on the fly MUCH simpler. I don't need a monster maker to tell me what the damage points, hps, AC, accuracy or anything should be.

As far as HP bloat? What? Did I miss something here? We have 3e hps as far as I can tell and honestly, 2e con modifiers weren't all that much different either - sorta. No clue about 4e. My 4e phb is buried under 7 kids of xmas presents and a car - literally. However, my 4e MM says that a green dragon at 5th level has over 200 HPS <--- bloat! The balor in this packet has 207. I'll grant that Asmodeus is at 250 with the disadvantage stuffs - but come on its Asmodeus. I'm missing some of the math on that argument.

Setting aside that comparing numbers across editions is totally irrelevant and not helpful, no one is asking for a flat +1/2 level to attack and AC.

We are asking for scaling. Allow monsters to scale. Maybe beasts get +1 to AC every 3rd level. Maybe magic beasts start at +1 and progress like beasts. Undead might scale at +1 every 4th level, because they usually have resistances to make up for it. Maybe extra-planar creatures start at +3 and get +1 every 2nd level to reflect their other worldly nature and toughness.

You can do the same for their attack bonus. Maybe beasts don't gain much so they start at +2 and get +1 to Attack every 4th level. Maybe magic beasts start out at +2 and get +1 every 3rd level. Maybe undead have a strange accuracy and start at +3 and gain +1 every 3rd level. Maybe extra-planar creatures are just that awesome and start at +3 and gain +1 every 2nd level.

This allows us to have creatures that feel different and aren't just a huge sack of hit points with a few fancy traits. We really need to not cut out two variable and try to compensate with others...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
The goal is participation.  Something with a 5% hitrate is a non-combatant.  Meaning, it's not worth even bothering running their turn as a DM.

Something with a modest hitrate is still a combatant, even if it's an anklebiter.  And those bites add up, which means they're worth tracking.  Sure, you can expand the HP/damage scaling to levels that make those bites totally irrelevant, but the HP/damage scaling isn't that severe and it's not going to be that severe.

Exactly.

Even at level 20, you won't have enough HP to make even 1 damage meaningless.  And level 1 monsters do more than 1 damage.  Having a bunch of little guys attack is much more exciting when they can hit fairly regularly but deal a little bit of damage.  Much less exciting if they only hit on a 20.

lokiare
Joined Dec 1969
My point here is when creating a monster, I can say:

how hard it is to hit? and write down a number that is relevant regardless of the PC level
how often should it hit? and write down a number that is relevant regardless of the PC level

Without bounded accuracy I must do more careful investigation on this. It is simply easier to design monsters when some of these things are bounded.

Without bounded accuracy, it is a little weird to have 1000 kobolds  attack you and can't do damage, but when they do they deal max damage. It is simply strange. Although I will admit, that is a much easier fight to run.

Both of these problems have a better solution that doesn't gimp the combat systems variability.

You can have charts like in 4E where you just look up what each value should be or what range it should be in.

The crit damage on a hit is easy. If a creature can't hit you on a 20 without the crit rules, they could make it where you instead roll a second 1d20-1 and add the value, then if it hits its just a normal hit. If it rolls a natural 20 on the second roll then it can be considered a crit. This would solve a lot of problems bounded accuracy or not...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
lokiare
Joined Dec 1969

4E doesn't have bloated hit points. You start with more, but end up with less. This is because in previous editions you started low but got your con mod to hit points. 4E you didn't, so you actually ended up with many more hit points in previous editions. Monsters had enough hit points to last 3-4 rounds at level and 2-3 below level in 4E. It seems the problem is some posters don't understand previous editions 4E included. 5E also has DR in the form of resistance and immunities. Monsters have bloated HP in 5E.

It might help if you brushed up on the rules of 5E and possibly 4E and previous editions before you start commenting...

I meant the Monsters had boated HP.

The reason why a town coudn't take out a dragon was because the dragon might have over 500 HP and an AOE breath weapon every 3 turns.
But 4E wasn't designed for monsters vs monsters.

But it you made the PC equivalent of commoners, you'd have to give the dragon even more HP.

----

As a test I have a pit fiend DR5 via the black draon amror and had 100 hobgoblin shoot him with shortbows. The pitfiend kills hobgobs ~10 at a time via spells and attacks. Whie the hob army plicks of ~6 HP a turn due to damage reduction and disadvantage. With equal XP 2000 hobs coud eventuay kill a pit fiend, if he doesn't wish for an earthquake and kill every hobgobin in a 100ft radius or wish for piering immunity.

And that is where math fails. Math doesn't account for tactics and versatiity. Thousands of sodiers might be abe to add up their scapes and deal good damage to a powerful being but "high level" is about big effects and countermeasures.

No edition of D&D accounts for monster versus monsters not even 5E. You can actually account for the best and worst cases and calculate what's going to happen. In most cases you want to keep the variance from best and worse case to a minimum. Unfortunately when peasants can walk up and use poisoned weapons against level 20 characters and take them down, there is a problem...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
lokiare
Joined Dec 1969
@lokiare: hate might be too strong for most people. But i've definitely seen it.

'hate' wasn't the idea I was deriding. The fact that you somehow think we don't know what we are talking about when we give detailed number crunched examples of what's wrong with bounded accuracy is what I was deriding. It went something like this:

Unbounded Side: As you can see in this example where X is equal to this and Y is equal to that and you do this math problem you get this result which doesn't make sense because of bounded accuracy.

You: Quit hating on bounded accuracy
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.

4E doesn't have bloated hit points. You start with more, but end up with less. This is because in previous editions you started low but got your con mod to hit points. 4E you didn't, so you actually ended up with many more hit points in previous editions. Monsters had enough hit points to last 3-4 rounds at level and 2-3 below level in 4E. It seems the problem is some posters don't understand previous editions 4E included. 5E also has DR in the form of resistance and immunities. Monsters have bloated HP in 5E.

It might help if you brushed up on the rules of 5E and possibly 4E and previous editions before you start commenting...

I meant the Monsters had boated HP.

The reason why a town coudn't take out a dragon was because the dragon might have over 500 HP and an AOE breath weapon every 3 turns.
But 4E wasn't designed for monsters vs monsters.

But it you made the PC equivalent of commoners, you'd have to give the dragon even more HP.

----

As a test I have a pit fiend DR5 via the black draon amror and had 100 hobgoblin shoot him with shortbows. The pitfiend kills hobgobs ~10 at a time via spells and attacks. Whie the hob army plicks of ~6 HP a turn due to damage reduction and disadvantage. With equal XP 2000 hobs coud eventuay kill a pit fiend, if he doesn't wish for an earthquake and kill every hobgobin in a 100ft radius or wish for piering immunity.

And that is where math fails. Math doesn't account for tactics and versatiity. Thousands of sodiers might be abe to add up their scapes and deal good damage to a powerful being but "high level" is about big effects and countermeasures.

No edition of D&D accounts for monster versus monsters not even 5E. You can actually account for the best and worst cases and calculate what's going to happen. In most cases you want to keep the variance from best and worse case to a minimum. Unfortunately when peasants can walk up and use poisoned weapons against level 20 characters and take them down, there is a problem...

Enough peasants in any edition can do this.

Currently running a playtest, weekly, online D&D Next Session using a virtual table system called roll20.
lokiare
Joined Dec 1969
I think BA shouldn't be considered in a vacuum; compare it to previous editions and look at what they have actually changed.

For example, let's look at damage and HP. Comparing this edition to 3e, characters gain HP at pretty much exactly the same rate. Spellcasters improve their damage at a SLOWER rate than 3e, because you get so few spell slots and because spells don't auto-scale in damage (so you can't do 10d6 damage with level 3 slots). The only people who get a big damage buff are non-casters, because that's what the math requires for them to be able to not suck without attacking 4 times per round.

In other words, the swollen damage dice for martial classes are NOT a direct result of BA. They're a result of attempting to balance martial classes against spellcasters without re-introducing something annoying like 3e iterative attacks or complex 4e power damage formulas.

Actually you are correct. If they lowered the damage of spell casters they could drop the bounded accuracy nonsense and all that extra damage from fighters and the game would work better...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
I really feel like much of this is a non argument.

Scaling accuracy and AC up while scaling hp & damage down can place mobs in the exact same place, even low levels mathematically as far as "percent damage done per round."

Adding half level to all defenses and to your accuracy is boring and evens out mathematically and doesn't make me feel more heroic.

I like the bounded accuracy.

(to contradict someone earlier):
I like being able to set a plus to hit at any level, set hps at any level, set damage at any level and know that that mob is balanced for that level and thus usable as a solo, minion or whatever for an appropriate level below or above that mob. It isn't hard. It is simpler to design this mob than one who has to have all those things scale to match its level and status. Allowing a small number of things to scale makes mob creation on the fly MUCH simpler. I don't need a monster maker to tell me what the damage points, hps, AC, accuracy or anything should be.

As far as HP bloat? What? Did I miss something here? We have 3e hps as far as I can tell and honestly, 2e con modifiers weren't all that much different either - sorta. No clue about 4e. My 4e phb is buried under 7 kids of xmas presents and a car - literally. However, my 4e MM says that a green dragon at 5th level has over 200 HPS <--- bloat="" the="" balor="" in="" this="" packet="" has="" 207="" i="" ll="" grant="" that="" asmodeus="" is="" at="" 250="" with="" disadvantage="" stuffs="" -="" but="" come="" on="" its="" m="" missing="" some="" of="" math="" argument="" quote="" br="">
Setting aside that comparing numbers across editions is totally irrelevant and not helpful, no one is asking for a flat +1/2 level to attack and AC.

We are asking for scaling. Allow monsters to scale. Maybe beasts get +1 to AC every 3rd level. Maybe magic beasts start at +1 and progress like beasts. Undead might scale at +1 every 4th level, because they usually have resistances to make up for it. Maybe extra-planar creatures start at +3 and get +1 every 2nd level to reflect their other worldly nature and toughness.

You can do the same for their attack bonus. Maybe beasts don't gain much so they start at +2 and get +1 to Attack every 4th level. Maybe magic beasts start out at +2 and get +1 every 3rd level. Maybe undead have a strange accuracy and start at +3 and gain +1 every 3rd level. Maybe extra-planar creatures are just that awesome and start at +3 and gain +1 every 2nd level.

This allows us to have creatures that feel different and aren't just a huge sack of hit points with a few fancy traits. We really need to not cut out two variable and try to compensate with others...

^This is precisely what I don't want. Having to look thigns up in a table is okay, but isn't necessary since mathematically both systems work out to the same damage ratios.

This variable changing per type existed before and didn't feel different. I don't want that. Never this.

The traits now feel more different than anything in any other edition. When the zombies rolled d6 for initiative . . . yeah that felt different.

Currently running a playtest, weekly, online D&D Next Session using a virtual table system called roll20.
Mand12
Joined Dec 1969
I'm putting together a new design article about scaling systems and "treadmills" and I'm glad to see people here actually hitting the same issues and tradeoffs I've noticed. This is a debate that the design team should have had and resolved six months ago.

Indeed, especially considering that many of us noticed some of the glaring flaws in bounded accuracy as soon as it was announced.

How did no one on their design team notice this stuff?

Having not fixed it yet doesn't mean they haven't noticed it.  It's not fixable yet, not until classes are vastly closer to being in a final state.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I think BA shouldn't be considered in a vacuum; compare it to previous editions and look at what they have actually changed.

For example, let's look at damage and HP. Comparing this edition to 3e, characters gain HP at pretty much exactly the same rate. Spellcasters improve their damage at a SLOWER rate than 3e, because you get so few spell slots and because spells don't auto-scale in damage (so you can't do 10d6 damage with level 3 slots). The only people who get a big damage buff are non-casters, because that's what the math requires for them to be able to not suck without attacking 4 times per round.

In other words, the swollen damage dice for martial classes are NOT a direct result of BA. They're a result of attempting to balance martial classes against spellcasters without re-introducing something annoying like 3e iterative attacks or complex 4e power damage formulas.

Actually you are correct. If they lowered the damage of spell casters they could drop the bounded accuracy nonsense and all that extra damage from fighters and the game would work better...

COULD NOT AGREE MORE!

Danny

mellored
Joined Jul 2008
22695 Posts
@lokiare: hate might be too strong for most people. But i've definitely seen it.

'hate' wasn't the idea I was deriding. The fact that you somehow think we don't know what we are talking about when we give detailed number crunched examples of what's wrong with bounded accuracy is what I was deriding. It went something like this:

Unbounded Side: As you can see in this example where X is equal to this and Y is equal to that and you do this math problem you get this result which doesn't make sense because of bounded accuracy.

You: Quit hating on bounded accuracy

Don't put words in my mouth.   Thx.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

Molecule
Joined Dec 1969
Problem is we have that already. With 4E you can still use monsters that are +/- 4 levels That means at level 10 you can still fight weak level 6 monsters or strong level 14 monsters.

Well... not generally.  I mean, you can if you're at a table where everyone is primarily interested in making a combat optimized character.  But if not everyone is into that then you are going to run into serious problems with fighting a +4 enemy.  Fighting something with "even-level" AC is going to be fairly similar for someone who started with a 16 and a +2 proficiency weapons and someone who started with a 20 and a +3 proficiency weapon.  The 20 will obviously do it a bit better, but hey that makes sense, they put more emphasis in their primary combat stat.  It will probably be something like hitting on an 8 vs. hitting on an 11.

However, if you put in an enemy that has +4 AC higher than level, now you're talking about hitting on a 12 vs. hitting on a 15.  And if you take into account that some enemies of a given level are more armored than others of the same level (which is something you probably can't get rid of entirely, a caster of level N probably should have less armor than a knight of level N even if you want levels to boost AC), that might end up being a 14 vs. a 17.  At that point the person who started with a 16 in their primary stat has practically become a non-combatant for this fight, even though the two characters were in a reasonably similar ballpark (as they ought to be) fighting even level enemies.
lokiare
Joined Dec 1969
The goal is participation.  Something with a 5% hitrate is a non-combatant.  Meaning, it's not worth even bothering running their turn as a DM.

Something with a modest hitrate is still a combatant, even if it's an anklebiter.  And those bites add up, which means they're worth tracking.  Sure, you can expand the HP/damage scaling to levels that make those bites totally irrelevant, but the HP/damage scaling isn't that severe and it's not going to be that severe.

Exactly.

Even at level 20, you won't have enough HP to make even 1 damage meaningless.  And level 1 monsters do more than 1 damage.  Having a bunch of little guys attack is much more exciting when they can hit fairly regularly but deal a little bit of damage.  Much less exciting if they only hit on a 20.

Not really, you end up having to balance encounters on the head of a pin. If you have 32 1st level creatures attacking a party of level 10 characters you will mop them up on average before they have a chance to do very much damage at all to the point where you could have just narrated the entire battle without rolling any dice. If you have 48 1st level creatures attacking a party of level 10 characters you will get a TPK. Why does this happen? because it takes 3 rounds to kill all of the creatures minimum. In that time they have attacked like this:

1st round: 32-48 attacks on the party (32 if all the creatures go last and 48 if they all go first)
2nd round: 16-32 attacks on the party
3rd round: 0-16 attacks on the party

That's a total of 48 to 96 attacks made against the party if even half of those hit for 3.5 average damage (Kobold I believe) then you end up with 84-168 damage over the course of the battle. That's enough to bring down the Wizard (42), Rogue (42) on the low end and the Wizard (42), Rogue (42), and Cleric (53) or just the Fighter (64), and the Cleric (53), and the Wizard (42).

If you drop that to 32 Kobolds you get a whole other picture:

1st round: 16-32 attacks on the party (16 if all the creatures go last and 32 if they all go first)
2nd round: 0-16 attacks on the party

That ends up being 16 to 48 attacks made against the party if even half of those hit for 3.5 average damage (Kobold I believe) then you end up with 28-84 damage over the course of the battle. On the lower end that's not even enough to take down the Wizard or the Rogue, on the upper end they can take out 1-2 party members. That's compared to the 48 monsters taking out 2-3 at the low end and 3-4 at the high end.

The lesson here is that adding monsters in the bounded system increases the deadliness of the encounter at a geometric rate. It also shows that you have to balance it on a razors edge in order for it to be an actual encounter instead of a non-encounter or a TPK.

If you did the same in 4E it would go down differently. Since they can only hit on 5% of the time you would have 96 attacks where only 4.8 attacks hit, those attacks would deal 5 points of damage each for a total of 24 damage over the course of the combat. This means a 4E character could actually last much longer against a larger group of lower level enemies than in 5E. It also takes much of the razor edge out of it. You can have anywhere from 10 to 100 enemies and still stand a chance in 4E and it wouldn't be a non-encounter or a TPK. Enemies could even last more than one round if the players didn't unleash their dailies, where in 5E they are going to die in the first round due to really low hit points.

Again 4E actually has a greater range of usability for these monsters unless you want to walk a razors edge in encounter design. Talk about accidentally TPKing parties in 3.xE, this would be much worse...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
lokiare
Joined Dec 1969
Problem is we have that already. With 4E you can still use monsters that are +/- 4 levels That means at level 10 you can still fight weak level 6 monsters or strong level 14 monsters.

Well... not generally.  I mean, you can if you're at a table where everyone is primarily interested in making a combat optimized character.  But if not everyone is into that then you are going to run into serious problems with fighting a +4 enemy.  Fighting something with "even-level" AC is going to be fairly similar for someone who started with a 16 and a +2 proficiency weapons and someone who started with a 20 and a +3 proficiency weapon.  The 20 will obviously do it a bit better, but hey that makes sense, they put more emphasis in their primary combat stat.  It will probably be something like hitting on an 8 vs. hitting on an 11.

However, if you put in an enemy that has +4 AC higher than level, now you're talking about hitting on a 12 vs. hitting on a 15.  And if you take into account that some enemies of a given level are more armored than others of the same level (which is something you probably can't get rid of entirely, a caster of level N probably should have less armor than a knight of level N even if you want levels to boost AC), that might end up being a 14 vs. a 17.  At that point the person who started with a 16 in their primary stat has practically become a non-combatant for this fight, even though the two characters were in a reasonably similar ballpark (as they ought to be) fighting even level enemies.

Level +4 is +2 AC, not +4 and when characters are hitting on a 4 or 5 as is normal for many strikers with at level monsters, upping that to 8 or 9 is still very viable. It just makes them drop a daily and use up their resources. You also don't account for powers that target non-AC defenses and powers that have half an effect on a miss and situational modifiers to bring the hit chance up to a reasonable level...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Molecule
Joined Dec 1969
Is anyone who's in favor of bounded accuracy actually planning on using ONLY level 1 enemies to challenge a level 10 party though?  I certainly wasn't planning on it.  I think it might be nice to throw in a squad of say four or five level 1s along with some higher level enemies though, and have my players feel like they're doing more than just wasting time with misses.

Again, D and D has never been good at simulating vast numbers of opponents.  They explicitly state in the Next DMG that having a large number of opponents changes the XP budget for an encounter.  But this keeps getting brought up again and again as the prime example of why bounded accuracy "fails".
Molecule
Joined Dec 1969

Level +4 is +2 AC, not +4 and when characters are hitting on a 4 or 5 as is normal for many strikers with at level monsters, upping that to 8 or 9 is still very viable. It just makes them drop a daily and use up their resources. You also don't account for powers that target non-AC defenses and powers that have half an effect on a miss and situational modifiers to bring the hit chance up to a reasonable level...

I'm only familiar with 4th edition, so perhaps the scaling was different in previous editions.  But in 4e monsters went up by 1 AC per level; level 1s had around 15 and level 30s had around 45.