Community

Jul 25, 2011 -- 7:08PM, Gunthar wrote:

Jul 25, 2011 -- 5:27PM, malcapricornis wrote:

Was that math hole real?  That is, could a good group of tactical level 30s defeat Orcus or Demogorgon with proper consumables?  If so why did characters receive a MAJOR unneeded buff that necessitated all new monster math?

The so-called "math hole" was perceived by players not using everything the designers had built in to the game (such as aid another) and the feeling some had they should hit at least 55% of the time regardless of what they faced with no outside factors. In other words, the "math hole" was dreamt up in a vacuum. But here's the rub, with so many players not taking advantage of those options, or not wanting to play anything but strikers, etc. it became a self-fulfilling issue with many players.

Nope.  The math hole is real, as the majority of people in this thread are stating.  Over the span of 30 levels, the monsters gain +4 to attacks and your best defenses, and up to +8 on the bad ones. Does this happen in a vacuum?  No.  Does it create a gameplay issue? Yes.  Was it an intentional design on the part of the developers?  Consensus says no.  
  
Please bother to read and think before you jump in here with preconceived zealous notions. Monsters get bonuses and abilities just like players do over the span, and the math hole makes the game overly optimization dependent as you rise in level, which sucks for players who prefer experimentation over optimization, because they end up not only being worse, but it's to such a degree that have a hard time pulling their own weight at high level.  There is no arguing this fact, so please stop.

Another thing - when your base hit chance is only 50%, a 5% difference (i.e. one modifier point) makes a more dramatic difference than it does at higher percentages.  In other words, if your base hit chance was 70%, it wouldn't be too big a deal to be a point or two behind the curve (putting you at 60 or 65%), but at 50 % being one or two points behind (giving you a 40 or 45% hit rate) makes a more obvious an dramatic difference.

So, in other words, when the game assumes a base of 50% for a maxed out attack stat, anything below that mark is a pretty huge handicap.  This is one of my biggest gripes about 4e.

Jul 25, 2011 -- 7:27PM, Einlanzer wrote:

Please bother to read and think before you jump in here with preconceived zealous notions. Monsters get bonuses and abilities just like players do over the span, and the math hole makes the game overly optimization dependent as you rise in level, which sucks for players who prefer experimentation over optimization, because they end up not only being worse, but it's to such a degree that have a hard time pulling their own weight at high level.  There is no arguing this fact, so please stop.

Another thing - when your base hit chance is only 50%, a 5% difference (i.e. one modifier point) makes a more dramatic difference than it does at higher percentages.  In other words, if your base hit chance was 70%, it wouldn't be too big a deal to be a point or two behind the curve (putting you at 60 or 65%), but at 50 % being one or two points behind (giving you a 40 or 45% hit rate) makes a more obvious an dramatic difference.

So, in other words, when the game assumes a base of 50% for a maxed out attack stat, anything below that mark is a pretty huge handicap.  This is one of my biggest gripes about 4e.

Except it isn't a fact, no matter how hard you and a few others scream about it. There is no real "math hole". However, there is what could may be be called a style difference, which is where the discrepancies come up. The game works fine all the way through if you take advantage of part of what's available, period.

However, experimental play or alternative play does make for certain discrepancies, as do preferences. This can make a difference, especially at higher levels. I don't think anyone is arguing that it doesn't. But in order to have numerous choices that aren't identical, there will be some discrepancies, and rightfully so. If you're tactically sound (as a player and group), you don't need to be as numerically tight, and vice verse. When a group is both, play can become rather ....... less dramatic and the DM may want to compensate, just like if a group is neither.

Ex: You can give a group of newbies opt'd characters and a group of experienced players Game Day pre-gens and they will likely have similar results with the experienced players having a good chance at an edge.

Also, as for being hit in epic, many (myself included) would argue that Orcus or whichever capstone baddie you face should all but hit you almost at-will (on a six or so). Most times PCs can hit him around that clip if they work together. Heck, Epic Destinies have nifty stuff that triggers when you would die for a reason and there are numerous stances, situational bonuses etc. that make a big swing in baddie attack numbers. Just because he hits you on a base six even doesn't mean he won't need a 12 or better when bunuses, status effects, etc. kick in. There's scads of them at epic.

Jul 25, 2011 -- 7:27PM, Einlanzer wrote:

Nope.  The math hole is real, as the majority of people in this thread are stating.

except that no one can prove it is a whole, all that is certain from peoples reaction is that people do not like their accuracy going down. 
Except that in the case of accuracy the PCs start out ahead of the game, so the +4 is not really a +4. and the options open to the players in epic when the issues actually occur the number of option avaliable to the players and group to compensate is much larger then it was at low level, as you have more chances to get things like item bonuses, power bonuses, the few situational feats that give bonuses, aid another bonuses, combat advantage generating abilities, better group tactics, etc. which means hthat the potential with even a minor investment was there to get a notable to hit bonus. 
Also, The system does not work based on maxed stats, though it did change the expected stat range, it also made surre that the default rules made those stats easily acquired by anyone (as seen in the standard array being the primary suggested character generation method), maxed out attack stats give a ~65% before any other factors, without expertise. Plus for the standard 16 starting with a +2 race every class in the PHB had an option to increase their base accuracy at least 5%, every weapon user to upgrade to a +3, Fighters and Fogues had a +1 feature, Rangers get great accuracy off Twin Strike. and related powers. Warlocks, Wizards and clerics all attacked multiple nads, which is used well was a accuracy boost

Jul 26, 2011 -- 1:35AM, The_Crimson_Dawn wrote:

1. Further not all leaders are granting large attack bonuses so you also needlessly restriciting class choice. 

2. Lastly the idea that things that were actual bonuses early in game become non- bonuses in epic and are required to even do your job is just a terrible concept.

3.  Monsters also tend to get more abilities as they become higher level creatures.  So those extra bonuses are supposed to counteract somewhat the various penalties and abilities monsters receive.

4.  Once again you are making a strange assertian that the bonuses we receive from leaders and CA are not bonuses at all but start as bonuses and then become a math fix.  This is even made stranger by the fact that the ways of getting these bonuses are varied in their frequency, type, and amount. 

5. Powers that give me a bonus should be a bonus not a requirement for me to hit the accuracy benchmarks that the devs have said they are looking for.

6. Weapon expertise will be boosting your total damage by 5% at level 1 but at level 30 it is likely boosting your damage by 15% (in terms of DPR).  That is a huge difference.

1. They do open more design space, and that's a good thing. It facilitates variety. It also opens more party ideas where it's possible to play without every one of the four roles.

2. Except it's not a terrible concept when you consider all the things flying around regardless of which power or ability you use. You can't not have bonuses flying everywhere unless the entire party of non-Essentials classes consciously limits themselves to basic attacks instead of the powers at hand.

3. They don't, and never have really. The PCS pretty much always have more goodies/resources, especially healing, just like every other edition.  

4. It's assumed these are things you go for. Heck, the rogue is all but built around saying "get in there and flank and show everybody how sweet combat advantage is."

5. Yes, they are, because THEY'RE EVERYWHERE for a reason. 4E was specifically designed for tactics and teamwork to be very important. Ignoring those two things is not a design flaw, it's a player flaw. Ex: If the Action Point eqipped Archer Ranger is in initiative just before the Warlord with Pin Cushion and Martial Doom and doesn't delay to unload with these bonuses that's not a design flaw, that's a stupid player.

6. DPR is a rather idiotic term here because "Average" is relatively meaningless with AEDU classes (athough more applicable with e-classes). Expertise doesn't boost your "DPR" it boosts your base accuracy. This is an important distinction.