# Math fixes; can you clarify?



## Viking Bastard (Apr 23, 2011)

Sometimes, especially in threads about feats, I hear people talk about math fixes to 4e; that the original PHB math was faulty in some way.

Can ya'll clarify for me in what way? Was it errata'd? Fixed through feats somehow, or is that just something people are house ruling (and if so, how)?


----------



## Mentat55 (Apr 23, 2011)

The "math fix" feats people refer to are feats that resulted when the designers realized that PC attack bonuses were lagging behind high paragon and particularly epic monster defenses, and that PC non-AC defenses were falling behind epic monster attack bonuses.

The Expertise feats (Weapon Expertise, Implement Expertise, Versatile Expertise, and now the specific Expertise feats from Essentials) addressed the attack bonus issue.  Paragon Defenses and Robust Defenses (now superseded entired by Improved Defenses from Essentials) and the Epic Fortitude/Reflex/Will feats patched PC defenses.

It seems that many DMs give players some of these feats for free as a house rule.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Apr 23, 2011)

When/where were these expertise feats introduced?


----------



## Mentat55 (Apr 23, 2011)

The originals were introduced in PHB2.  Versatile Expertise was introduced in PHB3.  The very specific (and better) versions of the Expertise feats are found in _Heroes of the Fallen Lands_, _Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms_, and _Heroes of Shadow_.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Apr 23, 2011)

I don't have access to stuff outside the original core books (PHB/DMG/MM)—were these just flat bonuses or did they scale with level/tier?


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Apr 23, 2011)

They all scaled with Tier. The original Expertise feat (and Versatile Expertise, I think...) scaled by +1 at 15th and 25th level, while the newer weapon/implement-specific feats scale the attack bonus at 11th and 21st. The newer ones also add riders to those weapon and implement attacks, some of which are worth feats on their own.

The defence feats now also scale with Tier (and are now available from Heroic). Each specific defence feat is +2/3/4 scaling with tier, and there are Superior versions if you have a 15 or higher in the stat connected to the defence it is boosting that have additional riders as well.


----------



## Dausuul (Apr 23, 2011)

Viking Bastard said:


> I don't have access to stuff outside the original core books (PHB/DMG/MM)—were these just flat bonuses or did they scale with level/tier?




They scale by tier, +1 per.

There have been other math fixes as well. For instance, in the first two Monster Manuals, damage values for monsters at Paragon and Epic tier were way low, resulting in long, grinding combats. Later MMs fixed this.


----------



## drothgery (Apr 23, 2011)

Viking Bastard said:


> I don't have access to stuff outside the original core books (PHB/DMG/MM)—were these just flat bonuses or did they scale with level/tier?



The original feats scaled at levels 15 and 25.
The newer ones (in the Essentials books and Heroes of Shadow) scale by tier.


----------



## kaomera (Apr 23, 2011)

Viking Bastard said:


> I don't have access to stuff outside the original core books (PHB/DMG/MM)—were these just flat bonuses or did they scale with level/tier?



If you're playing just with the first three books you don't need to worry about the "'math' fix". They where introduced because a number of players complained that PC bonuses did not scale at exactly the same rate as monster bonuses, resulting in differences in expected results at different tiers. IMO expecting different tiers to actually work differently is entirely reasonable. These are also the same feats that get labeled as "feat tax": they are _so_ desirable that players want them more than any other feats so you'll see them on just about every character sheet at some point if you allow them. The big question becomes "when" and not "if".

Now, if you're using any newer material (specifically MM3 or the Monster Vault and upcoming products I'd assume) the assumption is that these feats are in play and that pretty much every character has them. Lower monster damage (often lower than the standards in the DMG for creating your own monsters) etc. meant that things tended to work out. However, the newer monsters are generally just better designed and IMO more fun. So while the feat taxes where not absolutely needed, the new stuff that takes them into account is better, so they're worth bothering with on that account.

If you want to implement them as a blanket bonus, I'd suggest maybe making them +0/+1/+2 by tier. This would allow PCs to "keep up" by other means, making the expertise feats themselves less of an auto-take (although a flat +1 attack is still very nice, especially with the extra bonuses from the ones in HoWS). Simply giving expertise feats out as a bonus IME does not do anything but give the PCs a flat power bonus. (And complicating things slightly there are some attacks, such as some racial powers, that are neither implement or weapon and therefore do not benefit from the expertise feats. Some of them now get a comprable scaling bonus and others do now, with no real explanation of why / why not...)


----------



## C4 (Apr 23, 2011)

Viking Bastard said:


> I don't have access to stuff outside the original core books (PHB/DMG/MM)—were these just flat bonuses or did they scale with level/tier?



The original Expertises scaled at 1, 15 and 25 levels. The newer ones scale at 1, 11 and 21 levels. The original NAD (non-armor defense) boosters were just flat bonuses. The errataed ones and Improved Defenses scale at 1, 11 and 21. The epic NAD boosters are still a flat +4 bonus.

I know, it's a bizarre mess. The simplest solution is to just pick one level per tier -- say 3, 13 and 23 -- and give players a scaling +1 bonus at those levels.



kaomera said:


> If you're playing just with the first three books you don't need to worry about the "'math' fix".



Actually, a math fix is _more_ helpful in a core-only game due to the way MM1 monsters are designed. Specifically, because of the elites and solos that have _extra_ high defenses.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Apr 23, 2011)

kaomera said:


> If you're playing just with the first three books you don't need to worry about the "'math' fix".




I have no idea if I'll bother with any of this or not; this seems to be a higher level bug and my game might never reach high levels. But to make any judgement, I need to understand the issue.



C4 said:


> I know, it's a bizarre mess. The simplest solution is to just pick one level per tier -- say 3, 13 and 23 -- and give players a scaling +1 bonus at those levels.




If I do anything, I think I'd do something like this. I like house rules to be as simple as possible.


----------



## kaomera (Apr 23, 2011)

C4 said:


> Actually, a math fix is _more_ helpful in a core-only game due to the way MM1 monsters are designed. Specifically, because of the elites and solos that have _extra_ high defenses.



I'll admit that MM1 elites and solos have their defenses set too high. And while this could be dealt with, it tended to push players into choosing powers specifically to deal with the big bads. Add that to the fact that the higher defenses really didn't protect the elites and solos from the effects that really mattered (action-denial) and that's why I prefer the design of the newer stuff. There seems to have been some disconnect at some point between the idea that there was an optimum number of rounds that a combat should last and how to actually give elites and solos enough effect on the fight to make them "worth" 2 or 5 regular monsters. Giving everybody (PCs and monsters) would have been a good idea, IMO, but the math fix in terms of PC defenses tends to negate that.

There's also the question of "which monsters", of course. A lot (the majority? idk, I never really sat down and went through them that closely, but that would be my guess based on my experiences) of MM1 monsters do less damage than the formula in the DMG would suggest. If you're using ones that do "normal" ammounts of damage, or correcting the low damage values, or using a lot of custom creatures, then there's going to be much more of a problem.


Viking Bastard said:


> I have no idea if I'll bother with any of this or not; this seems to be a higher level bug and my game might never reach high levels. But to make any judgement, I need to understand the issue.



Of course. And I'm sorry if my over-quotation of the phrase math fix seems snarky (and it is a bit snarky). I just feel like talking about the 4e math is kind of confusing because there's a very specific thing that people tend to mean by the term, and the math fix was more of a resetting of base values than an actual fix, although given that the stuff that came after it was (IMO) generally better it did have that effect in the end.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Apr 23, 2011)

From experience playing 4e when it first came out, I'd have to agree with the assessment that a math fix is/was *more* useful in a "2008 product only" game. Some of it could have been our DM, but monster defences were way too high, or our bonuses too low, and the monsters had far too many HP.

I should qualify that. In order to adequately challenge the party, especially in terms of monster damage output and longevity, encounter levels end up being in the Level +2, +3, or even +5 range, but the problem there is that the defences far outstrip what the PCs can hit, so you end up with long, grindy, At-will whiff-fest combats that can even be really swingy if the PCs roll really bad, and/or the monsters roll really well. Sometimes, it was not much fun at all, and frustrating nearly all the time.

For a good example, even the designers were aware of the kind of fight needed to challenge a group; the introductory module in the Forgotten Realms book features a Level +5 encounter. Doing that in a post MM3 game, would be a surefire way to get a TPK. At-level combats are challenging, while level +2s are downright dangerous. A  Level -1 encounter is sufficiently tough for routine or minor fights now. Solos are also much improved, many of which are even usable without minion backup now.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 24, 2011)

Math was off for most leader type characters. They had powers that gav scaling attack bonuses (like righteous brand and lead the attack) that scaled with level. The problem was that they had to hit first and only then other pcs could hit at an expected rate.

The  fix was feats that gave a scaling bonus to hit, which everyone could take, and attack bonuses that scaled with level were downgraded to a flat +3 bonus to hit usually and newer leader powers usually work on the leader himself too and usually as an effect and are not scaling to begin with...


----------



## Viking Bastard (Apr 24, 2011)

So this "math bug" extended to both attacks and defenses, right? So the simplest fix is to just add tier (+1 per tier) to attacks and defenses?

So Attack, for instance, would be 1/2 lvl + tier bonus + other bonuses.


----------



## Ferghis (Apr 24, 2011)

Viking Bastard said:


> So this "math bug" extended to both attacks and defenses, right? So the simplest fix is to just add tier (+1 per tier) to attacks and defenses?
> 
> So Attack, for instance, would be 1/2 lvl + tier bonus + other bonuses.




Correct.


----------



## AntiStateQuixote (Apr 24, 2011)

The gist of it is that all PC attack roll modifiers and defenses should scale +1/level over 30 levels. Without expertise and improved defenses and such it doesn't happen unless you take into account "specials" that are limited by race, class or some such other choice.

Attack bonus: +1/2 levels (15); +6 magic item; +4 ability increase (assumes bump attack stat every opportunity and no epic destiny increase); expertise (+3) gives +28 bonus to attack over 29 levels. Make up the +1 with any of many choices, and can easily exceed with multiple such choices.

Defenses work similarly.


----------



## Aulirophile (Apr 25, 2011)

http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-discussion/304576-feat-taxes-its-time-week-again.html

Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

Should cover it in terms of actual history & math (developer home games give the feats out free, information thrown in gratis).

Oh, also

*http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?...DVPVmg3c2c&authkey=CO-rnO4I&hl=en&output=html*


----------



## Herschel (Apr 25, 2011)

Viking Bastard said:


> I have no idea if I'll bother with any of this or not; this seems to be a higher level bug and my game might never reach high levels. But to make any judgement, I need to understand the issue.




The issue isn't the math really, it's the players and their choices. There are a lot of ways to get bonuses in the game, but that doesn't mean players will use them. Leaders are full of win on this front yet if you don't use them, or build away from bonuses and towards healing, for example, there can be a pretty wide disparity in the number a character is actually attacking at. Add in a weapon user with a post-racial 16 attack stat to start and there can be quite a large disparity in attack bonuses.

The feats help equalize this except optimizers see them and get giddy and take them also. With the ways to get healing, either through skills or multiclassing, it also helps mitigate some plyers' choices but optimizers ignore those.

The feats give players more flexibility to have fun and build what they want.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 25, 2011)

Accept expertise feats as a feature instead of a bug. It however would be nice to get 2 of them for free.


----------



## Herschel (Apr 25, 2011)

Yeah, I find them pretty dull. I've yet to take Weapon Focus, for example, because I don't miss the couple points of damage when I can take something more fun instead.


----------



## DNH (Apr 27, 2011)

Okay, I am due to restart my 4e game soon and I want to implement this maths fix by granting free feats (we use a VTT so keeping things systematic will make things easier). I propose to give every player Improved Defenses as a free bonus feat, which will fix the NADs issue, but am unsure how best to proceed with the attacks (Expertise) part.

I could just give everyone Versatile Expertise and have it apply across the board; that should work. But firstly, my campaign is not going to get up to Level 25 but it will get past Level 21, so I would prefer something that uses 1/11/21. Secondly, I much prefer the more specific Expertise feats from Essentials with their additional benefits, and I know my players will appreciate that too.

Question is though, how do I manage that? Because these feats are so specific, how do I handle things when characters switch weapons (our rogue uses crossbow and daggers interchangeably)? Do I give a free Expertise feat for each weapon or implement the character uses? Do I just assume all characters have access to all these feats and the appropriate applies each time?

I am thinking maybe I am going to have to give Versatile Expertise and leave the Essentials feats for the players to choose (and pay for) themselves, but that's unlikely because the attack bonus won't stack.

Any thoughts?


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 27, 2011)

Yes, that looks like a good solution.


----------



## Pickles JG (Apr 27, 2011)

Viking Bastard said:


> So this "math bug" extended to both attacks and defenses, right? So the simplest fix is to just add tier (+1 per tier) to attacks and defenses?
> 
> So Attack, for instance, would be 1/2 lvl + tier bonus + other bonuses.




This is the best fix then ban the expertise feats of course.  It's a pain if you use the electronic tools as it needs manual adjustment. If you give out the feats then house ruling works on the old CB but the feats are out of date & doesn't work on the new one.

Note that "feature" attacks like Dragon breath & ones from paragon paths have may or may not have the bonus factored in. Old ones would be stat+2/+4/+6 by tier. New ones are Stat +3/+6/+9. These later ones do not need boosting.


----------



## eamon (Apr 27, 2011)

Herschel said:


> The issue isn't the math really, it's the players and their choices. There are a lot of ways to get bonuses in the game, but that doesn't mean players will use them. Leaders are full of win on this front yet if you don't use them, or build away from bonuses and towards healing, for example, there can be a pretty wide disparity in the number a character is actually attacking at. Add in a weapon user with a post-racial 16 attack stat to start and there can be quite a large disparity in attack bonuses.



It's a math issue.  Leaders don't in general fix the issue because they don't grant attack bonuses nearly frequently enough to compensate; and generally don't grant such bonuses when they miss.  And of course, not all parties will have a twinked out specialist attack-bonus granting leader; some leaders grant very few attack bonuses, and often can't grant those to just anyone.

With the numerical change, the game plays better.  It's not impossible to play without them, but the change certainly improves gameplay: it's fix for the math.  If you don't look at these feats as math fixes, the alternative conclusion is that they're horribly overpowered, bland feats (and that grind is good).


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 27, 2011)

Pickles JG said:


> This is the best fix then ban the expertise feats of course.  It's a pain if you use the electronic tools as it needs manual adjustment. If you give out the feats then house ruling works on the old CB but the feats are out of date & doesn't work on the new one.
> 
> Note that "feature" attacks like Dragon breath & ones from paragon paths have may or may not have the bonus factored in. Old ones would be stat+2/+4/+6 by tier. New ones are Stat +3/+6/+9. These later ones do not need boosting.



Note that the +3/6/9 attacks are vs AC. IIRC.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Apr 27, 2011)

DNH said:


> Okay, I am due to restart my 4e game soon and I want to implement this maths fix by granting free feats (we use a VTT so keeping things systematic will make things easier). I propose to give every player Improved Defenses as a free bonus feat, which will fix the NADs issue, but am unsure how best to proceed with the attacks (Expertise) part.
> 
> I could just give everyone Versatile Expertise and have it apply across the board; that should work. But firstly, my campaign is not going to get up to Level 25 but it will get past Level 21, so I would prefer something that uses 1/11/21. Secondly, I much prefer the more specific Expertise feats from Essentials with their additional benefits, and I know my players will appreciate that too.
> 
> ...



If I were going to do this, I would give out vanilla expertise for free in any weapon or implement they can wield, but if they want the juicier feats with the riders, they still have to buy them.

AT MOST, I would consider giving Master of Arms if you like the improved progression (or if not using the builder, just houserule that everyone gets +1 per tier to all attacks). You would have to create a similar feat for the implement users, though most implement users stick to a single one, IME.


----------



## eamon (Apr 28, 2011)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Note that the +3/6/9 attacks are vs AC. IIRC.



Yeah, +3/+6/+9 is still insufficient - such a weapon effectively loses +3 over its lifetime - i.e. expertise.  I'd suggest that natural weapons are largely ignored as significant attacks: it's not just that they fall behind, they tend to be weak, and they don't scale smoothly at all (so their usefulness fluctuates wildly), and they tend to be hard to improve via feats, items & class abilities, further widening the gap.  So while a math fix would be a necessary precondition to make them competitive, it is not sufficient.  However, as niche tools they can occasionally be useful (e.g. for a fighter to mark) - the point is it's a small niche which shouldn't be a big deciding factor wrt the expertise issue.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 28, 2011)

After all, they are minor actions.


----------



## Aulirophile (Apr 28, 2011)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Note that the +3/6/9 attacks are vs AC. IIRC.



You recall incorrectly. They are 3/6/9 to account for Expertise not applying. Only a handful of inherently scaling powers have this though (Acid Surge for Genasi, couple of others). Some _are_ vs AC...which is still wrong. Should be 5/8/11 (or just changed to not be vs AC).


----------



## Herschel (Apr 28, 2011)

eamon said:


> It's a math issue. Leaders don't in general fix the issue because they don't grant attack bonuses nearly frequently enough to compensate; and generally don't grant such bonuses when they miss. And of course, not all parties will have a twinked out specialist attack-bonus granting leader; some leaders grant very few attack bonuses, and often can't grant those to just anyone.
> 
> With the numerical change, the game plays better. It's not impossible to play without them, but the change certainly improves gameplay: it's fix for the math. If you don't look at these feats as math fixes, the alternative conclusion is that they're horribly overpowered, bland feats (and that grind is good).




It's not just leaders, most classes have buffs/debuffs going. My Thaneborn Barbarian drops someone? Hey, burst 5 defense drop for a round. Human Wizard is dropping a +6 attack bonus on everyone against a target for a round. On a miss even. The bonuses are there, but the "moar damage" tards look right past them and then whine about their attack bonus while ops want them too.  

They're very good, but unnecesary if you take advantage of the game as presented. They give you flexibility if you can't/won't/aren't taking advantage of the opportunities built in to the game. And they have nothing to do with "grind" another moronic net term. 

I will agree they are bland as heck though.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 2, 2011)

Thanks. I just remembered the thri kreen attack. Need to look it up again!


----------



## DNH (May 2, 2011)

I used to play a thri-kreen fighter called T'kila back in 2e Dark Sun. Flinging that polearm thing they use ... chatkcha, is it? Ah, happy days.


----------

