|
4 months ago ::
Feb 04, 2013 - 10:57AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
May 31, 2012
|
I've been playing D&D 4e for about a year and a half (so some experience, though not an overabundance) and have been playing in a prolonged game with a DM for about 6 months now. He uses the monster builder to create monsters and usually has them set to 2-3 levels above the party. It seems like that they are just incredibly hard to hit and that I am REQUIRED to have attack boosting feats, high prof. weapons, starting 18 in my main stat, and who knows what else on top of that just to have what I'm told is a "normal" hit rate of ~40%.
I know that having a level appropriate weapon is expected and that I should aim for the low defense stat (assuming that I can figure out what that is and have a power to hit it). Those aren't the issues that I'm talking about. My problem is that it seems like I have to have everything in the build decked out to accuracy just to get a 13-14 on the die to hit an average defense score, and a 16-17 to hit an average elite/boss defense score.
Here's what I'm talking about. These things are the common methods to add to attack:
Having a starting 18 in the main stat (instead of 16/16 in two main stats)
Weapon/implement expertise (+1/2/3 at tiers, typically)
Having a weapon with +3 proficiency (instead of the standard +2)
If you don't have those things, at level 12 you have a 20-25% LESS chance to hit an enemy than what is expected to be AVERAGE defense. It feels like the game is shoe horning players into chooses specific stats, feats, and builds just to have what base attack is concidered to be a 40% chance to hit. So basically, you get PENALIZED FOR NOT HAVING those bonuses INSTEAD OF REWARDED for having them, thus making your character gimped and having a severly reduced chance to hit.
Does this sound right to everyone else? Am I just missing a completely obvious reason why it's so frickin' hard to hit basic enemies, let alone elites? Am I stuck optimizing builds just to be concidered "decent" in combat?
Whenever I'm not playing with this DM it's usually I or someone else creating monsters on the spot, and I just typically use slightly boosted stats from characters in our binders to determine what enemy stats should be. So I'm not sure if how this DM is handling things is typical or not, but it seems frickin' ridiculous that we have so many problems hitting enemies that not only does he have to drop their defenses by a couple of points, but he also has to cut their hp by a third just so that we aren't spending forever trying to kill one enemy, let alone a group of 6.
Any insight as to what attack and defense scores (for players and monsters) should be at this level (lvl 12) should be and how to obtain them (perferably without being FORCED to optimize) would be helpful.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 04, 2013 - 11:01AM
#2
|
|
|
Sounds like you need a conversation with your DM.
Generally, at level monsters would have something like 26/24/24/24 defenses, +17 to hit AC, +15 to hit the other defenses.
So at level 12, you would have a 60% chance to hit AC with a +18.
16+2(racial) attack stat, boosted at levels 4, 8 and 11 leaves you with a 21 in that ability, meaning +5 to hit. Add to that half level of 6, a +2 proficiency weapon, a +3 weapon, and +2 from expertise, and you've got that covered.
What I read from all of your post is that perhaps your DMs style and yours do not line up.
For one, introduce him to Monster Manual 3.
Secondly, tell him that if every encounter is brutal, the big boss fight doesn't impress anyone.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 04, 2013 - 11:06AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Nov 23, 2003
|
Expected AC for a monster is "Level+14". Expected non-AC is "Level+12". -2 AC for soft of the artillery/controllers, and for Brutes. +2 AC for Soldiers.
There-ya-go. A level 12 monster should have an AC of around 26. What do you hit an AC of 26 on?
"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 04, 2013 - 11:49AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
May 31, 2012
|
Those stats seem a lot more realistic, and pretty close to about how I have enemies of the same level in other games. One character that I played in the game was a longtooth shifter Ranger with Beast Master build. Base stats were 16/16 Str/Wis, with a +2 given to to each of those stats due to race and I boosted them each time that I could. He was weilding an axe+2 (with +2 prof.) and had the axe expertise feat. His weapon was one point weaker than the rest of the parties (my main died the previous game and he was a backup), but my base attack altogether was a +17 vs. AC. My animal companion's base attack was +16. I guess I now know why the DM heard that they "were broken and useless," concidering his enemies' defenses.
Other party members were claiming +19 or +20 on attack and saying that that was normal, though they also admitted to having an 18/14 main/secondary stat spread and optimizing to hit enemies. But for even +19 being "normal," and "normal" meaning that we were only expected to hit 40% of the time, that seemed pretty ridiculous to me. Especially because I had a build that had only one unoptimized thing (stats) besides a weaker weapon.
All I can say is that when you roll a 15 on the die against an elite for a total of 32 vs. AC, that should hit just about anything, even if it was an elite monster with AC as it's high defense. Going based upon what you guys have been telling me, it seems like a 30 AC should have been concidered "high" for the monster. Oh, and did I mention that there were 3 of those things amongst other elites? So basically, I couldn't hit for **** the entire battle, hence my frustration. Literally, I HAD PROBLEMS KILLING MINIONS!
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 04, 2013 - 11:55AM
#5
|
|
|
As much as I feel for your troubles, please, have a conversation with your DM.
And, as said, give monster manual 3 a thumb-through.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 04, 2013 - 12:00PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
May 31, 2012
|
As much as I feel for your troubles, please, have a conversation with your DM.
And, as said, give monster manual 3 a thumb-through.
Trust me, I will. I just wanted to know if his tactics were the usual expected by Wizards when they made the game and did the math, or if they were anomalous. Thanks for the help on showing me what the "expected" values are.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 04, 2013 - 12:03PM
#7
|
- Senior Volunteer Community Lead
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
Nah, sounds like a DM thing. Only time a 15 should miss is when something wrong has gone on - for example, you've been blinded.
Keith Richmond
Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 04, 2013 - 12:15PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Nov 23, 2003
|
Now, IMHO it's ok for a game to have diverged heavily from baseline. We're talking about what the baselines are, and what the games designed for. Specific games may vary from that. Maybe that's what the group prefers?
I've run one of those myself: I expected the party to be level 12 or so when they go to this bit of the plot, so the monster sources were all level 14+ monsters. Instead they decided to go there when they were level 8. Things were hard to hit for a while...
Maybe that's how he wants to run the game (in which case, yeah. Optimize for hitting. Can I suggest a Charger? CA, +1 for charging, Weapon attack vs. Reflex? Or an Avenger. Or both?) Talk to him, and figure out if it's a short-term thing or you've just got a huge mismatch of expectations.
"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 04, 2013 - 1:01PM
#9
|
- Senior Volunteer Community Lead
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
Actually, that is a fair point. If you guys are "doing the wrong thing" in the plot, then you reap what you sow  That said, I've thrown in monsters of level + 5 before when needed and folks still at least hit on a 15. Even if barely. I will say: you should always have expertise in paragon+.
Keith Richmond
Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 04, 2013 - 1:13PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Nov 16, 2007
|
In general, yes, the game does assume a degree of optimization. But it is the DM's job to make sure the optimization level of a party matches the challenges they face. There is a lot of leeway there.
If you play with a party agnostic DM, things can become too difficult or too easy, depending on the DM's inclinations. A DM going by DMG1 recommendations using today's monsters, may make some rather unfun encounters, or could slaughter a less optimized party. I still gripe that there isn't a good DMG that addresses the needs of today's encounter design necessities.
And to note, Expertise is a math fix, it is not an "optimization thing". In many home games it's free, but if it isn't you just take it as tax.
|
|
|
