|
Is it ok to base Fort / Ref / Will / AC around the strongest PC? I feel like, for balance reasons I want my players to hit 80 - 90% of the time. Which means if the rogue at level 5 has +7 BAB (Idr what it's called in 4e,) and the Wizard has +5 to hit with his spell, then I want to set the monsters AC to whatever percentage seems appropriate. (6 + 10 = 16, or 50/50 chance for the rogue to hit.)
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 07:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:10 |
|
|
Turtlicious posted:Is it ok to base Fort / Ref / Will / AC around the strongest PC? I feel like, for balance reasons I want my players to hit 80 - 90% of the time. Which means if the rogue at level 5 has +7 BAB (Idr what it's called in 4e,) and the Wizard has +5 to hit with his spell, then I want to set the monsters AC to whatever percentage seems appropriate. I would personally not aim for a general 80%-90% though. It would be fine if it was just damage, but control effects are too strong to be that reliable. If you're aiming for higher percentages, use a lot of Brutes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 07:35
|
|
|
Soonmot posted:Cool, going to dump those bull rush feats, then. Yeah, you don't ever ever want to specialize in (or, really, ever use) bull rush unless maybe you have some broken feat combination that makes it do triple melee basic damage or something. It's a last resort for pushing people into bottomless pits if you have no other forced movement, and is otherwise basically worthless.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 07:53
|
|
|
Iny posted:Yeah, you don't ever ever want to specialize in (or, really, ever use) bull rush unless maybe you have some broken feat combination that makes it do triple melee basic damage or something. It's a last resort for pushing people into bottomless pits if you have no other forced movement, and is otherwise basically worthless. I'm glad bull rush exists for really niche cases (a STR based character with no push effects native wants to knock a goblin off a bridge, for instance) but yeah it isn't a good go-to for anybody. It feels a little bit like an artifact from 3e when everything under the sun needed to be an intrinsic melee ability to justify its existence, but it has a purpose. Just not a good one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 07:57
|
|
|
Turtlicious posted:Is it ok to base Fort / Ref / Will / AC around the strongest PC? I feel like, for balance reasons I want my players to hit 80 - 90% of the time. Which means if the rogue at level 5 has +7 BAB (Idr what it's called in 4e,) and the Wizard has +5 to hit with his spell, then I want to set the monsters AC to whatever percentage seems appropriate. Wait, how on earth are their attack bonuses so low at that level? Unless this is a random-numbers-for-hypothetical-situations thing, any fifth-level rogue should have way more to hit than that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 08:00
|
|
|
I thought it synched up with goring charge and I could just headbutt the world. It's okay, because now I had room to take opportunity gore so goring charge is an OA now! If only Crippling Crush applied itself to the prone condition.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 08:03
|
|
|
Technically you can do something with a Brawler fighter since they also apply their enhancement bonuses to bull rushes and MCing monk means you can qualify for Driving Rain in Paragon and thus be able to bull rush people up to your speed while also marking them, but honestly if you want to invest feats in a forced movement fighter build by paragon you're far better off going with a flail or reach weapon. Brawlers do get better returns on the actual Grab special attack which much like Bull Rush no one else in the game has any real use for outside of edge cases that become vanishingly rare as you level. Their at-will grab attack power is end of next turn so you have to keep landing it in order to hang on to someone, thus a sustainable at-will grab has some options for it even if you don't do damage and it can be used in things like the Body Shield level 10 utility, plus you can pick up Dragon's Grasp at epic to add your ki focus bonus to your grab attacks and make grab attacks as an OA, which opens some options up when compared to Grappling Strike.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 08:08
|
|
|
It doesn't take too many toys to let a fighter push people into the moon. It's sort of antithetical to the idea of keeping your enemies close, but what it can do is keep your enemies out of position, which can be just as valuable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 08:16
|
|
|
Iny posted:Wait, how on earth are their attack bonuses so low at that level? Unless this is a random-numbers-for-hypothetical-situations thing, any fifth-level rogue should have way more to hit than that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 08:19
|
|
|
Turtlicious posted:Is it ok to base Fort / Ref / Will / AC around the strongest PC? I feel like, for balance reasons I want my players to hit 80 - 90% of the time. Which means if the rogue at level 5 has +7 BAB (Idr what it's called in 4e,) and the Wizard has +5 to hit with his spell, then I want to set the monsters AC to whatever percentage seems appropriate. That said it's totally okay to base defenses (and attacks) on your party's actual values, but I'd take the average of AC and non-AC attacks separately. (Then again, they should always be within the same narrow range anyway. Even the infamous deliberately suboptimal paladin in my group has only a -2-below-average attack bonus.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 08:22
|
|
|
Turtlicious posted:Is it ok to base Fort / Ref / Will / AC around the strongest PC? I feel like, for balance reasons I want my players to hit 80 - 90% of the time. Which means if the rogue at level 5 has +7 BAB (Idr what it's called in 4e,) and the Wizard has +5 to hit with his spell, then I want to set the monsters AC to whatever percentage seems appropriate. Also, I personally would not tailor things around the most accurate PC. A character who has higher accuracy has spent resources to specialize in accuracy, and should expect to hit more than the other party members as a result. For example, the rogue is expected to be especially accurate, balancing out its smaller weapon die; picking the rogue as your accuracy benchmark is therefore likely to be a really bad idea, since everyone else who hasn't specialized in accuracy is going to have a harder time hitting things, making them less effective and the game less fun and less accurately balanced. A better idea would be to base your defenses around the expected average accuracy for a character of that level, which not coincidentally is how you would be determining monster defenses if you consulted the MM3-on-a-business-card chart as normal. I guess if your party is especially underoptimized it would make sense to drop monster defense values across the board by a point or two, though, and conversely if they're overoptimized, although in those cases you might as well just use lower or higher-level monsters, because a party that's unusually weak or strong across the board is likely to also have unusually high or low damage and control. Iny fucked around with this message at 09:29 on Jan 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 09:23
|
|
|
A weapon attack is going to add the following things to the d20 roll: The primary attribute modifier, usually STR or DEX The Half Level bonus The Weapon Proficiency bonus The Enhancement bonus, which can be from either items or inherent bonuses The Weapon Expertise bonus, which is technically a feat but should really be given away for free And all other miscellaneous bonuses The worst possible layout for these at level 1 would be +3 from a 16 in STR (and your racial bonus isn't directed to STR either else it would be an 18) +0 since you're still level 1 +2 from a weapon with only a +2 proficiency bonus, as some of them have +3 +0 since Enhancement bonuses don't yet come into play at level 1 +1 Weapon Expertise bonus For a total attack roll of d20+6 A level 1 monster would have an AC of 15, which would give the player a 60% chance to hit Skipping all the math (but I could show you this if you wanted to), a player that never even takes a feat and never gains a magic item-relying only on inherent bonuses-is going to see their to-hit chance decrease from 60% to 50% over the course of the next 30 levels of the game. And the only optimization they'd have to do would be to make sure that whenever they gain an ability score increase, the +1 always goes to their primary stat. In contrast, the best possible layout would be +5 from a 20 in STR (18 base, +2 matching racial bonus) +0 since you're still level 1 +3 from a weapon with a +3 proficiency bonus +0 since Enhancement bonuses don't yet come into play at level 1 +1 Weapon Expertise bonus That would give you a d20+9 on the attack roll versus 15 AC, for a 75% chance to hit. Over the course of the rest of the game, that would erode by 10%, so a 65% chance to hit versus a level 30 monster's 44 AC For attacks that target Fort/Ref/Will defenses, they don't use the weapon proficiency bonus, so they miss out on a +2, but FRW defenses are computed as 2 lower than AC anyway, so it's a wash. Before I would go mucking around with scaling, I would see first if you can approach it from working with the players and seeing how their characters are built, and trying to improve their hit rates from there. See if your players are hitting the following benchmarks: pre:Character Level Basic Weapon Attack Basic non-AC Defense Attack
1 d20+6 d20+4
2 d20+8 d20+6
3 d20+8 d20+6
4 d20+9 d20+7
5 d20+9 d20+7
6 d20+10 d20+8
7 d20+11 d20+9
8 d20+13 d20+11
9 d20+13 d20+11
10 d20+14 d20+12
11 d20+15 d20+13
12 d20+17 d20+15
13 d20+17 d20+15
14 d20+19 d20+17
15 d20+19 d20+17
16 d20+20 d20+18
17 d20+21 d20+19
18 d20+22 d20+20
19 d20+22 d20+20
20 d20+23 d20+21
21 d20+25 d20+23
22 d20+27 d20+25
23 d20+27 d20+25
24 d20+28 d20+26
25 d20+28 d20+26
26 d20+29 d20+27
27 d20+30 d20+28
28 d20+32 d20+30
29 d20+32 d20+30
30 d20+33 d20+31
However, if you really wanted to work on this from the DM/monster side: Soldiers use Level + 16 The default AC calculation is Level + 14 Brutes and Artillery use Level + 12 The default FRW calculation is Level + 12 If you reduce this by two, such that the AC formula is Level + 12 and the FRW formula is Level + 10, then the most unoptimized character will have a to-hit chance of 70% at level 1, slipping to 60% by level 30 If you reduce this by four, such that the AC formula is Level + 10 and the FRT formula is Level + 8, then the most unoptimized character will have a to-hit chance of 80% at level 1, slipping to 70% by level 30 That said, dropping the formula to Level + 10 for AC is going to give characters 100% hit rates if they're optimized, or have Combat Advantage, or have any number of situational attack roll bonuses or monster defense penalties.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 10:11
|
|
|
What are the benchmarks? I've seen the following which is lifed from the strategy guide (I think?) about system math: Attack vs. AC: 6 + level Attack vs. NAD: 4 + level AC: 15 + level NADs: 13 + level But that seems a bit low - I feel like you want to add 2 to the attacks for well optimised and 3 to the defences for a defender and 1 to the defences for a non defender. My players are currently running around with +9s at level 2 which mechanically feels OK.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 13:12
|
|
|
d20+9 vs AC at level 2 is going to give your players a 65% chance to hit against an AC 16 level 2 monster. Those benchmarks from the strategy guide are pretty close to what I got from my post above, and my numbers assume: * You have a total 16 in your primary attribute * You add to your primary attribute every chance you get (level 4, 8, 11, 14, 18, 21, 24, 28). * Your weapon has a +2 proficiency bonus * You have the Versatile Expertise feat * You're playing with Inherent Bonuses on And since the DM should be using Inherent Bonuses and they should be giving away Versatile Expertise feat for free, you can't really gently caress this up unless A. you still allow your primary attribute to go lower than 16 or B. you don't pump your primary attribute every chance you get. Any level of further optimization: * A higher primary attribute * A better proficiency bonus on the weapon * More feats/powers/item-special-abilities to enhance your ability to hit * Synergy with your partymates is going to drive your chance to hit even higher. . EDIT: While diving through the defense-scaling math, I realized that the PHB 2 (or either of the Heroes of/Essentials corebooks) is necessary for properly scaling armor pieces, since the one-per-tier armor list in the PHB 1 won't cut it. The PHB 2 was already a very good idea as far as classes go, but this just elevates it to critical. gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 15:17 on Jan 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 13:44
|
|
|
I don't know if this is :files: I'll remove it if it is. Does anyone know of a link to Masterplan WITH the already imported Compendium files? I have DDI but I signed up after some internal change, and so didn't receive an actual Username (and my log-in Email won't work, neither will my DCI Log-in,) which doesn't allow me to use anything with Compendium support. I'd like to have all the Compendium stuff pre-ripped into Compendium so I can load it myself. I can verify that I own DDI or whatever. (I'll also be looking on my own, and will let you know if I find something!)
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
^ I'd be keen to know. I'm trying to make a zeitgeist custom .part with the rest of the themes and the paragon paths. Some stuff isn't calculating right. For example, the following attack doesn't add the ability modifer etc. I think the specific name under attack & hit is wrong though I based it off the other paragon paths. Unfortunately as the Wiki with the documentation has exploded, I have no idea what I am doing wrong. Can anyone help? <RulesElement name="Hyper Beam" type="Power" internal-id="ID_FMP_POWER_SHOOTIST_3" source="Zeitgeist" revision-date="x/x/x"> <Category> ID_INTERNAL_CATEGORY_ATTACK,ID_INTERNAL_CATEGORY_ENCOUNTER,ID_INTERNAL_CATEGORY_ENCOUNTER_USAGE,ID_FMP_CATEGORY_8,ID_FMP_CATEGORY_31,ID_FMP_CATEGORY_24,ID_INTERNAL_CATEGORY_STANDARD_ACTION,11 </Category> <Prereqs> Mad Shootist </Prereqs> <Flavor> You overcharge your blaster, gaining immense power for a short period of time. </Flavor> <specific name="Power Usage"> Daily </specific> <specific name="Display"> Mad Shootist Attack 20 </specific> <specific name="Keywords"> Weapon, Arcane </specific> <specific name="Action Type"> Minor action </specific> <specific name="Attack Type"> Ranged weapon </specific> <specific name="Target"> One creature </specific> <specific name="Attack"> Highest ability modifier vs. AC </specific> <specific name="Hit"> The first time you attack with this power, a hit deals 3[W] + primary ability score modifier force damage. The second time, a hit deals 4[W] + primary ability score modifier damage. The third time, a hit deals 5[W] + primary ability score modifier damage, and at the end of your turn your blaster explodes, as detailed in Inventive Gunnery above. </specific> <specific name="Special"> You must use your blaster for this attack. </specific> <specific name="Class"> ID_FMP_PARAGON_PATH_SHOOTIST </specific> <specific name="Level"> 20 </specific> <specific name="Power Type"> Attack </specific> </RulesElement>
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
Turtlicious posted:I don't know if this is :files: I'll remove it if it is. Does anyone know of a link to Masterplan WITH the already imported Compendium files? I have DDI but I signed up after some internal change, and so didn't receive an actual Username (and my log-in Email won't work, neither will my DCI Log-in,) which doesn't allow me to use anything with Compendium support. Masterplan's latest versions have some encryption on them to prevent the simple copy and paste of libraries from one PC to another. Now, this isn't an answer to your question (because I am sure that would be ::files:: ), but be aware that if you move to a new computer, you can continue to use your old masterplan libraries if BOTH your username and your computer's name are identical to those on your previous computer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 08:24
|
|
|
Cthulhu Dreams posted:I have no idea what I am doing wrong. Can anyone help? I'll check it myself in a bit if you don't beat me to it, but a few of your Category tags don't agree with your Specific Names (i.e. CATEGORY_ENCOUNTER : specific name = Daily, STANDARD vs Minor, etc.).
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 08:26
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:I'll check it myself in a bit if you don't beat me to it, but a few of your Category tags don't agree with your Specific Names (i.e. CATEGORY_ENCOUNTER : specific name = Daily, STANDARD vs Minor, etc.). Thanks! that fixes part of the problem, but it's still not adding the dexterity modifier to the attack. Full part file: http://pastebin.com/041jwqkH Screenshot of output: http://imgur.com/C3HqZ4N
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 11:04
|
|
|
Because I apparently have too much time on my hands I made a quick reference cheat sheet for skills and their DCs: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxzTQr2Dfm44NHNrT1lGMUgtQVk/view?usp=sharing Felt like sharing since it took a lot of time and it could be useful to people here too :P
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
Cthulhu Dreams posted:Thanks! that fixes part of the problem, but it's still not adding the dexterity modifier to the attack. Replace "Highest ability modifier" with "Your highest ability modifier" for the attack line. The damage output is gonna be screwed if you strictly copy over what I guess is written in the pdf; just start that line with "3[W]" instead of "The first time..." and that should fix the "The+0 damage" thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 06:46
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:Replace "Highest ability modifier" with "Your highest ability modifier" for the attack line. Cool - thanks for that. I'm very happy to edit the pdf but I couldn't work what the way to get the damage to work. Is there documentation kicking around somewhere?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 07:04
|
|
|
Cthulhu Dreams posted:Is there documentation kicking around somewhere?  e: someone might have something somewhere, but idk.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 07:19
|
|
|
Cthulhu Dreams posted:Cool - thanks for that. I'm very happy to edit the pdf but I couldn't work what the way to get the damage to work.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
For CBLoader sign up here then look here
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
I posted a bunch of my 4e stuff to SA Mart. Sharing here in case anyone is interested. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3759698
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Cthulhu Dreams posted:^ I'd be keen to know. The CBloader wiki is still up on archive.org, as has been stated. Also, it's <specific name="Attack"> Primary ability vs. AC </specific>, I'm pretty sure. I'm halfway through the Zeitgeist themes in a part file, if you want some of it. I got tired of screwing with it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
Well, they released the 5th edition SRD. I very much doubt it, but did they ever release anything like this for 4th?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
No. I'm surprised they did it again after the mounting evidence that Pathfinder ate their lunch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 19:22
|
|
Gharbad the Weak posted:Well, they released the 5th edition SRD. There was a 4E SRD, but it didn't reproduce the essential text, only covers PHB 1 and 2, AV, MM 1 and 2, and DMG 1, and is fairly expressly just a list of the things you can include verbatim in a licensed product, rather than a way to play the game almost entirely for free. So, in retrospect, it's not surprising that they've decided to forgo that for 5th.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
Is there a way to hybrid Battlemind that doesn't suck? I'm thinking no, but I am trying to work together an assassin hybrid on a gnoll.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:Is there a way to hybrid Battlemind that doesn't suck? I'm thinking no, but I am trying to work together an assassin hybrid on a gnoll. Paladin works well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:Is there a way to hybrid Battlemind that doesn't suck? I'm thinking no, but I am trying to work together an assassin hybrid on a gnoll. Hybrid powerpoint classes generally are tough to get right unfortunately. The obvious thing to do is hybrid Warlock to get a decent MBA.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
Thanks for the Tragedy Looper help folks, it's actually very helpful and I may call on you again. Meanwhile I am going to beat the loving poo poo out of everyone who told me oh don't worry the anime is just the art style, the actual game isn't about that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
Ralp posted:Thanks for the Tragedy Looper help folks, it's actually very helpful and I may call on you again. Meanwhile I am going to beat the loving poo poo out of everyone who told me oh don't worry the anime is just the art style, the actual game isn't about that. ...what? I think you have the wrong thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
haha yes I do, sorry
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
We're starting up a new game of D&D but my DM won't do 4e unless I can find a free fill-able character sheet, apparently WOTC requires a sub, and I don't want to pay the $30 for hero lab.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
Free Triangle posted:We're starting up a new game of D&D but my DM won't do 4e unless I can find a free fill-able character sheet, apparently WOTC requires a sub, and I don't want to pay the $30 for hero lab.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 03:33
|
|
|
Free Triangle posted:We're starting up a new game of D&D but my DM won't do 4e unless I can find a free fill-able character sheet, apparently WOTC requires a sub, and I don't want to pay the $30 for hero lab. The offline wotc builder plus CBLoader. Check further up this page of this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:10 |
|
|
How the hell is that someone's make-or-break factor when deciding on a system
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 13:34
|
|