# Expertise justification?



## Nail (May 12, 2009)

In one of my gaming groups we're discussing the Expertise line of feats.  The DM is leary of allowing them, and would like to see some justification.  Help would be appreciated.  

Additionally, I have a related question: "Has WotC released any official justification for the feats?"  Has there been a design article in DDI that's discussed what their thinking was?  In Dragon, mayhap? Is this just errata wrapped around a feat, or is it an honest choice, meant to be balanced with other feats?


----------



## Ltheb Silverfrond (May 12, 2009)

I don't believe there has been any official word as to their origin. (I would guess any such article would get a lot of discussion, as others like your DM would be curious)

Expertise is a feat for those who don't like to miss. 4E is a team game, and the party needs to work together to accomplish things. Expertise seems, to me, to be a feat for those who don't want to, or can't rely on team effort. I've done some 30th level playtests, and none of the sample characters I threw together had any problems hitting when they worked together and used their resources intelligently. 

If your group is good at strategizing, and combining their resources in efficient combinations, then Expertise might be icing on the cake for your group. If your group just has difficulty with every encounter (grinding, or just plain hitting is difficult) expertise is a very nice feat to pick up.

My advice? Talk to your DM. There have been a couple threads about Expertise that show the to-hit math at each level and how expertise 'plugs the holes'. Talk to your group. If hitting isn't an issue for anyone, then just don't take it. If your DM is leary that the feat is too powerful and thinks it's cheesy, ask why. Odds are, anyone who takes the expertise feat would rather be more effective than pick up other neat feats. (When making a Wizard, I really had to push myself to not take expertise over Expanded Spellbook or Arcane Familiar, two very useful and cool feats)


----------



## Regicide (May 12, 2009)

Nail said:


> In one of my gaming groups we're discussing the Expertise line of feats.  The DM is leary of allowing them, and would like to see some justification.  Help would be appreciated.




  It's a published, errated feat in a main book, arguably a core book.  They made the game, they should know it better than you, and one of the goals of 4E was balance.  Why wouldn't you allow it?  What is the DM's reasoning?


----------



## ForbidenMaster (May 12, 2009)

Nail said:


> In one of my gaming groups we're discussing the Expertise line of feats.  The DM is leary of allowing them, and would like to see some justification.  Help would be appreciated.
> 
> Additionally, I have a related question: "Has WotC released any official justification for the feats?"  Has there been a design article in DDI that's discussed what their thinking was?  In Dragon, mayhap? Is this just errata wrapped around a feat, or is it an honest choice, meant to be balanced with other feats?



EDITED As per Nails post below

Just some math:

Average Monster AC = 14+Level
Average PC Attack Bonus = Mod+Proficiency+1/2 level+Magic


```
Assumed PC attack vs average monster AC at level 1:

4+2+0+0=6 vs. 15=14+1

Chance to hit = 60%

Assumed PC attack vs average monster AC at level 15:

6+2+7+3=18 vs 29=14+15

Chance to hit = 50%

Assumed PC attack vs average monster AC at level 25:

7+2+12+6=27 vs 39=14+25

Chance to hit = 45%

Assumed PC attack vs average monster AC at level 30:

8+2+15+6=31 vs 44=14+30

Chance to hit = 40%
```

*Now with expertise:*

```
Average Monster AC = 14+Level
Average PC Attack Bonus = Mod+Proficiency+1/2 level+Magic+Expertise

Assumed PC attack vs average monster AC at level 1:

4+2+0+0+1=7 vs. 15=14+1

Chance to hit = 65%

Assumed PC attack vs average monster AC at level 15:

6+2+7+3+2=20 vs 29=14+15

Chance to hit = 60%

Assumed PC attack vs average monster AC at level 25:

7+2+12+6=30 vs 39=14+25

Chance to hit = 60%

Assumed PC attack vs average monster AC at level 30:

8+2+15+6+3=34 vs 44=14+30

Chance to hit = 55%
```

Now as as far as I understand it, the initial intent was that bonuses from a leader/bonuses from advanced powers would make up the difference in attack vs AC, but they apparently didnt think that was enough.


----------



## Victim (May 12, 2009)

ForbidenMaster said:


> Now as as far as I understand it, the initial intent was that bonuses from a leader/bonuses from advanced powers would make up the difference in attack vs AC, but they apparently didnt think that was enough.




One issue there is that if initial leader powers don't hit (low hit chance), then the other people don't get the bonus.  Hit chances are low, so leader powers that boost hit chance don't hit, so hit chances are low...

And if limited use powers are being used up, then the group is in some trouble.


----------



## Legildur (May 12, 2009)

Victim said:


> One issue there is that if initial leader powers don't hit (low hit chance), then the other people don't get the bonus.  Hit chances are low, so leader powers that boost hit chance don't hit, so hit chances are low...
> 
> And if limited use powers are being used up, then the group is in some trouble.



Yes, our TacLord has come to that conclusion.... _Lead the Attack_ Daily power is not much use if you can't land it..... Expertise is definitely a feat he will be taking at the first opportunity.


----------



## jasin (May 12, 2009)

Regicide said:


> It's a published, errated feat in a main book, arguably a core book.  They made the game, they should know it better than you, and one of the goals of 4E was balance.  Why wouldn't you allow it?  What is the DM's reasoning?



Combat Reflexes is also a published feat in _the_ core book. It provides a lower bonus that only applies to a subset of situations and has a prerequisite, making it obviously, undeniably weaker.

And one of the goals of 4E was balance. So what's up? Is Combat Reflexes hopelessly useless? Is Weapon Expertise grossly overpowered? Is this a feature, with Combat Reflexes providing diminishing returns for those who _really_ want to boost their opportunity attacks, after they've already taken Weapon Expertise? If so, why is this additional feat published a year before the more basic one?

That's the reasoning. Lack of faith in the designers' decisions since, whether through incompetence or policy, they suggest an abandonment of balance through playtesting and thinking out implications ahead in favour of balance thourgh in-flight compensation by the next supplment (v. Focused Expertise in the monk preview).


----------



## Starfox (May 12, 2009)

I'm also guessing that people are playing leaders much less than anticipated. And I can see why - they still have some of the "cleric stand back, heal, and shut up" syndrome.


----------



## jasin (May 12, 2009)

Starfox said:


> I'm also guessing that people are playing leaders much less than anticipated. And I can see why - they still have some of the "cleric stand back, heal, and shut up" syndrome.



I was impressed at how fun the warlord's Commander's Strike was, despite being basically "I don't do anything, but you get to go again, yay!" I think the key is that it's an active power that you have to choose to use in each instance, rather than something like the (3E) bard's inspire courage.

But it still got annoying when other players changed their characters to a barbarian and a druid and none of my 2d8 + Str + special effect Encounter powers seemed to be really worth using anymore compared to barbarian's 1d12 + barbarian's Str + my Int, or druid's 1d10 + druid's Wis + my Int + special effect.


----------



## CapnZapp (May 12, 2009)

I too am of the opinion WotC really need to break the silence on the Expertise feats.

In particular, they need to offer up some really compelling reasons why they chose the solution they did, and specifically and openly address the two main concerns; "feat tax" and "stealth errata".

If the real reason is "sell more books" they need to be honest about it.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 12, 2009)

I'd like to hear their reasoning too.

It seems unlikely that they would say _mea culpa_, we got the maths wrong and needed to introduce a fix, as few people are prepared to admit mistakes in design (thinks back to the 3.0 Halfling Outrider(?) as the most egregarious example, and that was only typography!). However, it would be refreshing if that was the case here - although even then, one wonders why they would do this feat based fix rather than issue errata... surely a better solution for design problems?

Cheers


----------



## jasin (May 12, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> few people are prepared to admit mistakes in design (thinks back to the 3.0 Halfling Outrider(?) as the most egregarious example, and that was only typography!)



Refresh my memory, what was wrong with it? It didn't have BAB or had some crazy jump in BAB like +8, +9, +20, something like that, right?


----------



## CapnZapp (May 12, 2009)

jasin said:


> Refresh my memory, what was wrong with it? It didn't have BAB or had some crazy jump in BAB like +8, +9, +20, something like that, right?



Google found this for me:


> the Halfling Outrider prestige class was missing the Base Attack Bonus progression entirely in the first printing



Dungeons & Dragons - 3rdedition - Reviews - Complete Warrior Review


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 12, 2009)

jasin said:


> Combat Reflexes is also a published feat in _the_ core book. It provides a lower bonus that only applies to a subset of situations and has a prerequisite, making it obviously, undeniably weaker.
> 
> And one of the goals of 4E was balance. So what's up? Is Combat Reflexes hopelessly useless? Is Weapon Expertise grossly overpowered? Is this a feature, with Combat Reflexes providing diminishing returns for those who _really_ want to boost their opportunity attacks, after they've already taken Weapon Expertise? If so, why is this additional feat published a year before the more basic one?
> .




I think the problem is that when they started they were very careful about attack bonuses...then one day they said "You know it doesn't hurt to give bigger ones, and people want more" so they tried it and then put it out. People just like to over react and yell broken. when the truth is PHBI was just too careful, the feat is fine...


----------



## Ryujin (May 12, 2009)

Then the question would be, "Why release a feat that effectively supercedes all of the previous ones, that have conditional bonuses?"


----------



## jasin (May 12, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I think the problem is that when they started they were very careful about attack bonuses...then one day they said "You know it doesn't hurt to give bigger ones, and people want more" so they tried it and then put it out. People just like to over react and yell broken. when the truth is PHBI was just too careful, the feat is fine...



So Weapon Expertise is fine, it's just the PHB1 feats that suck?

Still not very encouraging of trust in the designers' decisions.


----------



## Nail (May 12, 2009)

Regicide said:


> It's a published, errated feat in a main book, arguably a core book.  They made the game, they should know it better than you, and one of the goals of 4E was balance.  Why wouldn't you allow it?  What is the DM's reasoning?




"Because he'd like to know why WotC made such an obviously superior feat."


----------



## Nail (May 12, 2009)

jasin said:


> And one of the goals of 4E was balance. So what's up? Is Combat Reflexes hopelessly useless? Is Weapon Expertise grossly overpowered? Is this a feature, with Combat Reflexes providing diminishing returns for those who _really_ want to boost their opportunity attacks, after they've already taken Weapon Expertise?



Right.

I'd like to know: Why create these feats?

The reasons I can think of:
Original designers canned --> it's the economy, stupid!
Designers have decided that giving bonuses to hit is no big deal, and that PH1 feats are too weak.
Math hole discovered; original math is off and this is steath errata.
Designers realized high level team-tactics don't compensate for poorer to hit.
Powercreep to sell books.
Hitting is fun, so more hitting is more fun!  This game is about fun maximization!! 
The feats are a mistake.


----------



## Nail (May 12, 2009)

CapnZapp said:


> I too am of the opinion WotC really need to break the silence on the Expertise feats.



Perhaps they have already?  Any chatter on the WotC boards that I missed??



Plane Sailing said:


> I'd like to hear their reasoning too.
> 
> It seems unlikely that they would say _mea culpa_, we got the maths wrong and needed to introduce a fix, as few people are prepared to admit mistakes in design (thinks back to the 3.0 Halfling Outrider(?) as the most egregarious example, and that was only typography!). However, it would be refreshing if that was the case here - although even then, one wonders why they would do this feat based fix rather than issue errata... surely a better solution for design problems?



.....Halfling Outrider.....<shudder>


----------



## tiornys (May 12, 2009)

Nail said:


> In one of my gaming groups we're discussing the Expertise line of feats.  The DM is leary of allowing them, and would like to see some justification.  Help would be appreciated.



The expertise feats are probably a mathematical patch in the form of feats.  Problem is, if they're meant to be a mathematical patch, they shouldn't be feats, because they are massively overpowered as feats.

So, here's what I'd say to your DM:  player attack rates and defenses (except AC) scale at a lower rate than monster attack rates and defenses.  The expertise feats and the epic defense feats look like they're meant to bring the scaling back to 1 for 1.  If you think that's good for the game, lose the feats, and just apply +1 to attacks and non-AC defenses at level 5, +2 at level 15, and +3 at level 25.  If you don't think the game needs the scaling fixed, just lose the feats.

If you're interested in a deeper analysis and (exceedingly) thorough discussion, here's the thread for it.



> Additionally, I have a related question: "Has WotC released any official justification for the feats?"  Has there been a design article in DDI that's discussed what their thinking was?  In Dragon, mayhap? Is this just errata wrapped around a feat, or is it an honest choice, meant to be balanced with other feats?



No official word yet.  

t~


----------



## KarinsDad (May 12, 2009)

Nail said:


> Right.
> 
> I'd like to know: Why create these feats?
> 
> ...




I choose:

[*]Math hole discovered; original math is off and this is steath errata.

This is beyond obvious to me. This is WotC shouting:

Opps, sorry. Nevermind. 

Two things convince me of this:

1) The plethora of discussion pre-4E on minimizing bonuses to hit so that power creep would not get to the levels that it did in 3E/3.5. During that timeframe, the designers were purposely talking about avoiding the mistakes of the past.

2) The stealth errata for masterwork armor. With AV and PHB II, there no longer is a heavy armor AC sag in Paragon levels. Stealth errata has been done before for 4E.

The math is straightforward (all aspects of it: monster and PC chances to hit, defenses, damage, number of actions, number of hit points, and riders/conditions) and the fact that many bonus to hit powers require that the first power hits before the bonus is given illustrates the math curves and the flaw in the "synergy bonuses make up for it" theory.

There is no way WotC would have released feats that are +3 (expertise) or +4 (epic defense feats) on a D20 curve with zero conditions attached when the vast majority of the game system is +1 or +2 conditionally on a D20 curve unless they had a compelling game mechanics reason to do so. Anything else is beyond powergaming.

It is a totally different game design philosophy and mathematical model when one does this. It can only be to fix the math bugs. I find any other explanation to be customer wishful thinking that WotC knew what they were doing with the original math.


----------



## robsenworldaccount (May 12, 2009)

"Then the question would be, "Why release a feat that effectively supercedes all of the previous ones, that have conditional bonuses?"

The poster above hit the nail on the head with this question.  This is the truly frustrating part of the "expertise" feat.  

I have seen people argue that expertise "Is NOT a FEAT BONUS" alas, this is all but conjecture.

However; it is a bonus granted by a FEAT. 

Regardless:

If it is a feat bonus, its simply > than 90% of the feats in existence, and removes all urge to take them.

For example why take oncomming storm (+1 to hit with thunder after using a lightning keyword power until end of next turn) if I can just have *+1 to hit all the time!?*

The situation is disheartening.  
Anyone have official content that would determine the above issue of whether or not it's a feat bonus or not?


----------



## CapnZapp (May 12, 2009)

It is emphatically not a feat bonus. 

If it were, it would say so. 

There's a difference between "a +1 bonus" and a "+1 feat bonus". In fact, that's the _only_ difference - so if you're waiting from a confirmatory rules language elsewhere, you're not going to get it.


----------



## KidSnide (May 12, 2009)

CapnZapp said:


> It is emphatically not a feat bonus.
> 
> If it were, it would say so.
> 
> There's a difference between "a +1 bonus" and a "+1 feat bonus". In fact, that's the _only_ difference - so if you're waiting from a confirmatory rules language elsewhere, you're not going to get it.




This is correct.

-KS


----------



## Nail (May 12, 2009)

robsenworldaccount said:


> I have seen people argue that expertise "Is NOT a FEAT BONUS" alas, this is all but conjecture.



Huh.  I really don't understand why you think it's "all conjecture".  

In any case, that's irrelevant to this thread.  It's a large bonus, which scales with tier, that is better than all other feats.


----------



## DrSpunj (May 12, 2009)

Nail said:


> It's a large bonus, which scales with tier, that is better than all other feats.




<puts on bullseye suit>

I'm *Nail*'s DM in this instance (though he's involved in a couple other games and we haven't discussed what might be happening in those).

Now, the party is only 4th level and leveling only every couple months or so (we only get a chance to play every other Wednesday night  ). As such I'm _not_ really interested in what happens with the math at Paragon & Epic. When I'm regularly involved in games at those levels I'll revisit this issue.

My concerns are that at level 5:

 it seems like a feat tax, and a bad one at that since if it's there to fix the math it only does so for one weapon group, focus or implement, leaving a lot of PC's attacks in the same lurch they were in without the feat
it's not clear that it's necessary at all even with the math being off given that those in higher level paragon & epic games aren't always seeing a lot of problems (besides the grind, hopefully Stalker0's analysis helps with that when real life gets out of his way  ) so at level 5 it's pretty hard to justify that every PC needs a +1 math fix bonus on all attacks (or even most of them) all the time
I simply don't like the "it's better than all other feats out there" aspect of it, it _really_ bothers me, I guess I just bought into the 4e hype about "we started with the math as our baseline and everything grows from there, balance is a lot easier to maintain now"
I think giving all players a +1 actually discourages cooperative, strategic play since it's easier for PCs to hit things just by running up and taking a swing at something, and that doing so at level 5 will have a negative impact on play & fun at higher levels
We're having a lot of fun with our sessions and trying out different things with each encounter, no one is complaining of any grinding, so I don't feel we need it to improve the fun factor around our table (either using the feat or giving it out automatically)

Now, I was reading the "So, about expertise..." thread when it was really active over a month ago but pulled it up again recently and am slowly reading through it again (up to page 13!). I think it was *KarinsDad* who stated he might go with an automatic +1 at Paragon and +2 at Epic which is what I'm leaning towards currently, but I'm trying to keep an open mind about things at this point. I was really hoping WotC was going to open up about this and print a Designer's Diary article or something on this topic, I thought they mentioned something like that and I want to understand what they're thinking was between PHB1 & PHB2 to merit these Expertise feats and the Defense feats at Paragon & Epic.

Thanks for starting this thread, *Nail*!


----------



## Ryujin (May 12, 2009)

CapnZapp said:


> It is emphatically not a feat bonus.
> 
> If it were, it would say so.
> 
> There's a difference between "a +1 bonus" and a "+1 feat bonus". In fact, that's the _only_ difference - so if you're waiting from a confirmatory rules language elsewhere, you're not going to get it.




No, it's not a feat bonus and therefore stacks with feat bonuses. That's too good not to take, making it for all appearances to be a 'mandatory' feat if your character wants to keep hitting like the Joneses.

This is the reason that my GM made it a house ruled auto addition for our main attack type.


----------



## Tilenas (May 12, 2009)

CapnZapp said:


> It is emphatically not a feat bonus.
> 
> If it were, it would say so.




Imagine it were a feat bonus and you had already spent a couple of feats on circumstantial +1 attack boons. Boy would you be mad...   
I really wonder why expertise had to be a heroic tier feat, especially vis-a-vis the NAD-boosts in PHB1. As was said before, the math can't possibly be that broken on low levels and the accumulated bonus (+2 on paragon, +3 on epic) is simply too über.  
My guess is that we're experiencing a mixture of power creep and "stealth errata" (not to be confused with the errata for the stealth skill, which was an early dent in WotC's shining armour).


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 12, 2009)

Ok we have a major problem becuse people do not listen to each other in these threads. 

    We have seen and herd form group who played through all three teirs of play H,P,E and never found themselves in this slump of "I can't hit" lets call them group A
     We have seen and herd from groups who played to paragon and felt the defences went up to much and the game watered down...lets call them group B
       We have seen and herd form groups who in epci felt the monsters got to tough. we will call them group C.
       We have seen people complain (I may be bias but I give this group the least amount of slack) that right from day one 1st level the game is too hard. we will call them group D.


      I have no dubt WotC has herd from all 4 of these groups, and heck they might even have people in office in diffrent groups.  

      So now lets say they errata +1 to NADS and Attack at 5,15,and 25th...group A will feel it is too easy, group B will feel 5 levesl are too easy, group C will think 20 levels are too easy...group D will most likely prefer this...or they might complain it is still to 'late in the game'
       So put yourself in there shoes...how do you work with the most number of people...make it a choice...infact break it down to a few choices. 

        We right now have atleast 4 diffrent ways to boost attack (Gnome illussion feat, Fey charm feat, Dragon born arcane feat, and the expertise feats) we have a few diffrent Nads boosting feats (some to all three some to just one but more...or those epic ones) So what does that do...
       It means every player now gets to decide "What do I want to focus on?" I have a PC in my tuesday night game who is a swordmage going for maxed out defences, and took toughness. He seams to hit just fine at paragon levels with out expertise, so he will save his feats for the ones he wants...on the other hand our warlord can't hit to save his life, and is very rearly hit, so expertise was a good choice for him, but the NADs uppers not so much.

       people who claim they are non choices fail to realize that they are the ultimate choice. (I even have a post in the errata board to up Helfire blood to +1, +2 at 15, +3 at 25th to give another option and another choice to the group)


Edit: since my tuesday night paragon level game has a warlord/battle captian with a level +5 sword, and expertise, and a 20 str, and he often goes to flank...he hits a good amount of times...then gives bonuses to others...who have lower weapons and no expertise...but then still hit often...it means those 'feat taxes' are avoided...


----------



## Regicide (May 12, 2009)

DrSpunj said:


> As such I'm _not_ really interested in what happens with the math at Paragon & Epic.




  The feat is only really remarkable at paragon and epic.  If you're only concerned about heroic then it's pretty much a non-issue where it's a very nice feat, but you're not shooting yourself in the foot if you don't take it.


----------



## AngryMojo (May 13, 2009)

Sorry guys, I have to play devil's advocate.  I don't know why I have to, but I have some bizarre compulsion to do so most of the time.

Expertise feats are circumstantial.  Weapon expertise, for example, only applies to attacks made with that category of weapon.  Now, before you go off on how you'll always have your favored weapon in hand, hear me out.

Let's say you play a fighter.  He's a sword and board fighter, and likes being all defendery.  In MP, there's a level 1 encounter power called Shield Bash.  This is a power that does not have the weapon keyword, and thus would not receive the expertise bonus.  Now, let's say that fighter was also a dragonborn.  That fighter's breath weapon would also lack the condition for the expertise feat.

This idea of expertise still being circumstantial really starts coming into play when you have a rogue holding a melee weapon and a hand crossbow, or you play a cleric or paladin.

From what I've seen so far, there are many characters who don't have a problem hitting.  Weapon talent sword fighters, dagger rogues, high INT wizards, etc.  There was breakdown of basic math stating  that at level 30, your typical PC has a +31 to hit while your typical monster has an AC of 44, equaling a 35% chance of hitting.  This assumed a +2 proficiency bonus, a +8 ability bonus, a +6 weapon and your +15 from level.  Meanwhile, if you play a weapon talent fighter with a sword, you're looking at a baseline +33 to hit.  Something as simple as combat advantage will end up giving you a 55% chance of hitting.  Honestly, if you've gotten all the way up to level 30 and the only tactic you can come up with is flanking, your DM has been way too easy on you.

I understand where the impression of the expertise feats being a math patch come from, I just don't really see it.  The expertise feats are good, don't get me wrong, but I don't really see them as being absurdly broken or must-haves.  You can concentrate on accuracy in other ways, and use your feats for other coolness.


----------



## KarinsDad (May 13, 2009)

DrSpunj said:


> I think it was *KarinsDad* who stated he might go with an automatic +1 at Paragon and +2 at Epic which is what I'm leaning towards currently, but I'm trying to keep an open mind about things at this point.




There is a wait and see solution that does not involve a single game mechanics change.

If as you are going through Paragon levels, you start to see grindy lengthy encounters because foes start hitting easier, PCs start hitting less frequently, and foes have too many hit points, the solution is to use lower level foes.

At low paragon levels, that might mean using foes one level lower. At high epic level, that might mean using foes three levels lower.

So, a standard "same level" n encounter starts becoming level -1 and possibly eventually level -2 or -3. You can use what works for your game without changing a single rule. You just change which creatures the PCs meet.


----------



## Nail (May 13, 2009)

DrSpunj said:


> Now, the party is only 4th level and leveling only every couple months or so (we only get a chance to play every other Wednesday night  ). As such I'm _not_ really interested in what happens with the math at Paragon & Epic.



Me either.  In any of the games I dabble in, I'll be lucky to have anyone (me or a player) above 10th level before 2010.



DrSpunj said:


> [*]I think giving all players a +1 actually discourages cooperative, strategic play since it's easier for PCs to hit things just by running up and taking a swing at something,....



I disagree.  A +1 to hit has zero impact on cooperative play.  No one playing 4e (with their eyes open ) thinks they can be a "one man army", and neglect/ignore his or her teammates.....without consequences. 

How's our dwarf doing, these days? 

As it is, same level creatures become progressively harder to hit as we level up; i.e. we've never hit as well as we did at 1st level.  (_Pause_...and think through the irony of *that* for awhile.  Those playing 3.xe are snickering.....)  The hole becomes noticable at about 5th level (with the caveat that _much _depends on treasure parcels).  For our group, the hole is becoming noticable at 4th level.

I think we should do something about it.  (Truth in advertising: We're playing tomorrow night.)


----------



## SteveC (May 13, 2009)

Let me start this post with a caveat: I haven't played 4E to level 15 or beyond, so my only experience with this feat is at heroic to low paragon.

With that caveat, I'll continue to argue that Expertise is better in absolute terms than one type of feat: a feat that gives a situational bonus to hit. Any other feat it might be better than or might not.

If your character doesn't have something more useful to take than one of those feats, then by all means, Expertise is a no-brainer. However, after Arcane Power is out, the number of characters who don't have more interesting and potentially more useful feats to buy is pretty small. At this point I'd pretty much limit that list to divine characters from the PHB. For everyone else, there's simply something more interesting and useful for them to take. The characters I play: a drow rogue, a genasi swordmage and a human bard all have plenty of feats to take that are both more interesting and genuinely useful to the group. 5% more likely to hit? Or a bunch of multiclass powers (for the bard) or drow powers (for the rogue) or arcane/genasi powers for the swordmage...all of that is much more exciting than n+1 to hit.

Who is Expertise for? Those characters that find themselves sliding behind the power curve early, or those who don't have full builds out yet (paladin: I'm lookin' at you!) For other character builds...it's easy to find something better to do.

Now when you get to high paragon or epic, I might agree and take it as a no-brainer, but then again I haven't really completed my builds into that range so I can't say for certain.

--Steve


----------



## Nail (May 13, 2009)

AngryMojo said:


> Expertise feats are circumstantial.



I appreciate the effort.

I really do.


...but that's an awfully tough mountain you've set yourself up to climb.

"Circumstantial" - in the present context - means there are only a few cicumstances in which you can use the feat.  Are you claiming that?  'Cuz if you are, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'm interested in selling.....


----------



## Eldorian (May 13, 2009)

I'm quite convinced that the only reason WotC has never said anything about expertise is because they realize that it's a poor band aid fix to a math problem they're not even sure exists.


----------



## ForbidenMaster (May 13, 2009)

Now I am just throwing this out there, so take it as you will, but has anyone done an analysis on the damage at the levels where were you would start to need (relatively) the expertise feats?  What I am proposing is that while your chance to hit does drop off, maybe it is balanced by an increase in damage.  The only thing I am basing this is off of is anecdotal evidence that combat is actually faster at paragon an epic, but it would be nice to have the data.


----------



## DrSpunj (May 13, 2009)

Nail said:


> The hole becomes noticable at about 5th level (with the caveat that _much _depends on treasure parcels).  For our group, the hole is becoming noticable at 4th level.




In what way? We are dead on track for treasure parcels and I have the sheets to prove it! By the end of 5th level every PC will have a magical weapon/implement, armor & neck slot item that's +1, and some will have +2 items. Those are supposedly the only items that truly matter to the math, right? The rest of the treasure is gravy and non-essential (though admittedly very fun!).

And as you're fond of pointing out in threads with a perceived "bad d20", the law of averages is absolute. Can you do the math here & now? I mean, I've seen a lot of posts in this thread and a few others on this topic or the NAD topic that compare the math at level 1 vs level 30, or 5-15-25, but with your statement it sounds like you're ready to show me math that breaks down from level 1 to level 4? Or 4 to 5? I think the lowest I've seen someone claim this feat _may_ be needed to date is "late Heroic" which I think someone else described as 8th level.

So can you or anyone else truly put forth the math to justify this at level 5? I'm very curious to see it laid out as cleanly as possible. I disagree that +1 doesn't affect cooperative play, as every bonus is worth getting as often as you can get it. You kept recommending our Rogue player work on getting CA more often than he did for those few sessions, so +2 is worth working for but not +1?

And, just to be clear given your Truth in Advertising disclosure (which still doesn't affect tomorrow night since the party will not reach level 5!) do you believe everyone should get the feat as written for free? So it's only one weapon/implement/focus that benefits? Ignore those classes that need two of those, or dragonborn or the shield push or the other stuff that's coming down the pipe in Divine Power and later products? Or are you asking for a flat +1 to all attacks for all PCs at level 5? How many House Rules are talking about here?


----------



## eriktheguy (May 13, 2009)

The general consensus is that this feat was created to fix an issue that Wizards originally made in designing 4e. Monsters gain attack and AC faster than players, making higher level monsters imbalanced compared to the same level players. There is an extremely comprehensive discussion on the issue in this thread.
There are also suggested fixes, in which players get bonuses to attack and defenses at certain levels in order to make up for the discrepancy. I would strongly suggest you take a look at it.

And yes, the expertise feats are broken. I would suggest banning them in your campaign, and using one of the fixes from that thread.
Also, the epic defense feats are considered by many to be imbalanced. The thread explains why Wizards probably implemented them to fix PC's defenses which do not scale appropriately with level.
The most popular fix appears to be:

Players get +1 to hit and to Fort/Ref/Will defenses at levels 5/15/25
Players get +1 to 3 ability scores at levels 4/8/14/18/24/28 in stead of 2 ability scores
The expertise feats and epic defense feats (epic fort, ref, will and epic defenses) are banned

Again, the math and logic behind these ideas is contained in the above linked thread, very good read.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 13, 2009)

eriktheguy said:


> The general consensus is that there is no consensus.




hey I fixed it for you...


----------



## KarinsDad (May 13, 2009)

DrSpunj said:


> So can you or anyone else truly put forth the math to justify this at level 5?




It's a bit subjective, especially with the way that treasure packets are handed out. One PC can get a +1 item at level 1 and another at level 4. However, for sake of discussion, I tend to put the weapons as +1 more at the beginning of levels 3, 6, 11, 16, 21, 26 (this is bottom heavy due to the fact that the PCs start acquiring +1 items right away). In other words, a +1 weapon is sometimes found somewhere during level 1 or 2 for many PCs, but they often have one by the beginning of level 3 (on average, we have to put the number somewhere, e.g. in our campaign following the DMG treasure distribution where the PCs just made level 3, 4 out of 6 have a +1 weapon, the fifth is about to gain one and the last PC will during this level gain a +2 weapon).

Against a monster that is level +14 AC, a +3 proficiency weapon, and an 18 starting stat, this results in the following numbers to hit at the various levels (and the number with the feat):


```
1   8  8
2   8  8
3   8  8
4   8  8
5   9  8
6   8  7
7   9  8
8   8  7
9   9  8
10  9  8
11  9  8
12  9  8
13 10  9
14  9  8
15 10  8
16  9  7
17 10  8
18 10  8
19 11  9
20 11  9
21 10  8
22 10  8
23 11  9
24 11  9
25 12  9
26 11  8
27 12  9
28 11  8
29 12  9
30 12  9
```

Yes, the chance to hit drop starts around level 5, but it does not become a significant issue until maybe level 13.

But unlike Nail, I do not think the players really notice this until mid-paragon levels. A simple variable like a monster one level higher is enough to raise the number.

On the other hand, the feat smoothes out the curve significantly and puts the average over the levels at 8.3.


----------



## blargney the second (May 13, 2009)

I'm going to try a different tack here: let your players take the feat if they feel like it, but tell them that it's on probation.  If you find that it lowers anyone's enjoyment, get rid of it.

It's like the retraining rules as applied to your game - try something out for a level or two then ditch it if it sucks. 
-blarg


----------



## mach1.9pants (May 13, 2009)

Nm.


----------



## chaotix42 (May 13, 2009)

blargney the second said:


> I'm going to try a different tack here: let your players take the feat if they feel like it, but tell them that it's on probation.  If you find that it lowers anyone's enjoyment, get rid of it.
> 
> It's like the retraining rules as applied to your game - try something out for a level or two then ditch it if it sucks.
> -blarg




Exactly what I did with our group & the BR fighter build. We're doing the same with Expertise and so far everything is fine. 3/5 people have the feat and so far the effect hasn't been that noticeable. The group is also only 14th level; Expertise has yet to really hit its stride! I don't think it will be much longer before 4/5 players have it - the halfling rogue might never take it. We'll see though, since I plan on getting to 30th lvl.


----------



## ForbidenMaster (May 13, 2009)

EDITED: As per Nails post below

I think we can all agree that the whole point of the expertise and magic item progression is so that we have an even growth in power as possible.  The goal then is to try to manipulate the system in such a way as to get that even progression.  Assuming my math is correct, I think the process below is the most effective way of getting an even power progression.  Therefor, any deviation from this will result in a relatively over powered or under powered character.  Use it as you will, but in the end I think one thing is clear, assuming no other reliable outside bonus to hit, expertise is definitely needed, 

Heroic

Average Monster AC = 14+Level
Average PC Attack Bonus = Mod+Proficiency+1/2 level+Magic+Expertise


```
Assumed PC attack vs average monster AC at level 1:

4+2+0+0+0=6 vs. 15=14+1

Chance to hit = 60%


Assumed PC attack vs average monster AC at level 2:

4+2+1+0+0=7 vs. 16=14+2

Chance to hit = 60%


Assumed PC attack vs average monster AC at level 3:

4+2+1+[B]1[/B]+0=8 vs. 17=14+3

Chance to hit = 60%


Assumed PC attack vs average monster AC at level 4:

4+2+2+1+0=9 vs. 18=14+4

Chance to hit = 60%


Assumed PC attack vs average monster AC at level 5:

4+2+2+1+[B]1[/B]=10 vs. 19=14+5

Chance to hit = 60%


Assumed PC attack vs average monster AC at level 6:

4+2+3+1+1=11 vs. 20=14+6

Chance to hit = 60%


Assumed PC attack vs average monster AC at level 7:

4+2+3+[B]2[/B]+1=12 vs. 21=14+7

Chance to hit = 60%


Assumed PC attack vs average monster AC at level 8:

[B]5[/B]+2+4+2+1=14 vs. 22=14+8

Chance to hit = 65%


Assumed PC attack vs average monster AC at level 9:

5+2+4+2+1=14 vs. 23=14+9

Chance to hit = 60%


Assumed PC attack vs average monster AC at level 10:

5+2+5+2+1=15 vs. 24=14+10

Chance to hit = 60%
```

So it seems like there is a lot less swing if you give the players a better magic item at levels 3 and 7, but in order to maintain a 60% chance to hit it is still best to give the players expertise at level 5.  Alternatively you could give the players a better magic item at level 5 instead of 7 and take expertise by level 7, but I think its clear that expertise is needed.


Paragon

Average Monster AC = 14+Level
Average PC Attack Bonus = Mod+Proficiency+1/2 level+Magic+Expertice


```
Assumed PC attack vs average monster AC at level 11:

5+2+5+[B]3[/B]+1=16 vs. 25=14+11

Chance to hit = 60%


Assumed PC attack vs average monster AC at level 12:

5+2+6+3+1=17 vs. 26=14+12

Chance to hit = 60%


Assumed PC attack vs average monster AC at level 13:

5+2+6+3+1=17 vs. 27=14+13

Chance to hit = 55%


Assumed PC attack vs average monster AC at level 14:

[B]6[/B]+2+7+3+1=19 vs. 28=14+14

Chance to hit = 60%


Assumed PC attack vs average monster AC at level 15:

6+2+7+3+[B]2[/B]=20 vs. 29=14+15

Chance to hit = 60%


Assumed PC attack vs average monster AC at level 16:

6+2+8+3+2=21 vs. 30=14+16

Chance to hit = 60%


Assumed PC attack vs average monster AC at level 17:

6+2+8+[B]4[/B]+2=22 vs. 31=14+17

Chance to hit = 60%


Assumed PC attack vs average monster AC at level 18:

6+2+9+4+2=23 vs. 32=14+18

Chance to hit = 60%


Assumed PC attack vs average monster AC at level 19:

6+2+9+[B]5[/B]+2=24 vs. 33=14+19

Chance to hit = 60%


Assumed PC attack vs average monster AC at level 20:

6+2+10+5+2=25 vs. 34=14+20

Chance to hit = 60%
```

So this time a new magic item at level 11, 17, and 19 along with the bonus from expertise help balance every thing out most of the way.


Epic

Average Monster AC = 14+Level
Average PC Attack Bonus = Mod+Proficiency+1/2 level+Magic+Expertice


```
Assumed PC attack vs average monster AC at level 21:

[B]7[/B]+2+10+5+2=26 vs. 35=14+21

Chance to hit = 60%


Assumed PC attack vs average monster AC at level 22:

7+2+11+5+2=27 vs. 36=14+22

Chance to hit = 60%


Assumed PC attack vs average monster AC at level 23:

7+2+11+[B]6[/B]+2=28 vs. 37=14+23

Chance to hit = 60%


Assumed PC attack vs average monster AC at level 24:

7+2+12+6+2=29 vs. 38=14+24

Chance to hit = 60%


Assumed PC attack vs average monster AC at level 25:

7+2+12+6+[B]3[/B]=30 vs. 39=14+25

Chance to hit = 60%


Assumed PC attack vs average monster AC at level 26:

7+2+13+6+3=31 vs. 40=14+26

Chance to hit = 60%


Assumed PC attack vs average monster AC at level 27:

7+2+13+6+3=31 vs. 41=14+27

Chance to hit = 55%


Assumed PC attack vs average monster AC at level 28:

[B]8[/B]+2+14+6+3=33 vs. 42=14+28

Chance to hit = 60%


Assumed PC attack vs average monster AC at level 29:

8+2+14+6+3=33 vs. 43=14+29

Chance to hit = 55%


Assumed PC attack vs average monster AC at level 30:

8+2+15+6+3=34 vs. 44=14+30

Chance to hit = 55%
```

Since we gave out the +5 magic weapon in paragon we only have the +6 weapon at 23, plus the boost from expertise at 25, but as you can see the progression is pretty even.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 13, 2009)

mach1.9pants said:


> Hey GM4PGs I agree with you entirely that there is no consensus at all. However FIFY is not really the 'done thing' on ENW.




ok I appologize that might have been over the top...


now back to the topic at hand...

lets assume that the book is balanced for a 16 attack stat and a +2 prof weapon Vs AC, or a 16 att stat alone Vs Nads...Anything else is Bonus...
Now I am going to take the DMG info on monster building...everything for standard monsters AC lie between Level+12 and L+14...and NADS Level +12...to make an elite is +2 to three...and solo is another +2 to three...

Level 1 
+5 Vs AC 13-16...need 8-11 
+3 Vs NADs 13... need 10 

Level 11
+3 magic... +1-2 att stat (+3 to the stat) +5 level
+14-15 Vs AC 23-25  need 8-11 
+12 Vs NADs 23...need 11

level 30
+30 Vs AC 42-44 need 12-14
+28 Vs NADs 42  need 14 

now assuming that between controlers and defenders giving penilties, and leaders giving bonuses, and getting combat advantage... it basicly come down to the same (Higher level has more powers that do better)

in a vacume you see it as getting harder....

     lets add in 3 magic item daily's instead of 1, and just plain more magic items that do things (give bonuss apply penlties give rerolls)
     Also more dily powers...at level 1 you have 1 daily...at level 30 you have 4. more or less you get to blow a daily in every encounter at epic in my experance (Remember most still do thing even if you miss) that is a big jump in power
      Also (in theory) your group gets better at working togather. at level 1 or 2 you start to learn your at wills...at level 28 you should be pretty use to your partners and able to help them set up good combos...


----------



## ForbidenMaster (May 13, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> [...]
> 
> in a vacume you see it as getting harder....
> 
> ...



And all of this and more are why math will never be the be all end all to this question.  There are just too many variables.  If you have any reliable external bonus to hit, like a leader who has invested in bonuses to hit so that he can reliably deliver buffs to hit, or even just powers that give a bonus no matter the outcome of the attack, my entire post above is going to be off by whatever amount that bonus is.  So you really could do without expertise, you just need some other reliable source of attack bonus.


PS.  But then again, if a bonus is only getting you to where you should be, is it really a bonus?  I think an argument can be made that buffs are better buffs when you are already at that 55% chance to hit.


----------



## KarinsDad (May 13, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> lets add in 3 magic item daily's instead of 1, and just plain more magic items that do things (give bonuss apply penlties give rerolls)
> Also more dily powers...at level 1 you have 1 daily...at level 30 you have 4. more or less you get to blow a daily in every encounter at epic in my experance (Remember most still do thing even if you miss) that is a big jump in power
> Also (in theory) your group gets better at working togather. at level 1 or 2 you start to learn your at wills...at level 28 you should be pretty use to your partners and able to help them set up good combos...




You are forgetting that the monsters too have powers and "good combos". As one gets higher level, the foes start getting Auras and more Ongoing damage mechanisms and ways to boost allies and ways to hamper enemies with debuffs or conditions.

And many of the buff powers of players are based on hitting in the first place. So sure, the 20th level Cleric could use Righteous Brand to give a +5 bonus to the Fighter to hit the foe, that is if the Cleric could hit the foe.

Additionally, higher level monsters have a relatively larger number of hit points than the PCs. Level one standard monsters have an average of 29 hit points. This is slightly higher than what PCs have at first level (~25). Level 18 standard monsters have an average of 163 hit points (compared to PCs at ~112). 5.6 times as many hit points at level 18 as at level 1 for the monsters, but the PCs are not doing 5.6 times as much damage per attack.

What this means is that when the players hit less often and their attacks average a much lower percentage of total monster hit points per successful hit, the encounter lasts longer. It does not matter how many encounter and daily powers the players have. Those powers do not do enough extra damage over At Wills to shorten the encounter by this ratio. Not even close. Throwing a lower chance to hit on top of that just makes it worse.

This makes many encounter and daily powers that have a condition that lasts until the end of the attackers next turn or lasts until a save is made a lot LESS helpful relatively speaking. If an encounter power dazes a foe for 1 round out of 8 total in the encounter at low level and 1 round out of 15 total in the encounter at high level, it is a lot less effective at higher levels.

And many buff and debuff powers last for only a round as well.


Bottom line, the theory that the synergies of powers make up for the math deficit is totally flawed and not supportable.

The synergies do allow the PCs to survive. More options = more situations that can be handled. But, the length (and hence grindiness) of encounters is much greater at higher levels due to monster hit points and PC math issues. Math 101.


----------



## chaotix42 (May 13, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> The synergies do allow the PCs to survive. More options = more situations that can be handled. But, the length (and hence grindiness) of encounters is much greater at higher levels due to monster hit points and PC math issues. Math 101.




I've DMed for a group from levels 1 through 14 and I have not noticed an increase in combat length (yet). On average combats require fewer rounds, actually. Combats took roughly 10 rounds, and then once the PCs hit paragon level they rarely go beyond 8 rounds. Experience 101. 

*note* I think we have different professors.


----------



## Ryujin (May 13, 2009)

Just wondering: Are all the people who don't think of the Expertise feats as stealth eratta presuming characters are optimized?


----------



## brehobit (May 13, 2009)

> So, here's what I'd say to your DM:  player attack rates and defenses (except AC) scale at a lower rate than monster attack rates and defenses.  The expertise feats and the epic defense feats look like they're meant to bring the scaling back to 1 for 1.  If you think that's good for the game, lose the feats, and just apply +1 to attacks and non-AC defenses at level 5, +2 at level 15, and +3 at level 25.  If you don't think the game needs the scaling fixed, just lose the feats.




Exactly.


----------



## Nail (May 13, 2009)

DrSpunj said:


> Can you do the math here & now?



You bet.  (Although it looks as if 2 other posters have done it as well.)  I'll just look at Heroic tier, since that's all I expect to see for the rest of this year of gaming.

Assumptions:
Monster AC = 14 + level (note: this is for skirmishers, lots of monsters have better AC)
PC Attack stat at 1st level is 18 (after racials).
PC boosts Attack stat: 20@8th.
+2 Proficiency weapon
Magic weapon: +1@ 2nd, +2@6th, +3@11th

With the above assumed, here are the Chance to Hit percentages:
  1st lvl => 60% 
  2nd lvl => 65%
  3rd lvl => 60%
  4th lvl => 60%
  5th lvl => 55%
  6th lvl => 60%
  7th lvl => 55%
  8th lvl => 60%
  9th lvl => 55%
 10th lvl => 55%

As you see, the hole is small (5%)....which is exactly the value of the Expertise feat (+1).  It gets gradually larger in Paragon and Epic; and not uncoincidentally, the feats scales to fil those larger holes.


----------



## webrunner (May 13, 2009)

If you have a good build, you don't really need expertise as much.. you're hitting fine anyway, and if you're happy with it, that's fine.

But if you have a kind of an odd build, one that doesn't have 20 in it's hit stat, then expertise is there to make up the difference.

Of course, min-maxing means you do both, but for 'average' scenarios it's not really required.

Plus, if you have a build that's not all that concerned with hitting with a lot of die rolls, like a warlord build who uses commander's strike and heals more than anything, or an avenger who already barely ever misses, or a fighter who's concerned more with marks then hitting, then you also don't need the feat as much


----------



## Nail (May 13, 2009)

ForbidenMaster said:


> Heroic
> Assumed PC attack vs average monster AC at level 1:
> 
> 4+2+0+0+0=6 vs. 15=14+1
> ...




I believe you are off by 5% here.  Remember the equation to use is:

{21 - Monster AC + player Atk bonus} * 5% = chance to hit


----------



## Nail (May 13, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> It's a bit subjective, especially with the way that treasure packets are handed out.



I hope this is clear to everyone.  As I said in a post above, much depends on how treasure is handed out, and when everyone gets their +2 weapon (or +3 , or whatever). 

 For my part, I think it's reasonable to assume that **everyone** has the requisite "+" by the minimum magic item level.  That is, +2 by level 6, +3 by level 11, etc.  (And +1 by level 2).  I'm also _very_ clear that YMMV on this.



KarinsDad said:


> But unlike Nail, I do not think the players really notice this until mid-paragon levels.



Hmmm.  I'm not sure that's what I said.   In any case, I've noticed that *some* of my fellow players are starting to notice "_not hitting as often_" as other PCs.  Since it's just me observing, and my sample size is limited, it's entirely possible that my observation is incorrect.

I'm pretty confident that the "math holds up" well enough in herioc tier.  That's not my point; I'm not claiming 4e has an Epic Fail in heroic tier.  I'm saying that there is a hole, and this feat fills it.  The feat should be allowed in our game, IMO....and subject to revocation if we become unhappy with it or find a better solution.


----------



## KarinsDad (May 13, 2009)

Nail said:


> Hmmm.  I'm not sure that's what I said.   In any case, I've noticed that *some* of my fellow players are starting to notice "_not hitting as often_" as other PCs.  Since it's just me observing, and my sample size is limited, it's entirely possible that my observation is incorrect.
> 
> I'm pretty confident that the "math holds up" well enough in herioc tier.  That's not my point; I'm not claiming 4e has an Epic Fail in heroic tier.  I'm saying that there is a hole, and this feat fills it.  The feat should be allowed in our game, IMO....and subject to revocation if we become unhappy with it or find a better solution.




Sorry if I misunderstood you.

I definitely think the feat fixes the overall trend when (as per my chart and assumptions above) 16 levels out of the first 22 levels hit on an 8, 3 levels out of 22 levels hit on a 7, and 3 levels out of 22 levels hit on a 9. Above level 22, the average is closer to a 9, but I don't see that as a significant hole either (just like I do not really see a significant hole at level 5 with the core rules).


----------



## ForbidenMaster (May 13, 2009)

Nail said:


> I believe you are off by 5% here.  Remember the equation to use is:
> 
> {21 - Monster AC + player Atk bonus} * 5% = chance to hit




Youre right.  For some reason I was thinking the need to excede, not the need to match.  You need a 9 or better, not a 10, therefor you need better than an 8, which means 8*.05*100=40% chance to fail and a 60% chance to succede.

So essentially raise the chance to hit on all of my posts by 5%.  Thanks Nail.


----------



## DrSpunj (May 13, 2009)

Nail said:


> For my part, I think it's reasonable to assume that **everyone** has the requisite "+" by the minimum magic item level.  That is, +2 by level 6, +3 by level 11, etc.  (And +1 by level 2).  I'm also _very_ clear that YMMV on this.




Except anyone following the DMG's treasure parcels system isn't beholden to that type of schedule. For all 5 PCs to have a +1 weapon (cuz we're talking about attack bonus, right?) "by level 2" then all 4 magic items handed out at 1st level, of item levels 2-5, _have_ to be weapons. So should that 5th player just sit out during combat twiddling his thumbs until he gets his +1 weapon with the first treasure trove at 2nd level because he's not as effective without that extra 5% bonus?

And if your response to that is no, of course not, why are we discussing a 5% bonus throughout the Heroic Tier as a "hole that needs to be filled"?

You effectively seem to be saying that weapons should be the first treasure handed out to all PCs getting +2 items until everyone has one, then armor, then neck slots? So PCs only get the other magic item slots filled after the big three are obtained at each item tier level from +1 to +6, like clockwork? Seems...predictable. 

I guess I'm just not convinced that we need to ride things that rigidly, with treasure or with other bonuses. My hope with 4e: that the math is robust enough to not require

a 20 in your primary stat at level 1
a +3 proficiency weapon
a +1 magic weapon "by 2nd level", +2 "at 6th", etc.
Combat Advantage _all the time_
avoiding higher than PC level soldiers with their higher defenses
avoiding mobs 1-4 levels higher (even though the DMG recommends it for tougher encounters) because it drops a PC's chances of hitting too much
and certainly not requiring two or three of those or the math falls apart and the game becomes unfun for all.

Now, I'm very interested in learning if my hope in 4e is well or mis-placed in this regard, and I'm not convinced either way yet. I expect some play time at levels 5-10 will help in that regard.

Now, if someone is already enjoying at least a couple of the first 4 options there (which your PC is, right?), and as the DM I'm not regularly using higher level mobs or soldiers (which I'm not after reading through the grindspace thread months ago) which means the mob role & less than party level mobs tip the balance more in the party's favor for successful hits, then I have a hard time seeing that there's a "hole in the math" as you put it even with the numbers you and others have put forth (thanks for all that, btw!).

Maybe that's because I'm comfortable with a PC's chance to hit being in the 50-60% range without anything in that list applying because I know with a few of them valid for any given PC in any combat in any given round that their chance to hit rises to 65% or better (especially with some teamwork helping with CA, powers, TacLord AP bonuses, stunt bonuses, etc.) and hitting 2 out of every 3 times _on average_ seems like a good balance to me. Obviously YMMV, *Nail* and it sounds like it does. Would you find the game more fun if it was regularly 75%? Or 80%?

What does everyone think the average chance of a PC successfully attacking? Wasn't there a thread on this very topic awhile back....



> The feat should be allowed in our game, IMO....and subject to revocation if we become unhappy with it or find a better solution.




Alright, hole and math aside again for a moment, please clarify what exactly you're asking for. Do you want access to the feat and we'll see who takes it? Or that everyone get one expertise feat for free? Or that we give everyone a flat +1 to all attacks for free (climbing appropriately as written in Paragon & Epic tiers assuming we ever make it there!) and ban the feats as unnecessary?

If it's either of the former you're okay taxing a Paladin twice until they get a Holy Avenger? Or that Caz'n the Dragonborn's breath weapon attack doesn't enjoy the same benefit? Or Shield Push?

And for the record, the problem I have with tentatively allowing feats or something else in a game like this is revoking it rarely goes well. Some people will really like it, others won't care, either way when trying to get rid of a player bonus it can easily be interpreted as the DM or another player unhappy with it as being arbitrary and "ruining my fun". Taking something away from the game is easy to do, but it rarely makes everyone around the table happy, IME, and that's counterproductive to our goals of having a good time!


----------



## blargney the second (May 13, 2009)

DMSpunj, I'm confused.  Don't you find that 4e combats take too long?

Expertise will speed up fights.  Pure and simple.
-blarg


----------



## DrSpunj (May 13, 2009)

blargney the second said:


> DrSpunj, I'm confused.  Don't you find that 4e combats take too long?
> 
> Expertise will speed up fights.  Pure and simple.




It could help in that regard, and I'm thinking of that, too. While I don't want combat to be a grind, I also don't want it to be unfun and unchallenging. Part of my concerns are if we accept Expertise as written that:
A) the gap between those in my group who know the rules _very_ well, like *Nail* and take the feat, and those that don't (& don't take it) will widen, as someone discussed earlier, which will lead to unfunness for some
B) That if everyone takes it and it's not a "hole that needs fixing" then to keep things fun & challenging I'm going to have to compensate on the monster side somehow since the party *is* going to be doing more reliable damage and therefore the threat of mobs is effectively less. I could do that by increasing their level which would then increase their AC, but then we'd be back where we are without Expertise. Or I can increase their damage output as *KarinsDad* has discussed doing in the Paragon & Epic tiers which keeps the threat level higher during hopefully a shorter combat, but doing that for every monster out there seems cumbersome if I don't have to.

Now, if I have to I'll do it, because I want the sessions to be fun for my players and then it's fun for me! And maybe that's what needs to happen at Paragon & Epic tiers to keep the grind at bay. Honestly since I have little hope of experiencing those tiers anytime soon I'm hoping either WotC or the EN World community will fix it that problem for me before I get there! 

To be fair much of our slowness is that we have a larger number of players (7 if everyone shows) which means a larger number of mobs if I'm not using higher level mobs, and a few of our players are not all that familiar with the rules or their PCs (one even to a degree that she was routinely missing and not having much fun but after 5 sessions or so we finally discovered that's because she left out her Ability Modifier on all her attacks! And she's one of our Strikers!).

So, while our combats do take longer than I'd like, equating to usually only 2 battles in a 4 hour biweekly session, we're having fun. Hence my reluctance to tip the balance any more than is really necessary; I don't like rocking good boats!


----------



## Nail (May 13, 2009)

DrSpunj said:


> For all 5 PCs to have a +1 weapon ... "by level 2" then all 4 magic items handed out at 1st level.... _have_ to be weapons.



Which is why "much depends on how treasure is handed out", as I've said a few times.  (I think I even snuck in a YMMV too.) Like you, I  want treasure parcels to "just work", without specifying item type.  (I'm already pretty leary of this 4e "wish list" concept.)

At what level everyone gains a "+1" widget (weapon, armor, amulet) is the least constrained end.  As PCs level, I think it's likely (but not certain) that everyone has +2 widgets by level 6, +3 widgets by level 11....  But if it's later than that, then the math hole is even *more pronounced*.  Are you claiming gaining +1 widgets by all PCs happens later?  That would be an interesting data point, given how closely you are following (thank you, BTW!!) the treasure parcel system. 

...and that would show the math hole even better.



			
				DrSpunj said:
			
		

> should that 5th player just sit out during combat twiddling his thumbs until he gets his +1 weapon with the first treasure trove at 2nd level because he's not as effective without that extra 5% bonus?



A little bit of _reductio ad absurdum _going on here.  <chuckle>  As I've said, the math hole is just +1 in the Heroic Tier.  Small, but present.

As I'm sure you are aware, PCs have many trade-offs.  If you have a low primary stat, you'd better find another way to improve your chances to hit. Tactically seeking CA, frex.  No matter how you design your PC, the designers seem to think that having a (base) 60% chance to hit is fun.  I agree.  



DrSpunj said:


> Now, if someone is already enjoying at least a couple of the first 4 options there (which your PC is, right?), and as the DM I'm not regularly using higher level mobs or soldiers (which I'm not after reading through the grindspace thread months ago) which means the mob role & less than party level mobs tip the balance more in the party's favor for successful hits, then I have a hard time seeing that there's a "hole in the math" ....



It's true I've been careful with my PC's design.    But that's irrelevant.  For the most part, I'm thinking of the other people around the table; their fun-quotient means a lot to me.



DrSpunj said:


> Alright, hole and math aside again for a moment, please clarify what exactly you're asking for.



Fair enough. 

<hmmmmmm.....>  I *think* I just want to play it "as is".  Keep the feat.  My preference for this first run-through of 4e is to eschew house rules where ever possible.

That said, I'm not adamantly against banning it, nor would I be hurt <chuckle> if we decided after a while to yank the feat and do "something else". Potentially, just doing as *Karinsdad *suggests.


----------



## Nail (May 13, 2009)

DrSpunj said:


> Part of my concerns are if we accept Expertise as written that:
> A) the gap between those in my group who know the rules _very_ well, like *Nail* and take the feat, and those that don't (& don't take it) will widen, as someone discussed earlier, which will lead to unfunness for some



...I agree that's a concern.  I'm hopeful we can fix that.  


DrSpunj said:


> Honestly since I have little hope of experiencing those tiers anytime soon I'm hoping either WotC or the EN World community will fix it that problem for me before I get there!



Amen.


----------



## Intense_Interest (May 13, 2009)

Wait, just so it is clear, could someone explain to me what the Philosophical Argument is against "Feat Tax"?  What is the worth/cost of one (or so) less feat at Heroic over 30 levels of 17 other feats?

Also, it seems that Feat Tax can be replaced with Item Tax, from what I can tell.


----------



## Lauberfen (May 13, 2009)

Put simply, the game is about choices. If there's a feat so good that everyone will take it (as expertise certainly is at 15th onwards, and probably is at heroic too), then that is not a choice- everyone has the feat, and thus one less feat spare to make interesting characters.

So it's much like a real tax- you have less resources left to do what you want. Note that D&D does not contain any of the compelling reasons for taxation, such as the fact that public healthcare simply provides more cost effective treatment than private healthcare.


----------



## Eric Finley (May 13, 2009)

What, are you claiming that the government is just not as good at providing to-hit bonuses as the private sector?  Capitalist pig!

Tell it to your local Warlord, pal.  (Mental picture of a Warlord character with a modern silicon-valley-style entrepreneurial mindset... ack!)

[That said, dang it's good to be Canadian.  You poor sods.]


----------



## blargney the second (May 14, 2009)

If you doubt that the game will get to level 15 anytime soon, then you're only talking about +1 to hit.  Previous editions of D&D also gave players the ability to focus on a single weapon to gain +1 to hit.  There have always been some players that are willing to specialize at the expense of versatility, and some that don't.  Why not let them figure that out for themselves?

In addition, don't forget that there are a pile of conditions you can slather on the PCs to provide huge penalties to attack: restrained, blinded, etc.  If you find they're hitting too often, it's really easy to gimp them into near uselessness.
-blarg


----------



## mach1.9pants (May 14, 2009)

I wonder if, to close the gap, it would work ta make the bonuses to hit and/or other things that leadery types give as an effect rather than a hit. It seems that a lot of the problem is all this synergy worked into the system mostly synergisms on a hit... make the stuff that helps your allies always work.
Note in this I am thinking about my group with one leader, if they all wanted go leader 'cos of this I wouldn't play it that way.


----------



## Garthanos (May 14, 2009)

mach1.9pants said:


> I wonder if, to close the gap, it would work ta make the bonuses to hit and/or other things that leadery types give as an effect rather than a hit. It seems that a lot of the problem is all this synergy worked into the system mostly synergisms on a hit... make the stuff that helps your allies always work.
> Note in this I am thinking about my group with one leader, if they all wanted go leader 'cos of this I wouldn't play it that way.




I rather like that ... in some case that might even make more sense.
But how many powers are you house ruling here?


----------



## mach1.9pants (May 14, 2009)

double post


----------



## mach1.9pants (May 14, 2009)

I am not houseruling yet. It was just a thought to maybe stopping the math gap that may or may not have appeared between monsters and PCs...


----------



## Zsig (May 14, 2009)

I don't think the real issue is with tresure parcels, but instead it's how the DM builds encounters.


I recently DMed a campaign that got from lvl 1 to lvl 12.

They had:
-Human ranger (twf), non-optmised
-eladrin swordmage, optimised (well, sorta)
-dwarf paladin, non optimised
-human wizard, optimised (sorta)

At level 6 it became obvious that something was wrong, as the paladin could only hit certain key villains on a 17+, while the swordmage could still hit on a 12 or so.


One thing that, as a DM, I can see becoming an issue, is that as the campaign unfolds more and more encounters becomes much more "meaningful" and I throw away easy/trivial encounters much less often, which means, I'll make less encounters, though, more difficult ones, and that means, higher level monsters. If as a DM I could keep the monsters at the same level as the PCs even if while doing so increasing the overall number of monsters, then the problem would be solved.

At low-to-mid heroic tier levels, PCs can beat up a nasty solo that is up to 4 levels higher than they are with some trouble, but still quite "epic" and viable. If you try to do the same at, say, late heroic, you'll see a whole bunch of frustrated people.

When my campaign hit lvl 11 I decided to give Weapon/Implement Expertise for free to those who'd keep their characters for the next chapter of the campaign, it was pretty nice seeing the dwarf hitting stuff again. The ranger also enjoyed it, though, the difference was more subtle for him. The others changed their characters for highly optimised ones, and they didn't care at all about it.

I still got to see how Epic Tier plays, but I'm not really that much into it, so I probably will never see it and thus will never be able to form an opinion about it.

Anyways, I guess, botom line is: if you're missing alot, or if the encounter feels like a grind, it's probably your DM's fault (well, at least partly).

I think I learned my lesson.

Examples:
-For a group of lvl 8 PCs, if you want to give them a difficult encounter (lvl+2), instead of placing higher level foes, try adding a couple extras of the same level as the PCs.
-Against solos, try using a lower level one (up to PCs lvl +1) and then add some hazards and/or lower level foes to support the BBEG.


----------



## CapnZapp (May 14, 2009)

Tilenas said:


> Imagine it were a feat bonus and you had already spent a couple of feats on circumstantial +1 attack boons. Boy would you be mad...



Well, with the retraining rule, 4E can now obsolete existing features without anyone getting more than mildly miffed.

Not that this is the case here, of course.


----------



## Nail (May 14, 2009)

blargney the second said:


> If you doubt that the game will get to level 15 anytime soon, then you're only talking about +1 to hit.  Previous editions of D&D also gave players the ability to focus on a single weapon to gain +1 to hit.  There have always been some players that are willing to specialize at the expense of versatility, and some that don't.  Why not let them figure that out for themselves?



Very true!  Well said.

It's really, really, really unlikely we'll ever get to 15th level.  We ain't teenagers playing 14 hours a week.    This feat gives a measly +1 to hit...just like weapon focus of 3.xe...what's the big deal?  Jus' allow it already!


----------



## Intense_Interest (May 14, 2009)

Lauberfen said:


> Put simply, the game is about choices. If there's a feat so good that everyone will take it (as expertise certainly is at 15th onwards, and probably is at heroic too), then that is not a choice- everyone has the feat, and thus one less feat spare to make interesting characters.
> 
> So it's much like a real tax- you have less resources left to do what you want. Note that D&D does not contain any of the compelling reasons for taxation, such as the fact that public healthcare simply provides more cost effective treatment than private healthcare.




Alright, but what about the case player that really, really wants to make a "Quick Draw" character, mostly for reasons of Role-playing (or other feat-covered possible aspect of a character, such as dual-wielding Wands or having an off-hand Shortsword).  Is it a "Feat Tax" because he feels it necessary to spend a feat on a choice to do something specific, and that it is better than all other feats?

Because that is what the Expertise-class feats are- a choice to be pretty darn good at a certain aspect of your character.  The single feat "tax" isn't out-and-out better to choose for a character that mixes-and-matches power selection, such as a Cleric or Bard or even a Dragonborn Bullrush specialist.  

The problem with the math is, and here is the shocker, that the game gets harder as you go up in levels.  And the Tax is there because if you really want to, you can reduce the difficulty hitting with your Signature Cool Moves at a cost of not having more "Cool" aspects of your character through feats.  Yes, I understand that this is a value-judgement based on how the game can be more challenging as you go through the tiers without being less fun, but there it is- a philosophical disagreement to the idea of the Math and related Feat Tax being a "flaw" rather than a patch for certain groups of players.

Due diligence here: I DM a campaign where I instituted the "+1 to hit at 5th level, scales at 15/25" house-rule.  However, I found it necessary because 5 out of 7 players aren't even half optimized, and won't be able to power through some of the higher-level rounds without being frustrated by missing their flashy Daily powers.

I don't think I'm in the wrong, or even contridict my philosphy, because currently I have, with their "worst" feat in parenthesis:



16 STR 18 DEX Eladrin fighter with a Longsword (Eladrin Fighting Style)


18 INT 15 DEX 14 CON Eladrin Staff Wizard focused on Cold spells (Bitter Blizzard)


17 STR dwarf fighter wielding a Fullblade (Quick Draw)
 

Optimal-stated Elf "Swashbuckler" Rogue (Superior Profiency: Rapier)


Optimal-stated Halfing Sorcerer, suicidal (no Leather Proficency)
and


Optimal-stated Half-Elf Valorus Bard (the Extra Group Diplomacy Bonus feat)
 

Lucky-Rolled (DM sighted) Dragonborn Paladin that swapped out from a badly-rolled Goliath Barbarian.  3 17s, 13, 14, 15.  Not getting tailor-dropped magical items, pretty much.


----------



## Lauberfen (May 15, 2009)

Intense_Interest said:


> Alright, but what about the case player that really, really wants to make a "Quick Draw" character, mostly for reasons of Role-playing (or other feat-covered possible aspect of a character, such as dual-wielding Wands or having an off-hand Shortsword).  Is it a "Feat Tax" because he feels it necessary to spend a feat on a choice to do something specific, and that it is better than all other feats?
> 
> Because that is what the Expertise-class feats are- a choice to be pretty darn good at a certain aspect of your character.




Now I presume your being facetious. Quick draw is about as different from expertise as a feat can get. Quick draw allows you to do something that you could not do before, by changing the actions required. Only some people will choose quickdraw, and significanlty, most people would be no better with it.

On the other hand, expertise does not allow you to do anything new. Most people will choose expertise within Heroic tier (certainly this is the case in my group). Expertise makes any character better at what they already do. "Hitting" is hardly a specialist ability- characters in 4E basically equal powers, and using powers is almost always better when you hit more. In fact the numerical advantage of expertise is so great that it is almost always superior to other feats such as power attack, weapon focus and of course all conditional bonusses to hit.

Back to the tax analogy- quick draw is like someone bying a car- they now can do something they couldn't before, namely drive.

Expertise is like a tax which creates an extra hour in the day- everyone can do just what they did before, but 5% better.


----------



## CapnZapp (May 15, 2009)

Lauberfen said:


> Expertise is like a tax which creates an extra hour in the day- everyone can do just what they did before, but 5% better.



Actually that would be more like 4% better, but point still taken.


----------



## Intense_Interest (May 15, 2009)

Lauberfen said:


> Now I presume your being facetious. Quick draw is about as different from expertise as a feat can get. Quick draw allows you to do something that you could not do before, by changing the actions required. Only some people will choose quickdraw, and significanlty, most people would be no better with it.




Quickdraw McGee without Quickdraw is a "bad" character.  The Feat is incredibly Good for that player, actually nigh-necessary.  And because the Feat is necessary for that player to have a Good character, instead of requiring him to pay Gold for a specialist scabbard, or train his Skill in "quick-drawing", he pays a "feat tax" to play that character.  



> On the other hand, expertise does not allow you to do anything new. Most people will choose expertise within Heroic tier (certainly this is the case in my group). Expertise makes any character better at what they already do. "Hitting" is hardly a specialist ability- characters in 4E basically equal powers, and using powers is almost always better when you hit more. In fact the numerical advantage of expertise is so great that it is almost always superior to other feats such as power attack, weapon focus and of course all conditional bonuses to hit.
> 
> Back to the tax analogy- quick draw is like someone bying a car- they now can do something they couldn't before, namely drive.
> 
> Expertise is like a tax which creates an extra hour in the day- everyone can do just what they did before, but 5% better.




While I enjoy your ability to re-define Feat Tax post-to-post, it impinges your ability to define your arguement.  You can't say that just because a Feat is boring and utilitarian- instead of focused, interesting, and unique- that the definition now means that it is a "Tax" to play the game.

For example, say you had a no requirement Paragon-teir Feat that gave you the 1/Week ability to be raised from the dead instantly at no cost- a power type that is reserved for certain Epic-Teir destinies.  This would be universally heralded as powerful and necessary for most builds because of its ability to give you an Epic-level power at level 11.  

Under your first definition, this suggestion would be so Good and Powerful as to be a Feat Tax for characters that could possibly die.    However, under your second definition, this suggestion is too conditional, unique, and something a character didn't do before, and is not a Feat Tax.

What this shows, sadly, is that Feat Tax as you use it is a pejorative, not an actual design philosophy.


----------



## mach1.9pants (May 15, 2009)

Less personal comments needed, methinks, think Newcastle:


----------



## Lauberfen (May 15, 2009)

Hmm, well you do seem to have identified two strands to my thoughts about feat taxes.

I think the first is more important, as it's the bottom line- if  a feat is so good that everyone will take it, regardless of build then it ends up like a feat tax.

Expertise is clearly more of a feat tax than quickdraw, as outlined above, because it is not build specific. The issue with it providing no extra utility is an added point, one which I let get in the way because it also annoys me.

However you seem to have provided another poor example- I would never take the feat you've mentioned, because it is really not very useful. I also think no-one in my group would take it. Characters die so rarely that I wouldn't sacrifice another feat in my build for it.

I accept that people may not take expertise- I certainly won't, but only because I'm boycotting it. People are different, and have the right to make different characters. however for almost all builds, expertise is one of the best feats you can have. Not taking it does not change this- underpowering a character for RP reasons (as much as I respect it) in no way changes how powerful the options are.

Ultimately the proof is in the pudding, or whatever the phrase was before I murdered it. By 15th level I think 90+% of characters will have expertise. That, my friend, is a feat tax.


----------



## KarinsDad (May 15, 2009)

Intense_Interest said:


> Due diligence here: I DM a campaign where I instituted the "+1 to hit at 5th level, scales at 15/25" house-rule.  However, I found it necessary because 5 out of 7 players aren't even half optimized, and won't be able to power through some of the higher-level rounds without being frustrated by missing their flashy Daily powers.
> 
> I don't think I'm in the wrong, or even contridict my philosphy




Actually, this paragraph of yours strongly supports the opposing POV.

What if a DM only uses the core books? What if the players never see those feats?

If the challenge is so great and the encounters so lengthy because of the decreased chance to hit, how much worse is it going to be for sub-optimized PCs in a game where they do not use the new books?

By definition, that's flawed. The game should be fun and enjoyable and playable right out of the box at all levels without the players being game experts or being forced to use expansion books. If not, it's flawed.


----------



## eriktheguy (May 15, 2009)

Intense_Interest said:


> Alright, but what about the case player that really, really wants to make a "Quick Draw" character, mostly for reasons of Role-playing (or other feat-covered possible aspect of a character, such as dual-wielding Wands or having an off-hand Shortsword).  Is it a "Feat Tax" because he feels it necessary to spend a feat on a choice to do something specific, and that it is better than all other feats?
> 
> Because that is what the Expertise-class feats are- a choice to be pretty darn good at a certain aspect of your character.  The single feat "tax" isn't out-and-out better to choose for a character that mixes-and-matches power selection, such as a Cleric or Bard or even a Dragonborn Bullrush specialist.
> 
> ...




A feat being necessary to specialize in something doesn't seem like a feat tax to me. It seems like customization. Feat taxes like expertise are applied across the board and do not have any visible difference in gameplay. A player that hits because of the +1 from expertise doesn't feel special, because it was not 'their idea' to take the feat, and they are no different than anyone else. A player that is more prepared because of 'quick draw', blocks an attack because of 'two weapon defense', or lands a blow because of 'anger unleashed' feels special, because an ability specific to their character made them more successful. And although expertise isn't the best choice for all character builds, it is the best choice for the vast majority.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 16, 2009)

eriktheguy said:


> A feat being necessary to specialize in something doesn't seem like a feat tax to me.
> 
> A player that hits because of the +1 from expertise doesn't feel special, because it was not 'their idea' to take the feat, and they are no different than anyone else.




But isn't specialixing in accuracy the same thing...and when the guy with 20 prime stat, expertise, high + weap/imp  and all the condtional mods possible hits for the 7th round in a row, on a nat 4 going to feel his choices made a diffrence when for the last 7 rounds the rest of your group has only hit 4 out of 7 times each???

    meanwhile the guy who took the def feats gets missed over and over again...


----------



## Lauberfen (May 18, 2009)

Not really- specialising in accuracy = specialising in hitting with your powers = most of what you do. Specialising in accuracy is the same as specialising in being an effective character, in almost all cases. For example, you might argue that a choice between weapon focus and expertise is a choice between damage and accuracy. However in almost all instances expertise will increase your damage per round more than focus will. Therefore it's not a choice about specialisation, it's a choice about effectiveness.


----------



## Nail (May 18, 2009)

Lauberfen said:


> Not really- specialising in accuracy = specialising in hitting with your powers = most of what you do. Specialising in accuracy is the same as specialising in being an effective character, in almost all cases.



Yup.  Arguing the other side of this ignores what this feat does for all PCs.



Lauberfen said:


> For example, you might argue that a choice between weapon focus and expertise is a choice between damage and accuracy. However in almost all instances expertise will increase your damage per round more than focus will.



Much depends on your average damage per attack, and what rider effects there are if the attack hits.  If you average less than 11 hp per successful attack (in Heroic Tier), you might be better off with Weapon Focus.  

Run the numbers to see what I mean.

Ave. Dam per attack = (P-0.05)*Dave + 0.05*(Dmax+Dcrit)


----------



## Lauberfen (May 19, 2009)

Exactly. I've found by experience that people who are more accurate also do fair damage (e.g. my rogue), and this combined with the need to hit with encounters/dailies makes me inclined to go for hitting eve if there is a slight loss of DPR with at-wills.

Crudely put, the best way to optimise damage is to get your chance of hitting and your average damage to be as balanced as you can- just like with multiplying numbers, this gives the biggest result. So hitting half the time for 10 damage is better than hittng 0.05 less or more for 1 more or less damage per blow.


----------



## Stalker0 (May 19, 2009)

In 4e, accuracy is a lot more important for four reasons:

1) Damage Reduction is mostly gone. In 3.5, in many cases a fighter fought creatures that had a lot of DR. Accurate hitting doesn't help if your attacks do less damage...its better to have big powerful attacks.

2) Secondary effects. Even for fighters, almost every power has a rider when you hit. To me this is the biggest boost to the importance of accuracy.

3) The removal of the auto hitting first attack. At high levels a fighter's primary attack almost always hit. And in many cases he only got one attack do to moving, charging, whatever. In those circumstances he gets one big powerful swing, and adding damage becomes more important, as the accuracy is already there.

4) Monsters can take the pain. In 3e, there was a good chance a high damage fighter could take out a monster if he hit a few times in the same round. Sure the chances of hitting were lower, but there was a huge tactical advantage to taking out a monster very quickly. In 4e even if you rack up your damage you are unlikely to ever get to that level (although I've made an epic level barbarian that might question that).


Now all of that considered, I don't think a +1 to attack rolls is necessarily too strong (I think its certainly better than +1 to damage, but not an automatic pick). But once the bonus gets to +2 there's no better feat, and at +3 its ridiculously good.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 19, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> But isn't specialixing in accuracy the same thing...and when the guy with 20 prime stat, expertise, high + weap/imp  and all the condtional mods possible hits for the 7th round in a row, on a nat 4 going to feel his choices made a diffrence when for the last 7 rounds the rest of your group has only hit 4 out of 7 times each???
> 
> meanwhile the guy who took the def feats gets missed over and over again...






Lauberfen said:


> Not really- specialising in accuracy = specialising in hitting with your powers = most of what you do.



Inless you are a warlord specilizing in giveing other people attacks...



> Specialising in accuracy is the same as specialising in being an effective character, in almost all cases. For example, you might argue that a choice between weapon focus and expertise is a choice between damage and accuracy.



 Ok, so you chose what feat to complair it to...easy to make an argument that way isn;t it...try compairing it to rit caster, toughness, and frost touched...or how about backstabber.



> However in almost all instances expertise will increase your damage per round more than focus will. Therefore it's not a choice about specialisation, it's a choice about effectiveness.



 so you just show witch of two feats are better, way to go it is a great start...how many feats left to go???



Nail said:


> Yup.  Arguing the other side of this ignores what this feat does for all PCs.



 makes them more accurat and with it more damaging...but what if my character is accurat enough and does enough damage without it...can't I choose to tak another feat to round out my character in a diffrent way. ESPEACIALY if I am not the striker of the party...



> Run the numbers to see what I mean.






ok for everyone that likes running numbers lets see how your numbers handle this little fact:

[sblock=numbers for the number crunchers]      The whole game is NOT just about your numbers.  Expertise helps you 1 in 20 times from 1st to 15th, then 2 in 20 till 25th then 3 in 20 till 30.

     lets say that you avarage 7 out of 10 encounters are combat that matter in a major way, and it takes an avrage of 10 encounters to level, and each encounter avrages 11 attacks (that is every other one getting the AP). 

   so about 77 attacks per level, lets round that up to 100 just for ease of numbers, and to acount for aoe and double strike people. 1500 attacks at +1, then 1000 attacks at +2 and 1000 attacks at +3

          so 75 times at +1, 100 times at +2, and 150 times at +3

     on avrage 325 times out of 3500 attacks this feat will affect. So you will hit about 11% more often. 

     So if you play over 30 levels, taking about 2 games to each level, and gaming once a week it will take over a year of gameing (60 games/weeks). So on avrage that is 5 to six attacks per game that this will effect, or about 1 per encounter. [/sblock]

yea that looks so impressive now doesn't it...


----------



## Nail (May 19, 2009)

<chuckle>


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 19, 2009)

Nail said:


> <chuckle>




WOW...just wow...

      is that what happens when people disagree around here, we laugh at eachother...I thought we were talking, I guess you have your mind made up, and are nolonger really part of this...


----------



## Nail (May 19, 2009)

I'm having some difficulty following your post.  Could you clarify a bit? 

 It seems that you are claiming a +1 bonus is only a small increase in the chance to hit.....and I don't know that anyone is arguing that.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 19, 2009)

Nail said:


> I'm having some difficulty following your post.  Could you clarify a bit?
> 
> It seems that you are claiming a +1 bonus is only a small increase in the chance to hit.....and I don't know that anyone is arguing that.




my argument at it's most basic is this:

       It is one of the most powerful combat feats in the game, BUT it is not the only feat in the game that is very powerful. It is not a non choice becuse we have played X months with out it, and did fine. I belive that the math only shows it to be what it is, the best feat for increasing damage. There will always be best, good, and ok choices, this is just another one.

      I also argue that as other feats like it come out we will see more and more custmization (Gnomes with illusions, fey with charm, Dragonborn with there breathweapon type of damage, fighters with there chosen weapon)

        How every Rit caster and Alcomy are both the same type of feat, rit caster is clearly more powerful...that is not a problme as long as both are funat the table

       I see no problem with these feats as written, I feel they are just a new tool in the kit. 

      A +1 is +5% lets never forget this...a +3 is +15% and YES 15% is a low %....however it is enough to effect about 11% of the game over the game.

       If I make a Warlord, and you make a Druid, and we have the same bonus to hit except you have this feat and I do not, you have on avrage over 30 levels (and 60+ games) hit 11% more then me. If we are only compairing to hit you are better by (What I consider to be) a reasnable amount...however that leaves every other thing, and I am afeat ahead of you.


----------



## Nail (May 19, 2009)

Ah!  I understand what you're saying (FWIW).  Thanks for the clarification.

If the only difference between two characters is +5% on the attack roll, I agree that we might not notice much.  Assuming ~525 attack rolls over the Heroic tier (10 encounters per level, 3/4 are combat; ~7 rounds per encounter), the PC with the +1 better attack will hit only 26 more times than the other PC.

IME, those sort of differences are noticed only a little bit.....but if the difference is +2 (Paragon) or +3 (Epic), it's noticed pretty easily.

YMMV, of course.


----------



## Lauberfen (May 19, 2009)

[FONT=PrimaSans BT,Verdana,sans-serif]







GMforPowergamers said:


> [5% is not much, etc]




I'm under no illusions about the scale of this bonus, and you'll find me
citing the 5% difference within the last few pages. However a question
of scale is not really relevant here- something could still be the best
feat, and only offer a small bonus such as this. Further, expertise is
already clearly better than every conditional bonus to hit, which is
about 5 feats so far.




GMforPowergamers said:


> Inless you are a warlord specilizing in
> giveing other people attacks...




Maybe, although here you're talking about 1 at-will. Virtually all other
warlord powers require you to actually hit something.



GMforPowergamers said:


> Ok, so you chose what feat to complair
> it to...easy to make an argument that way isn;t it...try compairing it
> to rit caster, toughness, and frost touched...or how about
> backstabber




Ok. Ritual caster- minor use outside encoutners, at best a small part of
a normal D&D game, almost guaranteed to be pointless as someone in the
party will be able to cast rituals already- times I've seen this feat
taken over about 20 characters with 2-9 levels each? Zero.

Toughness- now this is a tough one (badoom tish!), and in my group
toughness is almost a feat tax. However for most ranged characters it's
pointless, whereas expertise gives that steaedy 5%.

Frost touch- I'm unaquainted with this feat. We only play PHB and PHB2. However I doubt this is a feat that is useful for more than a few characters.

Backstabber- Seems like it might be good, especially
as rogues have a good bonus to hit already. However if
you're sneaking, your damage is so high that missing costs you lots of
damage. Backstabber is often a bit better when you're sneaking, ignoring extra effects of hitting with powers (e.g. all the control elements). However any time you're not sneaking (around half the time in my experience) backstabber is useless.[/FONT]


[FONT=PrimaSans BT,Verdana,sans-serif]To repeat myself again- I'm not claiming that expertise is the best feat for every character in every situation. Merely the best feat that is universally applicable for more effectiveness in combat.
[/FONT]


[FONT=PrimaSans BT,Verdana,sans-serif]







GMforPowergamers said:


> [/FONT]but what if my character is accurat enough and does enough damage without it...can't I choose to tak another feat to round out my character in a diffrent way.[FONT=PrimaSans BT,Verdana,sans-serif]



[/FONT]


[FONT=PrimaSans BT,Verdana,sans-serif]Well sure you can choose to be less effective in combat if you want. But that has no bearing on how powerful expertise is. 
[/FONT]


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 19, 2009)

Lauberfen said:


> I'm under no illusions about the scale of this bonus, and you'll find me
> citing the 5% difference within the last few pages. However a question
> of scale is not really relevant here- something could still be the best
> feat, and only offer a small bonus such as this. Further, expertise is
> ...



 so it is a really great feat. read my last post...






> Maybe, although here you're talking about 1 at-will. Virtually all other
> warlord powers require you to actually hit something.



 my 5th level warlord has two at wills that rant attacks, and 2 dailys...although I can't find a low level encounter.





> Ok. Ritual caster- minor use outside encoutners, at best a small part of
> a normal D&D game, almost guaranteed to be pointless as someone in the
> party will be able to cast rituals already- times I've seen this feat
> taken over about 20 characters with 2-9 levels each? Zero.




      how often do you see groups without wizards???



> Toughness- now this is a tough one (badoom tish!), and in my group
> toughness is almost a feat tax. However for most ranged characters it's
> pointless, whereas expertise gives that steaedy 5%.



 I have only seen 1 pc take toughness, it is kinda funny



> Frost touch- I'm unaquainted with this feat. We only play PHB and PHB2. However I doubt this is a feat that is useful for more than a few characters.



  PHB I and heroic teir...look it up it was for a while being thrown around as a broken feat...



> Backstabber- Seems like it might be good, especially
> as rogues have a good bonus to hit already. However if
> you're sneaking, your damage is so high that missing costs you lots of
> damage. Backstabber is often a bit better when you're sneaking, ignoring extra effects of hitting with powers (e.g. all the control elements). However any time you're not sneaking (around half the time in my experience) backstabber is useless.



  Have you played with a rouge??? The ones i have seen have CA 7 times out of 10...infact in my tuesday game my friend kurt takes great pride in explaining 3 diffrent things giving him CA almost every turn. What does sneaking have to do with it...



> [FONT=PrimaSans BT,Verdana,sans-serif]To repeat myself again- I'm not claiming that expertise is the best feat for every character in every situation. Merely the best feat that is universally applicable for more effectiveness in combat.
> [/FONT]



        OK, but now that we are seeing more feats of that level, isn't it just evning out (Dragonborn, fey, and gnome feats)



> Well sure you can choose to be less effective in combat if you want. But that has no bearing on how powerful expertise is.




    So if I hit often, and I do alot of damage, and I am say...the wizard. Why do I need it to be less effective if I pick up other feats.  I never said it wasn powerful I said it wasn't broken/non-choice


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 19, 2009)

Lauberfen said:


> Frost touch- I'm unaquainted with this feat. We only play PHB and PHB2. However I doubt this is a feat that is useful for more than a few characters.




He probably meant Wintertouched (CA against those vulnerable to cold or something?)

Its the feat that seems useful for certain cheesy Rogue builds, but not so much else


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 19, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> He probably meant Wintertouched (CA against those vulnerable to cold or something?)



 thats it



> Its the feat that seems useful for certain cheesy Rogue builds, but not so much else




that is why I love useing it as my example...the char op board and all the number crunchers were throwing it around as a 'must have' and 'broken' feat for a while...


----------



## Ginnel (May 20, 2009)

The two Expertise feats are just plain horrible, they just shouldn't exist as they are.


Add +1 to hit in the leveling up process somewhere
Or
Put highish stat requirements on it and don't make it increase over levels (like armor expertise)
Or
Make it a power and a feat bonus 

Or maybe all of the above.

just not a horrible super non typed bonus o'doom , not sure how anyone can justify these feats as they are clearly superior to every other damage and to hit feat currently in the game, making them in my definition a must have. Currently the DM in the game I'm playing in is making weapon focus or one of the elemental damage feats a prereq for the expertise feat (I'm still not overjoyed about this but it's better than nothing)

They should have taken the advice from 3rd ed for when you were creating a new spell which goes along the lines of "if you can't see a caster not wanting to take the spell you created at that level either increase it's level or tone it down a bit"


----------



## Trevelyan (May 20, 2009)

The expertise feats have another use which people seem to be entirely overlooking. Laying aside the potential for combat monsters to take these feats and run around gleefully bashing everything that move without fear of failure, expertise, of one form or another, is very useful for less optimised characters and and certain MAD builds.

Consider first of all the scope that expertise gives to a player who wants a less than optimal race/class combo. Such a charcter will likely start with a primary stat of 16 and an expertise feat gives him a convenient leg up.

What about the guy who wants to make a character without regard to optimal, or even nearly optimal build. I wouldn't recommend making, for example, a low strength fighter, but weapon expertise enables a player to compensate for a low ability mod which is otherwise in keeping with his vision for the character, thereby freeing 4E from accusations that the appropriate build is necessary for balanced play.

And what about those classes that currently suffer from serious MAD issues? For example the starlock torn between Con and Cha, or better still the cleric chosing between Str and Wis - picking up an expertise feat allows either character to progress his attack bonus with one of those abilities at the same rate he would if spending a point on the stat at each increase while still leaving the point free to spend somewhere else and so meet feat prerequisites too.


----------



## Pickles JG (May 20, 2009)

Trevelyan said:


> .....or better still the cleric chosing between Str and Wis - picking up an expertise feat allows either character to progress his attack bonus with one of those abilities at the same rate he would if spending a point on the stat at each increase while still leaving the point free to spend somewhere else and so meet feat prerequisites too.




They are doubly screwed as they now have to take it twice.

Same for "hybrid" rangers - royally done over by the plethora of stuff that only boosts either their melee or their ranged.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 22, 2009)

Pickles JG said:


> They are doubly screwed as they now have to take it twice.
> 
> Same for "hybrid" rangers - royally done over by the plethora of stuff that only boosts either their melee or their ranged.




I think you missed the point.
       Lets say I am a cleric with a 16 Wis and a 13 Str, and I take all implment powers. Then I see a cool weapon/Str power. I can pick up Weapon Expertise and get +1/2/3 to hit with my str attacks.

          Or my 2 weapon ranger has a 16 Str 15 Dex 14Wis...I plan to up my str and wis every chance...well Weapon Expertise Bow will help alot.

         lets look    at 5th 17 Str+3 15Dex +2(+1 with bow)    at 15th 20 Str +5 Dex 16 +3 (+2 with bow) at 25th 23 str +6  17 Dex +3 (+3 with bow).

       no need to take it for the melee weapons, I have a good str, but now my bow I am just as likly to hit. 

       Infact being a two scimitar ranger with a bow would be great, scimitar dance uses dex...hm maybe that will even be my next idea...


----------



## Stalker0 (May 23, 2009)

Trevelyan said:


> Consider first of all the scope that expertise gives to a player who wants a less than optimal race/class combo. Such a charcter will likely start with a primary stat of 16 and an expertise feat gives him a convenient leg up.




And if this had been how the feats were designed, it might have been much more tolerable. For example, if expertise for a ranger had required int 14 or something (aka something the ranger doesn't normally get) then the feat becomes a lot more balanced. It will only be given to characters who don't have optimal stats, and so is a feat mainly designed to balance out "weak" builds, not further increase the power of strong builds.

As it currently stands though, strong and weak builds both can take the feat, so its not doing the weak builds any favors.


----------



## Runestar (May 24, 2009)

> As it currently stands though, strong and weak builds both can take the feat, so its not doing the weak builds any favors.




I think what he means is that a "suboptimal" PC can take the expertise feat and still retain a decent chance of hitting his foes. You would compare it against the defenses of the enemies you are pitting him against, not other more optimized PCs who too can take the feat (which is not as relevant here).

You wouldn't care that your buddy's rogue with 20dex will miss the foe only on a natural 1 (hypothetically, for argument's sake). You will only care that with expertise, you can still hit that foe a fair amount of the time (even with subpar stats), and thus be able to still contribute meaningfully to combat, even if it is not to the extent of the rest of the party. 

What I am interested in, is how this works with MM2 apparently lowering the defenses of select monsters. Might this result in some sort of "double-patching"? Expertise was introduced because attack rolls were presumably not scaling in line with monster defenses. But now, they are lowering defenses of solos (at least for now) so PCs can hit them more and thus kill them faster (hence reducing grind). 

So between the 2, not only does any PC get a +3 to-hit at epic, but Orcus (example) would get -2 to all defenses as well (though he would deal more damage), for a total equivalent of +5 to hit. Does this seem too extreme to anyone?


----------



## jasin (May 24, 2009)

Runestar said:


> I think what he means is that a "suboptimal" PC can take the expertise feat and still retain a decent chance of hitting his foes.



Decent compared to what? Game balance is a relative concern.


----------



## Runestar (May 24, 2009)

jasin said:


> Decent compared to what? Game balance is a relative concern.




Compared to the monsters in the MM, coupled with your own preference on what passes for a fair chance of hitting. Say you feel that you need an 18 in your main stat to have a "decent" chance of hitting (because that is what you are most comfortable with). With expertise, you can now drop that stat to 16 (and funnel the 4 points somewhere else). 

If you felt that 16 sufficed, you could afford to drop your stat to 14 (which may be the case if you are playing a race which does not confer any stat bonuses to any of your key stats, like an eladrin barbarian). 

The only problem is if the optimized PC took expertise, but not the unoptimized PC (which then leads to an even greater disparity in their degree of competence). The former now hits even more often, while the latter still has problems hitting, and the DM cannot properly design encounters without making it too easy for the optimized PC or too difficult for the unoptimized PC.

That is perhaps the biggest problem with making expertise a feat. There is no guarantee that the people who arguably "need" the feat the most will take it.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 24, 2009)

20 + expertise is a waste of a feat and stats... at least up to level 15, when it becomes worthwhile...

If all you want is hack and slay, maybe, but otherwise just a waste...

it really makes no difference if you hit with a 10 or a 9... you will either hate the 9 or the 8.

it is just the little bit which may make the barbarian or the fighter happy... otherwise take better feats...


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 24, 2009)

jasin said:


> Decent compared to what? Game balance is a relative concern.




So if you were playing a warlord (Start 18 Str), and at level 11 your party rouge (Start 20 dex) had a +4 dagger, but you still only had a +2 Scimitar you would have a major problem with the game???

        I ask becuse of how much more he hits. 

Warlord 21str (+5) Scimitar (+2) Magic (+2) 1/2 level (+5) +14
rouge 22dex (+6) Dagger (+3) ckass (+1) MAGIC (+4) 1/2 level (+5)  +19

against a 25 AC target you need 11's he needs 6's That must mean you suck right. I mean really.


     How ever if instead of looking at other players you lloked at the mosnter... then you have a 50/50 chance to hit with out optimizing to hit.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 24, 2009)

there were times when thiefs only hit about 20% when not backstabbing...


----------



## Old Gumphrey (May 24, 2009)

Zsig said:


> Anyways, I guess, botom line is: if you're missing alot, or if the encounter feels like a grind, it's probably your DM's fault




This is absurd.


----------



## Tuft (May 24, 2009)

Old Gumphrey said:


> > Anyways, I guess, botom line is: if you're missing alot, or if the encounter feels like a grind, it's probably your DM's fault
> 
> 
> 
> This is absurd.




Why is that absurd? If the party hits too well for fights to be fun and interesting, the DM should certainly raise the AC to make them interesting again. The same should apply in the reverse situation... if the party hit too badly for them to be interesting, the AC should be lowered in the same manner. 

Remember that DMs have free reins to design encounters _any way they like_.


----------



## Tilenas (May 24, 2009)

Why would someone who plays a non-optimized character take the arguably most imbalanced feat? Non-optimization doesn't stop at ability score assignment, you know. I can think of tons of feats more interesting, chellenging, or useful than a to-hit-bonus.




UngeheuerLich said:


> it really makes no difference if you hit with a 10 or a 9... you will either hate the 9 or the 8.




I don't know which logical fallacy that is, and I hope you were being ironic so I won't have to research into that matter.


----------



## HardcoreDandDGirl (May 24, 2009)

Tuft said:


> Why is that absurd? If the party hits too well for fights to be fun and interesting, the DM should certainly raise the AC to make them interesting again. The same should apply in the reverse situation... if the party hit too badly for them to be interesting, the AC should be lowered in the same manner.
> 
> Remember that DMs have free reins to design encounters _any way they like_.




Sometimes I think people forget that the DM designs the world, and can adjust it according to the needs of the game.

   Example: If the party is Avenger, Dagger rouge, Tac Lord, Fighter, and Wizard. It handles things very different then say a party of Warlock, Archer ranger, Laser cleric, Swordmage, and Invoker. In fact I would say that a flying dragon with hover would be a almost impossible match for one, no problem for the other, well a group of High damage melee soldiers and Brutes would be the reverse. 

     If a party is all hitting on 7+ then use elite soldiers of lev+3 or 4. If the party is on average hitting on 15+ maybe you want lurker and skirmishers of lev+1 or 2. The name of the game is fun after all, and as the DM you control most of the world

I know in my friend Tom’s game he told me that his party hates red dragons, because at level 4 they faced a level 7 solo, and being a soldier the Defenses were nigh unhittable.


----------



## tiornys (May 25, 2009)

HardcoreDandDGirl said:


> Sometimes I think people forget that the DM designs the world, and can adjust it according to the needs of the game.
> 
> Example: If the party is Avenger, Dagger rouge, Tac Lord, Fighter, and Wizard. It handles things very different then say a party of Warlock, Archer ranger, Laser cleric, Swordmage, and Invoker. In fact I would say that a flying dragon with hover would be a almost impossible match for one, no problem for the other, well a group of High damage melee soldiers and Brutes would be the reverse.
> 
> ...



What do you recommend for the DM who has two characters that hit average enemies on a 6, one who hits those same enemies on a 10, and two who hit the same enemies on a 14?

In a party where everyone is at roughly the same optimization level, I agree; the DM can adjust as needed.  But in a party with widely varying optimization level, I don't think there's a good answer.

t~


----------



## HardcoreDandDGirl (May 25, 2009)

tiornys said:


> What do you recommend for the DM who has two characters that hit average enemies on a 6, one who hits those same enemies on a 10, and two who hit the same enemies on a 14?
> 
> In a party where everyone is at roughly the same optimization level, I agree; the DM can adjust as needed. But in a party with widely varying optimization level, I don't think there's a good answer.
> 
> t~




          well that is a little much (8pt spread) but off hand i would say have some soldier and some controler...infact that might be the baxic set up.


----------



## Nail (May 25, 2009)

tiornys said:


> What do you recommend for the DM who has two characters that hit average enemies on a 6, one who hits those same enemies on a 10, and two who hit the same enemies on a 14?
> 
> In a party where everyone is at roughly the same optimization level, I agree; the DM can adjust as needed.  But in a party with widely varying optimization level, I don't think there's a good answer.
> 
> t~






HardcoreDandDGirl said:


> well that is a little much (8pt spread) but off hand i would say have some soldier and some controler...infact that might be the baxic set up.



I've had PCs (in 3.5e) with that kind of spread.  It's not unheard of.

Dealing with it requires a bit more that just adjusting Atk, AC, and Dam of the monsters.


----------



## tiornys (May 25, 2009)

HardcoreDandDGirl said:


> well that is a little much (8pt spread) but off hand i would say have some soldier and some controler...infact that might be the baxic set up.



Yes, you could try mixing above level soldiers with below level controllers, or something similar.  But then you have to hope that the characters with the high attack bonuses go after the soldiers, and the characters with the low attack bonuses go after the controllers.  And every battle has to be set up in roughly the same way.  It's a huge restriction on what you can do, and while you can take some creative approaches to dealing with it (mixing skill challenges with combat, calibrated threats, etc.), the fact that you _have_ to just illuminates the problem.

I agree that the spread is a little much.  It was also impossible before the introduction of the Expertise feats (and now, their even more ill-advised racial counterparts in Arcane Power).  The maximum gap used to be a 6pt spread (assuming a minimum attack stat of 16 bumped each level).  Expertise makes it 9.  Expertise stacked with the new racial feats makes it 12.  It is currently possible to have two characters in paragon tier, in which each character is reasonably built, where a monster who is an average challenge for one character to hit is either an auto-hit or auto-miss for the other character.  That's not healthy for the game.

t~


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (May 25, 2009)

tiornys said:


> What do you recommend for the DM who has two characters that hit average enemies on a 6, one who hits those same enemies on a 10, and two who hit the same enemies on a 14?
> 
> In a party where everyone is at roughly the same optimization level, I agree; the DM can adjust as needed.  But in a party with widely varying optimization level, I don't think there's a good answer.
> 
> t~




I believe that the Expertise feats were made for these cases... like those players who make characters with three 16s as their highest stats (I'm looking at you Mauricio!)

Sadly, those are the kind of players who easily miss this feat and take Quick Draw instead


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 25, 2009)

Nail said:


> I've had PCs (in 3.5e) with that kind of spread.  It's not unheard of.



 If that is the worst you got in 3.5 consider yourself lucky, I often had 20pt variances...or more. Infact I had 1 PC have 27 more attack then another in one game. I know the number well it was a nightmare. It was a 16th level full bab character against a psywarrior/psion/soulknife with some weird prestige class at 16th level.



tiornys said:


> What do you recommend for the DM who has two characters that hit average enemies on a 6, one who hits those same enemies on a 10, and two who hit the same enemies on a 14?
> 
> In a party where everyone is at roughly the same optimization level, I agree; the DM can adjust as needed.  But in a party with widely varying optimization level, I don't think there's a good answer.
> 
> t~



well it depends is the character needing the 14 having fun?
        if so nothing everything is fine
        if not I recomend the espertise feat, and add a magic item drop or two to aid in accuracy.
         In a game a played in our rouge was a dagger rouge who had all nad (or atleast close to all) targeting powers. He had a high plus dagger that did psychic damage, and a headband of intlect. He started with a 20 dex. At level 20 he had a +26 or 27 Vs Nads before CA (Witch I think I can count on my hands howmany attacks he made the entire campaign without CA) He often threw the d20 and said "Not a 1 I hit"
          I was a warlord/paliden (Paragon multi) and I started with an 18str I had at 20th level +21 or 22 to hit AC before combat advantage (I had it more often then not, but not as often as stabby)
        So that was a 4-6pt diffrence. and you know what I never really noticed...he hit more often I am sure, he did wicked more damage (He was a striker afterall) but I had a kick but leader that could sub as a defender. I made it to level 27 before I died (Game was ending soon so I didn't make a new character for the last 3 sessions)
       we all had fun, and I know the wizard/ranger (only 1st multi class feat) had a worse attack bonus then I did.


----------



## tiornys (May 25, 2009)

tl/dr summary:  WotC should make things balanced because balance is hard.  Expertise isn't balanced, but the idea behind it is justified because that idea rebalances other problems.  If Expertise were errata, the problems that can arise if only some characters take it disappear.



GMforPowergamers said:


> well it depends is the character needing the 14 having fun?
> if so nothing everything is fine
> if not I recomend the espertise feat, and add a magic item drop or two to aid in accuracy.
> In a game a played in our rouge was a dagger rouge who had all nad (or atleast close to all) targeting powers. He had a high plus dagger that did psychic damage, and a headband of intlect. He started with a 20 dex. At level 20 he had a +26 or 27 Vs Nads before CA (Witch I think I can count on my hands howmany attacks he made the entire campaign without CA) He often threw the d20 and said "Not a 1 I hit"
> ...



I find it pretty cool that you have a group where this kind of thing works out.  Problem is, you can't demonstrate that something is generally true (or that it is never true) with anecdotal evidence.  Anecdotal evidence can only demonstrate that something is sometimes true, or that something is sometimes false.

Your experience supports a claim that it's ok for the math to be imbalanced because people can have fun with that.  Unfortunately, I have direct experience with players being dissatisfied because of imbalanced math.  I've also read numerous other anecdotal comments relating roughly the same thing.  So, I can definitely say that it is sometimes true that imbalanced math has a negative effect on the fun people have with D&D.

Now, prior to releasing 4E, WotC gathered enough anecdotal evidence to convince them that having balanced math led to a better experience for more people than having imbalanced math.  Sales of 4E suggests that they were correct.  I'm not claiming that everyone has more fun with a better balanced system; you couldn't prove that to be generally true with anecdotal evidence if you wanted to, and in fact, I've seen cases where the higher level of balance leads to player dissatisfaction.  In my experience the ratio is around 4:1 in favor of balance.

Now here's the thing.  It's easy to make things unbalanced.  Really easy.  I can think of over ten methods for doing so in the time it's taking me to type this sentence.  It's harder to spot things that are unbalanced.  It's a skillset that includes general game experience, knowledge of game design/development theory, knowledge of statistics, mathematical ability, analytical ability, creativity, lateral thinking, and intuition.  It's much, much harder to make things balanced; that skillset includes being able to spot things that are unbalanced, added to a host of tools for trying to rebalance them.

So, what I want from WotC is the best balanced system they can give me, because I can use all the help I can get at making the system balanced.  Spotting imbalanced things, I can get help with.  Tons of help, just by browsing these message boards; doing this will alert me to most anything that is _potentially_ imbalanced, and I can make my own decisions from there about what I think crosses the line.  Making things unbalanced, if I decide to do that, I need no help with.

The expertise feats are unbalanced.  I spotted that one on my own.  But, they look like they're intended to rebalance a system that is unbalanced, which I wouldn't know without these boards.  The idea is good; the execution through feats is subpar.  Errata would be immensely superior, in part because it would decrease the potential gap in character hit-rate.  Right now, you can have some, but not all, of the characters in a group taking Expertise; if it were errata, either all of the characters would benefit, or none would.  Either way, DM's would be dealing with smaller potential gaps than the ones mentioned above.

t~


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 26, 2009)

tiornys said:


> Your experience supports a claim that it's ok for the math to be imbalanced because people can have fun with that.  Unfortunately, I have direct experience with players being dissatisfied because of imbalanced math.  I've also read numerous other anecdotal comments relating roughly the same thing.  So, I can definitely say that it is sometimes true that imbalanced math has a negative effect on the fun people have with D&D.



so you missed the part where I said that is where I start...


> well it depends is the character needing the 14 having fun?
> if so nothing everything is fine
> if not I recomend the espertise feat, and add a magic item drop or two to aid in accuracy.








> Now, prior to releasing 4E, WotC gathered enough anecdotal evidence to convince them that having balanced math led to a better experience for more people than having imbalanced math.  Sales of 4E suggests that they were correct.  I'm not claiming that everyone has more fun with a better balanced system; you couldn't prove that to be generally true with anecdotal evidence if you wanted to, and in fact, I've seen cases where the higher level of balance leads to player dissatisfaction.  In my experience the ratio is around 4:1 in favor of balance.



 Now all you need is to realize you have the right idea, but the wrong cause.

     See the promlem is System mastery. Things that look good but are not, or things that look like they do X but they really do Y.

   This is my problem with Careful Strike Vs Twin Strike. One looks like it is accuracy the other looks like it is damage, the truth is (with system master) that twin strike is both. There is no reason that someone bad at math and new to the game not to think Careful strike is more accurate then twin strike (Bad)
     This on the other hand is the reverese of System mastery, it weres it's discription on it's sleave
      Imp expertise and weapon Expertise scream (If you want to be more accurat take me)




> The expertise feats are unbalanced.  I spotted that one on my own.  But, they look like they're intended to rebalance a system that is unbalanced, which I wouldn't know without these boards.  The idea is good; the execution through feats is subpar.  Errata would be immensely superior, in part because it would decrease the potential gap in character hit-rate.  Right now, you can have some, but not all, of the characters in a group taking Expertise; if it were errata, either all of the characters would benefit, or none would.  Either way, DM's would be dealing with smaller potential gaps than the ones mentioned above.




I expect that they will have that as an optional idea, becuse you see not everyone wants to 'power up' there game, so it leaves it as an option this way.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 26, 2009)

becuse somehow my main point got left on pg2...



GMforPowergamers said:


> We have seen and herd form group who played through all three teirs of play H,P,E and never found themselves in this slump of "I can't hit" lets call them group A
> We have seen and herd from groups who played to paragon and felt the defences went up to much and the game watered down...lets call them group B
> We have seen and herd form groups who in epci felt the monsters got to tough. we will call them group C.
> We have seen people complain (I may be bias but I give this group the least amount of slack) that right from day one 1st level the game is too hard. we will call them group D.
> ...


----------



## KarinsDad (May 26, 2009)

Amphimir Míriel said:


> I believe that the Expertise feats were made for these cases...




That example is way too skewed.

In reality, what will happen at epic level is that instead of "two characters that hit same level average enemies on a 12, one who hits those same enemies on a 13, and two who hit the same enemies on a 14", it will become "two characters that hit same level average enemies on a 9, one who hits those same enemies on a 10, and two who hit the same enemies on a 11" because all 5 PCs will take the feat.

These feats have nothing to do with sub-optimal PCs (who tend to be sub-optimal for a total of 1) and instead have to do with the -4 math bug at Epic level.


----------



## Mephistopheles (May 26, 2009)

The thing to note with the expertise feats is that, unlike most feats that scale with level, they scale at level 15 and 25 rather than 11 and 21. If levels 15 and 25 are the points at which the alleged hole in the math appears it would seem to be a strong indicator that these feats are a patch.

After a quick scan of the of the Compendium I found only five feats available at level one that scale at levels 15 and 25 instead of 11 and 21: the two expertise feats, and three from arcane power that also provide bonuses to hit when using powers with particular keywords in the same pattern as the expertise feats.


----------



## jasin (May 26, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> We right now have atleast 4 diffrent ways to boost attack (Gnome illussion feat, Fey charm feat, Dragon born arcane feat, and the expertise feats) we have a few diffrent Nads boosting feats (some to all three some to just one but more...or those epic ones) So what does that do...
> It means every player now gets to decide "What do I want to focus on?" I have a PC in my tuesday night game who is a swordmage going for maxed out defences, and took toughness. He seams to hit just fine at paragon levels with out expertise, so he will save his feats for the ones he wants...on the other hand our warlord can't hit to save his life, and is very rearly hit, so expertise was a good choice for him, but the NADs uppers not so much.
> 
> people who claim they are non choices fail to realize that they are the ultimate choice. (I even have a post in the errata board to up Helfire blood to +1, +2 at 15, +3 at 25th to give another option and another choice to the group)



The ultimate choice indeed, and that's exactly the problem. Where does that leave feats like Combat Reflexes, Nimble Blade, Sure Climber?

Why would you take +1 to attacks in a tiny subset of situations when you can get +1 (or more) to attacks in a vast majority of situations? Why would you take something of such vague, situational utility as being able to climb really well, when you could take something of such obvious, crucial utility as being able to hit really well?


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (May 26, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> In reality, what will happen at epic level is that instead of "two characters that hit same level average enemies on a 12, one who hits those same enemies on a 13, and two who hit the same enemies on a 14", it will become "two characters that hit same level average enemies on a 9, one who hits those same enemies on a 10, and two who hit the same enemies on a 11" because all 5 PCs will take the feat.




Well, I know this might not be useful to you, but I have found that restricting the expertise feats to the suboptimal or MAD builds is a good fix for my campaign.

Of course my campaign remains in heroic level, and I may change my mind and give everyone a +X to attacks if we do find this alleged "math hole" in paragon or epic... But right now, we are comfortable.


----------



## KarinsDad (May 26, 2009)

Amphimir Míriel said:


> Well, I know this might not be useful to you, but I have found that restricting the expertise feats to the suboptimal or MAD builds is a good fix for my campaign.




What's your definition of a sub-optimal build? A PC that starts with a 16 main ability score? Something else? How do you tell one player that his PC sucks and he can take it and another player, well, you PC does not suck enough, so you cannot take it?


----------



## Regicide (May 26, 2009)

Mephistopheles said:


> If levels 15 and 25 are the points at which the alleged hole in the math appears it would seem to be a strong indicator that these feats are a patch.




  Would a mandatory feat not be a bigger indicator that it's a patch for them giving players too many feats?


----------



## KarinsDad (May 26, 2009)

Regicide said:


> Would a mandatory feat not be a bigger indicator that it's a patch for them giving players too many feats?




Boy, that's a serious stretch.


----------



## Nail (May 26, 2009)

Amphimir Míriel said:


> Well, I know this might not be useful to you, but I have found that restricting the expertise feats to the suboptimal or MAD builds is a good fix for my campaign.



Wow.

I had to pick up my jaw off the floor after I read this.

Uhmm....how do you (the DM) select the PCs that are "sub-optimal", and how do the other players react to this selection?  (I know how I'd react.....)


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (May 27, 2009)

Nail said:


> Wow.
> 
> I had to pick up my jaw off the floor after I read this.
> 
> Uhmm....how do you (the DM) select the PCs that are "sub-optimal", and how do the other players react to this selection?  (I know how I'd react.....)




I don't see anything wrong with it, everybody in my gaming group suggests feats or powers to each other all the time (we rotate DM duties). No one is offended, since we all realize that an RPG campaign is a story we all make together... 

Currently no one in the group has even shown an interest on the expertise feats (none of them read EnWorld or other RPG forums), but I already mentioned in session that those feats were "banned until further analysis"

...actually I got a bigger response from the fact that I am "discouraging" the use of Devas, Goliaths and Shifters in my game, for stylistic reasons

However, I would probably do an exception and suggest the feat to a player whose character had consistent problems hitting... I am sure everybody realizes that if one of the characters in the party can seemingly never hit, it is less fun for everyone, right?

We don't want to go back to the "Angel Summoner and BMX bandit" days of third edition, right?


----------



## Old Gumphrey (May 27, 2009)

Amphimir Míriel said:


> the fact that I am "discouraging" the use of Devas, Goliaths and Shifters in my game, for stylistic reasons.




Meh.


----------



## Runestar (May 27, 2009)

> We don't want to go back to the "Angel Summoner and BMX bandit" days of third edition, right?




Huh?


----------



## Angellis_ater (May 27, 2009)

Google is your friend: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw&feature=related]YouTube - Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit[/ame]

It is a parody between the Wizard & Rogue "usefulness" in 3rd Edition.


----------



## KarinsDad (May 27, 2009)

Amphimir Míriel said:


> However, I would probably do an exception and suggest the feat to a player whose character had consistent problems hitting... I am sure everybody realizes that if one of the characters in the party can seemingly never hit, it is less fun for everyone, right?




You avoided the questions. What is the definition of a sub-optimal PC, and who decides that (since you rotate DMs), and how do the other players feel about that?

Also, if a PC has problems hitting, one has to look at the reason. If you hand Expertise out to that PC at Paragon or higher level, maybe he will hit a lot at that point and the other PCs will appear to have consistent problems hitting.

What are the bonuses of the PC that has the problem and the other PCs? If they are about the same, do you penalize the other players because this player is unlucky?


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 27, 2009)

Tilenas said:


> Why would someone who plays a non-optimized character take the arguably most imbalanced feat? Non-optimization doesn't stop at ability score assignment, you know. I can think of tons of feats more interesting, chellenging, or useful than a to-hit-bonus.




thus a waste of a feat and ability points...



Tilenas said:


> I don't know which logical fallacy that is, and I hope you were being ironic so I won't have to research into that matter.



no logical fallacy nor beeing ironic. I am serious...

... hitting with 9 or 10 is a damage decrease of less than 10% (EHP calculation). It gets better the less frequent you hit and weapon fokus gets better the more you already hit. (+1 damage on d12+4 is also about 10% damage increase)

so expertise gets worse the more optimized for hitting you are... and it is best when you very bad at hitting... and then you should consider putting your highest number in your main attribute...

Remember the comparison between Twin strike and careful attack? +2 to hit worse than a basic attack if you want to dish out dmage...

the other difference is: you will notice weapon fokus in all fights...
but you will notice the effect of expertise if you happen to roll the 9 or the 8... and you will only be unhappy if it is when using a daily...

2 fixes for expertise:

- its a power bonus instead of untyped (so it will not stack with bonuses from daily powers)
- it only works with daily (or encounter) powers


----------



## Lauberfen (May 27, 2009)

The thing is, it's only relatively worse.

For a character that hits more, expertise is just as good, but focus would be relatively better.

To be accurate, the value of expertise increases as your damage increases, Wheras focus is more valuable the more you hit.

The difficulty is this- optimised characters will do more damage as well as hitting more. So they will gain more.

For example, let's assume 2 level 2 characters fighting vs AC 18.

A less optimised character, main stat 16. +7 to hit (+3+3+1), average 7.5 damage with longsword. Average damage per round 3.75.

An optimised one, main stat 20 (perhaps hyper optimised). +9 to hit, average damage 9.5 with longsword. Average damage per round 5.7

Now add Expertise- the less optimised character gains 0.375 DPR, now 4.125.
The optimised character gains 0.475, for a total of 6.175.

Consequently, a simple +1 bonus to hit exxaggerates the difference between the characters.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 28, 2009)

your damage for the hyperoptimized one is wrong 

its 5.7 DPR average and goes up to 6.175 DPR 

so: you gain extra 7.7% damage

the non optimized char gets extra 9.1% damage

and since the relative damage matters when you are depleting the enemies hp, its actually better for the non optimized char... 

and if you calculate: both would be better off to take weapon fokus instead:

the optimized char will increase his damage to 6.3 DPR
and the non optimized char will increase his damage to 4.25 DPR

p.s.: of yourse, increasing both to hit and damage with stats will greatly increase your damage output (between 10 and 20%) so if you want to optimize, do it by increasing your main stat...

but i still say: expertise is not more broken than weapon fokus on lower levels. (for damage output)

But: if you need to hit because you want to get a noteworthy status effect on your allies or your enemy, by all means, take expertise... but you will be better off by taking a racial feat which will help your crucial dailies to give you an effect for the whole encounter... the simple +1 won´t do it...


----------



## KarinsDad (May 28, 2009)

UngeheuerLich said:


> your damage for the hyperoptimized one is wrong
> 
> its 5.7 DPR average and goes up to 6.175 DPR
> 
> ...




One cannot look at percentages. They are totally misleading.

The optimized PC gains 0.475 average damage per round.

The sub-optimized PC gains 0.375 average damage per round.

The optimized PC gains more actual average damage per round.


----------



## Lauberfen (May 28, 2009)

Exactly. relative damage is nonsense- monsters get killed by concrete damage.

If I actually do more damage, I actually kill the monster faster than you. You can do all the relative damage you like, but If I'm doing more DPR the monsters will die quicker.

Thanks for checking my maths, I'll edit in the right figures.


----------



## keterys (May 28, 2009)

You might want to check at levels in which you get actual damage bonuses and/or using powers that have damage bonuses.

Very low level with just a basic attack and no magic weapon is... not terribly illustrative?

For example, I have a level 8 very much not optimized party in one game with characters who deal, without weapon focus and only using at-wills, 1d8+6+1d6 (Eldritch Strike + Curse), 1d6+11+2d8 (Sly Flourish + Sneak Attack), 1d10 + 7 (Enfeebling Strike). More min/maxed characters with, say, things like Iron Armbands of Power, Brash Strike, Totem Daggers, Staff of Ruin, Dwarven Weapon Training, being a Sorcerer, etc will skew the math even more.


----------



## Nail (May 28, 2009)

Angellis_ater said:


> Google is your friend: <snip>
> It is a parody between the Wizard & Rogue "usefulness" in 3rd Edition.



That's excellent.  Thanks!


----------



## Nail (May 28, 2009)

Nail said:


> Uhmm....how do you (the DM) select the PCs that are "sub-optimal", and how do the other players react to this selection?  (I know how I'd react.....)






Amphimir Míriel said:


> I don't see anything wrong with it, everybody in my gaming group suggests feats or powers to each other all the time (we rotate DM duties). No one is offended, since we all realize that an RPG campaign is a story we all make together...






KarinsDad said:


> You avoided the questions. What is the definition of a sub-optimal PC, and who decides that (since you rotate DMs), and how do the other players feel about that?



He did "kinda" answer the question.  His answer is: "_We've not actually done it yet, this is all hypothetical._"   

The point: How do you justify one player getting access to a feat, but not another player?  Even among long-time close friends, this is a serious question.


----------



## Lauberfen (May 28, 2009)

I was merely demonstrating that it is always better for more optimised characters, and thus increases the power gap.

To think about higher levels a little, my rogue is almost optimised, Eldarin with max dex. 9th level. She does 1D4+2D6+10 with sly flourish, for 19.5 damage on average.
Her bonus to hit is +15, +17 with combat adventage.
Monsters at that level have ACs around 24- usually higher, because I'm usually fighting higher level monsters (probably level 10 on average, with level 11-12 encounters as standard).
That gives a 0.8 chance of hitting. 0.8 x 19.5 is 15.6
Adding expertise gives an extra 0.975 damage, compared to focus which gives 0.8.

So expertise is better at increasing damage per round for a character who has almost the highest bonus to hit possible at her level (a better magic item is all she's missing, she's using a lifedrinker dagger +1)

Significantly, Average damage increases over levels, but chance of hitting doesn't. This means that expertise becomes disproportionately useful, even without staging at 15th and 25th.


----------



## Tilenas (May 28, 2009)

UngeheuerLich said:


> thus a waste of a feat and ability points...




With *that* far a gap between our respective ideas about how to enjoy this game, we won't reach a common ground. You go ahead and optimize away!


----------



## KarinsDad (May 28, 2009)

keterys said:


> For example, I have a level 8 very much not optimized party in one game with characters who deal, without weapon focus and only using at-wills, 1d8+6+1d6 (Eldritch Strike + Curse), 1d6+11+2d8 (Sly Flourish + Sneak Attack), 1d10 + 7 (Enfeebling Strike). More min/maxed characters with, say, things like Iron Armbands of Power, Brash Strike, Totem Daggers, Staff of Ruin, Dwarven Weapon Training, being a Sorcerer, etc will skew the math even more.




Precisely.

Weapon Expertise tends to quickly overshadow Weapon Focus beyond the first few levels not just because of increased dpr, but also because it assists in placing riders or conditions on the monsters.

Even at "better for Weapon Focus" levels like 11 and 21, Weapon Expertise can sometimes win out for dpr with PCs like Strikers. For normal PCs, Weapon Focus does typically average slightly more dpr at levels 1 to 4, 11 to 14, and 21 to 24, but this little extra bit of damage is often offset by the % chance of adding a rider.

And all of this tends to be moot since many players take both feats.


----------



## Nail (May 28, 2009)

Not that what I'm about to say will end this thread or anything, but as the OP here:

Our DM has decided to ban Expertise "for now".

<sigh>  I don't agree with his decision...but I like playing in his game, so.....


----------



## DrSpunj (May 28, 2009)

Nail said:


> Not that what I'm about to say will end this thread or anything, but as the OP here:
> 
> Our DM has decided to ban Expertise "for now".
> 
> <sigh>  I don't agree with his decision...but I like playing in his game, so.....




You and the rest of the party are victims of your own success here, me thinks, given last night's "by the skin of our teeth" battle.

7 PCs (only 2-3 I'd really consider optimized, IMO), all 4th level against Kobolds: 4 lvl 6 soldiers, 5 lvl 5 skirmishers and 6 lvl 3 minions. This was in a cave using Paizo's Darklands? Flipmat, open cave with 4-5 large pillars breaking up the terrain. By XP this was a Level+3 to Level+4 encounter and the party had already fought through 3 previous encounters this "day". I think 2 of them had used a daily power in previous battles but mostly they were at full capacity except for used Healing Surges; every PC had an Action Point available. The TacLord was importantly down to 2 Surges entering this battle.

From the 2nd round I was able to get CA for the mobs attacks about 80% of the time. From round 1 my dice were *hot!* And I'm very glad I always roll in front of my players because even I was surprised by how many 15+ rolls I made. OTOH, my party had Beshaba's own luck throughout the battle and missed I think with about 75% of their attacks (a handful were admittedly by 1 where Expertise could have tipped the balance).

Even with that skewed distribution of rolls dramatically in my favor with a Hard encounter by the XP guidelines I was able to bloody about half the party but by the end even the TacLord was still standing due to a timely _Cure Light Wounds_ from the party cleric. At multiple times *Nail* had bonuses to attack typically of around +3 or +4, and at times was able to add +6 or more (but please correct me if I'm wrong here, *Nail*, I know Righteous Brand, a Warlord +1 power and CA came together on at least 1 attack you made) and other PCs were able to get similar bonuses at times using good teamwork. There were so many bonuses for party members flying around for both attacks and damage that everyone was consistently adding another +1 or +2 to their not-quite-final totals whenever they called out their results (whereupon our TacLord or Cleric would remind them about another bonus which they usually hadn't factored in), which did turn several near misses into successful hits.

If the party had rolled even average they would have hit a lot more often than they did with the bonuses they had. If I had rolled average the foes would've missed a heckuva lot more. I'm concerned that this "Hard" encounter would not have been nearly as much fun (my primary consideration!) if the dice weren't _strongly_ in my favor last night.

Regardless, at level 4 I do not see a "need" for Expertise and the math seems to back that up until late Heroic or even into Paragon levels. I certainly hope this campaign makes it that far but I think Expertise series of feats are an extremely poor attempt at fixing anything and at this time don't feel comfortable with them as an option. We'll need to revisit the need again if the party levels up that high, however.

But I am really happy that you're having fun!


----------



## Nail (May 28, 2009)

It was a _*nasty*_ fight (in a good way!).  I was convinced by round 2 that we had at least 2 deaths-on-the-way (because of your "Monsters will coup-de-grace" policy), and that without those 2 the rest of us were humped.  

The only way we got through that battle is by pulling out absolutely _every power we had_, using every action point and scrap of healing we had, using every ounce of tactical acumen we had, and then hoping the dice turned our way.  By the time we emerged victorious, we were completely and utterly running on fumes.  I'm _entirely unconvinced _that we were "victims of <our> own success".

As for our apparent bad luck: I'd bet our rolls for the night were average, taken in aggregate.  I know that "experiential bias" is strong when there are personal interests (MY PC IS GETTING PASTED!!!) at stake.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 28, 2009)

Lauberfen said:


> I was merely demonstrating that it is always better for more optimised characters, and thus increases the power gap.
> 
> To think about higher levels a little, my rogue is almost optimised, Eldarin with max dex. 9th level. She does 1D4+2D6+10 with sly flourish, for 19.5 damage on average.
> Her bonus to hit is +15, +17 with combat adventage.
> ...



too bad you are wrong... monsters are killed by relative damage... and you just overlooked that weapon fokus is better in your first example... in this example, yes, expertise is better...

still you are wrong...

the real question is: how many turns does the monster last... use a brute force method to test how many turns it takes to kill a monster...

edit: [/ignore] Consider 100hp monster. If you are doing 18.5 Damage on average, you need 6 rounds to kill the monster... if you add 1 damage, you dont save a single turn.

If you however do only 5 Damage and you add 0.5 Damage you nly need 19 turns instead of 20... [/ignore] wrong argumentation for expertise, sorry

you should also use a brute force (which i usually try to avoid) which considers max and minimum damage... on certain hp values a point of damage (if you hit) is much better than a +1 to hit... (on a lower damage die power (e.g. d6) when max damage is 1 too low to insta kill)

+1 to hit means 1 more hit in 20 attacks.

insta kill on max damage means an auto kill in 1 of 20 attacks (the natural 20 which wont suffice if you add expertise) and an insta kill every 6 hits which means about every 12th attack)

so try it out 

p.s.: I know how powerful expertise is, especially when it grants +2 or +3, but its not gamebreaking at all and DPS only begins to matter if Monster HP is at least 10 times of your party´s average damage per round (which means a solo monster usually, which has also higher defensens so expertise gets extra useful)


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 28, 2009)

Tilenas said:


> With *that* far a gap between our respective ideas about how to enjoy this game, we won't reach a common ground. You go ahead and optimize away!



If all chars take it, it senseless... it just forces the DM to use better monsters, wich are worse to hit and have more hp... so you are actually contributing to grind...


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 28, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> Precisely.
> 
> Weapon Expertise tends to quickly overshadow Weapon Focus beyond the first few levels not just because of increased dpr, but also because it assists in placing riders or conditions on the monsters.
> 
> ...



here I agree:

if you want to get riders like increased damage or other effects going, expertise is the right choice... so if you are doing very very high damage or need to get your daily in for more damage... by all means take expertise...

if you profit from your leaders + to hit bonuses, and do relative low damage, by all means take weapon fokus or a more intersting feat...

and just to add: weapon expertise is a boring feat... i would have been more happy if there had been some restrictions... (to make other feats non-obsolete) and the increase at level 15 and 25 make it really a must have feat...


----------



## Lauberfen (May 28, 2009)

I may well have misuderstood the first of your 3 posts there, but it looks strongly like nonsense- sure, a bonus here or there may not make it quicker every time to kill a monster, and granted the bonusses are small (at least at heroic).

But the idea of needing X number of rounds of average damage to kill a monster, and therefore extra DPR being wasted, is rubbish- DPR is average, so actual ddamage can be quite a lot more or less. Also you are acting with a whole party, who all have different hit rates and damage rates.

Therefore it's really meaningless to say that you won't drop a monster quicker because of a small increase in DPR- this is a bizarre abstraction. Sometimes it will make little difference, but on average, by increasing DPR by _any _amount, you will reduce the time taken to kill a monster. Optimised players increase their DPR by a greater amount with either Expertise of Focus, and therefore will kill a monster even quicker, a greater _relative_ increase in DPR and _relatively _more improvement in the time it takes to kill a monster.

Granted expertise will only actually make a concrete difference every so often. But when it does (about every other encounter at heroic, the way my group plays), you will have just landed one more hit. That could easily lead to taking down a monster one round quicker, or even more.

But the fact remains, than on average you will take down the monsters slightly more quickly, and the improvement for optimised players is absolutely greater than for those that are not optimised.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 28, 2009)

ok, you found the problem in my abstaraction 

thought you get it... if all of the players play hack on the poor solo monster, yes the absolute damage increase per player counts more to the relative increase of the whole party 

edit: my mistake  forget the 100hp monster example... DPR when speaking about extra +x to hit is stupid... :/ here you drop a monster 1 round earlier once every 20 turns... see below...

Regarding your second paragraph: I already said averaging damage is not allowed to make a good guess about damage dealt to a single monster... max and min damage can be important.. read my post again... edit: skipping the example 

For an exponential distribution, the EV is 1/p and p is 1/20 here... so the average number of rounds to notice the expertise feat is 20 rounds...

tell me how often you hit the same monster for 20 rounds?


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 28, 2009)

> That could easily lead to taking down a monster one round quicker, or even more.




wow, one monster one round quicker... having a higher will defense e.g. could also reduce the damage you would have gotten from this single monster by the same amount... and better... you could have saved yourself from a monsters stunning attack which will result in more damage for the monster...

So i could also argue that iron will is better than expertise...

Is expertise good? check!
Boring? check!
An absolute must for an optimized char? No.
A must have for a leader which gives bonuses on hits for all allies? check!
Having a dramatic impact on your fights? Usually not! But sometimes!

And I will argue that Weapon Fokus is even less usefull overall... but if you have to overcome damage reductions, every point of extra damage counts!


----------



## Tilenas (May 28, 2009)

UngeheuerLich said:


> If all chars take it, it senseless... it just forces the DM to use better monsters, wich are worse to hit and have more hp... so you are actually contributing to grind...




Exactly! At least that's what I'd do as DM. The only time when players may think their characters underpowered is when compared to the other PCs, as the DM can vary monster stats to fit the party.
What this IMO boils down to is the distinction between players who optimize their characters to exceed in the role attributed to them by the RAW, and those who dabble in other areas. If your DMing incourages/rewards both approaches alike, expertise shouldn't be a problem. However, I believe that maintaining a balance between the approaches is difficult, and that oftentimes the "dabblers" may feel left behind.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 28, 2009)

Be hard in exploiting weaknesses... there is no optimization without drawback...

If you have chars which can shine in many situations, the optimizer will be frustrated very fast...

You just have to make sure you don´t explicitely exploit weaknesses obviously... just vary your encounters and you will automatically create situations in which optimizer will get serous problems...

(once brought a dedicated bow ranger in 3.5 to train in swordplay and to skip increasing dex in favour of constituion...)

Or a different example: who will deal more damage? the player using sword and board and expertise or the twf or thw fighter using power attack?

Offense is not all... really... and the ability to adapt can be much more valuable than killing a monster one round earlier... in many cases...

and in the single case where it really matters, all will be happy if the optimizer scores the point...


----------



## KarinsDad (May 28, 2009)

UngeheuerLich said:


> too bad you are wrong... monsters are killed by relative damage...




Err, no.

Relative damage increase is meaningless.

Given a choice of giving +1 to hit to the (e.g. striker) PC who does big average damage and giving +1 to hit to the PC who does little average damage, give it to the PC who does big average damage every single time. You'll average more overall damage.



UngeheuerLich said:


> still you are wrong...
> 
> the real question is: how many turns does the monster last... use a brute force method to test how many turns it takes to kill a monster...
> 
> Consider 100hp monster. If you are doing 18.5 Damage on average, you need 6 rounds to kill the monster... if you add 1 damage, you dont save a single turn.




Actually, you sometimes do save a turn.

If you always do average damage on all 6 successful hits, then no you save nothing in this example.

But people do not roll average damage most of the time. If you roll damage all over the place, yes this can and will on occassion be accomplished in 5 successful hits (or even 4 successful hits): e.g. 18, 21, 19, 23, 21 whereas without the +1 damage, it would have still been 6 successful hits: 17, 20, 18, 22, 20.


----------



## HardcoreDandDGirl (May 28, 2009)

so when is this going to end??

      is there any way to convince eaither side the other is right?

 is this becomeing just the new 'edtion war' a fight noone can win


----------



## DrSpunj (May 29, 2009)

Nail said:


> It was a _*nasty*_ fight (in a good way!).  I was convinced by round 2 that we had at least 2 deaths-on-the-way (because of your "Monsters will coup-de-grace" policy), and that without those 2 the rest of us were humped.




This is a misunderstanding and I'll inform the rest of the group to clarify on our website. Only _some_ monsters will attempt to coup-de-grace, usually only evil-smart foes or hungry-dumb ones, but by *no* means will all monsters attempt to CDG. As I stated last night at the end of the battle, these kobolds made no moves to do so though they could have on several occasions. That's very different than the hobgoblins the party has recently battled. With further investigation on the party's part the differences there may become more apparent, _but I have no policy about always CDGing PCs!_ 



> The only way we got through that battle is by pulling out absolutely _every power we had_, using every action point and scrap of healing we had, using every ounce of tactical acumen we had, and then hoping the dice turned our way.  By the time we emerged victorious, we were completely and utterly running on fumes.  I'm _entirely unconvinced _that we were "victims of <our> own success".




But that just supports my point, I think. The dice really _weren't_ going your way and you _still_ managed to pull out a victory with absolutely no one in any real danger of actually dying. By that I mean: having failed 2 death saves or within 1 reasonable round of dying by reaching minus bloodied hp. And that was just about the hardest encounter I can reasonably throw at the party and the dice were horribly against you. I know I rolled substantially above average since most all of my rolls were 14 or better, and I don't know how many rounds of combat we had but *Nail* missed with over half of his attacks (and with your base +11 attack you had a 50% chance of hitting the Defenders and 60% chance of hitting the Skirmishers, I know you weren't doing anywhere near that well!).

I wish we had some way to keep track of all our rolls for combats like this because I believe this combat the aggregate rolls were definitely skewed in my direction.


----------



## blargney the second (May 29, 2009)

How many daily powers were expended during that combat?
-blarg


----------



## Nail (May 29, 2009)

blargney the second said:


> How many daily powers were expended during that combat?



We're all 4th level, so we all have 1 Daily (not including utilities).   In the "nasty" battle we used 3 Dailies, IIRC.  I have *got* to get a better Daily for my fighter; it's just not as much of a "tide turner" as what the Cleric, Swordmage, and Warlord have.  I'd love a Daily like the rogue's "Blinding Barrage".  Oh well.


----------



## Nail (May 29, 2009)

DrSpunj said:


> This is a misunderstanding and I'll inform the rest of the group to clarify on our website.



I'm glad to hear it.  The night you surprised us with the "_Monsters will Coup de Grace_" policy, it seemed that you meant "from now on".   I'm very happy to hear that's not true.  I have misgivings about it for *any* monster group, but.... c'est la guerre.



DrSpunj said:


> .... with absolutely no one in any real danger of actually dying.



Ha! Now I *know* yer pulling my leg.



DrSpunj said:


> I wish we had some way to keep track of all our rolls for combats ...



Me too.  It'd help dispel this myth that switching dice helps.


----------



## DrSpunj (May 29, 2009)

Nail said:


> DrSpunj said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Sorry that something's got your leg, but *I* am not. 

Now, I don't want to kill PCs frequently, but I do want PC death to be a real possibility in the middle of Hard encounters and sometimes even Standard encounters where the party has very poor tactics.

However, PC death in 4th edition from what I've seen in our current campaign and the 8th level Dungeon Delve we did a few weeks ago (so admittedly limited to Heroic Tier) is NOT even likely in very Hard combats with poor party tactics and skewed die rolling like we had last night!

Maybe it's the fact that our party has 7 PCs. Maybe it's because we have 2 Leaders. Maybe it's because I'm doing something wrong with the combat challenges I'm putting together. Maybe it's because the party's tactics are always awesomely superb (but I don't think so!)  But not one PC in our games over 14 sessions now has come _close_ to dying.

Let me define that very clearly again:

A PC has missed two death saves and therefore on their next turn _could_ die (though our Swordmage in last night's big battle did miss one out of 2 or 3 rolls, the first time I can remember any PC having to make a death save in the last 6 sessions or so)
While dying the PC taken enough damage to fall into the bottom half of their negative bloodied HP total so that they are reasonably within one Coup de Grace attack of dying or will die because of ongoing damage that will kill them at the beginning of their next turn

Most 4e Heroic Tier combats last 7-8 rounds, with Hard encounters likely another 2-3 as a rough guess. With a 55% or better chance at making a death save that means a PC likely has to go without any healing of any kind for around 5-6 rounds before failing 3 death saves. That's very unlikely to happen even without all the ways the party has to heal in most combats.

Looking at dying by reaching negative bloodied HP and we have a critical hit we can factor in for the CDG attempt. Last night that would've been 11 dmg from either the Defenders or Sentries. Checking our party's squishes we have Bloodied values of:

Tiefling Warlock: Total of 44 hp so bloodied would be 22. That means we're looking at 2 CDG attempts to kill her.
Elven Ranger: Total of 41 hp so 20 here, still 2 CDGs to kill her.
Human Wizard: Calculated wrong, should be 45 with his Toughness feat so bloodied would be 22; again 2 CDGs necessary to kill him.
Of course the non-squishy PCs are taking most of the attacks & damage and CDGing them to death is even tougher to do.

Also keep in mind that the DM has likely already used all the cool, higher damaging Encounter and Recharging powers early in the combat and therefore they're not available typically in mid-to-late combat when a PC is dying. Just like the players, in the later rounds my bad guys are usually just utilizing their basic attacks unless I get lucky with a recharge roll.

Admittedly the party wasn't up against Lurkers or Brutes last night which would likely have a higher CDG damage output, but a quick perusal shows some of them doing 14-18 dmg on a critical, so it'd still probably take 2 CDGs to kill a PC.

To summarize, 4e in the Heroic Tier doesn't appear to be very deadly. That's not required to have fun, as I think last night's battle showed, but it's something that I feel is missing from our game as a middle ground between the standard "we'll be just fine, give us about 5 minutes" and a TPK.


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (May 29, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> You avoided the questions. What is the definition of a sub-optimal PC, and who decides that (since you rotate DMs), and how do the other players feel about that?




Dunno... consensus?



Nail said:


> He did "kinda" answer the question.  His answer is: "_We've not actually done it yet, this is all hypothetical._"




Thanks Nail, you got it!



KarinsDad said:


> Also, if a PC has problems hitting, one has to look at the reason. If you hand Expertise out to that PC at Paragon or higher level, maybe he will hit a lot at that point and the other PCs will appear to have consistent problems hitting.
> 
> What are the bonuses of the PC that has the problem and the other PCs? If they are about the same, do you penalize the other players because this player is unlucky?






Nail said:


> The point: How do you justify one player getting access to a feat, but not another player?  Even among long-time close friends, this is a serious question.




You are right guys... We still need to think this through... 

So, back to square one and the feat remains banned (even if no one in my group wants it)


----------



## Robert_Goodfellow (May 29, 2009)

*There is a debate... really?*

When you look at the math it's a simple question of how soon can I buy it, not a matter of if I should.  I'd also say that you DM is being a true butt-head if he is trying to ban it.

The power creep hasn't taken a hold yet (outside of Forgotten Realms), so I wouldn't fear that yet.

It seems to me that this feat was indeed a stealth errata.

As a player and DM I looked at the chances to hit and was very very very annoyed at how low the chance for success is.  They already lowered the DC of more skill/ability checks when realizing that the DCs were WAY too high.  I still don't think that the hit % is acceptable even with the presence of Weapon/Impliment Expertise.

WotC's feeling is that a min-maxed character will be super cool at a 60% chance to hit.  I completely disagree with this mentality, but that is a personal opinion and not necessarily a sign of bad game design.

In theory the game will be mostly played between 5th and 25th level.  As such, if the numbers of the game are balanced for those levels then I consider the system a success.  But in fact the game becomes less balanced with every level you gain.

They have established +Hit as the most expensive of all the modifications in the game.  I would argue to a ridiculous degree, but that's for another thread.

I think it's irresponsible of your DM to be affraid of his characters success rate.  That's a sign of an innability to balance encounters well.  I want my players to win, but I don't want to give it to them.

I love the feeling of seeing my players walk out of a fight they were certain they were going to loose, but some how made it through tooth and nail.  I especially love this feeling if I know that I did not pull any punches or give them any hand outs.  They won the fight out of tenacity, creativity, good character design and teamwork.

I think that as the game stands it is not possible to make an actually balanced character due to the break down of the basic math of the game.  The only way that I think this can be truely fixed is to adjust the numbers on the monster's defenses and attacks.  This is way too much work for most DMs though and so I suggest just giving your players a free Weapon/Implement Expertise.

That's what I do as a DM.  I'm still debating of if I should give it out at 1st level or 6th.


----------



## Lauberfen (May 29, 2009)

HardcoreDandDGirl said:


> so when is this going to end??
> 
> is there any way to convince eaither side the other is right?
> 
> is this becomeing just the new 'edtion war' a fight noone can win




I have no interest in an entrenched conflict as you are describing it.

My recent posts have just been about the mathematical claim that expertise is relatively more useful for underpowered characters, and thus levels the playing field. This is simply false, as it in fact widens the power gap between optimised and non-optimised- don't be confused by the number of posts to the contrary, they are almost all from the same poster!

As for the bigger issues, I accept that it's minor until 15th level. However it is still clearly too good as a feat, because of the multiple conditional +1 to hit feats which it supersedes.

I maintain that even at heroic tier it represents a feat tax, and this will become very clear from 15th level. I think this is the proving point- if 90% of characters have it at 15th level, the case for it being overpowered, a feat tax and a poor maths fix are proved.

That's always been my view, and I'm not terribly interested in arguing over those points. However if people insist on making untrue claims about the maths, or foolish comparisons to other incredibly situational feats then I may well challenge them.


----------



## Intense_Interest (May 29, 2009)

Lauberfen said:


> I maintain that even at heroic tier it represents a feat tax, and this will become very clear from 15th level. I think this is the proving point- if 90% of characters have it at 15th level, the case for it being overpowered, a feat tax and a poor maths fix are proved.
> 
> That's always been my view, and I'm not terribly interested in arguing over those points. However if people insist on making untrue claims about the maths, or foolish comparisons to other incredibly situational feats then I may well challenge them.




Once more into the breech, old friend.

We again use the phrase "feat tax" without defining it.  What is the meaning other than a post-hoc declamation?  That because 99% of some arbitrary cohort of players (15th level, people you know, play in a group that values hitting monsters) use the feat, it is a Tax to play for those players?

You use the phrase "feat tax" because you think the application is boring, not because of what it actually does.  We don't call "18 Attack Stat" an Attribute Tax, or having at least a +1 weapon by level 5 an Item Tax, or having a Taclord with to-hit bonus powers a "Group Composition Tax"- not because these factors are (within the cohort of players that optimize characters) used in 99% of groups- but because we find purchasing a feat that does nothing but make you smile when you roll an 8 _lame_.

Further, what about those players that take a different feat because it would work on all aspects of their character?  The split Cleric, Dragonborn mouth-breather, or whatever odd multiclasser you care to name.  Do they still pay a "feat tax" because they choose a feat that also increases their to-hit bonus in a different and limited way?  Because within that cohort of players, you can imagine that 90% of them also have a to-hit boosting feat of some sort as well.

Doesn't this mean that to-hit feats as a group are "feat taxes", because players want to purchase a feat that lets them hit more often?  Do players that spend a Superior Weapon profiency to wield a Greatspear instead of a Long Spear spending a Feat Tax for Spear Users?  Are strange race/class combinations that use suggested feats to "match up" to other combinations paying a "feat tax" to play them?

People spend feats to do stuff- that is what you do with them.  Expertise is a Great feat, but it isn't the only one nor is it going to be the only one. Just because you can't flip out and do cool stuff with it other than smile when you roll an 8 doesn't mean you're paying a Feat Tax to play the game.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 29, 2009)

Lauberfen said:


> I have no interest in an entrenched conflict as you are describing it.
> 
> My recent posts have just been about the mathematical claim that expertise is relatively more useful for underpowered characters, and thus levels the playing field. This is simply false, as it in fact widens the power gap between optimised and non-optimised- don't be confused by the number of posts to the contrary, they are almost all from the same poster!
> 
> ...






Yes, Laubefen, you are right when you are playing hit the bag of HP.

However you are wrong when:

a) playing solo vs a single high AC monster (reducing the time to kill the monster by half in best (worst) case: needing a 20 to hit vs needing a 19 or 20 to hit... it will be a grind neverless, but its only half as long...)

b) when your non Damage riders are better than the hyperoptimized ones
e.g.: 5% better chance to get a +4 to hit and damage for your teammates is better than a 5% increased chance to get a +2 to hit and damage for your mates...
noticeable about every 20th turn...

c) when you already hit 95% of the time...

p.s.: i never said it levels the playing field if all chars take it... see above

and constantly claiming i speak nonsense or that i am a fool is a bit rude... especially when I told you that you are right in your special case...

edit: there are no underpowered chars with 22 point buy method, but differently balanced... if you like to compare apples to oranges... go on...



> As for the bigger issues, I accept that it's minor until 15th level. However it is still clearly too good as a feat, because of the multiple conditional +1 to hit feats which it supersedes.




here we more or less agree... superseeding other feats... especially nimble blade is sad


----------



## KarinsDad (May 29, 2009)

Robert_Goodfellow said:


> I think that as the game stands it is not possible to make an actually balanced character due to the break down of the basic math of the game.  The only way that I think this can be truely fixed is to adjust the numbers on the monster's defenses and attacks.




The easy alternative is to use lower level monsters at Paragon and Epic levels and not allow Expertise.

-1 level at Paragon, -2 levels at Epic

What this does is without changing a single game element like PC numbers or monster numbers is:

1) Increases the PC's chances to hit by 2.
2) Increases the PC's defenses by 2.
3) Decreases the number of monster hit points (which is a grind issue for higher levels)

Also, one could increase the numbers of monsters if this adjustment seems too easy. For example, instead of 5 n monsters at Paragon, make it 6 n-1 monsters. Instead of 5 n monsters at Epic, make it 7 n-2.

This is a surprisingly easy adjustment to make which handles a significant portion of the math issues.


----------



## KarinsDad (May 29, 2009)

Intense_Interest said:


> We again use the phrase "feat tax" without defining it.  What is the meaning other than a post-hoc declamation?  That because 99% of some arbitrary cohort of players (15th level, people you know, play in a group that values hitting monsters) use the feat, it is a Tax to play for those players?
> 
> You use the phrase "feat tax" because you think the application is boring, not because of what it actually does.




I don't know about other people, but I call it a feat tax because that is what it is.

There are SO many feats now and so many different directions to go that ever feat is precious. When the game system is mathematically flawed such that a given feat is required to create a balanced playable PC at high levels, not only will everyone take that feat just to maintain the status quo, but everyone will lose a feat that they could have taken if the game system was NOT mathematically horked this way.

Hence, it is a feat tax one way or the other.

Either you pay the tax, or your PC pays by missing a lot.

The PHB II NAD feats are also a feat tax because their purpose is the same: to fix the stupid math bugs of high level.

Double taxation.


And for those people who do not believe that the math bugs exist, I cannot help you. A +3 to hit in a D20 game system is huge. A +4 to defense in a D20 game system is huge. Look at the vast majority of modifiers in the entire game system. Most are +1 or +2, dropped from the +2 and +4 of earlier editions. Such large adds HAVE to be due to a math bug (and of course, a simple spreadsheet verifies this).


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 29, 2009)

Robert_Goodfellow said:


> When you look at the math it's a simple question of how soon can I buy it, not a matter of if I should.  I'd also say that you DM is being a true butt-head if he is trying to ban it.






Lauberfen said:


> I have no interest in an entrenched conflict as you are describing it.



 wow you have a funny waya to show it...if you realy had no intrert in entenched conflict you would not entrench (In this case admit you are voiceing an opionion, and one others disagree with, so it is no way a fact...)



> As for the bigger issues, I accept that it's minor until 15th level. However it is still clearly too good as a feat, because of the multiple conditional +1 to hit feats which it supersedes.



 see you missed that whole opionon thing again... but I will meet you half way, I think it should only scale at 21st, so +1 until 21st then +2...



> the case for it being overpowered, a feat tax and a poor maths fix are proved.



 proved so well that people mount a debate against it...when you say you have proven something you should prove it beyond a resnable doubt...



> That's always been my view, and I'm not terribly interested in arguing over those points. However if people insist on making untrue claims about the maths, or foolish comparisons to other incredibly situational feats then I may well challenge them.



 so you ARE intrested in entrneched warfare...becuse you are looking for a fight...



Intense_Interest said:


> Once more into the breech, old friend.
> 
> We again use the phrase "feat tax" without defining it.



 funny how often that happens





> People spend feats to do stuff- that is what you do with them.  Expertise is a Great feat, but it isn't the only one nor is it going to be the only one. Just because you can't flip out and do cool stuff with it other than smile when you roll an 8 doesn't mean you're paying a Feat Tax to play the game.







KarinsDad said:


> I don't know about other people, but I call it a feat tax because that is what it is.
> 
> There are SO many feats now and so many different directions to go that ever feat is precious. When the game system is mathematically flawed such that a given feat is required to create a balanced playable PC at high levels, not only will everyone take that feat just to maintain the status quo, but everyone will lose a feat that they could have taken if the game system was NOT mathematically horked this way.



 so the game completly failed for 8+ months where no one could hit at epic levels, and we had post after post that didn't know why there characters where epic fail, then this feat came and ...well it went the other way, 90% of posters where fine, the only ones that thought anything was worng was in theory in the math, not in the game...so yea excuse me well I don't belive the problem exsits, becuse the 'fix' is what made people think there was a problem...



> Hence, it is a feat tax one way or the other.
> 
> Either you pay the tax, or your PC pays by missing a lot.



        or you are happy with your attack and hit rates, and chose something else...or you feel something else is more important to your character...



> The PHB II NAD feats are also a feat tax because their purpose is the same: to fix the stupid math bugs of high level.
> 
> Double taxation.



 that is dumb...it has been excepted for 20+ years that every character has weaknesses in there defence. now they still do. However they give options to up your weaknesses...and it is a tax becuse why? ph I know becuse you think all characters should have good defences across the board.




> And for those people who do not believe that the math bugs exist, I cannot help you. A +3 to hit in a D20 game system is huge. A +4 to defense in a D20 game system is huge. Look at the vast majority of modifiers in the entire game system. Most are +1 or +2, dropped from the +2 and +4 of earlier editions. Such large adds HAVE to be due to a math bug (and of course, a simple spreadsheet verifies this).




  your spreadsheet only takes what you want into account, not everything else. It is HUGE to gain a new class, It is HUGE to be able to cast rituels (giving you new options)...alot of feats are HUGE...


----------



## KarinsDad (May 29, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> so the game completly failed for 8+ months where no one could hit at epic levels, and we had post after post that didn't know why there characters where epic fail, then this feat came and ...well it went the other way, 90% of posters where fine, the only ones that thought anything was worng was in theory in the math, not in the game...so yea excuse me well I don't belive the problem exsits, becuse the 'fix' is what made people think there was a problem...




Sources?

It's easy to write anything. Do you have anything to back up your claim?

I know of one epic level player poster who claimed that it was grindy and harder to hit, but that eventually they won their encounters. And I also experienced this in my playtest (where some PCs had to roll 17s to hit a BBEG).

And other people have had similar experiences:

D&D 4th Edition: PHB 2 - Quarter To Three Forums



> I think I'm already starting to see this in our level 10-11 character campaign. We're fighting stuff all the time where we routinely need over 30 to hit. Even with +14 bonuses, that's not easy.






> My experience with some Paragon and Epic level play is that, pre-Weapon/Implement Exerptise, characters had to start looking for external bonuses or Aid Another actions to reliably hit enemies with big attacks at high levels.
> 
> If you're in a party with a ranged leader who can grant bonuses to any attack you like, it works pretty well; if you were without a leader who granted to-hit bonuses, or one who only granted them to melee attacks (like many warlords) you could run into the situation where you had to work really hard to get a 50% or better hit chance (often through aid another.)
> 
> While Leader synergy was intended, screwing casters and making people rely on Aid Another actions was not.


----------



## DrSpunj (May 29, 2009)

Robert_Goodfellow said:


> I'd also say that you DM is being a true butt-head if he is trying to ban it.




Well, Mr. _Goodfellow_, in case you haven't actually read the entire nine pages in this thread you've just insulted *me* directly since I'm his DM.

Since I've made several posts in the thread, constructive ones I hope, I'd ask you to please read them and rebut anything in particular you disagree with.

But I'd very much appreciate you _not_ being insulting to me or anyone else with generalizations and unhelpful characterizations while we try to continue the discussion.

By your post count it's possible you're a newcomer here. If so, welcome! And to avoid any future misunderstandings please read the forum FAQs or touch base with a Moderator if you have any questions for them.

Thank you, and have a nice day!


----------



## Nail (May 29, 2009)

DrSpunj said:


> ...To summarize, 4e in the Heroic Tier doesn't appear to be very deadly.



That's a good analysis.  Thanks!

FWIW: I think if you took a poll of all of the players (me included!), you'd find we think your campaign is deadly enough, thank-you-very-much.    (I'm thinking of several conversations after the night's gaming is over.)  So although your analysis of the numbers is spot-on, I think the problem you perceive just isn't there...for the players, anyway.


----------



## Nail (May 29, 2009)

DrSpunj said:


> But I'd very much appreciate you _not_ being insulting to me or anyone else with generalizations and unhelpful characterizations while we try to continue the discussion.



Agreed.


----------



## blargney the second (May 29, 2009)

DrSpunj said:


> The dice really _weren't_ going your way and you _still_ managed to pull out a victory with absolutely no one in any real danger of actually dying. By that I mean: having failed 2 death saves or within 1 reasonable round of dying by reaching minus bloodied hp.



Personally, I'd call any PC in single digit hps or less to be in danger of dying.  Every round of unconsciousness is a round where one of your players is sitting around inactive at the table.  They'll still feel the same anxiousness about their character's life when they're in single digit hps, but at least they get to do something.

If you look at the fight from that perspective, how many PCs were in single digit hps or less over the course of the fight?
-blarg


----------



## Bayuer (May 29, 2009)

@GMforPowergamers
I admire you ignorance. Did you even made some steps to look how the game is on higher levels? Do you know how basic math looks at epic? Gap is huge.

I noticed it first, when my party reached paragon tier. There was something wrong with NADs. Monster hitted us on very low dice rolls. The PHB2 comes out and Experitse and NADs feats makes me think. I made math crunch. And here we are. The problem existed, but we all were newbies in 4E so we didn't exacly know if there something wrong in system, or everything is just fine and as it should be.

To be honest. Yes you can play withou Expertise and NAD feats, but it's completly boring for all the players. Even worst it give a DM a powerfull weapon to ruin the session. The only person who will enjoy such a session is powergaming DM, who thinks this game is about destroying PCs or "make them suffer".

Maybe everything will be ok, if some DMs will not make huge mistakes when they design fights. I can be pretty sure many DMs use monster of higher level than party all the time. If this is in n+1 to n+3 (wher n is party level) things should be quite ok, but when DM will use some low level monsters too. In practice I think most DM use very high level monsters. If this is soldier then grind can kick your ass to the bottom of abbys. Anyway such a fights should be playable. So we need better NADs and to hit chances.

*Bing
PHB2 comes out.

Many may argue that +1 to hit will not change DPR, will be not good etc. There were non such a feats before PHB2 and there are plenty of the same feats with feat tag, making you character able to gain +6 to hit on epic tier. We have revolution here. Anyone who claims thats nonse can't look wide at changes that were made, or just don't know the system well.


----------



## DrSpunj (May 29, 2009)

blargney the second said:


> Personally, I'd call any PC in single digit hps or less to be in danger of dying.  Every round of unconsciousness is a round where one of your players is sitting around inactive at the table.  They'll still feel the same anxiousness about their character's life when they're in single digit hps, but at least they get to do something.




Good points, and I'm really not trying to equate death with fun for me as the DM or any of my players. There are plenty of threads describing how unfun it is to be nearly perpetually stunned and the dying condition is certainly along those same lines. However in this battle the two PCs that were dying at the same time had (foolishly  ) separated themselves a bit from the rest of the party and roughly a third of the kobolds ganged up on them and took them down. They were making other saves at the same time and participating in other ways so I don't really consider them "inactive".

The Swordmage was making death saves and saving against the Defenders _None Shall Pass_ recharging ability which made him immobilized and gave him a -2 penalty to all defenses (save ends both). He shook it off before being healed so he was able to rejoin the battle quickly after a few rounds of death saves (again, only missed 1 of those).

The downed Warlock was affected by that ability as well as the Sentries' _Mighty Strike_ ability causing 5 ongoing damage. She made her death saves for the couple rounds she was down but failed against the ongoing damage so she really was getting nervous each round as her hp kept dropping. She never did shake off the immobilizing condition and failed that save for about 6 rounds straight though after being healed she was able to participate further in the battle with her Eldritch Blast to take out nearly dead mobs that were beating on the other PCs about 9 or 10 squares away from her.

So while they were dying they were making multiple saves and were able to participate during other players' turns with battle strategy and advice. Happily not "inactive".



> If you look at the fight from that perspective, how many PCs were in single digit hps or less over the course of the fight?




Those two who each only dropped once but stayed within a surge's worth of 0 after they got up until the battle's end. I think the only other person that dropped was the TacLord who only had 2 healing surges going into the battle and used them both. He was standing at the end because of the Cleric's _Cure Light Wounds_ power.

*Nail* is a battleraging fighter and I'm pretty sure I never got him into the bottom quarter of his HP. The Wizard I managed to bloody once but he and the Ranger & Cleric all did a very good job of largely staying out of range of most attacks and enemies. The only artillery I had in the fight were the 6 javelin throwing minions all of which were the first to appear scattered around the cave/party and were all dead by the 2nd round. I think I landed 2 or 3 javelin attacks each doing 5 dmg. First blood to the kobolds. 

The kobolds were purposefully using their Shifty abilities and greater numbers to tag-team, flank & gang up on a single PC as much as possible so those I attacked I usually hit pretty hard over the course of a couple rounds. The others really didn't get focused on that much.

With my complaints about how hard it is to actually kill a PC I'm partially here thinking of a battle from 2 session ago where the party was split up across a river against 3 Dire Wolves, 2 Hobgoblin Soldiers & 2 Hobgoblin Archers. In that battle I literally dropped the Swordmage *6* times before I got the chance to CDG him (and of course that occurred right after the player left to go home early and since those were the first enemies the party was fighting against in the campaign that would CDG I didn't want to do it without him being present! I guess I'm a big softy.  )


----------



## blargney the second (May 29, 2009)

So if I understand correctly, an offense boosting is banned because you're having a hard time getting through their defenses?
-blarg


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 30, 2009)

Bayuer said:


> @GMforPowergamers
> I admire you ignorance.



 wow I admire your ability to run away and hide behind personal attacks instead of responding to what I said...it makes it much easier to ignore your selfserving numbers when you do the same with everything I say...




> Did you even made some steps to look how the game is on higher levels? Do you know how basic math looks at epic? Gap is huge.



      first I know the numbers...second I played 2nd-27th level pre PHBII, and you know what I found...it got harder as we fought more and more powerful monsters, but we could compansatge and still win the day at every point...without the feats...I also saw and spoke to many people with simalar experiances, I also have an entire char op board that made A habit of makeing powerhouse character even so far as to make characters that could solo orcus...without these feats...So that gap may be there, but there are ways to deal with it. It is not crippling. HOWEVER there were some people who had some problems, and this feat is perfect for them, but not everyone...



> I noticed it first, when my party reached paragon tier. There was something wrong with NADs. Monster hitted us on very low dice rolls.



 oh noes PCs got hit...how horrable that isn't suppose to happen...



> The PHB2 comes out and Experitse and NADs feats makes me think. I made math crunch. And here we are. The problem existed, but we all were newbies in 4E so we didn't exacly know if there something wrong in system, or everything is just fine and as it should be.



  and we here with +2 months expeariance can now say we grew enough to say without a doubt...oh wait we are still less then a year into the system and we are still learneing, and guess what...no one is an expert yet....



> To be honest. Yes you can play withou Expertise and NAD feats, but it's completly boring for all the players.



    Prove that... I can prove that there are groups not completly boared without it...heck I don't even know the players or DM of the group, but they posted here...



> Even worst it give a DM a powerfull weapon to ruin the session. The only person who will enjoy such a session is powergaming DM, who thinks this game is about destroying PCs or "make them suffer".



     yea just look at how it destoryies nail fun...oh wait nail is still enjoying the game he plays...correct me if I am wrong



> Maybe everything will be ok, if some DMs will not make huge mistakes when they design fights. I can be pretty sure many DMs use monster of higher level than party all the time. If this is in n+1 to n+3 (wher n is party level) things should be quite ok, but when DM will use some low level monsters too. In practice I think most DM use very high level monsters. If this is soldier then grind can kick your ass to the bottom of abbys. Anyway such a fights should be playable. So we need better NADs and to hit chances.




     so what fight is unplayable again???  Adult red dragon lv 15 solo Vs 11th level PC...it seamed like a fun fight when I ran it...before PHBII was leaked at all, back when I was hopeing it would have psionics in it...




> Many may argue that +1 to hit will not change DPR,



 maybe you need to pay closer attention to what we argue...I see no one saying that. I said DPR is BS and i no way refelct the reality of the game...but not that this doesn't change it...




> There were non such a feats before PHB2



so should we use the metric that there are nothing like X yet, so X must not work???? That seams very limiting, like new things can't be made that are not reskined old things...



> and there are plenty of the same feats with feat tag, making you character able to gain +6 to hit on epic tier. We have revolution here.



  Yes we have a revolution in that the Devs realized the game was NOT so weak that it couldn't support att increasin feats. They learned this WONT break the system, and can enhance the fun for players...wow something we agree on, that this changes the way the game works...Of cource I see it for change that is ok/good, you see it as bad/end of the world...but it is astart...



> Anyone who claims thats nonse can't look wide at changes that were made, or just don't know the system well.



       Anyone who claims people who disagree with them 'don't know the system' is guilty of attacking instead of listening. If you assume you are right, and all arguments against you are dumb...then it is real easy to say "Everyone who matters agrees"
         I on the other side say "There is still alot of fleshing out this needs, and we should take a wait and see attitude"...


----------



## DrSpunj (May 30, 2009)

blargney the second said:


> So if I understand correctly, an offense boosting is banned because you're having a hard time getting through their defenses?




Nope. It's banned for now, at Heroic Tier, because:

It seems unnecessary at the current time: with good teamwork the party is having very little problem hitting even Soldiers of Level+2 _with average die rolls_   With the new Solo guidelines discussed in the latest Podcast and what I've seen in MM2 so far (not really through much of it yet) I don't expect problems going forward with Solos and newer monsters either
Overpowered compared to other feats: I don't like how these feats trump most other attack boosting feats at Paragon & Epic tiers of play; this is not a big consideration at Heroic but there are still some feats that are clearly overshadowed by it
Poor implementation: I don't like how this feat affects all or most attacks for some PCs and by its nature is not as helpful to some classes or attacks (like a Dragonborn's breath weapon) if it is in fact a "math fix" necessary for all PC attacks
I haven't yet found an easy way to tweak it or house rule it that makes me comfortable: I've considered making it a power bonus to reign in its power but I think that makes some teamwork actually less likely & helpful. I've also thought of making it a Paragon level feat that adds a flat +1 bonus or maybe scales to +2 at Epic.
I'm not a fan of granting a boon and then asking for it back down the road as I expect it will lead to some bad feelings if players still don't agree there's a problem. This gaming group is only about 6 months old, while a few of us have known each other for years we're not all old friends. I'm more likely to just try and compensate by increasing the mobs and I don't want to even start down that road if I don't have to.
I always have the option of "unbanning" it later if I'm convinced otherwise and letting my players retrain if they want to take down the road

I am still waiting for the WotC article Mearls apparently spoke about for DDI that explains some of what WotC was thinking with the Expertise feats. I'm hoping that will make me feel more comfortable with this line of feats.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 30, 2009)

red dragon:
HP 750; Bloodied 375; see also bloodied breath
AC 33; Fortitude 33, Reflex 30, Will 29

Avrage 11th PC party... each has a +3 weap/imp

Rogue (18 att stat to start) useing a dagger +17 Vs reflex/AC (needs 13/16)
Fighter (18 att stat to start) useing Longsword +17 Vs AC (needs 16)
Wizard (20 att stat to start) useing Orb +14 Vs Will (Needs 15)
Cleric  (16 att stat to start)  Useing Mace +14 Vs AC/HS +11 Vs Ref (need 19/19) 
Ranger (18 att stat to start) using Longbow +16 Vs AC (needs 17 2+ rolls)

        looks like a hard fight...if they work togather and get CA most rounds the rogue is almost at 50/50, but he is the most accurate in the group. If the Cleric has a good buff like Blass now would be a good time to use it, sevral memebers could have autodamage attacks. And if they get real lucky they will miss with there daily not there encounters (sounds backwards, but dailys have miss and effect, encounters missed are often lost actions). If the wizard has zones and such it getts even better for the PCs


      the group I ran through this didn't have a cleric...it had a tac lord that gave +2 to hit on suprise and 1st round... and then when we spent APs we got +3 att +6 or 7 damage. Heck these are pretty generic characters with no real magic items, and againt he fight seams very likely to be HARD, but not unwinable...


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 30, 2009)

DrSpunj said:


> I am still waiting for the WotC article Mearls apparently spoke about for DDI that explains some of what WotC was thinking with the Expertise feats. I'm hoping that will make me feel more comfortable with this line of feats.




yea, me too. I bet thought it will have optional rules for 'adjested math' if you feel it is needed instead. However it wont force the extra power upgrade on people who do not need it...


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (May 30, 2009)

DrSpunj said:


> Nope. It's banned for now, at Heroic Tier, because:
> 
> It seems unnecessary at the current time: with good teamwork the party is having very little problem hitting even Soldiers of Level+2 _with average die rolls_   With the new Solo guidelines discussed in the latest Podcast and what I've seen in MM2 so far (not really through much of it yet) I don't expect problems going forward with Solos and newer monsters either
> Overpowered compared to other feats: I don't like how these feats trump most other attack boosting feats at Paragon & Epic tiers of play; this is not a big consideration at Heroic but there are still some feats that are clearly overshadowed by it
> ...




Excellent summary! I completely agree!



DrSpunj said:


> I am still waiting for the WotC article Mearls apparently spoke about for DDI that explains some of what WotC was thinking with the Expertise feats. I'm hoping that will make me feel more comfortable with this line of feats.




However, the fact that this promised article has not yet come tells me that some people in WotC are not very proud of that feat, for whatever reason...


----------



## blargney the second (May 30, 2009)

DrSpunj said:


> Nope. It's banned for now, at Heroic Tier, because:
> <list>



Fair enough! 

It occurs to me that some of the difficulty you're having threatening PCs may be a direct result of having a big party.  Taclords in particular tend to magnify force, and the more allies the better.  Two extra PCs means an extra action point every fight, each of which has a significant attack (and possibly damage) bonus.  More PCs kicking around means at any given time there's a better chance of someone with a good basic melee attack being in the right spot for him to _commander's strike_ efficiently.

Finally, with two leaders in the party, that's a heck of a lot of healing to go around. Especially if the players have reasonably good tactics and can funnel incoming damage and subsequent healing to the right spots.
-blarg


----------



## Elric (May 30, 2009)

blargney the second said:


> Fair enough!
> 
> It occurs to me that some of the difficulty you're having threatening PCs may be a direct result of having a big party.




To add to this a bit: Not being able to hurt the Battlerager Fighter speaks more to the power of the Battlerager Fighter than to the default challenge of the game, or the encounters you're creating.  Even a non-Con bonus race can take 16 Con/Improved Vigor for 4 temp HP at level 5 and the "normal damage expression" for level 5 in the DMG is only 9.5 average damage.  It's not like Con-fighters would be weak if they couldn't be battleragers!  You'd probably have to go out of your way to increase the number of ranged attackers compared to what you'd normally use to consistently threaten your Battlerager Fighter ("over-damaged" Brutes like guard drakes could also do the trick).



DrSpunj said:


> Overpowered compared to other feats: I don't like how these feats trump most other attack boosting feats at Paragon & Epic tiers of play; this is not a big consideration at Heroic but there are still some feats that are clearly overshadowed by it
> Poor implementation: I don't like how this feat affects all or most attacks for some PCs and by its nature is not as helpful to some classes or attacks (like a Dragonborn's breath weapon) if it is in fact a "math fix" necessary for all PC attacks
> I haven't yet found an easy way to tweak it or house rule it that makes me comfortable: I've considered making it a power bonus to reign in its power but I think that makes some teamwork actually less likely & helpful. I've also thought of making it a Paragon level feat that adds a flat +1 bonus or maybe scales to +2 at Epic.





If you find Expertise unnecessary to alter the math at the heroic tier, and don't like the implementation, you could ban the feat and give players a +1 to hit upon reaching Paragon levels, which improves to +2 to hit at epic levels.  This keeps the math of the game only slightly behind what it would be with the Expertise feats and avoids the problems caused by the feats.


----------



## DrSpunj (May 30, 2009)

blargney the second said:


> It occurs to me that some of the difficulty you're having threatening PCs may be a direct result of having a big party.  <snip> Finally, with two leaders in the party, that's a heck of a lot of healing to go around. Especially if the players have reasonably good tactics and can funnel incoming damage and subsequent healing to the right spots.




I think that's much of it. The current party make up is:

Dwarven Battle Cleric: savvy & tactical player, one of the PCs I believe counts as optimized
Human TacLord: the player is growing into his abilities & role, getting better with each session, and *Nail* nudges him (appropriately IMO) on occasion given that he plays a TacLord in another game and is familiar with many of the same powers
*Nail*'s Human Battlerager Fighter: obviously the one most familiar with the rules & 4e in general at the table (including me!), very tactical but tends to roll low much of the time 
Genasi (earth) Swordmage: just retooled with AP for the ensnaring aegis, good knowledge of his PC & the rules
Elven Archery Ranger: Greatbow, Bracers of Archery, has a lot of fun with Twin Strike and Elven Accuracy, our most consistent Striker
Tiefling Hellfire Warlock: newbie player, D&D 4e I believe is her first RPG, not overly familiar with the rules or her PC's abilities, we recently discovered most all of her numbers were low because her boyfriend (Swordmage player) hadn't checked over what she'd done, usually takes the advice of whoever is helping her when her turn comes up
Human Staff Wizard: player is frequently gone so this PC has been played by a few "guest of the week" players, by the group as a committee, and occasionally by another player doubling up on their PC duties, last session by *Nail* alone for this big battle

While they certainly aren't _mostly_ optimized they do play pretty coherently as a group now after over a dozen sessions. We have a lot of fun, which I'm very happy about because I want to hold up my end of our DM-Player bargain!


----------



## KarinsDad (May 30, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> red dragon:
> HP 750; Bloodied 375; see also bloodied breath
> AC 33; Fortitude 33, Reflex 30, Will 29
> 
> ...




Hard?

Assuming Bless, that's 55% Rogue damage + 40% Fighter damage (assuming CA every round too) + 35% Wizard damage + 15% Cleric damage + 25% Ranger damage per round. And, many other bonuses by powers to attack rolls are power bonuses, so they will not stack with Bless.

If each Striker PC averages 30 points of damage on a successful hit (successful round in the case of the Ranger) and each non-Striker PC averages 20 points of damage on a successful hit, that's in the ballpark of 42 points of damage per round or 18 rounds to defeat the Red Dragon. Maybe a few less due to Action Points and sustainable Dailies, but probably more due to the PCs having to fall back on At Will powers after 8 rounds or so where their damage drops considerably (it depends on whether they have daily items that are offensive and how many of those they can use).

Even averaging more damage per successful hit will only drop it a few rounds at most. And of course, most parties will not have +3 weapons for every party member at level 11 (it's possible, but unlikely unless the DM hands out magic weapons with no special attributes, or always hands out magic weapons first).

That's a pretty long encounter. And, it assumes that none of the PCs are stunned by Frightful Presence, none of the PCs go unconscious, and the Dragon just dukes it out on the ground with the PCs instead of grabbing the Cleric or Wizard, killing him in the air or dropping him or doing Flyby attacks, etc. All of these extend the encounter which gives an advantage to the Dragon.

The Dragon also has reach and hover. It can hover above the group and attack at will without being attacked back as hard by melee foes (shy of a Ready action or throwing inferior weapons maybe). For the most part, it can ignore the Fighter's mark and its breath weapon will hit most of the PCs in the area a high percentage of the time on an average of 8+ rounds (1 first round, 1 bloodied, and 1 round in 3 recharge).

All in all, if the DM runs this Dragon intelligently, agressively, and three dimensionally, it should win this battle most of the time due to attrition and forcing the melee PCs to sit around watching or using inferior ranged attacks (like thrown daggers or a crossbow without sneak attack damage or thrown javelins).

If the Rogue cannot often Sneak Attack, one of the two main damage dealers is out of the picture. Even with the tail attack, there is no reason for the Dragon to fight on the ground and give Combat Advantage to the Rogue and the Fighter. Without that, the damage per round drops to about 33 points per round and that alone ups the encounter by as much as 5 more rounds (depending on how often the Rogue and Fighter can still get CA).

If played smart, this is beyond just a hard encounter. IMO.

Btw, free Weapon Expertise increases the average damage per round from 42 to about 48, lowering it from 18+ rounds to 16+. Not a huge gain, but some.


----------



## HardcoreDandDGirl (May 30, 2009)

this fight will never end you all need to learn to bend alittle


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 30, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> Hard?
> 
> 
> Assuming Bless, that's 55% Rogue damage + 40% Fighter damage (assuming CA every round too) + 35% Wizard damage + 15% Cleric damage + 25% Ranger damage per round. And, many other bonuses by powers to attack rolls are power bonuses, so they will not stack with Bless.



 yep hard fight close to twice the average round of combat (average is 10 this should take about 15-20) by the way most of those power bonuses that wont stack with Bless give more then +1 so it is +1 whole fight (equal to expertise) and +X-1 to the attacks that the other benefits come up. Funny how you dismiss out of hand a bonus equal to this feat…





> If each Striker PC averages 30 points of damage on a successful hit (successful round in the case of the Ranger) and each non-Striker PC averages 20 points of damage on a successful hit, that's in the ballpark of 42 points of damage per round or 18 rounds to defeat the Red Dragon. Maybe a few less due to Action Points and sustainable Dailies, but probably more due to the PCs having to fall back on At Will powers after 8 rounds or so where their damage drops considerably (it depends on whether they have daily items that are offensive and how many of those they can use).



 Ok what about auto damage powers and minor action stuff, or heck how about non damage powers...by the way i think your avrg is low for a 11th level party (I know the op board says fighter at wills average 50+ damage in paragon I assume strikers can at least come close to that) but even so ok...





> Even averaging more damage per successful hit will only drop it a few rounds at most. And of course, most parties will not have +3 weapons for every party member at level 11 (it's possible, but unlikely unless the DM hands out magic weapons with no special attributes, or always hands out magic weapons first).



 well I figured if you made an 11th level part and got level+1 level and level -1...if you have PCs grown organically there is no way to guess...so I went expected… the treasure packets give level +X items though where (I believe) +4 is doable, so you start getting +3 weapon/implements at level 7…





> That's a pretty long encounter. And, it assumes that none of the PCs are stunned by Frightful Presence, none of the PCs go unconscious, and the Dragon just dukes it out on the ground with the PCs instead of grabbing the Cleric or Wizard, killing him in the air or dropping him or doing Flyby attacks, etc. All of these extend the encounter which gives an advantage to the Dragon.



 wait so the hardest fight you can fight at your level is hard enough that it is TPK possible, and at the same time still possible to win...seams like as intended to me...Again what do you expect the HARDEST fair encounter should be?? 





> The Dragon also has reach and hover. It can hover above the group and attack at will without being attacked back as hard by melee foes (shy of a Ready action or throwing inferior weapons maybe). For the most part, it can ignore the Fighter's mark and its breath weapon will hit most of the PCs in the area a high percentage of the time on an average of 8+ rounds (1 first round, 1 bloodied, and 1 round in 3 recharge).



 Inless the rogue or wizard uses a power that knock it prone, or daze it...every time I have tried such a tactic as hover/invulnerable the PCs have found a way to bring the fight back tot eh ground... Walking wounded is the one I get hit with the most, although an eladrin rouge once used topel over (melee only) by fey steping up to use it… 





> All in all, if the DM runs this Dragon intelligently, agressively, and three dimensionally, it should win this battle most of the time due to attrition and forcing the melee PCs to sit around watching or using inferior ranged attacks (like thrown daggers or a crossbow without sneak attack damage or thrown javelins).



 see there is the problem you assume the DM/Dragon be played to the hilt, but the PCs are on bot mode...How many powers knock prone...I went to the compendium

Wizard: 9 (I bet all of these are range)

Rouge: 4 (I know at least 1 is ranged

Ranger 2 (I assume at least 1 is ranged)

Cleric 2 (I know at least command is ranged)

Fighter 7 (I assume most are melee only if not all)

so it is not unrealistic to assume atleast 1 PC can... and remember once you get it down the fighter can mark it, and it is stuck…opp attacks hit MORE often, and stop move

next lets do stun shall we…





> If the Rogue cannot often Sneak Attack, one of the two main damage dealers is out of the picture.



 why can't he again?





> Even with the tail attack, there is no reason for the Dragon to fight on the ground and give Combat Advantage to the Rogue and the Fighter. Without that, the damage per round drops to about 33 points per round and that alone ups the encounter by as much as 5 more rounds (depending on how often the Rogue and Fighter can still get CA).



 There are ways other then flanking if that is your only metric...





> If played smart, this is beyond just a hard encounter. IMO.



 If the players play smart it is an average encounter...especially if they knew it was coming and held an action point...
        Infact I think the one thing we can both agree on is in ANY fair fight if one side is played as dumb, and the other is played tactically then the smart side has a way easier time of it… Dumb dragon = easier fight…Smart Dragon= Harder fight…Dumb player=TPK… smart player= more of a chance…





> Btw, free Weapon Expertise increases the average damage per round from 42 to about 48, lowering it from 18+ rounds to 16+. Not a huge gain, but some.



 so why give it for free when PCs can choose to take it...


       Just to give you an idea of what happens when this is all said and done, remember that the HARDEST soldier (Highest def) you could throw at the party is still beatable (all be it with luck and skill) how ever all that proves is how awesome the design of 4e is…

     By the way notice none of them have paragon paths…if the rouge is criting on 18+, And the fighter gets another +1 to hit, just those two classes get dpr (man I feel dirty using that metric) increases…







Amphimir Míriel said:


> However, the fact that this promised article has not yet come tells me that some people in WotC are not very proud of that feat, for whatever reason...



 or that it is being worked on...again look at my post about multi groups of players...WotC has to balance these things.


----------



## Nail (May 30, 2009)

DrSpunj said:


> Dwarven Battle Cleric: savvy & tactical player, one of the PCs I believe counts as optimized



He rocks.  Seriously, this PC saves our bacon almost every combat.


DrSpunj said:


> Human TacLord: the player is growing into his abilities & role, getting better with each session, and Nail nudges him (appropriately IMO) on occasion given that he plays a TacLord in another game and is familiar with many of the same powers



His growth as a taclord has been cool to see.  Now if only we could keep him from getting dropped in these big battles.....







DrSpunj said:


> *Nail*'s Human Battlerager Fighter: obviously the one most familiar with the rules & 4e in general at the table (including me!), very tactical but tends to roll low much of the time.



Arrrrrrgggggg!!!!  <shakes fist at stars, ruefully chuckles> Ah well.

Perhaps now my motivations for wanting Weapon Expertise are clearer: I need all th' help I can get!


----------



## Nail (May 30, 2009)

HardcoreDandDGirl said:


> this fight will never end you all need to learn to bend alittle



Some can, some can't.  It's the way of things.

BTW, *HardcoreDandDGirl*, very cool sig!


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 30, 2009)

Nail, how high is your strength and which weapon and armor do you use?

if you build a battlerager with hammer and chain shirt and high constitution, i bet you will profit a lot from expertise, and your contribution will result in shortening the combat...

high damage, low hit chance is the perfect "expertise audience"

@ dragon: reducing 18 rounds to 16 rounds... I am very impressed...

the question is always, what price do you have to pay for this "tax"... if it is HP pr defenses, or healing surges, your PCs might have a better chance to survive 18 round than those 16...

@GM for powergames: I am glad your experience more or less supports my theorie...

@ giving it out for free... seems unreasonable... in the first 15 levels it is a real choice if its worth to take it... maybe give the extra +1 and +2 bonus at 15th and 25th level to everyone... or noone... doesn´t matter


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 30, 2009)

Nail said:


> His growth as a taclord has been cool to see.  Now if only we could keep him from getting dropped in these big battles.....Arrrrrrgggggg!!!!  <shakes fist at stars, ruefully chuckles> Ah well.




I had a simalar problem early in my days as a warlord...then my mom of all people helped me out (Non gamer, and barely pays attention to this kinda thing)
     she herd me talking about what a hard choice of who to heal first was and she remeinded me of airplanes and air masks...the first thing they tell parents of small children is that you should put your own mask on first...becuse it does no one any good i f you pass out. 
     taking that to a D&D mind frame I found Second wind was a good option for the warlord...I may loss my attack (inless I am a dwarf) but by keeping myself in the game I help the team more then a few extra points of damage will....

I hope that helps...


----------



## Lauberfen (May 30, 2009)

For goodness sake.

In my post I expressly accepted that my position is just opinion, and that the test would be when a significant number of characters reach 15+, to see how many have expertise.

The _only_ points I was genuinely contending are that 'relative improvement for less optimised players' is false, and has been demonstrated in these pages, and that expertise cannot meaningfully be compared to feats which can only benefit a few specific builds.

I fully accept that the rest is opinion. I hold that a feat tax is one that so many of _all_ players take at a given level that it becomes a meaningless choice. I don't have the data for this, but I imagine this becomes the case shortly after 15th level.

Out of interest, who here has a PC at 16th level who could take expertise and hasn't, and who has a pc who has taken it?


----------



## KarinsDad (May 30, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> yep hard fight close to twice the average round of combat (average is 10 this should take about 15-20) by the way most of those power bonuses that wont stack with Bless give more then +1 so it is +1 whole fight (equal to expertise) and +X-1 to the attacks that the other benefits come up. Funny how you dismiss out of hand a bonus equal to this feat…




I only dismiss it for three reasons:

1) Most such powers require a successful hit to work.
2) Most such powers last for a turn instead of the entire encounter like Bless.
3) Most such powers affect one ally instead of all 5 PCs like Bless.

So, most such powers are white noise. Yup, they help. Nope, they aren't typically worth discussing with regard to whether the encounter should be a success or not, or how long the encounter lasts.

And what happens if the Cleric does not have Bless or if the Cleric cast it already this day?

My analysis gave the benefit of the doubt to the PCs.



GMforPowergamers said:


> Ok what about auto damage powers and minor action stuff, or heck how about non damage powers...by the way i think your avrg is low for a 11th level party (I know the op board says fighter at wills average 50+ damage in paragon I assume strikers can at least come close to that) but even so ok...




Average successful hit.

Over an extended period of time, not just one power.

Feel free to point out exact examples where these PCs can average more than what I wrote.

I was not assuming super optimized PCs from the optimization boards, just normally optimized PCs that would be found in most games.

I'll gladly bow to any legitimate numbers that you can back up with details.



GMforPowergamers said:


> well I figured if you made an 11th level part and got level+1 level and level -1...if you have PCs grown organically there is no way to guess...so I went expected… the treasure packets give level +X items though where (I believe) +4 is doable, so you start getting +3 weapon/implements at level 7…




Yup. At level 7, a PC could acquire a +3 weapon with no special powers. Or, +3 armor, or +3 Cloak, or a +2 item with special abilities.

The point is that is it unlikely that all 5 PCs in a normal campaign would have +3 weapons at level 11. Possible, yes. Likely, no.

And that affects the analysis. We assumed so for simplicity, but that is not typical so I pointed it out.



GMforPowergamers said:


> wait so the hardest fight you can fight at your level is hard enough that it is TPK possible, and at the same time still possible to win...seams like as intended to me...Again what do you expect the HARDEST fair encounter should be??




You missed my point. I did not think a TPK was just possible.

I thought a TPK was likely if the Dragon does not fight on the ground.



GMforPowergamers said:


> see there is the problem you assume the DM/Dragon be played to the hilt, but the PCs are on bot mode...




Nope. I didn't assume the PCs are on bot mode. I just don't see where they have a big enough gun.

I assumed the Dragon to be played intelligently and the PCs to be played intelligently (even though some PCs might have Int 8, an Int 13 Dragon should be as tactically capable as they are).

Doing Hover and Attack is not playing the Dragon to the hilt either. It's Dragon 101. Attacking a single foe until it is dead, especially a Cleric once he heals or a Wizard if he drops conditions on the Dragon, is Dragon 101.

An Adult Red Dragon is 400 to 900 years old (give or take). It should have learned some lessons in that timeframe. The game is Dungeons and *Dragons*. A Dragon should never be played like a putz.

The Dragon could drop rocks from 300 feet up outdoors and never get counterattacked. The Dragon could have traps. The Dragon could have allies. That would be playing the Dragon to the hilt (and yes, that would up the XP, but the point is that the Dragon should be prepared to do that if necessary).

As DMs, we often think in two dimensional terms instead of three dimensional terms.

Use all of the abilities of the Dragon, not just some of them. And, focus fire.

But, the Dragon should not fight to the death. If it is about 75% wounded and there are still 3 or more PCs standing, it should flee.

This is a 400 to 900 year old Dragon. It should not be stupid enough to stick around. Dragon 101. Go buy a small army of monsters with a little treasure and come back and attack the PCs when they are vulnerable. Then, replenish the treasure from both the PC's dead bodies and from the bodies of the army that the Dragon turns on when the PCs are dead. Dragon 101.



GMforPowergamers said:


> How many powers knock prone...I went to the compendium
> 
> Wizard: 9 (I bet all of these are range)
> 
> ...




Yup. These things can happen.

CAN.

And they can bring the Dragon to the ground for a few rounds out of the 18.

With a Wizard that hits on 1 round in 3 if Bless is up. With a Cleric whose Command prayer hits 15% of the time. With a Fighter and a Ranger and a Rogue, none of whose knock prone attacks are ranged with the exception of Walking Wounded (unless there is one in Dragon, I did not look there).

I'm not seeing the love for the PCs. The Wizard is the only serious threat with this tactic and if he starts using it, he also becomes a serious target.


Maybe you could tell us where all of these Stunning ranged powers of level 11 or lower are located. I could not find any, even for the Wizard except for Sleep (which is not really stunned, but works about the same). Unless he's an Orb Wizard (and that's an entire other can of worms), the Dragon will probably save within a few rounds at +5 to save.

And, a Dragon can still hover when Stunned. So yes, stun will delay the Dragon, but it will not lower the number of rounds of combat by too much (the CA helps though).

Again, I'm not seeing a way to turn around the encounter here anywhere, especially since the PCs probably won't be stunning the Dragon.


There are many conditions. How does Slow bother the hovering Dragon at all?

Weakened helps, but typically for only 1 or 2 rounds until the Dragon makes the save (or the power expires).

Daze doesn't stop a Breath Weapon or two Claw attacks.

Pull or Slide might be helpful.

But, nothing here is that overwhelmingly helpful for the PCs.



GMforPowergamers said:


> There are ways other then flanking if that is your only metric...




Yup. Which is why I said "up to 5 rounds". It could be 1, 3, or 5, depending on whether the Rogue and Fighter can find other ways to get Combat Advantage. With the Dragon not fighting on the ground, it is unlikely though that most rounds will have these PCs with Combat Advantage. Some rounds due to a different power or feat or something, sure.

But note that I assumed that both the Rogue and Fighter would be getting CA every single round with the original numbers. I suspect that most people would find that generous.



GMforPowergamers said:


> If the players play smart it is an average encounter...especially if they knew it was coming and held an action point...




Average? An n+4 encounter is average? I want to be smoking what you are smoking. 



GMforPowergamers said:


> By the way notice none of them have paragon paths…if the rouge is criting on 18+, And the fighter gets another +1 to hit, just those two classes get dpr (man I feel dirty using that metric) increases…




Yup. It all adds up. And Paragon Path features might shave off 2 rounds. Maybe.

But, that still puts the fight in the 16+ or longer range ASSUMING that nobody goes unconscious or dies. The fight turns in the Dragon's favor real quick if the Dragon can kill a PC, especially the Cleric. With the damage the Dragon does, it could do this in 6 rounds or so, probably after the Cleric does his first heal of the wounded Wizard, so maybe the Dragon might focus on the Cleric starting in round 4 or 5.



GMforPowergamers said:


> Infact I think the one thing we can both agree on is in ANY fair fight if one side is played as dumb, and the other is played tactically then the smart side has a way easier time of it… Dumb dragon = easier fight…Smart Dragon= Harder fight…Dumb player=TPK… smart player= more of a chance…




Yup.

And, just bad dice rolls can turn an encounter like this south for the players real quick.


Bottom line, n+4 encounters appear to be considerably easier at lower levels than higher levels. Even at level 11, a major power boost level for PCs, this is a tough "fight for our lives" fight. At level 10, an n+4 encounter is even more deadly because the PCs do not have the Paragon Path features (and Strikers do less damage, etc.).

A DM has to be real careful just following the suggestions from the DMG when it comes to several levels higher than the PCs encounters.


----------



## Bayuer (May 30, 2009)

Firstly I didn't insult you. Just state that you ignore many facts.
Secondly you can win almost all the fights on higher level. My team won a n+6 fight one day. So what? It was the most not enjoying fight I ever played.

You see. Many DMs think that making such a fight makes game better and more challanging. And by this I mean giving higher level monsters and creat n+3> fights all the time. This makes thing called grind. Maybe for many people sitting at the table for 6 hours and having 2-3 fights is ok, but I don't. 2 hours for one fight is way too much for me.

And at late paragon my barbarian was hitted on 3 on his REF, when my DM throw a artillery monster. The next decission at my table was to take all +2 REF/FOR/WILL feats, to survive. So don't be funny about hitting thing (but I must admit your comment about it was fun; +1 for you).

The system isn't bloody Hegel theory. You can see easilly after almost year of playing what it's all about, so don't tell me that I'm still newbie and must still learn much before I can say anything about it.

And again, what I need to prove? That the fight with you dragon will be horribly boring to me? That nail is playing on 4lvl and he enjoy the game. We are talking here about late paragon and epic not beginning of heroic tier. +1 to hit from expertise at heroic is the same as many feats (well, all feats that gave situational +1 feat bonus are screwed). But at 15 lvl Expertise is superb. Defenses feats will be taken too offten. All depends on DM encounter creations, but even if he's doing fights with the same lvl monsters, defenses are far behind average.

One more thing. I didn't say the game is unplayable. It's very bad, boring and too long. Your solo fight could be nice fight if this will be the last fight at the end of campaign or so. If this was just one example from other fights it was very bad for two reasons:
- all fights are too long etc.
- all fights are the same, and thus your players make powergaming choices, and you kill options to take skill training feats etc. becouse of that.

And one thing about "party tactic". Everything is ok, but this is in some way true only for melee fighters. Ranged and laser have hard times, becouse they can't get even +2 from flanking. I've run fights with high level monsters where my sorcerrer wasn't very happy, when he was trying to hit sucha monster. 

At to end this discussion. If your players are happy becose 2h fights, they hit rate etc. Play the same way you are playing. But don't say other people that they are wrong, when they don't like such a game. Clearly the feats exists, they change math very much and many other feats compared to Expertise sucks.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 30, 2009)

Lauberfen said:


> The _only_ points I was genuinely contending are that 'relative improvement for less optimised players' is false, and has been demonstrated in these pages, and that expertise cannot meaningfully be compared to feats which can only benefit a few specific builds.




ok, lets settle this. 

I hope we agree that if a dwarf with 16 strength and a Waraxe with dwarven weapon training (average damage 11.5) will benefit more from expertise than the 18 strength dragonborn with a longsword. (average damage 8.5) which is a realistic example. 

And i hope we agree, that expertise is superior to some other feats which appeared before...
but I believe, if nimble blade and expertise would swap places in PHB 1 and 2, noone had complained, most uf us would accept, that nimble blade is for those people who want to be even more specialised (and need combat advantage for powers and features)


----------



## GenghisDon (May 30, 2009)

I don't have much love for the PH2 at all, I won't be using expertese feat in my games. If the math is off & my players can't hit anything at mid paragon+, I'll just give them the bonus with any attack. We'll see how it goes. What little I plan to use of the PH2, I'll just use off PDF, I don't see it as worth buying.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 30, 2009)

@ Bayuer: your post was insulting.

Your arguments are valid however. +4 defense feats and +2 defenses are more or less must have feats as are +2 or +3 to attack.

but I will say following: if you take none of them, your fights become easier! Your DM should strongly be advised to take Karin´s Dad´s advice to heart:

use level x-2 monsters if you would usually take level x. They do nearly the same damage (since you read everywhere that damage doesn´t go up fast enough  ) have less hp and -2 attack and -2 defense...

There just has to be one update to the rules in DMG:
"As you level the game gets harder as your players level up, but the chances to encounter equally high monsters is lower"


----------



## GenghisDon (May 30, 2009)

How many groups have you leveled up UngeheuerLich?  I am still on my first "test" batch, but so far things are fine(& fast compared to what I hear from others), sticking more or less to the suggested encounter difficulty. Most folks say increasing the difficulty is the way to go, are you joking about n-2? 

 I mix things up, but I don't think I ever used these. The game seems pretty easy compared to other rpg's & to earlier editions( we have played 1e on up). Some of the ease is likely that we roll scores & are generally better off than the pt method, though they aren't nessecarily where you might want them. I am curious if anybody ever gets dropped or killed by the n-2 ecounters? I kinda thought they would be a waste of time.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 30, 2009)

I didn´t use n because x can be n+3 e.g.

I just said instead of giving everyone +2 to attacks and defenses, just reduce encounter level by 2

too bad its just theory.. looking at numbers...

I am also still in my first test batch and also everything works fine... 

edit: and I am playing with 3 characters who rolled stats... combats are quite fast, and perfectly balanced: I regularly drop a char and even elites go down fast. Even minions fullfill their roll so far.

But i am convinced that before i start whining, that equal level encounters become harder that I a) try it out first, and b) adjust monsters.

D&D 3.5 challenge rating didn´t work if I believe what I read everywhere... but for me it worked 90% of the time... but I really didn´t expect them to be accurate...

no matter how much you standardize, there are so many variables that "balance" that even with years of playtesting there will still be things not balanced by numbers...

but lets not forget: RPGs are no computer games... it is run by a DM who can just change what doesn`t fit in a certain situation.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 30, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> I only dismiss it for three reasons:
> 
> 1) Most such powers require a successful hit to work.
> 2) Most such powers last for a turn instead of the entire encounter like Bless.
> 3) Most such powers affect one ally instead of all 5 PCs like Bless.



 again such powers are 'extra' they give more bonuses, but only for a short time



> And what happens if the Cleric does not have Bless or if the Cleric cast it already this day?



      that is why it was not figgured in, but an example of buffing...







> Feel free to point out exact examples where these PCs can average more than what I wrote.
> 
> I was not assuming super optimized PCs from the optimization boards, just normally optimized PCs that would be found in most games.
> 
> I'll gladly bow to any legitimate numbers that you can back up with details.



  I just said felt low...I guess I will go with your numbers, it just seams low from what I am use to...





> Yup. At level 7, a PC could acquire a +3 weapon with no special powers. Or, +3 armor, or +3 Cloak, or a +2 item with special abilities.
> 
> The point is that is it unlikely that all 5 PCs in a normal campaign would have +3 weapons at level 11. Possible, yes. Likely, no.
> 
> And that affects the analysis. We assumed so for simplicity, but that is not typical so I pointed it out.



     also with 2 rit casters in the party, and normal tresure it could happen it may not...it really is too hard to tell it also matters is this the first 11th level encounter or the last, do they have the tresure from the whole level? who knows....




> You missed my point. I did not think a TPK was just possible.
> 
> I thought a TPK was likely if the Dragon does not fight on the ground.



     now can we please not get side tracked, you said the math...oh wait side trek comeing...





> I assumed the Dragon to be played intelligently and the PCs to be played intelligently (even though some PCs might have Int 8, an Int 13 Dragon should be as tactically capable as they are).
> 
> Doing Hover and Attack is not playing the Dragon to the hilt either. It's Dragon 101. Attacking a single foe until it is dead, especially a Cleric once he heals or a Wizard if he drops conditions on the Dragon, is Dragon 101.




           Dragons were made to spread there attacks out, that is why solos have multi attack powers. How ever it is much tougher if they single focus, but still not impossble. but again this is ment to be the deadliest thing PCs can fairly fight...



> An Adult Red Dragon is 400 to 900 years old (give or take). It should have learned some lessons in that timeframe. The game is Dungeons and *Dragons*. A Dragon should never be played like a putz.
> 
> The Dragon could drop rocks from 300 feet up outdoors and never get counterattacked. The Dragon could have traps. The Dragon could have allies. That would be playing the Dragon to the hilt (and yes, that would up the XP, but the point is that the Dragon should be prepared to do that if necessary).
> 
> ...



 this whole section proves nothing...it shows that a level 15 party can be TPKed by a level 5 normal monster that flies and uses tactics...becuse flying CAN make a monster much tougher when they stay out of range...non of this matters to the discusion of expertise becuse +10 to hit will not help the party in above situation...




> This is a 400 to 900 year old Dragon. It should not be stupid enough to stick around. Dragon 101. Go buy a small army of monsters with a little treasure and come back and attack the PCs when they are vulnerable. Then, replenish the treasure from both the PC's dead bodies and from the bodies of the army that the Dragon turns on when the PCs are dead. Dragon 101.



  really dragon 101...where do you get this from? I never read anything suggesting such a tactic before...infact I understand dragons to be greedy and NOT pay for such things, but to collect slaves...





> Yup. These things can happen.
> 
> CAN.
> 
> ...



  so again it comes down to luck and tactics, but eaither way it is tough...








> Yup. It all adds up. And Paragon Path features might shave off 2 rounds. Maybe.



 ok...just more fuil 






> Yup.
> 
> And, just bad dice rolls can turn an encounter like this south for the players real quick.



 bad dice rolls can turn a deadly encounter into a TPK yes...bad luck and a deadly encounter is TPK worthey...





Bayuer said:


> Firstly I didn't insult you. Just state that you ignore many facts.



 reread my post where I quited you, you were very insulting


> Secondly you can win almost all the fights on higher level. My team won a n+6 fight one day. So what? It was the most not enjoying fight I ever played.



 sorry you don't enjoy the game...


> You see. Many DMs think that making such a fight makes game better and more challanging. And by this I mean giving higher level monsters and creat n+3> fights all the time. This makes thing called grind. Maybe for many people sitting at the table for 6 hours and having 2-3 fights is ok, but I don't. 2 hours for one fight is way too much for me.



      see many DMs never run into this 'grind' that may be becuse they use encounters like the book suggests...



> And at late paragon my barbarian was hitted on 3 on his REF, when my DM throw a artillery monster. The next decission at my table was to take all +2 REF/FOR/WILL feats, to survive. So don't be funny about hitting thing (but I must admit your comment about it was fun; +1 for you).



           wow, and becuse you had 1 bad defence you and the rest of your party needed to up all defences...over reacht much?



> The system isn't bloody Hegel theory. You can see easilly after almost year of playing what it's all about, so don't tell me that I'm still newbie and must still learn much before I can say anything about it.



       why not, do you really belive there is nothing left for you to learn?




> At to end this discussion. If your players are happy becose 2h fights, they hit rate etc. Play the same way you are playing. But don't say other people that they are wrong, when they don't like such a game. Clearly the feats exists, they change math very much and many other feats compared to Expertise sucks.



  It is not I that want to change something or that someone is wrong...I am defending playing as is well others are saying the game 'must be chnged'


----------



## GenghisDon (May 30, 2009)

UngeheuerLich: I couldn't agree more with your sentiments, I didn't have any trouble with 3e/3.5 either, save for a painful learning curve at the very start by my players(all but 1 guy kept getting killed). Nothing like that with 4e at all. I suspect it was the postioning/mini's, we hadn't used them much prior. Balance is over rated in P&P games, it may be as important as people seem to think it is for player vs player video games, but not for D&D. I think they tried too hard for something that is best manufactured by individual DM's. I like to hear what others do, but I test it out myself & know my own style & what it affects. I'd actually like to do less # crunching as DM, 3.5 epic play really made me more accountant, less inspired creator for a time, but they seem pretty workable in 4e. Playing some of the old stuff again gave me a laugh about how it all worked pre-balance.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 30, 2009)

now here is a challenge if these feats are mandatory...show me a monster you can not beat with out them...

      remember even in an equal level fight 4e assumes there is a chance of PC losing...

      so at level +4 solo it should be very possible to tpk, but still possible to win...

    now anyone want to show me the unkillable monster....no tactics no "add x y and Z just numbers show me unhittable ACs and auto hit attacks...


     we were told the system was balanced for +1 magic items almost out of the gate, +2 at 6th +3 at 11th +4 at 16th +5 at 21st, +6 at 26th...so assume they have weapon armor and neck equal to that...


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 30, 2009)

a monster out of the book, or may I create my own ignoring all guidelines (but using RAW?)


----------



## Regicide (May 30, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> we were told the system was balanced for +1 magic items almost out of the gate, +2 at 6th +3 at 11th +4 at 16th +5 at 21st, +6 at 26th...so assume they have weapon armor and neck equal to that...




  We were told that?  I guess this feat means they lied.  Apparently it was balanced for a +3 at 6 a +6 at 16 and a +9 weapon at 26th but they did an oopsy and got the numbers wrong?


----------



## Coffee Dragon (May 30, 2009)

I think good numbers to shoot for in general are:

Level x-1 brute/artillery: 90% chance to hit (3-20)
Level x skirmisher/lurker/controller: 75% chance to hit (6-20)
Level x+3 soldier: 50% chance to hit (11-20)

(Stealth edit: for attacks targeting AC)

This assumes an optimized character with expertise, level-appropriate magic weapon/implement and the relevant ability score maxed. In the case of weapons, assume +3 for proficiency.

The rationale for those numbers is that missing more than half your attacks seems a bit much, but you should still have the opportunity to miss the easiest-to-hit monsters.


----------



## KarinsDad (May 30, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> that is why it was not figgured in, but an example of buffing...




I figured it in my calculations because it is something that would often happen, or other buffs combined might be equal to it.



GMforPowergamers said:


> I just said felt low...I guess I will go with your numbers, it just seams low from what I am use to...




Like I said, come up with better. I'm not married to these numbers.

Here is how I calculated them. I took the strongest damage At Will power and then *added* one die of damage because most Encounter and Dailies are 2W or even 3W, not 1W. And, even if using At Will powers, it's possible to do more damage with feats or synergies. I rounded to the nearest 10 (just to make the equations easier).

Cleric: +3 Mace, 19 Str, Righteous Brand, 16
Fighter: +3 Longsword, 21 Str, Weapon Focus, Reaping Strike, 21 if hit, 10 if miss ~= 25 (adjusted down a little due to the fact that most encounter / dailies do not do half damage on a miss and of course he will not get this if the Dragon flies)
Wizard: +3 Orb, 21 Int, Magic Missile, 18

So, an average of 20 for the non-Strikers.

Rogue: +3 Dagger, 21 Dex, Weapon Focus, Backstabber, Sly Flourish, Sneak Attack, 32
Ranger: +3 Longbow, 21 Dex, Weapon Focus, Lethal Hunter, Twin Strike, 29+ (the Ranger is a more complex calculation, his encounter powers actually tend to not work as well as Twin Strike in some ways, he does 29 if one attack hits with a 2W, 24 if one hits with Twin Strike, and 37 if 2 hit with Twin Strike, the extra points of damage from two hits with Twin Strike will only happen 3 or 4 times in the entire encounter since Twin Strike will not be used for up to 8 of the rounds and if it is used more, it is 1W, not 2W)

So, an average of 30 for the Strikers.

Will the PCs buff up even more on some rounds, sure. Can PCs have feats and magic items and powers that bump this damage up a little, sure. But, they will also be using At Will powers a LOT in 18 or so rounds and they will not be getting Combat Advantage every round which means that more than half of the attacks (the At Will ones) will result in 16 or so damage for the non-strikers and less than 30 for the Strikers.

And, their At Will powers might not be the strongest damage dealing ones in the book.

Overall, this seemed reasonable.



GMforPowergamers said:


> this whole section proves nothing...it shows that a level 15 party can be TPKed by a level 5 normal monster that flies and uses tactics...becuse flying CAN make a monster much tougher when they stay out of range...non of this matters to the discusion of expertise becuse +10 to hit will not help the party in above situation...




Well, if you are going to gimp the monster, why use it in your example?

DMs should use all of the abilities of a monster.

Of course the encounter is much easier and falls more into the hard range instead of the TPK range if you are going to purposely gimp the monster.



GMforPowergamers said:


> really dragon 101...where do you get this from? I never read anything suggesting such a tactic before...infact I understand dragons to be greedy and NOT pay for such things, but to collect slaves...




I get it from years of roleplaying. Re-occurring villains happen all of the time in DND. It's a staple. As a DM, I am always looking for ways to acquire one for the game.

Dragons are greedy and might collect slaves. But to get real horsepower NPCs to fight PCs with and not just 2nd level ones, it might have to coerce the NPCs with something more than just fear. If it can do it with just fear, great. That's a DM call, but as a DM, I personally just would not do it that way. It's not as if it is not planning on getting all of its treasure back. Dragons are sly. It is planning on getting its treasure back (by killing the NPCs) and with interest (i.e. PC treasure).

This was just an example of what roleplaying adds to the encounter if the Dragon loses and losing should not just mean killing the Dragon. If the Dragon is played like a real flesh and blood intelligent creature, it should want revenge. And, it should realize that fighting these PCs on its own is risky. Hence, mitigate the risk.

Sure, you can play your encounters as just hack and slash fests, monsters fight to the death. Or, the wounded Dragon slinks away to never be seen again. I tend not to. Different strokes.


I still see this encounter as a high chance TPK and even if the PCs win and the Dragon flees, they had better level up quickly. At least in my game.


----------



## Bayuer (May 30, 2009)

Ok, if I were insulting sorry then. Didn't try to achive this.

@GMforPowergamers
You still don't get my point I think. This +3 to hit isn't there to make game playable but easier. This are diffrent things. Many DMs offten use higher level monsters and think that makes game more challanging. Without the Expertise this leads to just longer fights, not harder, thus don't really enjoying.

Example about n+6 fight was just to tell you that there aren't many TPK situatuins in game. This was exeception from fights, but many my DMs use n+4-6 monsters offten in fights. I can't forget n+5 boss elite soldier in one fights... The grind is there. Many DMs says that they don't feel the grind but they don't play on paragon/epic but on heroic. That's huge diffrence.

Yes becouse effects like stunned, dazed are very annoying. When you look at some monsters rolls to hit you (DMs and I as DM roll in front of players) you just must have it. 3 on die. Hit. 6 on die. Hit. Ok. PC can have weakness, but he's not suppose to be Bmx Badit.

I'm still learnig but obvious fact can't be ignored. You defend the style of play before PHB2? Lol. The designers gave us Expertise and other feats. This wasn't implemented to game withou reasons. We just talk loud abut the reasons they do it. We still waiting for Design and Develompent article and... Well.

To be honest I was so pleased to see 4E came out. But now. This is some nonsens. Community gave them overpowerd feats, items, powers and what? There isn't such a thing like errata to me in this days. Sure some minor spelling changes and few bugs, but 10 months passed and we still don't have clarifications about zones/walls and forced movement. Bloodclaw and Reckless Weapon too. This is one big nonsense to me.

@UngeheuerLich
I wrote an article some day in my primal language about how to build encounters, so thanks for advices And to be honest. The best fights are when there are many enemies the same lvl as players (on higher levels with Expertise and NAD feats).

I think there's no sense talk about Expertise. It's in game and we mus accept it. Banning it is very bad approch. +1 to hit wan't make game that much easier on heroic. At paragon/epic it's must have. Cheers.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 30, 2009)

Regicide said:


> We were told that?  I guess this feat means they lied.  Apparently it was balanced for a +3 at 6 a +6 at 16 and a +9 weapon at 26th but they did an oopsy and got the numbers wrong?



      OK I call pure BS here... I mean the whole point of this discussion is some of us feel the feats are bonuses not requared, then you roll in here like it is a fact they need it...but I don't see you answering my challenge...so I guess it is just unprovable...




KarinsDad said:


> I figured it in my calculations because it is something that would often happen, or other buffs combined might be equal to it.



 OK...





> Like I said, come up with better. I'm not married to these numbers.
> 
> Here is how I calculated them. I took the strongest damage At Will power and then *added* one die of damage because most Encounter and Dailies are 2W or even 3W, not 1W. And, even if using At Will powers, it's possible to do more damage with feats or synergies. I rounded to the nearest 10 (just to make the equations easier).



 Ok, those numbers look fine when you doo them out, I guess I am just use to the ranger in my game calling 40+ pts on twin strike becuse he is pimped out for damage...and he does have 6 levels on this example...







> Well, if you are going to gimp the monster, why use it in your example?
> 
> DMs should use all of the abilities of a monster.
> 
> Of course the encounter is much easier and falls more into the hard range instead of the TPK range if you are going to purposely gimp the monster.



  I am not gimping anything...I was useing the numbers to show the numbers work without the feats. If we get into tactics, and other abilities it will spiral out of expertice mattering...infact the very notion that we spent half a page + argueing over flying shows that the +1 2 or 3 to hit is so meaningless...becuse that is no longer what you are argueing...




> I get it from years of roleplaying. Re-occurring villains happen all of the time in DND. It's a staple. As a DM, I am always looking for ways to acquire one for the game.



 same here, although I will admit I don't agree with your way of doing it, I do agree with the basics, although it has nothing to do with expertise...




> Sure, you can play your encounters as just hack and slash fests, monsters fight to the death. Or, the wounded Dragon slinks away to never be seen again. I tend not to. Different strokes.



 and this has to do with attack bonus how??? I like Rp, and I love to have things unexpexted happen, and I retrate enemies all the time...but again way off topic...




> I still see this encounter as a high chance TPK and even if the PCs win and the Dragon flees, they had better level up quickly. At least in my game.



 I also see if you have the dragon retreat at bloodied then it is easier for the PCs...but hey we realy are way off topic here...



Bayuer said:


> Ok, if I were insulting sorry then. Didn't try to achive this.



 ok excepted...I belive you if you say no harm ment..



> You still don't get my point I think. This +3 to hit isn't there to make game playable but easier.



 now I agree 100% there...infact that is my point alone...
       these feats make the game easier, but having it be easier isn't bad. Some people really like to choose this sort of feat, and if you feel you need it, there it is




> Example about n+6 fight was just to tell you that there aren't many TPK situatuins in game. This was exeception from fights, but many my DMs use n+4-6 monsters offten in fights. I can't forget n+5 boss elite soldier in one fights... The grind is there. Many DMs says that they don't feel the grind but they don't play on paragon/epic but on heroic. That's huge diffrence.




      N+6...ow...That would be hard (Infact harder then the game is ment to be) I am glad I have yet to run into one.  I think the problem isn't the system here, but people who are DMing the difficulty up to 11...I mean wwhen I DM I use level N -2 through N+2 for most encounters, but for big ones go N+3 or 4... I will admit every solo I have used has been N+3 or N+4 up intill next tuesday. (I have an encounter of a N-2 solo with 2 N normals and 6 N-2 minons)  


> Yes becouse effects like stunned, dazed are very annoying. When you look at some monsters rolls to hit you (DMs and I as DM roll in front of players) you just must have it. 3 on die. Hit. 6 on die. Hit. Ok. PC can have weakness, but he's not suppose to be Bmx Badit.



  I think that is also a factor of N+5 monsters more then anything...In N or N+1 encounters that doesn't happen...and since the DMG suggest N-4 (Really that low, that seams too low) through N+4 and it tells you to becareful with things that target weakdefences...I think that is very much a DM problem not a system problem...infact it is going OUT of the systerm



> I'm still learnig but obvious fact can't be ignored. You defend the style of play before PHB2? Lol. The designers gave us Expertise and other feats. This wasn't implemented to game withou reasons. We just talk loud abut the reasons they do it. We still waiting for Design and Develompent article and... Well.



 I expect you will see that articule in the next month or so...infact I called July as my expected month for it weeks ago..





> I wrote an article some day in my primal language about how to build encounters, so thanks for advices And to be honest. The best fights are when there are many enemies the same lvl as players (on higher levels with Expertise and NAD feats).



 what about lower level...do your players never face N-X level threats???


> I think there's no sense talk about Expertise. It's in game and we mus accept it. Banning it is very bad approch. +1 to hit wan't make game that much easier on heroic. At paragon/epic it's must have. Cheers.




glad you made up your mind, most of us are still working on it...


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 30, 2009)

ok lets try it at epic

25th level party (I only did 3 memebers not all 5 I got lazy)

edit... I dune messed up (thanks for the PM)

     I miss did base, and prof, and ability mods...and I used MM2 monster that is diffrent...so I withdraw this epic fail post...(I should have known when I saw rouge hit on a 4 I was wrong...)


----------



## Lauberfen (May 31, 2009)

First of all, this thread is developing lots of posts way too long for me to bother reading them. So sorry in advance.



UngeheuerLich said:


> ok, lets settle this.
> 
> I hope we agree that if a dwarf with 16 strength and a Waraxe with dwarven weapon training (average damage 11.5) will benefit more from expertise than the 18 strength dragonborn with a longsword. (average damage 8.5) which is a realistic example.




Well first I'd like to point out that a waraxe with strength 16 and training equals 5.5+3+2=10.5, not 11.5

Then I should highlight the fact that you've given the dwarf an extra feat.

Then I'd like to suggest that a 16 strength dwarf is not very underpowered, and an 18 strength dragonborn could be more optimised yet.

However, I do agree that someone who does more damage, regardless of bonus to hit, gains more from expertise than someone who does less damage. I don't think less optimised characters do more damage though, rather the opposite.

A more fair version of your example might be strength 20 dragonborn with a bastard sword (average damage 10.5) vs your strength 16 dwarf with trainining (average damage 10.5). Both do equally well from expertise.

However weapon training is specific tom certain races, and becomes pointless at 15th level, when weapon focus is just as good, but for better weapons such as the longsword.



UngeheuerLich said:


> And i hope we agree, that expertise is superior to some other feats which appeared before...
> but I believe, if nimble blade and expertise would swap places in PHB 1 and 2, noone had complained, most uf us would accept, that nimble blade is for those people who want to be even more specialised (and need combat advantage for powers and features)




I don't really agree- expertise is a bonus to hitm which stages over levels- this is clearly wrong, as it makes sense to maintain a constant bonus to hit as the levels go by. A  heroic tier feat shouldn't get way better at paragon and epic tiers.

Also expertise is not a feat bonus- I probably would have missed this, but if I noticed, I would have assumed it was a mistake, and ruled it as a feat bonus (what possible reason is there for it not being a feat bonus.

Also, if they released further conditional +1 feats I would have laughed, and wondered what they were playing at.

So I agree we're in the same ballpark, but I'm yet to be convinced by your examples.


----------



## tiornys (May 31, 2009)

Lauberfen said:


> Out of interest, who here has a PC at 16th level who could take expertise and hasn't, and who has a pc who has taken it?



I have a level 18 PC, a Dragonborn Tactical Warlord.  He doesn't have Expertise because our DM has adopted the +1 at 5/+2 at 15/+3 at 25 house rule.  When the PHB2 was released, we were all leveling at a non-feat level.  The DM and the rules-savvy players had a discussion about whether Expertise would be allowed because all three of those players (myself included) planned to retrain to Expertise if it was available and not free.

GMforPowergamers:  you're using a literal definition of "required", which clearly doesn't apply.  However, that definition applies to no option in the game.  In effect, you are making a straw-man argument.

The correct definition of "required" is that the feat is a requirement in an optimized build (assuming that the character is going to be in combat).  If you would like to make an actual argument against the term, you need to present an optimized build of level 15 or above, without Expertise, that cannot be improved by Expertise.

t~


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (May 31, 2009)

Expertise boosts your chance to hit by 5% per tier. So unless your heroic PC only misses on a natural 1, your paragon PC only misses on a 1-2 or your epic PC only misses on 1-3, Expertise is just as useful for you than any other character.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 31, 2009)

@ Lauberfen

I had those example characters by purpose:

I don´t want to compare overoptimized and gimped chars. I want to compare two characters which have spent the same 22 points on their attributes who tried to build a viable char. One focussed more on damage, one focussed more on to hit.

A 20 in your main stat is very good. But not always worth its cost. Even a righteous brand cleric should ask himself if its worth the cost. Maybe 2 points of wisdom and a bit constitution will do him more favour (more hp to stand in melee, better healing powers and better ranged powers)

comparing a halfling fighter´s damage output with a halfork fighters damage output would not be fair if the halfork rolled an 18 for strength but the halfling only rolled a 16. Especially worse if the halfling insist on using daggers for flavour reasons...

but maybe he takes sneak of shadows, uses his bow and daggers on ranged attacks, multiclasses a bit and has still a flavourful character...

@tequila sunrise:
yes and no: the chances you notice that you took expertise is 5% each round. On average you notice expertise every 20th round. Beacaus you hit most of the time, the fight for your char will be over very fast. If you however only hit on a 20 without expertise you will have a bigger chance to see expertise in effect this fight.

If you compare the numbers of rounds saved by having expertise, you have to look at effective HP. (which depends on relative damage)


----------



## Lauberfen (May 31, 2009)

The problem with expertise is characters in the same party with varying power- different groups will just fight different stuff because the DMs will tweak the game.

If you have the less powerful and more powerful characters in the same party, they each get the same number of rolls. So it will make just the same difference. Except that _in general_ the more optimised character will do more damage.

But what you're getting at with the example is broadly correct- a character aimed at damage will benefit more from expertise than one who does less damage. Just as a warlord might benefit less well. It is not most powerful feat for every build, at every level. But it is very close, even at heroic tier.

One further note- as you reach higher levels, you have more powers. By about 10th level one uses at-will only a few times per encounter. This further increases the utility of a bonus to hit. Also in your 'weaker character, longer combat' model, you'd run out of powers more quickly, and therefore the bonus to hit would be less useful as you'd have less damage and riders.


----------



## tiornys (May 31, 2009)

Lauberfen said:


> But what you're getting at with the example is broadly correct- a character aimed at damage will benefit more from expertise than one who does less damage. Just as a warlord might benefit less well. It is not most powerful feat for every build, at every level. But it is very close, even at heroic tier.



I strongly disagree that characters aimed at damage benefit more from Expertise than those who aren't.  If you aren't focused on doing damage with your powers, then what are you doing with them?  Generally, you're applying debuffs to your targets, forcibly moving your targets, or granting bonuses to your allies.  You usually need to hit to get these juicy riders, and even when you get some benefit on a miss, you usually get a much better benefit on a hit.

The Warlord I referenced above is either the worst or second worst at (directly) dealing damage in his party (behind the Ranger, Fighter, and Paladin, and maybe the Wizard).  Despite that, I find it incredibly important to optimize his attack bonus because the of the potency of the bonuses he can only grant to the party if his powers hit.

IMO, attack bonuses are _most_ valuable in the hands of Leaders and Controllers, the two roles that are generally worst at dealing damage, because those roles tend to have the most potent riders on their powers.

t~


----------



## Lauberfen (May 31, 2009)

tiornys said:


> I strongly disagree that characters aimed at damage benefit more from Expertise than those who aren't.  If you aren't focused on doing damage with your powers, then what are you doing with them?  Generally, you're applying debuffs to your targets, forcibly moving your targets, or granting bonuses to your allies.  You usually need to hit to get these juicy riders, and even when you get some benefit on a miss, you usually get a much better benefit on a hit.
> t~




I'm afraid I must have misled you, as you've misunderstood the discussion at hand (we've been discussion this point for a good few pages).

I was simply stating that in terms of damage per round, the value of expertise is directly proportional to the average damage dealt on a hit- so characters who deal more damage benefit more from the bonus to hit, in terms of DPR.

I entirely agree with your post otherwise- all of the reasons you've stated make expertise a massively good feat regardless of how your character is designed, even if odd feats (such as focus or weapon training) are occasionally better for DPR with an at will.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 31, 2009)

jep, I agree too. 

@ Lauberfen:Yes, running out of encounter and daily powers actually lessens the effect of expertise. Which means that if you have not once hit the exact AC, which is more unlikely the less encounter powers you have, expertise is getting weaker and weaker...

reasoning: a situational bonus which you can use when you need it most (like action surge to fire off a daily) is better than a less powerful always on +1 bonus. (yes, always on +2 or 3 bonuses are a bit much IMHO)

@ less and more powerful chars: i still believe if both chars are built with the same system, there can´t be more and less powerful chars, but differently balanced...

e.g.: a dwarf can make up the one barely missed hit, by attacking another time when his companion uses second wind or is busy making his death saves...


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 31, 2009)

tiornys said:


> GMforPowergamers:  you're using a literal definition of "required", which clearly doesn't apply.  However, that definition applies to no option in the game.  In effect, you are making a straw-man argument.
> 
> The correct definition of "required" is that the feat is a requirement in an optimized build (assuming that the character is going to be in combat).  If you would like to make an actual argument against the term, you need to present an optimized build of level 15 or above, without Expertise, that cannot be improved by Expertise.
> 
> t~




    It is not I who is useing the word wrong... you see I agree it is required to be the best optimized build...I just feel 80+% of us players don't play the optimized best characters, that viable and good enough, and fun are just as likely...

      If you look for the best feats and do it out there are many 'required' feats for optimaxation...every thing in 4e comes in good, better, best groups. My problem is  IF you go out of your way to look for the best of everything, you should not complain you found it...

        I don't need to post an optimized build to prove something is not requared for everyone...I only neet to post a viable build to prove that...witch I have here and on RPGnet, and on Wotc Board, and in person when people make this claim.

example 1:


Ryujin said:


> That's too good not to take, making it for all appearances to be a 'mandatory' feat if your character wants to keep hitting like the Joneses.



 notice no use of optimized, just to be at normal he feels you need a extra + to hit

example 2


eriktheguy said:


> The general consensus is that this feat was created to fix an issue that Wizards originally made in designing 4e. Monsters gain attack and AC faster than players, making higher level monsters imbalanced compared to the same level players.



 see again talking about everyone needing it, infact he goes on to suggest:


> I would suggest banning them in your campaign, and using one of the fixes from that thread.




please see no use of optimazation here

I am sure that there are more examples, but I gave up looking...

      see my main problem is there is a group of players and DMs who think there house rules are a better fit for MY and OTHERS games then what WotC has provided...I disagree, so do others. As long as people claim that you NEED a +3 at level 25 I will argue against it. 


Also not only has no one yet answered my math challenge of showing a monster that without expertise the fight is impposble becuse of the math, but no one has responded to may main point...



GMforPowergamers said:


> We have seen and herd form group who played through all three teirs of play H,P,E and never found themselves in this slump of "I can't hit" lets call them group A
> We have seen and herd from groups who played to paragon and felt the defences went up to much and the game watered down...lets call them group B
> We have seen and herd form groups who in epci felt the monsters got to tough. we will call them group C.
> We have seen people complain (I may be bias but I give this group the least amount of slack) that right from day one 1st level the game is too hard. we will call them group D.
> ...



    So again if you house rule it, and you like it that way fine...but don't ask WotC to errata, or change the system to suit your play style...becuse that is NOT what everyone wants


----------



## keterys (May 31, 2009)

All groups get the result whether it costs feats or not.

DMs can just as easily disallow rules changes as feat options in a player's handbook.

And it's more likely to be viewed as an intentional balancing of the system, rather than simply completely overpowered feats, if you do it that way, which will lead to at least less arguments over intentions.

Then again, the illusionist/dragon elementalist feats in Arcane Power (that stack with Expertise) might lead one to believe it was not an intentional and well reasoned change, but that some important people in WotC have forgotten how hit chance and defenses scale completely.


----------



## KarinsDad (May 31, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> see my main problem is there is a group of players and DMs who think there house rules are a better fit for MY and OTHERS games then what WotC has provided...I disagree, so do others. As long as people claim that you NEED a +3 at level 25 I will argue against it.




Who said that?

In which thread and post?

Just because this change, regardless of whether it comes from a feat or from a house rule, fixes part of the math issues does not mean that it is required.

It means that many players and evidently WotC recognized a gaming mechanical need for their games.

If you do not recognize that need, no worries. Your similar encounters will be slightly more grindy at higher levels and slightly more prone to TPKs than people who do recognize it, but that's ok. It's your game and your players.

Have fun with that.

But, if your purpose here is to argue that it is not needed for anyone else's game, there are many people who see you as mistaken. Your own n+4 Paragon level encounter illustrated that to some extent (in all fairness, you did pick the epitome DND monster that has a plethora of abilities that synergize well with each other for a solo, in other words, you picked poorly to illustrate your point).

Just because you do not see it as needed for your game (or see it as needed only if the player decides to take the feat) does not mean that others do not see it as needed for theirs. So, arguing that it is not needed for theirs is the same, but opposite, argument that you are claiming that they are making, that it is needed for your game.

Kind of pointless, eh?

Each group will have to determine whether they want or need the fix on their own, regardless of how they decide to implement it if they do take it.


----------



## tiornys (May 31, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> It is not I who is useing the word wrong... you see I agree it is required to be the best optimized build...I just feel 80+% of us players don't play the optimized best characters, that viable and good enough, and fun are just as likely...
> 
> If you look for the best feats and do it out there are many 'required' feats for optimaxation...every thing in 4e comes in good, better, best groups. My problem is  IF you go out of your way to look for the best of everything, you should not complain you found it...



Then I believe you are misunderstanding the argument.  When I say "Expertise is a non-option", or something similar, I'm not saying "every character in every group must take Expertise".  What I'm saying is: "Expertise is too powerful when compared with other feats".  That's one of WotC's criteria for potential errata.  







			
				Criteria for Issues Posted to Errata Boards said:
			
		

> The following issues might merit updates:
> 
> • Statistics that are significantly underpowered or overpowered compared to others of a similar level. This includes but is not limited to monster attack and damage numbers, power damage numbers, check bonuses or penalties, etc. For example, the fighter power, dance of steel, is a 3rd level encounter power but is less power than the fighter’s 1st level encounter power, steel serpent strike.



I see Expertise as meeting this criteria.


			
				GMforPowergamers said:
			
		

> So again if you house rule it, and you like it that way fine...but don't ask WotC to errata, or change the system to suit your play style...becuse that is NOT what everyone wants



LFR and other sanctioned RPGA games don't use house rules.  Since I play in these games, if I believe there is a problem with the basic system, it is important to me to ask WotC to evaluate the potential problem, because errata is the only way to fix that problem in a sanctioned game.



			
				keterys said:
			
		

> Then again, the illusionist/dragon elementalist feats in Arcane Power (that stack with Expertise) might lead one to believe it was not an intentional and well reasoned change, but that some important people in WotC have forgotten how hit chance and defenses scale completely.



Agreed.  I think these feats were modeled after Expertise; IMO that's the worst consequence so far of the Expertise feats.

t~


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 31, 2009)

ok, 2 bonuses that scale this way and stack looks very very wrong... no doubt there...


----------



## Old Gumphrey (May 31, 2009)

I'm at work, what do those arcane power feats do again?


----------



## Lauberfen (May 31, 2009)

One of the key signs that expertise is out is that it scales- chance to hit should clearly stay steady over levels, so bonusses to hit should not scale in the same way that damage should. I think the increases at 15th and 25th are the things which make it clearly overpowered, and a maths fix. Before then it's just bad power creep.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 31, 2009)

tiornys said:


> LFR and other sanctioned RPGA games don't use house rules.  Since I play in these games, if I believe there is a problem with the basic system, it is important to me to ask WotC to evaluate the potential problem, because errata is the only way to fix that problem in a sanctioned game.




 I play and run LFR too...so we both pllay without house rules...I don't want to be forceed to add +1 per tier to att and defs if I don't take the feat...

edit: so now lets assume for the moment both of our playstyles are vailid, and represent atleast some group of LFR players...Group 1 wants things as is...group 2 wants better attack and defence...other then new feats that group 2 can take that group 1 dosn't please tell me how to keep both happy... that was the orginal poitn I have been trying to make aafter all...

        As wotc how do you keep BOTH of our groups playing LFR no house rules??


----------



## tiornys (May 31, 2009)

Old Gumphrey said:


> I'm at work, what do those arcane power feats do again?



Draconic Spellcaster

Heroic Tier
Prerequisite: Dragonborn, any arcane class
Benefit: You gain a +1 feat bonus to attack rolls when you use an arcane power that deals the same damage type as your breath weapon. The bonus increases to +2 at 15th level and to +3 at 25th level.​There's a similar feat for Gnomes/Eladrin and arcane charm powers that also grants a +1 bonus to a couple of skills 

Draconic Spellcaster can be combined with a Rod of the Dragonborn to apply to all implement powers: Property: When you use a power with this implement, the damage you deal with the power is of the same damage type as the damage dealt by your dragon breath.​
GMforPowergamers:  I want Expertise eliminated or at least changed so it doesn't scale; it's simply too powerful to be balanced as a feat.  _If_ Expertise represents a math fix, then I think they should actually fix the math rather than patching it with something that is supposed to be an option.  Another superior option to the current state would be to patch things in a way that completely fixes it in a single feat for all characters.  I'd rather have no Expertise and no fix than the current state.

t~


----------



## keterys (May 31, 2009)

I am totally prepared to laugh at level 25+ LFR players who don't have expertise.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (May 31, 2009)

tiornys said:


> Draconic Spellcaster
> 
> Heroic Tier
> Prerequisite: Dragonborn, any arcane class
> ...




Wow...that's...wow. I mean, it doesn't affect much in my home games, but I play Delve nights and other RPGA events. They need to fix that a lot. I know this has been said, but expertise feats are terribad not only because they're too good, but you have to take them more than once if you're something like a paladin who uses different weapons and implements. And then they don't apply to anything but your main attacks, so nobody will try anything like Bull Rush...but people stop doing that as soon as they get a +1 weapon...


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 1, 2009)

keterys said:


> I am totally prepared to laugh at level 25+ LFR players who don't have expertise.




well you have to wait a bit, inless I am way farther behind the curve then I think I am, I belive there aren't even 11th level LFR characters yet...


----------



## keterys (Jun 1, 2009)

There are 11th, but only just barely  It'll be a long while.


----------



## Akaiku (Jun 1, 2009)

DrSpunj said:


> In that battle I literally dropped the Swordmage *6* times before I got the chance to CDG him




Wouldn't the loss of warding make it significantly easier to drop him those other 5 times? That usually puts the pain on any swordmage in my campaigns.


----------



## DrSpunj (Jun 1, 2009)

Akaiku said:


> Wouldn't the loss of warding make it significantly easier to drop him those other 5 times? That usually puts the pain on any swordmage in my campaigns.




I apologize, I'm not sure I follow you. I don't remember exactly when our Swordmage respec'd to Ensnarement, but I hope 4e isn't so tenuously balanced that I have to worry about which build my players choose for their PCs. I can see the logic in having balanced roles, not necessary but a definite boon for the party to be well-rounded. And builds play into that some, sure. But I hope I don't have to ask the Swordmage not to play a specific build because the other Defender is a battleraging Fighter.

I probably missed what you were going for here, so again, I apologize!

Please clarify and I'll try and check back later tonight.


----------



## Fundin Strongarm (Jun 1, 2009)

DrSpunj said:


> I apologize, I'm not sure I follow you. I don't remember exactly when our Swordmage respec'd to Ensnarement, but I hope 4e isn't so tenuously balanced that I have to worry about which build my players choose for their PCs. I can see the logic in having balanced roles, not necessary but a definite boon for the party to be well-rounded. And builds play into that some, sure. But I hope I don't have to ask the Swordmage not to play a specific build because the other Defender is a battleraging Fighter.
> 
> I probably missed what you were going for here, so again, I apologize!
> 
> Please clarify and I'll try and check back later tonight.



After a Swordmage recovers from being unconcious he loses a +2 (I think) AC bonus until he rests (short or extended).  (I'm not quite sure about the logic of why it works that way, but it is a class feature and not a build option.)  Maybe that is what he was talking about???


----------



## Akaiku (Jun 1, 2009)

DrSpunj said:


> I apologize, I'm not sure I follow you. I don't remember exactly when our Swordmage respec'd to Ensnarement, but I hope 4e isn't so tenuously balanced that I have to worry about which build my players choose for their PCs. I can see the logic in having balanced roles, not necessary but a definite boon for the party to be well-rounded. And builds play into that some, sure. But I hope I don't have to ask the Swordmage not to play a specific build because the other Defender is a battleraging Fighter.
> 
> I probably missed what you were going for here, so again, I apologize!
> 
> Please clarify and I'll try and check back later tonight.




Oh, it affects all swordmages. The warding class feature that gives you +1 or +3 to ac. You lose it if you go unconscious and it stays lost till short or long rest. Swordmage kisses ground EVEN ONCE and they are suddenly a wizard without a staff.

Relevant text from DnD compendium, as I don't have the book with me:


> If you become unconscious, your Swordmage Warding benefit disappears. You can restore it by taking a short rest or an extended rest.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 2, 2009)

Akaiku said:


> Oh, it affects all swordmages. The warding class feature that gives you +1 or +3 to ac. You lose it if you go unconscious and it stays lost till short or long rest. Swordmage kisses ground EVEN ONCE and they are suddenly a wizard without a staff.




I belive there was a dev going around before the forgotten realms book came out saying it was a rituel of defence that could not be done in combat...

    however since I play a swordmage in LFR trust me...it is very sucky...I have been thinking about carrying a non magic sheild with me...but that costs a feat.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Jun 2, 2009)

Wow, that's terribad. It's not like swordmages are so powerful they need that penalty...


----------



## Robert_Goodfellow (Jun 2, 2009)

*Negative Trend*

View attachment 4.0 Math.xls

It was said that I have only opinion and have no "facts" to back them up.  So I took my time to pull out factual statistical information to support my first major point about the basic mathematics of 4.0.

I have attached a working spread-sheet to which I will be referring for the rest of this post.  Please open it so that you may follow along.

Before we get started I would like to explain some assumptions made in creation of this spread-sheet.

1.  I'm hoping to create as close to a control as possible when collecting this data.  I am doing this to show the base trend in a void.

2.  Ability Stat:  I am assuming your wanting your character to be successful at their given role, so I am also assuming she has an 18 in her primary stat and that she will increase it at every level possible.

3.  I am also assuming your character is using a weapon and attacking AC.  I am assuming that your proficiency bonus is a +2.  I am making both of these assumptions because they are the most likely scenarios.  In the event that you are not using a weapon then you are probably not attacking AC either.  This would mean that the defense rating is about 2 lower than the target's AC (and thus the loss of the +2 from proficiency is moot).  I am also assuming the +2 proficiency because most weapons give you a +2.

4.  I am assuming that the monster's AC is a moderate AC (Level +14).  I came to this by looking at the average of the 6 monster roles and coming to the conclusion that the moderate difficulty will normally be the one used most often.

5.  Except at 1st level I am assuming a best case scenario when it comes to an enchantment bonus on your weapons.  So starting at 2nd level the enhancement bonus increases at the minimum level necessary to create said weapon (2nd, 6th, 11th, 16th, 21st, 26th).

6.  Therefore the PC's total to hit is assumed to be Level/2 + Ability Mod + Proficiency + Item.

Fact #1:  There is a negative trend when it comes to hit success as you level up.  Your basic chance to successfully hit your target decreases due to a differentiation in the progress of monsters versus PCs.

Fact #2:  Adding Weapon/Implement Expertise does not remove this trend.  It does, however, modify it.  It reduces the slope of the trend but does not eliminate it.

So the initial question at hand is simple enough:

"Is Weapon/Implement Expertise a broken feat that should not be allowed."

The answer, however, is no where near as simple.

In standard WotC Keyword style we must first define "broken."

Possible Definitions:

1.  Unbalancing to game mechanics.
2.  Better then any other feat.

These are the two most common that I've seen and I will use the above information to refute them.  To the best of my ability.

A simple look a the numbers will show that it is the opposite of unbalancing but in fact more game balancing.  Considering there should be little to no PvP in your 4.0 game the only comparison of stats that you should be truly worried about is the PCs versus the Monsters.  Therefor one player having a Expertise doesn't directly negatively affect another player.

I have heard the argument from both developers and other DMs that the growing "miss gap" is filled with synergistic bonuses from various party members, items and effects.  Though I can understand the want for these factors to become more important as you level up and your party becomes more accustomed to how the game plays as well as have more tricks up your sleeve.  The simple fact is that most those bonuses and effects only occur on successful hits.  Reducing the percent chance to hit to a base 35% (in extreme cases) makes it highly unlikely they'll ever get that extra 5% chance to hit.

Even if the synergy does begin to build it is unlikely that it will meet the success rate established at lower levels, let alone exceed it.  Looking at the hit chance with Weapon/Implement Expertise actually shows a much smaller (but still existant) gap that needs to be filled with party tactics.  Your looking at a difference between a 35% degredation incomparison to a 10% degredation.  That 10% loss is a whole lot more managable.

As far as better then any other feat out there.  This I will not refute, but cause that's more of a fact then opinion.  My only arguement is that is better then most other feats out of necessity.  I have a gut feeling that it's introduction to the game was more of a stealth patch then a power creep.  Most of the power creep content I have seen was published in Forgotten Realms (don't get me started on Darklocks and Swordmages) and will no doubtly be added to in the Eberron books.

When designing powers, feats and the like I have always had three questions I asked to try and ensure game balance:  Why would I take this?  Why wouldn't I take this?  What previously unfilled purpose does it serve?  When I put most of the base feats through these (before ever reading PHB2) questions I came up with the simple feeling that most of the basic feats suck.  Now my only meter stick to this was 3.5 stuff.  After I got used to the idea that +Hit was crazy "expensive" it became even more obnoxious that my +Hit was going to become less useful with ever level.

Many people have complained about it feeling like a Feat Tax, meaning a feat that a character MUST take to able to participate.  I tend to feel the same way, I'm just not bitter about it.  My initial thought on feats was that they were next to useless.  There are number of other PHB1 Feats that I think are extremely underpowered even without having that mean other "power creep" books out to compare to.  The way that I have remedied this with my party is that I have given them all one Weapon/Implement Expertise of their choice.

I have heard arguements against this that basically suggest I should just adjust the stats on all the monsters I use against my party if I think their Defenses are too high.  This is a very viable option.  But it's a whole lot more work on my end then I really care to put into every encounter.  Instead I just give my players one free feat and move on with my game.

As such I feel that it is not only a good addition to the game but a necessary one.  It balances out the basic math of the game while not reducing the effeciency or necessity for other aspects of the game (i.e. team work and tactics).  It helps your players feel that their character is cool and effective at it's role.  It lessons the necessity of your characters having an 18 in their primary stat.  And it reduces the amount of tweaking the DM has to do each monster s/he puts the party against.


----------



## Robert_Goodfellow (Jun 2, 2009)

*Swordmage... the name says it all...*

Since the conversation has moved towards that.  The Swordmage is one of the worst designed classes I've ever seen (in any system).

There was obviously little forethought into what the idea, options or niche of this class would be.  There are very few character design or personalization options that are available and those that are don't seem worth taking.

While on the other hand they receive a handful of deceptively overpowered features that make the design even more wonky.  A melee mini-fireball that makes cleave look like waste of time combined with up to a free 10 Teleport ever round is nuts.

The "fandom" feel of the sword implement and other factors makes me wonder what slash fiction site the lead designer of that class cut his teeth on.

After a six pack and jam session some of my players and I bashed out a few ideas that would make it far more playable, but after the realization that they'll never rework or reprint the class we put the notes in our campaign binder and moved on.  Which reminds me... what horrible publishing behavior of WotC.  You shouldn't refer to a non core book in your core expansion.  Shame on you.

SHAME.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 2, 2009)

Old Gumphrey said:


> Wow, that's terribad. It's not like swordmages are so powerful they need that penalty...




well in there defence...swordmage and avanger are currently tied for 2nd best AC in game in theory...so a swordmage that focuses can be better (not as good better) then a plate and sheild paliden...

    [sblock=who does number 2 work for?]who or what you may ask is #1 best armor...well the Swordmage/Avanger Hybrid/paragon hybrid that has both features (armor of faith and warding) and can walk around with a 60+AC...I belive the opt board got the defs (all 4) to where no demon lord can hit on better then a 19 againts any def...and still a good offence, and lets not forget the roll 2d20 attacks, and negate damage if at someone else...[/sblock]



Robert_Goodfellow said:


> [sblock=for room]1.  I'm hoping to create as close to a control as possible when collecting this data.  I am doing this to show the base trend in a void.
> 
> 2.  Ability Stat:  I am assuming your wanting your character to be successful at their given role, so I am also assuming she has an 18 in her primary stat and that she will increase it at every level possible.
> 
> ...





I agree with 99% and the only thing I would do diffrent (and this is not me nit picking just giving some advice ignore me if you wish) use a 16 attack stat, it appears to me to be the min WotC set 16 + every up...

[sblock=excel suggestion]by the way to moddfy the excel sheet to do att mods right use this form...   =ROUNDDOWN((B2-10)/2,0) it will tell it to round down 0 decmil places...  also you have expertise wrong see below...[/sblock]


You seam to have your numbers slightly off You have expertise scaleing at 11 and 21 instead of 15 and 25...



> Fact #1:  There is a negative trend when it comes to hit success as you level up.  Your basic chance to successfully hit your target decreases due to a differentiation in the progress of monsters versus PCs.



agree



> Fact #2:  Adding Weapon/Implement Expertise does not remove this trend.  It does, however, modify it.  It reduces the slope of the trend but does not eliminate it.



 agree


now I want to take a moment to point out this is where you and I differ, I see that the powers of the game change as you level...you see more dailys (all have effect or miss line) and you see some enconters with miss and/or effect lines...and sustains become more common, and auto hit, auto damage...yes hit chance goes down, but the rest of the system compansates....



> So the initial question at hand is simple enough:
> 
> "Is Weapon/Implement Expertise a broken feat that should not be allowed."
> 
> ...



      ok...lets start



> Possible Definitions:
> 
> 1.  Unbalancing to game mechanics.
> 2.  Better then any other feat.
> ...



     not unreasnalbe...



> A simple look a the numbers will show that it is the opposite of unbalancing but in fact more game balancing.  Considering there should be little to no PvP in your 4.0 game the only comparison of stats that you should be truly worried about is the PCs versus the Monsters.  Therefor one player having a Expertise doesn't directly negatively affect another player.




      very well stated, and 100% agree...



> I have heard the argument from both developers and other DMs that the growing "miss gap" is filled with synergistic bonuses from various party members, items and effects.  Though I can understand the want for these factors to become more important as you level up and your party becomes more accustomed to how the game plays as well as have more tricks up your sleeve.  The simple fact is that most those bonuses and effects only occur on successful hits.  Reducing the percent chance to hit to a base 35% (in extreme cases) makes it highly unlikely they'll ever get that extra 5% chance to hit.




      Ok I have to stop you there...Warlord hands out att bonus like candy... with utlity powers (no hit needed) extra attacks as effects (more rolls more chance to hit), and there biggest buff has a miss rider for said buff... two of the builds also give bonuses to hit with action points...Bard is shaping up to look the same... Clerics have atleast two diffrent utlity bonus to hit powers...

             and that is just off the top of my head...if your group wants to hit stack up on bonuses isn't trival, but it isn't impossble eaither...



> Even if the synergy does begin to build it is unlikely that it will meet the success rate established at lower levels, let alone exceed it.  Looking at the hit chance with Weapon/Implement Expertise actually shows a much smaller (but still existant) gap that needs to be filled with party tactics.  Your looking at a difference between a 35% degredation incomparison to a 10% degredation.  That 10% loss is a whole lot more managable.




      see above where I talk about miss effects and effects and more options...



> As far as better then any other feat out there.  This I will not refute, but cause that's more of a fact then opinion.  My only arguement is that is better then most other feats out of necessity.  I have a gut feeling that it's introduction to the game was more of a stealth patch then a power creep.



  I some what agree, it was put there becuse SOME people felt there needed to be a latch, others did not, making it a feat made it an optional patch...each player to weigh it on there own...



> When designing powers, feats and the like I have always had three questions I asked to try and ensure game balance:  Why would I take this?  Why wouldn't I take this?  What previously unfilled purpose does it serve?  When I put most of the base feats through these (before ever reading PHB2) questions I came up with the simple feeling that most of the basic feats suck.  Now my only meter stick to this was 3.5 stuff.  After I got used to the idea that +Hit was crazy "expensive" it became even more obnoxious that my +Hit was going to become less useful with ever level.



 well I did find some PHBI feats that I loved, I can see where you are going with this...



> Many people have complained about it feeling like a Feat Tax, meaning a feat that a character MUST take to able to participate.  I tend to feel the same way, I'm just not bitter about it.  My initial thought on feats was that they were next to useless.  There are number of other PHB1 Feats that I think are extremely underpowered even without having that mean other "power creep" books out to compare to.




I said it before and I will say it again, they were WAY to consevative with the attack bonus feats in PHBI, and I think they realized that now...I do think they went too far, but hey I can live with it   (I would rather expertise scale to +2 at 21st....and the race feats from arcan have been paragon +1 scale also at 21st...but not the point)





> As such I feel that it is not only a good addition to the game but a necessary one.  It balances out the basic math of the game while not reducing the effeciency or necessity for other aspects of the game (i.e. team work and tactics).  It helps your players feel that their character is cool and effective at it's role.  It lessons the necessity of your characters having an 18 in their primary stat.  And it reduces the amount of tweaking the DM has to do each monster s/he puts the party against.




  Ok...I thank you for being very well spoken...well written, and explaning your stance...



Robert_Goodfellow said:


> Since the conversation has moved towards that.  The Swordmage is one of the worst designed classes I've ever seen (in any system).



  and here I thought we were going be friends...
       no way I love the swordmage...I think it is what has been missing since 1e...paliden is to cleric as ranger is to druid as swordmage is to wizard....



> There was obviously little forethought into what the idea, options or niche of this class would be.  There are very few character design or personalization options that are available and those that are don't seem worth taking.



 I do think the diff between sheidling and assalt is a joke, but with ensnareing you now have a choice to make...although I do think sheilding is just way too awsome



> While on the other hand they receive a handful of deceptively overpowered features that make the design even more wonky.  A melee mini-fireball that makes cleave look like waste of time combined with up to a free 10 Teleport ever round is nuts.



 Ok I missed that teleport, but I assume you mean swordburst...close burst 1 implment attack at will...or do you mean green flame blade?? I like both...



> The "fandom" feel of the sword implement and other factors makes me wonder what slash fiction site the lead designer of that class cut his teeth on.



 I see no reason to insult rich baker...he made the class and is a pretty col guy..



> After a six pack and jam session some of my players and I bashed out a few ideas that would make it far more playable, but after the realization that they'll never rework or reprint the class we put the notes in our campaign binder and moved on.



  I am glad you made some fun house rules, but I think the class was AOK on it's own...




> Which reminds me... what horrible publishing behavior of WotC.  You shouldn't refer to a non core book in your core expansion.  Shame on you.




FRPG was core...Arcane power was CORE....so it was core expanding on core...
      this is one of the greatest things of 4e, I know that everything is lumped togather (easier to remove something then intergrate it)


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 2, 2009)

UngeheuerLich said:


> ok, 2 bonuses that scale this way and stack looks very very wrong... no doubt there...




ironicly I was playing with the excel sheet linked above, and if you have 2 scaleing att bonuses you maintain a 60-70% attack rate the whole way...

     so if you want to focus on hitting often and hard (aka not falling back on miss and effect or auto hit powers) two of these feats togather is the way to go....


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 2, 2009)

I loaded up a moded sheet, I took your excel sheet, and added in 16 and 20 main stat pages, along with a double up expertise line (for the race feats in ap) I hope you don't mind I figured this would be easier for you...

  I also fixed expertise to scale right...



edit: intresting fact, a gnome with a +6 orb, expertise, the gnome feat, the head band of perception (+1 pys atts) and the 28th level ring that adds +2 Int atts can at level 28-30 hit 95%...90%...90%...so wow, I wonder if anyone at character op has seen this...


----------



## tiornys (Jun 2, 2009)

Robert_Goodfellow:  do you realize that by keeping the Expertise feats in the game, and giving out one free instance per character, you're effectively weakening classes that use both weapons and implements (e.g. Swordmages, Paladins, Clerics, Avengers), some racial abilities and some racial paragon paths (e.g. Dragon Breath, Genasi Earthshock, any PP with powers that aren't tied to weapons or implements), and builds that use multiple types of weapons and/or implements?

t~


----------



## Robert_Goodfellow (Jun 2, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> Ok I have to stop you there...Warlord hands out att bonus like candy... with utlity powers (no hit needed) extra attacks as effects (more rolls more chance to hit), and there biggest buff has a miss rider for said buff... two of the builds also give bonuses to hit with action points...Bard is shaping up to look the same... Clerics have atleast two diffrent utlity bonus to hit powers...
> 
> and that is just off the top of my head...if your group wants to hit stack up on bonuses isn't trival, but it isn't impossble eaither...





Please give me specific examples.  I ask this so I can more easily look up exactly what you are referring to.  And so you present adequate evidence to defend your point.  If I'm being asked to do that for my points then I only ask that others do the same.



GMforPowergamers said:


> [sblock=excel suggestion]by the way to moddfy the excel sheet to do att mods right use this form... =ROUNDDOWN((B2-10)/2,0) it will tell it to round down 0 decmil places... also you have expertise wrong see below...[/sblock]




Thank you.  I knew it had to be doable, but I couldn't figure it out.



GMforPowergamers said:


> I see no reason to insult rich baker...he made the class and is a pretty col guy..




I'm sure he's a wonderful guy.  But after I wrote it I felt it to be witty and concise so I wanted to post it anyway.

I will stand by my denouncement of his (and his team's) writing.

"Under the leaves of Myth Drannor I learned the ancient
eladrin way of battle. Spells are my armor, and words of
ruin are bound to my blade." -Forgotten Realms Player's Guide

The person who pinned that should be fired.  And the editor that let it go to print should be shot.

I'd rather not discuss the Swordmage cause I've only really looked at it for heroic level and it felt way to bipolar in it's development.  Some things seems way too over powered and other seemed way too weak.

And to clearify... the free teleport was a reference to Aegis of Assault.  While the mini-fireball was both Greenflame Blade and Sword Burst.  But to be fair Sword Burst is not that bad.  Greenflame Blade, however I feel is overpowered.

I do not disagree with you that there should be an Arcane Defender.  Nor do I disagree that it should have touches of the ole' school Blade Singer, Blade Dancer (depending on the writer), Spellsword, Felblade or countless other similar attempts.  I just don't think this is a successful version.



tiornys said:


> Robert_Goodfellow: do you realize that by keeping the Expertise feats in the game, and giving out one free instance per character, you're effectively weakening classes that use both weapons and implements (e.g. Swordmages, Paladins, Clerics, Avengers), some racial abilities and some racial paragon paths (e.g. Dragon Breath, Genasi Earthshock, any PP with powers that aren't tied to weapons or implements), and builds that use multiple types of weapons and/or implements?




How so?  It seems to me that it would alleviate some of the pressure of needing two 16+ stats and/or the necessity for two Weap/Imp Expertise feats.

Dragonborn are OP anyhow.  ;-P


----------



## Majushi (Jun 2, 2009)

tiornys said:


> Robert_Goodfellow: do you realize that by keeping the Expertise feats in the game, and giving out one free instance per character, you're effectively weakening classes that use both weapons and implements (e.g. Swordmages, Paladins, Clerics, Avengers), some racial abilities and some racial paragon paths (e.g. Dragon Breath, Genasi Earthshock, any PP with powers that aren't tied to weapons or implements), and builds that use multiple types of weapons and/or implements?
> 
> t~




Monk Playtest takes care of that...


----------



## tiornys (Jun 2, 2009)

Robert_Goodfellow said:


> How so?  It seems to me that it would alleviate some of the pressure of needing two 16+ stats and/or the necessity for two Weap/Imp Expertise feats.
> 
> Dragonborn are OP anyhow.  ;-P



A Fighter needs one instance of Expertise to boost all of his attacks.  A Paladin needs two.  A Swordmage needs two.  etc.  Comparatively, the Paladin and Swordmage are either spending a feat that the Fighter is not, or have lower attack bonuses on some attacks than the Fighter.  Either way, the class has been comparatively weakened.

Similarly, racial attacks have no Expertise analogue, leaving them less likely to hit than weapon and implement based attacks.  Less likely to hit = weaker.

t~

edit:







Majushi said:


> Monk Playtest takes care of that...



Monk playtest fixes the Swordmage, but not the Paladin or Cleric.  It also doesn't fix racial powers, and it doesn't fix builds that want to use multiple weapon/implement types.


----------



## Robert_Goodfellow (Jun 2, 2009)

tiornys said:


> A Fighter needs one instance of Expertise to boost all of his attacks. A Paladin needs two. A Swordmage needs two. etc. Comparatively, the Paladin and Swordmage are either spending a feat that the Fighter is not, or have lower attack bonuses on some attacks than the Fighter.




That is already the case.  That is one of the downfalls of the "hybrid" classes.  They will have certain types of attacks that will be slightly less effective.

In addition, your argument only supports banning the feat.  It has not affect on whether or not (assuming the feat is allowed) I give my player's one Expertise feat for free.  In fact, I would say that the Hybrids could take the Expertise in the Implement/Weapon that has a lower to hit which would allow them to play with the ability stats more.



tiornys said:


> Similarly, racial attacks have no Expertise analogue, leaving them less likely to hit than weapon and implement based attacks. Less likely to hit = weaker.




First off, Genasi and Dragonborn racial attacks are given a +2 (scaling) to hit as a part of the power right up.  This helps offset the loss of weapon/implement or proficiency bonuses.  Two are also against Reflex and the other is against Fortitude, which based on information gathered from another post on this sight (http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/229092-lots-statistics-monster-manual.html) shows that it also offsets the hit chance a bit further.

Second off, the presence of Expertise doesn't make them any less effective.  They still hit the same percent of the time they did before.  Which, sense you seem to think that is an adequate chance, doesn't make them any worse.

Sidenote...

Monk should be a Martial Controller... a niche that has not even been considered yet.  But instead it will be a Ki Monkey Wrestler or some such nonsense.

Sidernoter...



GMforPowergamers said:


> FRPG was core...Arcane power was CORE....so it was core expanding on core...
> this is one of the greatest things of 4e, I know that everything is lumped togather (easier to remove something then intergrate it)




No sir it is not.  It is a supplement... says so right on the cover.  And besides that it is a setting/world supplement.  It has it's own very specific map, politics and more.  The Core of DnD does not (and even states so in the DMG).

Through the core three books (PHB1, DMG, MM) they established a precedent of Core versus supplementary setting specific books.  Therefore any addition core supplement (PHB2, MM2, Martial Power, Arcane Power, Noodle Power) should be published under the assumption that the only three books you have access to are the first core three - PHB1, DMG and MM.

The only situations in which refering to another none core book should be allowed is when they are direct decendents of one another.  For example, when PHB3 comes out it can safely assume that you have access to PHB1 and PHB2.  Same goes for MM3.14 and the like.

This is simple (and classic) reference material logic.  The only reason to not do this is to force people to buy horribly (and overly) written supplement books about a world that should have stopped 3 editions ago.  And then wonder why they download them from torrent sites instead.

Also Faerun still runs on all the history and story developed through AD&D, 3.0 and 3.5.  Somehow they just rationalize that the universe has been turned topsy turvy and Drz'zt has to now multiclass Ranger/Ranger/Ranger to be the character he was before.


----------



## tiornys (Jun 2, 2009)

Robert_Goodfellow said:


> That is already the case.  That is one of the downfalls of the "hybrid" classes.  They will have certain types of attacks that will be slightly less effective.
> 
> In addition, your argument only supports banning the feat.  It has not affect on whether or not (assuming the feat is allowed) I give my player's one Expertise feat for free.  In fact, I would say that the Hybrids could take the Expertise in the Implement/Weapon that has a lower to hit which would allow them to play with the ability stats more.



You're misunderstanding my point.  A Charisma-based Paladin can take 0 powers that key off of Strength, and still wind up with a mix of Weapon and Implement powers (in fact, I'm not sure he can avoid such a mix, since the at-will attacks are Weapon and the majority of his daily powers are Implement).  The cost of needing to maintain two attack items is at least partially balanced by the ability to have more item powers.  There is no such balance with the Expertise feats; such a Paladin simply has to choose between having half of his attacks be less effective, or spending an extra feat.




> First off, Genasi and Dragonborn racial attacks are given a +2 (scaling) to hit as a part of the power right up.  This helps offset the loss of weapon/implement or proficiency bonuses.  Two are also against Reflex and the other is against Fortitude, which based on information gathered from another post on this sight (http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/229092-lots-statistics-monster-manual.html) shows that it also offsets the hit chance a bit further.



No, the +2 scaling to hit balances the inability to add an enhancement bonus.  The fact that they target non-AC defenses balances the lack of a proficiency bonus.  Nothing balances the lack of Expertise bonuses.



> Second off, the presence of Expertise doesn't make them any less effective.  They still hit the same percent of the time they did before.  Which, sense you seem to think that is an adequate chance, doesn't make them any worse.



They are just as effective as they were before, yes.  Other attacks are now better than they were before, because of Expertise.  That makes them _relatively_ worse, because other attacks have been strengthened while they have not.

Roger Federer was the best tennis player in the world.  He stayed at the same skill level.  Other players got better.  He lost his spot as the number one player.  Did he get worse?  Compared to his previous skill level, no.  Compared to other players, yes.

t~


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 2, 2009)

Robert_Goodfellow said:


> Please give me specific examples.  I ask this so I can more easily look up exactly what you are referring to.  And so you present adequate evidence to defend your point.  If I'm being asked to do that for my points then I only ask that others do the same.



ok, 
*Warlod heroic levels...*
Tactical Supervision (+int mod to basic att)
Unintended Feint  (reroll att roll)
Instant Planning (way too much summerize)
*paragon:*
 Side by side (+2 att, AC, and Ref)
 Warlords banner (spend hs to heal and gain +2 att)
*Epic*
 Avenge me (You must drop, allies spend hs to heal and get +2 att and dam)
 Blood thirsty (+2 power bonus to attack rolls against bloodied enemies.)

and that doesn't count attack powers that grant attacks (Commander strike ect) It also doesn't take any paragon paths into account...battle capt is my fav example there, sometimes I think there might be a power in it that reads "If the warlord breaths in, all alies gain +1 to hit" 




> I'd rather not discuss the Swordmage



 we can leave this to another thread (If someone wants to sontinue it we can fork this...)






tiornys said:


> There is no such balance with the Expertise feats; such a Paladin simply has to choose between having half of his attacks be less effective, or spending an extra feat.



       wrong... If I give you a +1 to all ranged attacks it does not lower your melee attacks, it only doesn't increase them...since the system is based on X giving you X+1 for half your pwoers is a bonus, no negative...




> No, the +2 scaling to hit balances the inability to add an enhancement bonus.  The fact that they target non-AC defenses balances the lack of a proficiency bonus.  Nothing balances the lack of Expertise bonuses.



  maybe there are such feats coming, or maybe they will always be slightly less optimal...that doesn't make them bad...just not the best...




> They are just as effective as they were before, yes.  Other attacks are now better than they were before, because of Expertise.  That makes them _relatively_ worse, because other attacks have been strengthened while they have not.




 wrong...if you can bench press 150lbs, then one day the guy next to you benches 210lbs that doesn't make you weaker...you still have an acompliment of 150lbs...



> Roger Federer was the best tennis player in the world.  He stayed at the same skill level.  Other players got better.  He lost his spot as the number one player.  Did he get worse?  Compared to his previous skill level, no.  Compared to other players, yes.



     who are you compeating against...oh the monsters...did they get better, if not bad example...


----------



## Robert_Goodfellow (Jun 2, 2009)

tiornys said:


> You're misunderstanding my point. A Charisma-based Paladin can take 0 powers that key off of Strength, and still wind up with a mix of Weapon and Implement powers (in fact, I'm not sure he can avoid such a mix, since the at-will attacks are Weapon and the majority of his daily powers are Implement). The cost of needing to maintain two attack items is at least partially balanced by the ability to have more item powers. There is no such balance with the Expertise feats; such a Paladin simply has to choose between having half of his attacks be less effective, or spending an extra feat.[/quote}]
> 
> I understand your point.  I am just saying that "baby sitting" an Implement and a Weapon as a Paladin, Cleric or the like isn't made any worse by Expertise.  I wold argue that it is indeed made less obnoxious.  I now have the option to worry less about the Item I'm using.
> 
> ...


----------



## DrSpunj (Jun 2, 2009)

Akaiku said:


> Oh, it affects all swordmages. The warding class feature that gives you +1 or +3 to ac. You lose it if you go unconscious and it stays lost till short or long rest. Swordmage kisses ground EVEN ONCE and they are suddenly a wizard without a staff.






Wow. I...probably read that when FRPG first came out but I certainly didn't remember it. I'm sure the Swordmage player isn't remembering that either. He's gone down in the last couple big battles and this certainly could have made it much more unlikely that he would've been able to get back up at all or stay up as long after being healed.

I'll have to let him know about this. Thanks!


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 2, 2009)

SOme more warlord fun facts (the leader I know best if you hadn''t figured it out)

Here are the first half of the game of warlord attack bonuses…
1st level
Daily Concentrated attack effect: grant basic att with Int mod + to att and dam
Daily Lead the att hit: 1+int mod to hit, miss: +1 to hit all alies
Encounter Warlords favor Hit: one ally +2 next att (Int mod +1 if tac lord) 
At will Furious smash Hit: cha mod to att and dam  (Special this targets fort not AC as a wepon attack)


7th level
Encounter War of attrition Hit: +1 to basic and at will attacks (+cha if insprlord)
Encounter Surprise attack Hit grant basic att (If tac lord +Int mod to hit)

13th level
Encounter  pincer Effect: toe allies shift 3 and basic att (Bravura lord bonus to hit cha)
Encounter  Ventured Gains Hit: grant basic att (Bravura bonus + cha mod)

15th Level
Daily War masters assault: Effect all alies in burst 3 charge and att with bonus cha mod att and dam


I see 2 daily’s with effect (read hit or miss don’t matter) bonus to attacks
1 Daily with a less mod to hit on a miss
4 encounter powers that only give bonuses on hit
1 encounter power that has effect bonus to hit
1 at will that only gives bonus on a hit (But it goes against a NAD with a weapon attack)

I also see the feat lend might that grants a +1 to all attacks you grant…and  there are bracers that let you use (encounter not even costing a daily activation) to use an at will attack instead of a basic when given an attack, and there is a head thing that allows the warlord to (Daily) grant a standard action instead of a basic…

      Again if your party wants to hit…leaders are a great way to shore up the problems…


I didn’t count powers that grant Combat advantage, since there are easier ways to get it, and multi CAs don’t stack…


----------



## DrSpunj (Jun 2, 2009)

Robert_Goodfellow said:


> I understand that what I consider a relative "fix" for this - Weapon/Implement Expertise - to be mostly effective does not benefit all powers and all attacks.  So if you have a suggestion that would do so please put it forth.  But banning expertise because it doesn't effect all attacks that a character makes while at the same time arguing that it is overpowered is talking out of two sides of your face (and thus an ineffective argument).
> 
> So for those of you with UIL (or other) backgrounds.  I am taking the affirmative - Weapon/Implement Expertise is a positive addition to the game.




First, thank you for message. Second, thanks for adding to the discussion with specific points and positions.

That said, your corrected spreadsheet just seems to drive home one of my concerns:

If Expertise is stealth errata to try and patch Bad Math (tm), then making it a series of feats that only corrects the math error for those PCs that take the feat and then for only some of their attacks (unless they take it multiple times to a varying degree based on race & class) is not my preferred way of solving the Bad Math problem, since it really _doesn't_ in a fair way to all involved. 

And thanks very much for the spreadsheet! I was going to put something like it together to take a better look at the math. I _think_ most everyone that commented at all much earlier in this thread on what percentage of PCs attacks should hit given the base underlying math thought ~60% was a good goal since that's what happens in Heroic Tier pre-Expertise and the math there after a year of playtesting by the masses seems pretty solid.

With that in mind I also believe that PCs chance to hit *must* fall some at higher tiers of play to allow design space for combat advantage, feats, powers, paragon paths & all the other things that grant bonuses to attacks to..._shine_ and have a definite impact on the game most of the time they're used. As you say, what we're discussing here is how much of a reduction is likely to be considered fair and fun for most everyone.

Entering in a couple extra columns on your spreadsheet shows that per PHB1 math (ie. without Expertise) the average To Hit % by tier is:

Heroic  58.5%
Paragon  51.0%
Epic  44.0%
which I'm interpreting as Bad Math (tm). 

So, at this point I'm a lot more comfortable going with what many here have already proposed as an Expertise _house rule_:

All Expertise feats are banned; instead all PCs receive a flat +1 unnamed bonus to attacks at 11th level which increases to +2 at 21st level.

This changes the average To Hit % by tier to:

Heroic  58.5%
Paragon  56.0%
Epic  54.0%
which is a lot tighter and still allows all the attack bonuses to be meaningful!

Now I just have to sort through the NADs feats and issues. 

Thanks!


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 2, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:
			
		

> Ok I have to stop you there...Warlord hands out att bonus like candy... with utlity powers (no hit needed) extra attacks as effects (more rolls more chance to hit), and there biggest buff has a miss rider for said buff... two of the builds also give bonuses to hit with action points...Bard is shaping up to look the same... Clerics have atleast two diffrent utlity bonus to hit powers...
> 
> and that is just off the top of my head...if your group wants to hit stack up on bonuses isn't trival, but it isn't impossble eaither...




Like candy? That is a major over exaggeration.

To point out the flaw in the added synergies logic:

Warlod heroic levels...
Tactical Supervision (+int mod to basic att)

One attack. Total in an encounter. And it is a power bonus that does not stack with other power bonuses. Your earlier Dragon encounter would easily have 80 or more PC attacks in it. This is not handing out to hits like candy.


Unintended Feint (reroll att roll)

A Daily power to give one additional attack total. Adds +2 which does not stack with Combat Advantage (which the attacker might already have).


Instant Planning (way too much summerize)

Affects one round out of an entire day. And it is a power bonus that does not stack with other power bonuses.


paragon:
Side by side (+2 att, AC, and Ref)

This one is quasi-legitimate. It can last for an entire encounter (very conditional due to slides, shifts, flanking, etc.), but it is a Daily, so once per day. It is only a +2 power bonus and it only affects 2 PCs out of a party. The other 3 PCs are SOL.


Warlords banner (spend hs to heal and gain +2 att)

One round per encounter +2 power bonus.


Epic
Avenge me (You must drop, allies spend hs to heal and get +2 att and dam)

This one is quasi-legitimate once per day, but the Warlord has to go to zero hit points and of course, this does not stack with his other to hit boost powers. So, this would tend to be used late in an encounter if at all. Otherwise, it's a wasted power most days.


Blood thirsty (+2 power bonus to attack rolls against bloodied enemies.)

The bonus does not apply to non-bloodied foes, so it’s fairly useless for half of an encounter. And, it’s once per day. And, it grants Combat Advantage to all enemies against the Warlord. A major CON amongst the PROs. Also, same level as Avenge Me.


The point is, the Warlord cannot affect most rounds in an encounter. He cannot affect every PC. His bonuses are power bonuses which do not stack with other spells like Bless or even with his own powers. Sure, he can spike a given PC for a given attack a tiny bit, but the bonuses are few and far between. He is lucky if he can affect 10% of the attack rolls per day. This is a very small overall set of bonuses.

And what if the group does not have a Warlord? Clerics do not have as many ways to boost. Course, PHB Warlords do not have as many either, most of your examples here come from Martial Power.

But the most important thing is that the Warlord at heroic level (pre-math bug) has many of these same powers. In exchange for the math bug, he gets a few more such powers at Paragon and Epic level, many of them Dailies which last for a very short time. That’s not balance.


----------



## Ryujin (Jun 2, 2009)

As of today's update to Character Builder, "Focused Expertise" is now an option for all characters. If you use a longsword as both a weapon and an implement, you now need just one feat to get that +1 for both.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 2, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> Like candy? That is a major over exaggeration.



 ok it is an exaggeration, but not a major one...I have played 2 tac lords, and one ispire lord through close to epic (27, 21, and 18) so I have some experaince here, these are just the utlitly powers...and tac lord (battle captian) thing was not a joke, i mean that is every round someone is getting something...or atleast close to it...


> To point out the flaw in the added synergies logic:



 what synergies logic??? these are diffrent powers that give bonuses...not some nova build, having some or all of these lets you effect multi attacks per day without needing to worry about useing an attack... maybe you misunderstood the point of this excersise...it was me disproving the 'you have to hit first for the buff to work' line of thought...



> Warlod heroic levels...
> Tactical Supervision (+int mod to basic att)
> 
> One attack. Total in an encounter. And it is a power bonus that does not stack with other power bonuses. Your earlier Dragon encounter would easily have 80 or more PC attacks in it. This is not handing out to hits like candy.



 you are correct, if it was your only power in those 20 rounds...but of cource you know it wont be...



> Unintended Feint (reroll att roll)
> 
> A Daily power to give one additional attack total. Adds +2 which does not stack with Combat Advantage (which the attacker might already have).



  yes a daily power that gives you the main stick of the avenger...once...seams good to me...



> Instant Planning (way too much summerize)
> 
> Affects one round out of an entire day. And it is a power bonus that does not stack with other power bonuses.



 who cares about stacking, you use this...then something else next round, not one nova buff




> paragon:
> Side by side (+2 att, AC, and Ref)
> 
> This one is quasi-legitimate. It can last for an entire encounter (very conditional due to slides, shifts, flanking, etc.), but it is a Daily, so once per day. It is only a +2 power bonus and it only affects 2 PCs out of a party. The other 3 PCs are SOL.



 again we are looking at these in a vacume..



> Warlords banner (spend hs to heal and gain +2 att)
> 
> One round per encounter +2 power bonus.



 no attack roll needed




> Avenge me (You must drop, allies spend hs to heal and get +2 att and dam)
> 
> This one is quasi-legitimate once per day, but the Warlord has to go to zero hit points and of course, this does not stack with his other to hit boost powers. So, this would tend to be used late in an encounter if at all. Otherwise, it's a wasted power most days.



 I'll be honnest I never used it, i just got it fromt he compandium, but it seams like a great party farwell...now at the darkest moment, healer down, my last words inspire the troops to push on...




> Blood thirsty (+2 power bonus to attack rolls against bloodied enemies.)
> 
> The bonus does not apply to non-bloodied foes, so it’s fairly useless for half of an encounter. And, it’s once per day. And, it grants Combat Advantage to all enemies against the Warlord. A major CON amongst the PROs. Also, same level as Avenge Me.



 yes it is for half the combat, you now the same combat that you might have used other bonuses for...again I am not trying to stack +20 to hit here...I am showing you have options



> The point is, the Warlord cannot affect most rounds in an encounter. He cannot affect every PC. His bonuses are power bonuses which do not stack with other spells like Bless or even with his own powers.



  have you seen a warlord in play??? becuse all we just went through are the utlities...look at the attack powers too, and you will see they lean alot to a group...heck check out the early char op boards they use to say tac lords were so broken  becuse they effected so much...




> Sure, he can spike a given PC for a given attack a tiny bit, but the bonuses are few and far between. He is lucky if he can affect 10% of the attack rolls per day. This is a very small overall set of bonuses.



 yea, and a party that knows and has grown to work togather will use these to land important shots...I do think 10% is way low...




> And what if the group does not have a Warlord?



 then they find another way to buff...




> Clerics do not have as many ways to boost.



 I will admit that, but they are better healers, and they are not without bonus giving powers (I AM NOT going to spend another hour at work going through another class after I was asked to support this once) it is suppose to balance out..if you feel the leaders are unbalanced, start a new thread...I know that Bards (have not played one yet but have been told) have simalar bonus...but i belive they debuff enemis (-2 ac instead of +2 att)



> Course, PHB Warlords do not have as many either, most of your examples here come from Martial Power.



   so what??? is there some special secert to useing all the books?? or am I suppose to argue against a book that cam out 9 months after PHBI withouut takeing anythign from those 9 months???
      this seams silly...




> But the most important thing is that the Warlord at heroic level (pre-math bug) has many of these same powers. In exchange for the math bug, he gets a few more such powers at Paragon and Epic level, many of them Dailies which last for a very short time.



 wow really so they do the same stick from day one...like was promised...



> That’s not balance.



 yes it is...it means a party with no leader can still win any fair fight...but one with a leader is better off and has an easier time. 


again if the math is broken show me an encounter that doesn't work...but show me a legal (lev+4-Lev-4) fight...


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 2, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> again if the math is broken show me an encounter that doesn't work...but show me a legal (lev+4-Lev-4) fight...




I did already. The n+4 Red Dragon at Paragon that was YOUR example.

Do the n+4 Red Dragon at Epic level. It will be a LOT worse.


PS. You appear to be missing the entire point of the Warlord discussion. The Warlord cannot even average +1 to every PC for every single round. The math bug does -4 to every PC for every single round. Math 101. Too much on a D20 is lost. Compared to the math bug, the Warlord bonuses are white noise. A mathematical hiccup. Not worth discussing.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 2, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> I did already. The n+4 Red Dragon at Paragon that was YOUR example.



 It was my example of it working as intended...so fine I win, my example showed it could still be done...



> Do the n+4 Red Dragon at Epic level. It will be a LOT worse.



 really i still see it s doable... infact as you said a 1,000+ year old dragon should be a killer...and it is, but it is still beatable (althoug hard)




> PS. You appear to be missing the entire point of the Warlord discussion. The Warlord cannot even average +1 to every PC for every single round.



 you appear to be missing that he does not have to...



> The math bug does -4 to every PC for every single round. Math 101. Too much on a D20 is lost.



 except not every power in the book needs to hit, some have miss lines, others have effect lines, some have both, and you get more and mor eof those options as yu level... so well your math says it is harder to hit...I say it is not impposble to win, infact it is still easy enough to win that we have an op board making 1 man parties.... 




> Compared to the math bug, the Warlord bonuses are white noise. A mathematical hiccup.



 what it is, is a chance to rally behind the moments to land telling blows...to set eachother up for big attacks...to be able to be the big shots, well others are missing or hitting...




> Not worth discussing.



  it is alway not worth discussing things that disprove your problems...becuse if we discuse the whole system togather, instead of peiceing out just the d20 att Vs Def part...the n your argument falls apart...

      As you level you gain inpower...very quickly...you gain more encounter and daily power, you swap out the ones you do have for bigger ones, your at will scale to be more deadly (Heck even your basic att does)... Over the cource of 1-30 you tripple your daily magic item usage (ok maybe not exaclty with mile stones adding +1 but close enough) You heal more, you have better defences, you have better attacks, you have powers that can do damage just for the enemy doing somehting (Starting adj, entering a zone, to name a few) you go from having one or two magic items each (low heroic say 1-3 level were most PCS have 1 maybe 2 good items, and 1 maybe two ok ones) to being a walking magic christmas tree (Yea cause they got rid of that right...) with atleast a good portion of your body slots filled, and powerful efffects... You get (inless you paragon multi) a new use for action points, and a few new class abilities, heck at 24+ most PCs self res in one way shape or form...

       and yet the monsters are not that much better, they hit harder and more often, but still most do not heal, and look at thew dragon example, howmany options does he have at level 30 compaired to level 7??? very samml jump...

     and lets not also forget that you are basing this on playing from lv 1-lv 30 that lv 30 is harder, but in real life you are better with your characters becuse you have 30 levels of real world experaince in it...

        the warlord example was a responce to people saying Buffs could not count becuse you had to hit, I showed they could be given without hittting, now the problem is it isn't lasting long engough...what was the phrase, moveing goal posts???

        again and again you claim math show the whole story, but you do not take anything but Att Vs Def inbto ecount...show me tthe math that takes scaleing damge,, and scaling options, and non attack rool damge into account...then I will listen to your math...


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 2, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> I did already. The n+4 Red Dragon at Paragon that was YOUR example.




lets set a bar shall we...how hard is too hard..

now remember this is soppost to be the HARDEST fight the PCs could every expect to face...  please remember this is well above the avrage fight (Lev - lev+1) and is not an every day accorance, in fact if the h1-e3 mods are to be belived as the standard then about once ever 3 or 4 levels the PCs MIGHT face this big of a threat...

    should the threat of party memebers dieing be there?
     should it be possible to end in a TPK if things go wrong (tactics or luck)?
 Should the PCs be expected to be able to win every fight without threat of death or major drawback???
    When Pcs can be raised, or even self res does that change the answer to teh above??

    If a fight is very hard, but is able to be won is it a fair fight?
    If a fight can not be won no matter how wellt eh PCs do is it a fair fight?


[sblock=my take on this] should the threat of party memebers dieing be there?   Yes, with out a doubt  infact if in an slightly above avrage encounter there should always be some small threat of PC death...only in encounters of levl -1 or lower should it be no real chance of death outside of a fluke...
     should it be possible to end in a TPK if things go wrong (tactics or luck)? Yes if the PCs mess up the BEG fight I see no problem with a TPK...but I also hope that iss toped by retrates when it is going that bad...
 Should the PCs be expected to be able to win every fight without threat of death or major drawback??? NO..in fact I can not say this strongly enough...PCs should be in for the fight of there lives...    When Pcs can be raised, or even self res does that change the answer to teh above?? Yes...at epic, especialy once the self res stuff comes in there should be PC deaths (well near misses becuse of the self res) at least once per level...what is the pont of having cool toys you never use...

    If a fight is very hard, but is able to be won is it a fair fight? yes...
    If a fight can not be won no matter how wellt eh PCs do is it a fair fight?
no, if you all only hit on 20's and even then some of you don't crit, and he only misses on 3+ with all attacks...that is not a fair fight...lucky for me you need Lev+7 or more to see such things
[/sblock]


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 2, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> it is alway not worth discussing things that disprove your problems...becuse if we discuse the whole system togather, instead of peiceing out just the d20 att Vs Def part...the n your argument falls apart...




Actually, it does not.

The math does not just illustrate this, but actual gaming illustrates this.

Every single Epic player (so far) on the boards has stated that Epic play is grindy.

Why?

Because even with the synergy bonuses, ~15% fewer attacks hit.
Because monsters have 3x the relative number of hit points, but PC attacks do not increase by 3x damage.

So if you hit less and you do less relative damage per hit, the encounter length increases.

Nothing you have written so far has mitigated these basic facts.

Not just math theory, but actual game play facts.


There are more conditions imposed by PCs at higher levels. But, your POV ignores that not only are there more conditions imposed by PCs, but that there are more conditions posed by the monsters.

Your argument conveniently forgets that there are more Auras, more Ongoing Damage, more rechargeable monster powers, and more monster synergies at higher levels.

Your "discuss the whole system together" claims drop that on the floor and only dicuss the plethora of PC abilities that "offset the math". Why?


----------



## Robert_Goodfellow (Jun 3, 2009)

DrSpunj said:


> Now I just have to sort through the NADs feats and issues.




What does NAD stand for?


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Jun 3, 2009)

*N*on-*A*rmor *D*efenses


----------



## Runestar (Jun 3, 2009)

Robert_Goodfellow said:


> What does NAD stand for?



Non-AC defense. Basically refers to your fort, reflex and will defenses. The problem lay in PHB2's epic feats which boosted a NAD by 4, and another feat which added +2 to all your NADs. So for 4 feats, you could get +6 to all NADs. Very good benefit, but again, almost a no-brainer to take, and seemed to run contrary to wotc's stance on feats being nice, not mandatory.

One could argue that it is essentially another feat patch for all PCs having one poor NAD which monsters will probably hit on a 2 or more.


----------



## tiornys (Jun 3, 2009)

Robert_Goodfellow said:


> I understand your point.  I am just saying that "baby sitting" an Implement and a Weapon as a Paladin, Cleric or the like isn't made any worse by Expertise.  I wold argue that it is indeed made less obnoxious.  I now have the option to worry less about the Item I'm using.



How so?  If I have Weapon Expertise only, that makes me reluctant to use Implement attacks, and vice versa.  If I'm spending two feats to acquire both, that's clearly more obnoxious than only spending one.



> But if you're arguing that the hit chances are balanced without Expertise then I don't see how Expertise makes the hit chances worse.  If you think that feats are "extras" added to your character then Expertise allows you to focus your character more.



I'm arguing that one of two things is true:  either a) hit chances are balanced without Expertise, in which case Expertise is ridiculously overpowered, or b) hit chances need Expertise to be balanced, in which case Expertise is ridiculously poorly implemented.



> The same argument can be made for any feat bonuses what-so-ever.



But no other feat is as powerful and as global as Expertise is.



> So rather then remove feats that make one attack better then another.  Add a feat that can bring those other attacks up to par.  The purpose of feats, in my opinion, is to further differentiate your character from characters of your Race/Class combo.  It can also help develop a niche for such Race/Class combos.



That works for a home game, but does nothing for an official one.  And, it only exacerbates the feat tax issue.



> It is the very nature of feats that your character has to choose whether he's going to better at this, that or the other.



It's also the nature of feats that taking one is supposed to be comparable to taking another.  Feats with more powerful effects are supposed to also be more situational.  Expertise defines its own power class among feats: it is extremely powerful and (for most characters) not situational at all.



> Again I don't see how giving a Paladin a free Weapon/Implement Expertise is in fact penalizing him.  It is my opinion that the hit chance in a void is too low.  Looking at my relatively min-maxed spread sheet the chance to hit is rather low.  And that's looking at your better case scenario.  If you're then looking at a less effective secondary attack (implement or stat wise) then those chances are even less.



It's only penalizing him relative to the free Expertise feat that you're giving the Fighter.  You're boosting all of the Fighter's powers for free, but only half of the Paladin's powers for free.



> I'm not arguing the balance of hybrid classes.  I'd be using completely different evidence to argue that on a class by class basis.  I also will totally admit that I am not completely familiar with classes that my players or I have yet to play or build.



Ok, I need to know what you mean by "hybrid classes".  "Hybrid" is a term that refers to a new type of multiclassing that will be introduced in the PHB3, which has nothing to do with the points I'm making.  I refer to the Warlock, Cleric, Ranger, and Paladin as dual-primary classes, but these classes are also not what I'm concerned with.  One of my areas of concern is classes that have both weapon and implement powers, which includes the Swordmage, Monk, Bard, and Avenger in addition to the Paladin and Cleric.



> I am wanting to focus my discussion on the negative trend in the success rate of ALL attacks as a PC levels up.  That's weapon, natural, implement and otherwise based attacks all receive a cumulative penalty as you increase in power.



I agree that this trend is bad, and should be fixed.



> I understand that what I consider a relative "fix" for this - Weapon/Implement Expertise - to be mostly effective does not benefit all powers and all attacks.  So if you have a suggestion that would do so please put it forth.  But banning expertise because it doesn't effect all attacks that a character makes while at the same time arguing that it is overpowered is talking out of two sides of your face (and thus an ineffective argument).



See my above explanation of my two-pronged argument.  The _effect_ that Weapon and Implement Expertise are attempting to have is, IMO, positive.  The _implementation_ through feats is horribly flawed.  Personally, I favor a house rule of eliminating the feats entirely and adding +1 to all character attacks at level 5, scaling to +2 at 15 and +3 at 25.



> As such your arguments that it makes some attacks better then others agrees with my statement.  Just as Action Surge makes Action Point attacks better and Combat Reflexes makes opportunity attacks better then your normal basic attacks.  Does this mean that they should be banned as well?



Those feats are sufficiently situational that their power level is fine.  One applies to approximately one attack per 1 1/2 encounters.  The other applies to basic level attacks that you have no control over obtaining.  Expertise is nothing like situational; it applies to every attack that most characters make.  

t~


----------



## Nail (Jun 3, 2009)

DrSpunj said:


> Wow. I...probably read that when FRPG first came out but I certainly didn't remember it. I'm sure the Swordmage player isn't remembering that either. He's gone down in the last couple big battles and this certainly could have made it much more unlikely that he would've been able to get back up at all or stay up as long after being healed.
> 
> I'll have to let him know about this. Thanks!



That's just no end of suck, right there.  A defender that gets weaker if he drops.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 3, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> Actually, it does not.
> 
> The math does not just illustrate this, but actual gaming illustrates this.
> 
> Every single Epic player (so far) on the boards has stated that Epic play is grindy.




    really...every singe epiv player??? well me and ross played epic and post here,,,so that is wrong, and no not everyone...even grind posts show examples of the way to avoid it...so please don't try to sound like you speak for everyone...




> So if you hit less and you do less relative damage per hit, the encounter length increases.



 really here and on wotc I have seen people talk about the bump levels 11 and 12, then again at 21 and 22 being cake walks...look for the thread on troll haunt mod...lots of people said it was way easy...and before expertise no less



> Nothing you have written so far has mitigated these basic facts.
> 
> Not just math theory, but actual game play facts.



 you have no facts, only theory...if you had fact I would have nothing to argue with...but you are so buesy claiming to be right you are not paying attention...



> There are more conditions imposed by PCs at higher levels. But, your POV ignores that not only are there more conditions imposed by PCs, but that there are more conditions posed by the monsters.
> 
> Your argument conveniently forgets that there are more Auras, more Ongoing Damage, more rechargeable monster powers, and more monster synergies at higher levels.




     I forget none of that, mostly becuse I have run into them...again  I know that these monsters are beatable in fun entertaining combats...but now you move away from the core arguement again...show me the unbeatable monster...show me the encounter that will grind...show me the FACTS...but you can not becuse no such facts can exsit...becuse every game is diffrent and what grinds for mone group doesn't fo another (Heck I herd some pople had no problem with Irontooth... )



> Your "discuss the whole system together" claims drop that on the floor and only dicuss the plethora of PC abilities that "offset the math". Why?



     I am more then willing to discuse the whole set up if you are...


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Jun 3, 2009)

DrSpunj said:


> All Expertise feats are banned; instead all PCs receive a flat +1 unnamed bonus to attacks at 11th level which increases to +2 at 21st level.
> 
> This changes the average To Hit % by tier to:
> 
> ...




Just curious; what do the numbers look like if you do a +1 at 5th, +2 at 15th, and +3 at 25th?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 3, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> Every single Epic player (so far) on the boards has stated that Epic play is grindy.




really now... I wish I could search enworld (I don't give money so no search) but here is what I found that 100% disproves this  (As if being an epic player and a DM and not agreeing didn't already...)

Some people agree with me here are some links…

From Wotc…



Nom said:


> There are basically three groups, in increasing order of size:
> (1) Those who think that the feats are a broken way to fix the game math, and either ignore them (math still wonky) or house-rule in a more global solution.
> (2) Those who are happy to play with the feats as-written.
> (3) Those who are ignorant of the entire controversy.







CyberianHusky said:


> I dont believe there are a significant portion of players who are REALLY boycotting the expertise feats... and why the OP thinks 4E would be negatively impacted by any amount of players who prefer their house rules over the rules they paid for is beyond me.
> 
> Thats right : some other group's house rules dont affect me in the slightest.
> House rules are almost always pointless and borne from a misunderstanding of the rules...






arderkrag said:


> This is where I am.
> 
> I don't see the problem with the feats. Yes, I understand the math. Yes, I know the implications. No, I don't find it problematic. The game works fine with or without them.








Cartigan said:


> ...No. Not even close. I am saying the argument is purely imagined. Either you optimize your character and take every good feat - thus rendering this as a "feat tax" moot; or, you don't optimize your character and it doesn't matter what the feat does or if you take it - thus rendering this as a "feat tax" moot.
> 
> The entire argument and "controversy" is solely the result of people with too much time on their hands and mathgeeks.






Novacat said:


> I must be in camp 3. I've read about how these feats are basically a fix to the game's math, but I've never seen anything about a "controversy", nor have I heard anyone talk about disallowing them.





From here on enworld



Iron Sky said:


> Hell... yeah, literally.
> 
> We just finished off a 7-session dungeon by facing a Balor guarding the Eye of Ioun.  The fight was epic... also literally.






blargney the second said:


> Between Stormwarden and Scimitar Dance, a well-built ranger can put out a lot of auto-damage even when he always misses.  I sincerely doubt they're doing the math wrong, for what it's worth.
> -blarg






Dragonblade said:


> In another example, I play a 12th level wizard in another game and whenever I can't hit a tough enemy, I bust out Flaming Sphere and just park it next to the enemy. Due to my stats and magic items (Staff of Ruin FTW!), they take 1d4+14 points of Fire damage just by being next to it every round. I don't have to roll anything. If the monster moves away, I just move my sphere to follow. That still leaves me with a Standard action every round to try to nail it with other powers.






Iron Sky said:


> My Ranger has 24 Dex (+7 mod) and was doing Twin Strike, plus 7 more at the end of my turn.
> 
> My ranger is also multiclassed Fighter to get Rain of Steel.  My damage with that was 1d8+7 base, +6 for the Pally's Wrath of the Gods.
> 
> So: Twin Strike 14 damage + 7 for Stormwarden = 21 on my turn.  At the start if its turn 1d8+13 = 14 minimum damage.  And technically, it should have been 15 minimum damage since I have Gauntlets of Destruction.  So, 36 to 42 damage a round from my Stormwarden even when I missed(which ended up being 95% of the time).


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 3, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> really now... I wish I could search enworld (I don't give money so no search) but here is what I found that 100% disproves this  (As if being an epic player and a DM and not agreeing didn't already...)
> 
> Some people agree with me here are some links…




You're pretty funny.

I talk about Epic being grindy and none of the text you quoted discuss the subject. Most of the links you quoted don't even discuss Epic. And these are what you are using to "disprove" that Epic is grindy.

Want to try again?


----------



## Victim (Jun 3, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> You're pretty funny.
> 
> I talk about Epic being grindy and none of the text you quoted discuss the subject. Most of the links you quoted don't even discuss Epic. And these are what you are using to "disprove" that Epic is grindy.
> 
> Want to try again?




He's saying that people use auto-damage powers like Rain of Steel or miss damage to mitigate the loss of damage from missed attacks.

But even Stormwardens do more damage when they hit.


----------



## Lauberfen (Jun 3, 2009)

Yup. A stack of opinion from another board is hardly relevant, none of the quotes from the wizards board are even discussing experience of play, at any level. Just reiterating that some people don't consider there to be a maths gap, and are happy with the feats. No reference to play.

Perhaps a poll would best sort this out- those that have actually played at epic, and whether they've experienced grind or not.


Quite probably the numbers are a bit small for it to be relevant.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 3, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> You're pretty funny.



 I new when I saw this this thread was going down hill...




> I talk about Epic being grindy and none of the text you quoted discuss the subject. Most of the links you quoted don't even discuss Epic. And these are what you are using to "disprove" that Epic is grindy.



 it is what I use to PROVER beyond a dubt that you do not speak for everyone...so get off the high horse...not everyone is on yourside...Epic CAN be grindy, but not EVERYONE agrees...



> Want to try again?



   no your turn...prove your statement...prove 


> Every single Epic player (so far) on the boards has stated that Epic play is grindy.






Lauberfen said:


> Yup. A stack of opinion from another board is hardly relevant,



  except it is relevant to him not speaking for everyone...


> none of the quotes from the wizards board are even discussing experience of play, at any level.



   really so none that said there was no problem have played or quited play esxeriance...maybe you should reread them...



> Just reiterating that some people don't consider there to be a maths gap, and are happy with the feats.



 you mean the real point of this thread...the feats


> Perhaps a poll would best sort this out- those that have actually played at epic, and whether they've experienced grind or not.



so start one...


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 3, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> no your turn...prove your statement...prove




Nope. Don't have to. I tried Epic and it was grindy. Saw a lot of posts here stating it was grindy.

Don't need to prove that to anyone, I just consider it fact. The math supports this POV as well.

You can think otherwise, I was just illustrating that your "100% disproves this" statement was not backed up by any real anecdotal evidence from you so far.


----------



## Elric (Jun 3, 2009)

Old Gumphrey said:


> Just curious; what do the numbers look like if you do a +1 at 5th, +2 at 15th, and +3 at 25th?




I must be using slightly different assumptions about what magic item enhancement bonuses PCs will have at what levels compared to the original poster, but I get averages by tier of (assuming level 1 starts with a 60% chance to hit):

+1 at 5/15/25:
Heroic: 60%
Paragon: 57%
Epic: 55%

+1 at Paragon/Epic:
Heroic: 57%
Paragon: 54%
Epic: 52%

Default game rules, no expertise feats:
Heroic: 57%
Paragon: 49%
Epic: 42%



DrSpunj said:


> Now I just have to sort through the NADs feats and issues.




If you are giving out an eventual +2 to hit, that means to-hit scales by 2 worse than monster defenses over 29 levels.  At the moment, the average FRW defenses scales by 5 worse than monster to-hit over 29 levels (see the math/assumptions, here).  So if you give a +1 to each FRW at level 5/15/25, the average FRW defenses will scale by -2, the same as to-hit with your change and the same as AC scales in the default system.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 3, 2009)

But you would only be looking at the attack bonuses. That might be sufficient, it might not be. Epic Tier also sees a bump in damage (basic attacks/at-wills) and a bump by he Epic Destinies that is unaccounted for (I am not talking just about the ability bonus). I doubt anyone has done the math for that.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 3, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> Nope. Don't have to.



 you do if you want people to convince people you are speaking for 'Everyone'



> I tried Epic and it was grindy. Saw a lot of posts here stating it was grindy.



 I not only tried epic, but played it multi times, and I found it not to be grindy...and I see people here and on other boards feel the same...



> Don't need to prove that to anyone, I just consider it fact. The math supports this POV as well.



  things that you consider facts are your opionons...facts are things that ARE facts witch you refuse to show..



> You can think otherwise, I was just illustrating that your "100% disproves this" statement was not backed up by any real anecdotal evidence from you so far.



  wow that is so ironic...since all you have done is said "I am right you are wrong  "  well I have gone out of my way to show at every level evadance, and I have reseaarched in the rules, in the math, and on the boards, well all you say is 



KarinsDad said:


> Nope. Don't have to.




so I guess you really just like to fight and have no point at all...


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 3, 2009)

since the crux of the argument is weather or not you need to have these or not to be able to play at effective levels, and I have been told time and again how grindy and unplayble this game gets, but noone has answerf this...



GMforPowergamers said:


> lets set a bar shall we...how hard is too hard..
> 
> now remember this is soppost to be the HARDEST fight the PCs could every expect to face...  please remember this is well above the avrage fight (Lev - lev+1) and is not an every day accorance, in fact if the h1-e3 mods are to be belived as the standard then about once ever 3 or 4 levels the PCs MIGHT face this big of a threat...
> 
> ...




and I am still waiting for the un playble encounter...


----------



## Nail (Jun 3, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> since the crux of the argument is weather or not you need to have these or not to be able to play at effective levels.



I'm having a bit of trouble following your english.  Let me paraphrase you, and you let me know if I've gotten it right:

You claim that the central debate in this thread is "_Are the expertise feats required at paragon and epic tiers of play?_"

Is that what you are saying?


----------



## Ryujin (Jun 3, 2009)

I don't know about that. I think that a valid arguement would be that they are seen as needed by Wizards, as demonstrated by how ubiquitous these feats are. There are now three of them, that will stack with any conditional bonuses. That implies that they envision every character and class taking them.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 3, 2009)

Nail said:


> I'm having a bit of trouble following your english.  Let me paraphrase you, and you let me know if I've gotten it right:



 you want to hear something funny...sometimes when I type even I can't read what I ment...



> You claim that the central debate in this thread is "_Are the expertise feats required at paragon and epic tiers of play?_"



 close enough


----------



## Nail (Jun 3, 2009)

<chuckle>

Yeah.  Me too, sometimes.


----------



## Nail (Jun 3, 2009)

"Are the expertise feats required at paragon and epic tiers of play?" 
To answer this, we're going to have to come to an understanding about what "required" (or "playable" or "fun" or whatever) means.  And I have a sneaking suspicion that we'll not be able to agree on this, as much depends on prefered play style.

For my part, I'd say "required" means that "the game isn't very fun".  It does NOT mean (to me) that "the game simply doesn't work".  I think it's self-evident that the game does work.  It's only a question of hitting the right balance-point, and hitting less than 55% of the time is (IMO) "not right".

So: *"Do PCs hit at least 55% of the time at paragon and epic tiers?"*

....and the answer is: _"Nope, unless you allow the Expertise line of feats."_


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 3, 2009)

Nail said:


> "Are the expertise feats required at paragon and epic tiers of play?"
> To answer this, we're going to have to come to an understanding about what "required" (or "playable" or "fun" or whatever) means.  And I have a sneaking suspicion that we'll not be able to agree on this, as much depends on prefered play style.
> 
> For my part, I'd say "required" means that "the game isn't very fun".  It does NOT mean (to me) that "the game simply doesn't work".  I think it's self-evident that the game does work.  It's only a question of hitting the right balance-point, and hitting less than 55% of the time is (IMO) "not right".
> ...




Agreed. The Epic game works. It's not as much fun without the bonuses (regardless of whether it is a DM handed out math bug fix, or a DM allowing the feats). But it works.



GMforPowergamers said:


> since the crux of the argument is weather or not you need to have these or not to be able to play at effective levels, and I have been told time and again how grindy and unplayble this game gets, but noone has answerf this...
> 
> and I am still waiting for the un playble encounter...




Nail said it better here.

It's not that it is unplayable.

It's not that is is required.


It's just not as much fun when encounters are grindy. If one group of PCs all have +3 to hit at Epic levels and another group of PCs do not, the exact same encounter will (on average) take several rounds longer with the group that does not have +3 to hit.

It's about balance and fun.

Can it be played? Yup.

Will the encounter last longer than similar difficulty heroic encounters? Yup, but for the lesser chance to hit and for the increased number of relative monster hit points.

Are longer encounters more fun than shorter ones? Not for me and not generally for anyone I play with.


And, the same applies to the defensive side of the coin. When PCs do not have the NAD feats or a DM supplied NAD fix house rule, they will be affected by conditions more often and will take damage more often which in turn will extend the duration of the encounter.


----------



## Bayuer (Jun 3, 2009)

@GMforPowergamers

What will happen if there isn't a Warlord in my party? What if we have cleric on WIS and CHA instead Are you saying that we need some powers that give us to hit bonuses or the game will be not fun-good-playable? Shouldn't the game be balanced for such a simple things like average to hit chances? All options should be just options, not reasonable choices options should make your character above average, not on average level when you take them. 

You understand that many of powers that gives bonuses to hit are for basic or melee attacks only? (there are few that give better options, but as I said, only few powers can do that and still they are very limited) 

All the players that use attacks vs. NADs have hard time. They can't take benefits of combat advantage and many powers that give to hit bonuses.

When you designing encounter, you make many of them hard for players, so to achive this you use higher level monsters. Now when you saw math (here you can see mine - Wizards Community - View Single Post - Another math crunch and how fix 4E) the to hit chance will be lower than on given level (from 35% it will drop to 15% if you will use n+4 monster). And again, what with characters that hit vs. NADs? They don't have many options to achive to hit bonuses.

For example. Orcus have AC 48. With basic +31 to hit that doesne looks so good. FOR 51 REF 46 WILL 49. To hit on that level is around 29. Of course there will be some (but still few) powers that will make numbers better, but who are we kidding, it's still not good enoungh to say, that it's ok.


----------



## DrSpunj (Jun 4, 2009)

Old Gumphrey said:


> Just curious; what do the numbers look like if you do a +1 at 5th, +2 at 15th, and +3 at 25th?




Sorry I didn't see this earlier today, *OG*, busy day at work. 



Elric said:


> I must be using slightly different assumptions about what magic item enhancement bonuses PCs will have at what levels compared to the original poster, but I get averages by tier of (assuming level 1 starts with a 60% chance to hit):
> 
> +1 at 5/15/25:
> Heroic: 60%
> ...




I think that's probably it. I didn't adjust what *Goodfellow* put in his sheet and he picks up a +1 item at 2nd level, then +2 at 6th, +3 at 11th, etc. I think previously in this thread there was discussion that while it's possible a single party member might have a +2 item as early as level 2 according to the DMG parcel system, it's not a given the "average" party member (which would be 3 out of the assumed party of 5) would likely have a +2 weapon until 7th. Or am I remembering that wrong? Please correct me if so because I _really_ don't want to reread this whole thread! 

Regardless, to keep my numbers consistent and to answer *Old Gumphrey*'s question, if we continue with the magic item distribution *Goodfellow* used and go with 5/15/25 giving +1/+2/+3 I get:

+1 at 5/15/25:
Heroic: 61.5%
Paragon: 59%
Epic: 57%



Elric said:


> If you are giving out an eventual +2 to hit, that means to-hit scales by 2 worse than monster defenses over 29 levels.  At the moment, the average FRW defenses scales by 5 worse than monster to-hit over 29 levels (see the math/assumptions, here).  So if you give a +1 to each FRW at level 5/15/25, the average FRW defenses will scale by -2, the same as to-hit with your change and the same as AC scales in the default system.




Thanks for the thread link. I had read part of that awhile ago but decided to focus on the attack bonus & Expertise feats first. Now I don't have to go looking for the thread (though I hoped it was still on the first page of the 4e HR forum, I don't get over there much  ).


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 4, 2009)

Bayuer said:


> @GMforPowergamers
> 
> What will happen if there isn't a Warlord in my party?



 the you eaither have a diffrent leader (other bonuses...or you are argueing the leaders are not balanced with each other???) 







> What if we have cleric on WIS and CHA instead Are you saying that we need some powers that give us to hit bonuses or the game will be not fun-good-playable?



  no, but the fights will take longer, lucky for you your cleric is better at healing then that warlod, meaning you can stay int he fight longer.



> Shouldn't the game be balanced for such a simple things like average to hit chances? All options should be just options, not reasonable choices options should make your character above average, not on average level when you take them.



 that is a great idea, but it is not entirely how the system was designed (please lets not get derailed again) It assumes you have 3 magic items per party member (Neck, armor, weap/imp), and a leader. If you would like to discuse that please fork the thread...



> You understand that many of powers that gives bonuses to hit are for basic or melee attacks only? (there are few that give better options, but as I said, only few powers can do that and still they are very limited)



 You do realise that more then half of the classes are melee only right...in fact that is a complaint I hear regularly...



> All the players that use attacks vs. NADs have hard time. They can't take benefits of combat advantage and many powers that give to hit bonuses.



 but they also (normaly inless a rouge) get powers that target multi, so they can 'shop around' for a weakspot...



> When you designing encounter, you make many of them hard for players, so to achive this you use higher level monsters. Now when you saw math (here you can see mine - Wizards Community - View Single Post - Another math crunch and how fix 4E) the to hit chance will be lower than on given level (from 35% it will drop to 15% if you will use n+4 monster). And again, what with characters that hit vs. NADs? They don't have many options to achive to hit bonuses.



   yes if you design harder encounters it becomes harder encounter...maybe I just don't get the problem...



> For example. Orcus have AC 48. With basic +31 to hit that doesne looks so good. FOR 51 REF 46 WILL 49. To hit on that level is around 29. Of course there will be some (but still few) powers that will make numbers better, but who are we kidding, it's still not good enoungh to say, that it's ok.




avrage fighter 16 att stat +1 weapon talent, and +6 weapon...
+7 str +15 level, +6 magic, +1 talent, +3 prof...+32 Vs AC 48 needs a 16 to hit the god killing abomanation...

avrage rouge same but Vs Ref 46, Will 49, and AC 48  needs 14, 17, and 16...

that is no feats, no powers, no paragon paths, no epic destiny, no Combat Advantage, and still hitBLE

    so now we come back to what is fair for "Hardest encounter you will ever face?"... should the PCs at level 30 see orcus as no more of a threat to them (God killing primordal demon lord of undead) then the Orc was 27 levels ago???

needs a 16 to hit... what is a good analogy...

well fighter and/or rouge level 1 w/ 16 att stat
+3 stat, +3 prof, +1 class...+7  on a 16 they hit AC 23...Hobgoblin commander Level 5 (normal) Soldier. MM I pg 140.

  so is orcus supose to be more or less thretning then that hobgoblin??? 

 Don't forget at level 1 you have 1 daily, and 1 encounter...so you quicky fall back on at wills...orcus on the other hand at level 30 (Where you stand back up if killed 60+% of the time) you could have infinite encounter, or any number of other ungodly things...

     by the way Orcus plays right into my hand, since I know more then 1 group that beat him...with no expertise...


----------



## Jhaelen (Jun 4, 2009)

Nail said:


> "Are the expertise feats required at paragon and epic tiers of play?"
> To answer this, we're going to have to come to an understanding about what "required" (or "playable" or "fun" or whatever) means.
> [...]
> So: *"Do PCs hit at least 55% of the time at paragon and epic tiers?"*



I'm glad you rephrased the question in this way. 
Because if people agree that the answer to the second question will also be the answer the first question, I don't have to be worried about the expertise feats.

Because I don't think pcs SHOULD hit 55% of the time at paragon and epic tiers (out of the box).


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jun 4, 2009)

Bayuer said:


> @GMforPowergamers
> 
> What will happen if there isn't a Warlord in my party? What if we have cleric on WIS and CHA instead Are you saying that we need some powers that give us to hit bonuses or the game will be not fun-good-playable? Shouldn't the game be balanced for such a simple things like average to hit chances? All options should be just options, not reasonable choices options should make your character above average, not on average level when you take them.
> 
> ...



The math should work really good with a balanced party. this means a controller, two striker, one defender and one leader... which will result in bonuses for party and penalties for your enemies will eventually make combats balanced.

If your party is differently balanced, you may have more need for to hit and defense bonuses.

The fact is: you have to make a basic assumption. Perhaps wotc playtesters found many good combinations and played better than average parties and they made higher level play a bit harder than what t should be. Maybe some last minute nerfs affected higer level play more drastically than expected.

Result: the average party (usually consisting of more strikers or defenders than expected) hits too good at the beginning levels and because of lacking synergies they fall behind later.

My usual reaction would be: lower monster levels to fit the parties needs...

But wotc chose to add feats which don´t fix math right away, but for those insisting to play unbalanced partys (unbalanced, not imba). Which is generally a good thing. 

For balanced parties it can be a bit too good.

But remember expertise on a whole is more relevant for parties who have a lower hit chance... (chance to shorten the combat increases the longer the combat lasts) so if all party members take it, the less offensive party will profit more from it.

If you are still not convinced, use following houserule

Convert expertise to a power bonus. So this will help a: leaderless parties, can all take it and profit. In a party with a leader the leader can take it to hit with powers that grant better bonuses.

If you don´t like a feat which gives a power bonus, convert expertise to:

feat: expertise.
gain weapon expertise power. Chose a weapon type/impelement.

minor action, at will, close burst 10
you examine your enemies how to make best use of your weapon against their defenses.
effect: get a power +1 power bonus to hit against all enemies with a weapon of the chosen weapon type/implement within burst, that you can see. This bonus increaes to +2 at level 15 and to +3 at level 25.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jun 4, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> And, the same applies to the defensive side of the coin. When PCs do not have the NAD feats or a DM supplied NAD fix house rule, they will be affected by conditions more often and will take damage more often which in turn will extend the duration of the encounter.




here I agree: The two +1 bonuses every few levels are no increase in skill. it decides which defense you allow to fall behind. 

Also, because the attack stat is so obviously important, you will not not increase it. Defenses should really scale a bit better. If monsters are harder to hit, players should also become harder to hit. Because of conditions. But Monsters should then do more damage!


----------



## Regicide (Jun 4, 2009)

UngeheuerLich said:


> here I agree: The two +1 bonuses every few levels are no increase in skill. it decides which defense you allow to fall behind.




The Immortal: Highest AC (without total defense or similar) - Wizards Community


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 4, 2009)

Jhaelen said:


> Because I don't think pcs SHOULD hit 55% of the time at paragon and epic tiers (out of the box).




Just curious, but why not?

If 60% to hit is fun at level one, why is 40% to hit fun at level 29?

I would think the opposite should be the case. With fewer options at low level, the chance to hit can be somewhat less because the actual game play time is not slowed up as much by players deciding on their actions. With more options at high level, the chance to hit should be somewhat greater because the actual game play time is slowed up by players deciding on their actions.

It would seem that high level would be slower by definition everything else (including to hit) being the same. The DM and players both have more conditions to keep track of, more options to decide upon, more game interactions to take into account.

Player: "Can I move here and not get OAed?"
DM: "Well, remember that we have already seen that creature #3 has both reach and can OA with it."
Player: "Oh yeah. Forgot about that. What if I slide over here?"
DM: "You can do that, but you will enter the aura of creature #2 by doing that."
Player: "Shoot. What about...?"

Now, this is a bit of an exageration to get the point across (and some DMs might not be this helpful), but high level play is a LOT more complex and time consuming for many people than low level play.

So, why make the encounter drag out even more from say 10 rounds to 14 rounds (as an example) by decreasing the chance to hit?

From the "fun perspective", is it fun for an n+2 encounter to last 45 minutes of real time at level 1 and still fun for it to last 120 minutes (or more) of real time at level 30? Is it actually fun to miss 3 times out of 5 when the PC used to hit 3 times out of 5?

I'm not seeing the same level of fun here.


----------



## AllisterH (Jun 4, 2009)

Isn't it considered good game design that the game gets progressively harder the longer you play?

You master the character/object/whatever but the tracks get narrower, the monster gets tougher, conditions don't work as well, it takes longer to kill off bosses etc?


----------



## kilpatds (Jun 4, 2009)

DrSpunj said:


> However, PC death in 4th edition from what I've seen in our current campaign and the 8th level Dungeon Delve we did a few weeks ago (so admittedly limited to Heroic Tier) is NOT even likely in very Hard combats with poor party tactics and skewed die rolling like we had last night!




As an LFR DM who's had two TPKs out of 20 or so sessions, I'd like to say that while the difference between a moderate battle and a hard battle is much THICKER than it looks, the difference between a hard battle and a TPK is much THINNER than it looks.

I think you were closer to a TPK than you think you were.  That the difference between 2 PCs at death's door and a TPK is a very small one.

I'd suggest running a "it was just a dream" scenario.  Stat out a hard encounter for the group, and then run it really trying to kill them instead of doing the normal DM thing of slightly pulling punches.  Drop the leaders first.  Try to set things up so you can drop all of them on the same turn.  Then just focus fire on every one else, leaving the battlerager for last.  I expect you'll be able to put down the with much less effort than you think.

Once the leaders are down, the other players really just stop bouncing up.  And then the fight's just over except for the rolling.  Once the monster side can eliminate the source of the PCs buffer (the leader's ability to trigger surges), PCs tend to stay down and hard fights (or even medium fights) turn into TPKs.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 4, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Isn't it considered good game design that the game gets progressively harder the longer you play?
> 
> You master the character/object/whatever but the tracks get narrower, the monster gets tougher, conditions don't work as well, it takes longer to kill off bosses etc?




There is nothing wrong with this concept.

The problem is one of:

Round one: "I miss"
Round two: "I miss"
Round three: "I miss"
Round four: "Oh joy, I finally hit"

Making the encounters more challenging is a good idea. For example, it taking 6 successful hits to down a monster instead of 5; or immobilizing the monster does not help, but daze does. Doing it by decreasing the chances to hit is just begging to introduce boredom at the table.

I see boredom at the table if a PC is caught in a trap for many rounds and cannot contribute. There's not much difference between that and a player who gets to roll the dice, but the result often fails.


----------



## Nail (Jun 4, 2009)

Jhaelen said:


> Because I don't think pcs SHOULD hit 55% of the time at paragon and epic tiers (out of the box).



Okey-dokey.

As should be obvious, I think 55% (at all levels) is a minimum.  I also think that with help from multiple party members and optimal positioning, it should never be over ~80% (at all levels).  As a game designer, you have a very narrow path to walk...and you should be *very* cognizant of that as you add things to the system.


----------



## Nail (Jun 4, 2009)

kilpatds said:


> I think you were closer to a TPK than you think you were.  That the difference between 2 PCs at death's door and a TPK is a very small one.



Exactly, *kilpatds*.  We really were right there at the edge of TPK-land.  We were just able to pull it back from the brink with a little luck and all of our resources.


----------



## DrSpunj (Jun 4, 2009)

Thanks for the comment, *kilpatds*. But I want to ask you & anyone else like *Nail* who agrees with you:

Should there be a middle option at the end of a tough battle between "Short Rest and we're probably good to go if nothing really mean is around the next corner" and TPK?

In tough battles with bad luck or tactics (or especially both!) on the PCs part I think one PC death is an acceptable part of the game.

Maybe we should fork this out if there's a lot of opinions here?


----------



## Nail (Jun 4, 2009)

DrSpunj said:


> Thanks for the comment, *kilpatds*. But I want to ask you & anyone else like *Nail* who agrees with you:
> 
> Should there be a middle option at the end of a tough battle between "Short Rest and we're probably good to go if nothing really mean is around the next corner" and TPK?
> 
> ...



I agree: This is a (good) separate topic.  Fork it.


----------



## Akaiku (Jun 4, 2009)

DrSpunj said:


> Thanks for the comment, *kilpatds*. But I want to ask you & anyone else like *Nail* who agrees with you:
> 
> Should there be a middle option at the end of a tough battle between "Short Rest and we're probably good to go if nothing really mean is around the next corner" and TPK?
> 
> ...




In my experiance, there is really little area between tpk and everyone is ok. Generally speaking, unless something contrived and/or targeted to a specific player comes up, everyone is fine or everyone is dead. I have only had players actually die-die when a leader isn't present or a tpk is immenent. The GM did a fiat-kindess after 2 people died in the latter that stopped a tpk. The non-leader present one was someone getting downed then ongoing damage auraing dead.

Leaders are effective. Players tend to not die till the leader drops, then they ALL die.


----------



## DrSpunj (Jun 4, 2009)

Here it is. Thanks.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jun 4, 2009)

Regicide said:


> The Immortal: Highest AC (without total defense or similar) - Wizards Community



not my point 

I don´t feel like its a bonus, but a requirement. The 3.5 choice to add +1 to one stat was a real choice. Now you have 2 +1 bonus, but still only one is a real choice. The other one will go to your main attack stat.


----------



## IanB (Jun 5, 2009)

I don't think breaking the attack bonus thing down simply by tier makes sense. The fact that WotC pegged the bonuses at 5/15/25 instead of at the tier breaks is meaningful.

The point of the fix isn't just to make the average over the whole tier more comparable to the average over another whole tier, it is to smooth the progression out even within tiers. I don't see why any house rule wouldn't just assign the bonuses at the same points that the feat does.

"I'm not seeing a problem in the heroic tier" doesn't answer any questions about whether the problem is real unless the experience is with the _entire_ heroic tier.


----------



## Intense_Interest (Jun 5, 2009)

UngeheuerLich said:


> not my point
> 
> I don´t feel like its a bonus, but a requirement. The 3.5 choice to add +1 to one stat was a real choice. Now you have 2 +1 bonus, but still only one is a real choice. The other one will go to your main attack stat.




So you have the same amount of choice that you used to have, or maybe the difference between 1/5th of a choice and 1/6th of a choice?



> As should be obvious, I think 55% (at all levels) is a minimum. I also think that with help from multiple party members and optimal positioning, it should never be over ~80% (at all levels). As a game designer, you have a very narrow path to walk...and you should be *very* cognizant of that as you add things to the system.




So you should be able to hit on an 11 most of the time and hit on a 5 at best during optimum conditions, and the game should not change at all as you add levels?

While it is definitely an opinion, it just isn't supported by the 4E design: you aren't supposed to "jump into" Paragon teir without learning through game-play experience how to best use your multiple Encounters, Dailys, and APs/Surges.  Especially when most PPs give you bonuses to use APs and an extra required PP-power.  WotC said it when they re-designed game days for new players to be Heroic only.

Otherwise, the game isn't about meeting challenges and acrueing power to be used wisely, and instead about "running on a treadmill" and changing the scenery every 5 levels.


----------



## Nail (Jun 5, 2009)

Intense_Interest said:


> So you should be able to hit on an 11 most of the time and hit on a 5 at best during optimum conditions,



 Yep! 







Intense_Interest said:


> and the game should not change at all as you add levels?



Ooooooo....you almost had it.  Oh well. 

Are *you *saying that as the players gain levels, it should be _harder _to hit their opponents, even under optimal conditions?


----------



## IanB (Jun 5, 2009)

Intense_Interest said:


> Otherwise, the game isn't about meeting challenges and acrueing power to be used wisely, and instead about "running on a treadmill" and changing the scenery every 5 levels.




Have you played at epic or near-epic levels before these feats were introduced? I have, as a high level implement using cleric. Missing 70% of the time against challenging opponents is not a fun play experience; it requires you to _plan on missing_ when you choose your actions. That's not good.

My personal, small sample size of data says that post-feat the game is a _lot_ more fun at those levels, particularly for characters that don't have a lot of other options for boosting attacks.

Point being, *yes* the math needs to stay roughly the same at all tiers. It is only a 'treadmill' as you put it if the story is basically irrelevant to the game.


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (Jun 5, 2009)

While I agree that only hitting every 4 rounds on every fight is not fun, I think assuming that the game is only fun when you hit on a roll of 9 on a d20 is taking it too far...

I think you hitting an average, equal level opponent on an 11 is ok

I think hitting a level+4, very dangerous opponent in a 15 is good enough... it is supposed to be a tough fight, no?


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jun 5, 2009)

Intense_Interest said:


> So you have the same amount of choice that you used to have, or maybe the difference between 1/5th of a choice and 1/6th of a choice?




1. please quote correctly! (the second paragraph of the quote was nothing I said IIRC)

2. The difference is now, that you can´t increase your stats by using items etc. That math assumes that you increase your main stat every chance. And if you put your second increas in the secondary attribute as you have put your first, you waste a bit of it.

So: result is, fighters who increase constitution and strength fall behind quite a bit.

Would it have been bad, if you had only one +1 to divide and math doesn´t assume distributing it? so a character fokussing on defense has a real reward (increasing low defenses is worthless... however increasing high defenses will give you a big reward)

So putting a +1 bonus to a stat solely to increase a defense would be viable choice.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 5, 2009)

Amphimir Míriel said:


> While I agree that only hitting every 4 rounds on every fight is not fun, I think assuming that the game is only fun when you hit on a roll of 9 on a d20 is taking it too far...
> 
> I think you hitting an average, equal level opponent on an 11 is ok
> 
> I think hitting a level+4, very dangerous opponent in a 15 is good enough... it is supposed to be a tough fight, no?




15 might be good enough, but I've seen n+4 where the PC had to roll a 17 at low Epic. That is hitting once every 5 rounds (let alone once per 4).

15 or higher is 1 in 3 (literally, 3 in 10)
16 or higher is 1 in 4
17 or higher is 1 in 5

A very small change in the chance to hit changes the wait between success drastically.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jun 5, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> 15 might be good enough, but I've seen n+4 where the PC had to roll a 17 at low Epic. That is hitting once every 5 rounds (let alone once per 4).
> 
> 15 or higher is 1 in 3 (literally, 3 in 10)
> 16 or higher is 1 in 4
> ...



and finally you are argumenting with relative damage 

in this cases expertise is great


----------



## keterys (Jun 5, 2009)

Just so someone says it... a 55% chance to hit is needing a 10 on the die. It's an interesting choice for baseline as it matches the save mechanic, the double digit point on the die, etc. It makes it a lot easier to get a good feel for what hits and doesn't very quickly as you see the die lands.

Also, when considering a 'difficult to hit opponent' such as a higher level elite or solo, what should its chance to be hit be before it uses, say, concealment, blindness, or penalties to attack?

For example, a Black Dragon can not only blind many of the PC attackers in effect, it can also impose a -2 penalty to attacks from dragon fear.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 5, 2009)

first I can't belive that the base 'always' should be 10...but lets take a look at this another way...we have been useing solos of n+...and you should NEVER expect to hit a solo or a N+ to hit on a 10...

I belive level +14 was avrage AC. so at level 30 44

level 30 fighter

base 15 + (24 str) +7 (class)+1 (prof)+3 (magic) +6 = +32 Vc AC 44 = 12+ to hit...with no power bonuses, no CA, and no paragon path or epic destiny...


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Jun 6, 2009)

keterys said:


> Just so someone says it... a 55% chance to hit is needing a 10 on the die. It's an interesting choice for baseline as it matches the save mechanic, the double digit point on the die, etc. It makes it a lot easier to get a good feel for what hits and doesn't very quickly as you see the die lands.
> 
> Also, when considering a 'difficult to hit opponent' such as a higher level elite or solo, what should its chance to be hit be before it uses, say, concealment, blindness, or penalties to attack?
> 
> For example, a Black Dragon can not only blind many of the PC attackers in effect, it can also impose a -2 penalty to attacks from dragon fear.




That's the rub, right there. You're looking at a -7 to hit on that black dragon. If you already need a 14+ to hit, that just jumped to 20. Lowering to-hit numbers is definitely more fun. A baseline of 10 to hit is fine, and I'd argue that 9 or 8 is even better.


----------



## LuckyAdrastus (Jun 6, 2009)

IanB said:


> Point being, *yes* the math needs to stay roughly the same at all tiers. It is only a 'treadmill' as you put it if the story is basically irrelevant to the game.




Exactly.  Well stated.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 6, 2009)

UngeheuerLich said:


> and finally you are argumenting with relative damage
> 
> in this cases expertise is great




Not relative damage, frequency of success.

That is a fun metric.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 6, 2009)

keterys said:


> Just so someone says it... a 55% chance to hit is needing a 10 on the die. It's an interesting choice for baseline as it matches the save mechanic, the double digit point on the die, etc. It makes it a lot easier to get a good feel for what hits and doesn't very quickly as you see the die lands.




That might be true, but for me that is not the best number.

The best number is 60% for same level foes. This puts n+4 foes at 40%.

Anywhere from hitting 2 out of 5 for a tough encounter to 3 out of 5 for a standard encounter.

The reason I do not prefer 55%, even though it is only a 5% difference, is that it drops the 2 out of 5 to effectively 1 out of 3 (7 out of 20, but close enough) for the n+4 encounters.

I think that is too many miss rounds for each hit round per player for a tough encounter. JMO.


And actually, first level 18 stat heavy blade vs. same level average foe works out to 65%. I'm ok with that because first level PCs have a lot fewer options and are more susceptible to swingy dice rolls.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Jun 6, 2009)

IanB said:


> The point of the fix isn't just to make the average over the whole tier more comparable to the average over another whole tier, it is to smooth the progression out even within tiers. I don't see why any house rule wouldn't just assign the bonuses at the same points that the feat does.



Personally I use levels 11, 15, 21, 25. Why? Because PCs lose 4 attack bonuses by level 30, not 3. Even as a house rule fix, Expertise is inadequate for that reason. And because it only boosts attacks, while defenses need boosting too.


----------



## keterys (Jun 6, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> The best number is 60% for same level foes. This puts n+4 foes at 40%.




I'm not really convinced that fighting n+4 foes is really all that good an idea anyways, but fair.

That puts the 55% mark at n+1, which I believe polls showed was the average level that people were used to fighting anyways.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 6, 2009)

Tequila Sunrise said:


> Personally I use levels 11, 15, 21, 25. Why? Because PCs lose 4 attack bonuses by level 30, not 3. Even as a house rule fix, Expertise is inadequate for that reason. And because it only boosts attacks, while defenses need boosting too.




Your system has some merit, for one thing, it averages the same number better. However, your system also has some negatives. It penalizes PCs in Heroic levels (i.e. below the average) and rewards them in Epic levels (i.e. above the average) whereas it should be the opposite way.

The following chart illustrates this. Longsword, Level 1 18 stat, average AC foe same level, magic weapon boost at typical levels 3, 6, 11, 16, 21, and 26:




Series 1 is +1 at 5/15/25 and Series 2 is at 11/15/21/25.

In Heroic tier, Series 1 has 2 7s (7.8 average) whereas Series 2 has 4 9s (8.4 average).

In Paragon tier, they are identical (8.2 average).

In Epic tier, Series 1 has 6 9s (8.6 average) whereas Series 2 has 4 7s (7.6 average).

The reason to have Epic level be slightly harder to hit is because of the how many more synergies there are at Epic levels than Heroic levels. Instead, your system has Epic level being much easier to hit than Heroic level before counting any synergies.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 6, 2009)

keterys said:


> I'm not really convinced that fighting n+4 foes is really all that good an idea anyways, but fair.
> 
> That puts the 55% mark at n+1, which I believe polls showed was the average level that people were used to fighting anyways.




I was looking at it from the perspective of "which levels do people use at all?".

Except for a few n-1 encounters as filler or a distraction, the range seems to be n to n+4, at least in the WotC adventures.

n+4 to me is the mega-battle that happens once every level or two. However, I also think that n+4 encounters might be ok at Heroic level, but they start getting real grindy at the higher levels and should be used even less often.


----------



## keterys (Jun 6, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> The reason to have Epic level be slightly harder to hit is because of the how many more synergies there are at Epic levels than Heroic levels. Instead, your system has Epic level being much easier to hit than Heroic level before counting any synergies.




For what it's worth, some of the best powers for hitting (Lead the Attack, Frigid Darkness, Righteous Brand, etc) are actually used more at heroic than epic.

By epic you do get nicer action point-related bonuses, and a couple paragon path bonuses, though. 

It's easier to get combat advantage via stun, blind, daze, but it's not actually hard to get it at low level.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 6, 2009)

keterys said:


> For what it's worth, some of the best powers for hitting (Lead the Attack, Frigid Darkness, Righteous Brand, etc) are actually used more at heroic than epic.




Are they?

Unless one is using Daily powers, level one has one encounter attack power. Level 30 typically has 4 to 6 (depending on class, paragon path, etc.).

So if a PC uses up all of the encounter attack powers right away, at level one that means he is using At Will powers in round two. At level 30, that means he is using At Will powers in round six.

But due to the increased number of relative hit points for higher level monsters, it would seem that encounters last more than 4 rounds more at level 30 than level 1 (maybe 6 rounds or even more).

So for a 8 round level one encounter, that's 7 rounds of At Will powers. For a 14 round level 30 similar encounter, that's 9 rounds of At Will powers. Granted, these numbers vary a lot depending on many factors like whether Dailies or sustained powers are used, but I would still think that At Will powers would be used a lot at all levels. They just get used more later in the encounter at higher levels.


----------



## keterys (Jun 6, 2009)

I think you're overlooking an awful lot of powers, there. For example, just from the first couple pages of cleric:
Lance of Faith, Righteous Brand, Divine Glow, Bless, Blazing Beacon, Weapon of the Gods
Plus several that just give combat advantage - Wrathful Thunder, Command, Daunting Light, Split the Sky, Spiritual Weapon

There's a whole lot more than just Warlord's Favor in play, and with the way that combats work out you might find that bonuses are around an order of magnitude more often, because the cleric is using Righteous Brand every round, every encounter power gives a bonus to hit, etc.

And Righteous Brand, Lead the Attack, and Frigid Darkness are still some of the best attack boosting powers out there up through 30th level, from levels 1, 1, and 3 respectively.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 6, 2009)

keterys said:


> For what it's worth, some of the best powers for hitting (Lead the Attack, Frigid Darkness, Righteous Brand, etc) are actually used *more at heroic* than epic.
> 
> 
> And Righteous Brand, Lead the Attack, and Frigid Darkness are still some of the best attack boosting powers out there *up through 30th* level, from levels 1, 1, and 3 respectively.




I'm not understanding your point. First you say that they are used more at Heroic, then you say they are the best all the way to Epic. What exactly are you trying to say?


----------



## Regicide (Jun 6, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> I'm not understanding your point. First you say that they are used more at Heroic, then you say they are the best all the way to Epic. What exactly are you trying to say?




  Best at what they do.  But what they do isn't the best thing to be doing at epic.


----------



## keterys (Jun 7, 2009)

It seems to me that there is this assumption that epic is full of powers that boost the attacks of PCs or drastically lower the defenses of monsters, but as far as I can tell these powerss are actually most prevalent at lower levels and have likely been swapped out.

For example, looking at the last several levels of cleric (since we looked at the first couple), there's plenty of damage, some big areas and ranges... but there are attack penalties and AC boosts and lotsa healing, but not a single power that gives an attack bonus to an ally, Haunting (Enc 23) gives a minor bonus to the cleric himself for one attack and Holy Wrath (Day 19) gives a +2 bonus to the cleric. A daily Nimbus of Doom gives a -2 penalty to all defenses (save ends) which isn't horrible but likely won't persist long... and that's it for levels 17 through 30. 

Lots more blind and stunned at epic, of course.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 12, 2009)

I cast rais thread...

the tomb

check out about 14, 15 mins in when Expertise comes up...these feats are tests to see what group is more prevalent A(have to have it) B(Don't want it forced on them)


So I guess it means these argument serve the purpose of showing what both of us want


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 12, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> check out about 14, 15 mins in when Expertise comes up...*these feats are tests* to see what group is more prevalent A(have to have it) B(Don't want it forced on them)




Actually, they said nothing of the sort. They said nothing about a "don't want it forced on them" group.

The question was:

What are we going to see to speed up combat at paragon and above?

Expertise was given as an example.



> We are paying attention to times when it looks like maybe the ... some people's experiences suggesting that the math of the game isn't working out quite right. And so we're implementing with those feats we've implemented a solution that is kind of a stopgap. We intend to watch and observe and see whether those feats become everyone's got to take that or you're just stupid which a lot of feats used to be in third edition and if that becomes the case, we'll look at a more comprehensive solution for the game. We don't want to rush into a solution that might be just as broken as the problem that we're trying to solve. We don't want to overeact to discussion on the message boards that might not be representative of what everybody's experiencing but we do want to pay attention to those things and make sure we're addressing them in a reasonable way.




First off, they admitted that they were trying to solve a problem here and they indicated that it was a math problem and a problem with the speed of combat at Paragon and above (they didn't say exactly what the problem was).

Second, this "wait and see" philosophy appears to be a reaction to the fact that so many people dislike the implementation. It's a "Oh yeah, we intended it to be a stopgap measure, yeah, yeah, that's the ticket, we intended to come up with a more permanent fix in the future".

One does not intentionally put a fix into the game system and intend for it to be replaced by errata at a later time (the very next sentences in the podcast were about a better errata system, hence the implication). That makes zero sense.

One fixes it the way they thought was best right away. In this case, the solution fixes a portion of the math and teed off part of the gaming community by making the fixes feats. Opps.

Now, they are backpedaling to say that they intended for the feats to be temporary and replaced by a more comprehensive solution if a large part of the gaming community takes them. Of course a large portion of the gaming community is going to take these feats. Everyone? No. Many people. Hell, yeah.

If their original intention was to find this out, good betting money at the time would have been that the answer was yes (+3 to hit, of course yes), so why not just put a better solution in right away? They could always errata any solution later.


It's pretty obvious. They put the fix in for a math bug dealing with the speed of higher level combat (they don't specify exactly which ones, but to hit is obvious from Expertise and possibly too many monster hit points which they discuss later in the broadcast). Good job WotC. But, they errored by making it a feat (not such a good job, but at least they tried). Now, they are trying to make it sound as if the feat idea is only temporarily if it seems like everyone wants to take the feats (a second mistake because it sounds illogical and hence disingenuous, you don't give people candy and say if everyone likes the candy, we'll give you a better candy later, you go straight to the better candy).

From my perspective, their hearts are in the right place, but they are going about it the wrong way. They are especially going about it the wrong way if this "more comprehensive solution for the game" ends up requiring people to buy another book.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 12, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> Actually, they said nothing of the sort. They said nothing about a "don't want it forced on them" group.






> Second, this "wait and see" philosophy appears to be a reaction to the fact that so many people dislike the implementation. It's a "Oh yeah, we intended it to be a stopgap measure, yeah, yeah, that's the ticket, we intended to come up with a more permanent fix in the future".





  so there is the problem I hear "We did X to test the waters and are taking a wait and see apporach" to mean just that...you on the other hand assume they are lying...

       see They call out that right here:




> if a large part of the gaming community takes them.



I say that it is not a majority... enough of us still see it as optional, and know I know I must go to great leangths to make sure my friends post or write WotC that we like it as is...



> Of course a large portion of the gaming community is going to take these feats. Everyone? No. Many people. Hell, yeah.



can I get a quote...a %...any numbers to back this up?? I see a vocal minority on the charc op board...and some people here on enworld...





> If their original intention was to find this out, good betting money at the time would have been that the answer was yes (+3 to hit, of course yes), so why not just put a better solution in right away? They could always errata any solution later.



  go back to my post a few pages ago about people who have diffent play styles...they need to balance what you want and what I want...guess what that means they need to see who agrees more.




> Now, they are trying to make it sound as if the feat idea is only temporarily if it seems like everyone wants to take the feats (a second mistake because it sounds illogical and hence disingenuous, you don't give people candy and say if everyone likes the candy, we'll give you a better candy later, you go straight to the better candy).




  lets use this metaphore...lets say you have 10 people in a room, and 3 are diabetic (Can't have choclet) 2 are on a diet, and 2 just don't like choclet (Do people like that really exsit???)... you put out a small tray of chocholets and find only 3 people eating them, all three keep going back, and all three talk about how great it is...5 people don't even give it a second look, 2 people kinda look, and maybe one of them has a peice, but only one...
     now you know choclet wasn't a good idea, good thing you didn't put out giant chocolet bunnies...


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 12, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> so there is the problem I hear "We did X to test the waters and are taking a wait and see apporach" to mean just that...you on the other hand assume they are lying...




If it looks like a horse, smells like a horse, and sounds like a horse, I'm not going to assume it's a rhinoceros just because they tell me that it is a rhinoceros. Duh!

This is called a spin. It's no different than your "don't want it forced on them" statement. There was no indication of that from the quoted text, you just claimed that this is what they said based on what you wanted it to be.

In their case, it's a marketing spin. It's what every company does when they make a mistake and creating a feat tax for both to hit and NADs is thought by many people on the boards to be a mistake. Companies put the best possible face on mistakes. Why would WotC be any different? They wouldn't.

I think they put what they thought was a low intrusive with respect to new rules fix into the system, the community found it to be highly intrusive, and it backfired on them. I don't think there was any grandiose plan ahead of time to replace solution #1 with solution #2 based on how well solution #1 was used by the gaming community. That is so farfetched and hence the reason I think they are spinning now. Opps, we gotta say something now. You want to believe that drivel at face value, go ahead.

I'm not going to convince you, so I won't try any further and unless you have some real meat and potatoes about the rules themselves to discuss, I won't discuss this anymore. But, it was important to write the actual text as opposed to your interpretation of it.

To me, the important part of the message is that "Yes indeed folks, Expertise is an attempt at a fix for higher levels", just like many of us have claimed since PHB II came out. Whether they are trying to fix the sweet spot, or trying to fix grindiness, or trying to fix something else is debatable because the only thing they said they were fixing was the speed of combat at Paragon and higher levels. Does speed mean number of rounds of combat? Does speed mean how much time each round takes? Or something else? They didn't explicitly say.


----------



## Fundin Strongarm (Jun 12, 2009)

Every group I'm a part of (DM 2 RPGA-LFR groups, DM a home game and play in two other games) sees the Expertise Feats as something their character will take (or has already taken).  They outshine most feats (and certainly the +1 attack roll feats that are circumstantial).


----------



## keterys (Jun 12, 2009)

Actually, I am all for them figuring out the actual problems and fixing them. I don't think they're going to get good data out of the expertise feat, however. At high levels it's better than every feat. It doesn't matter if you think the game needs help at that level, you're going to end up taking it because it's twice (or more) as effective as any other feat you can get at 15th+

Though, I'm still seeing at least 80% buyin on 6th+ level characters amongst the couple dozen gamers I play with regularly which seems excessive. Then again, mathematically speaking at just +1 to hit it's more valuable than almost every combat feat in the heroic tier.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 12, 2009)

keterys said:


> Actually, I am all for them figuring out the actual problems and fixing them.




Agreed.



keterys said:


> I don't think they're going to get good data out of the expertise feat, however.




Also agreed.



keterys said:


> At high levels it's better than every feat. It doesn't matter if you think the game needs help at that level, you're going to end up taking it because it's twice (or more) as effective as any other feat you can get at 15th+




The other side of that coin is, how is WotC going to find out how many people actually take the feat, how many people houserule the feat in automatically, etc.? Reading the forums? A poll?

And even if they acquire that data somehow, what percentage is so high (for one of the best feats in the game system) that it should have its own rule? 60%? 70%? 90%? What part of that usage percentage is the feat is too good ("gotta have this" white noise) and what part of that usage percentage is the feat is required for balance / fun / speed up play (the actual information they are trying to find out)?


I think the best way for them to find information of this nature out is to have WotC employees (or even volunteers) playtest a series of Heroic, Paragon, and Epic level encounters both with and without Expertise with the exact same PCs and the exact same encounters (for many types of PCs and many types of encounters) and record the exact outcomes of every single attack from both sides. This gives them statistical data on how often the PCs hit; how many rounds the encounters last; do these encounters work at different levels with minions, with solos, with elites; how do conditions affect the outcome, etc.

They're not going to find out anything accurate from vague notions of how many people take the Expertise feats.


----------



## Nail (Jun 12, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I cast rais thread...
> 
> the tomb
> 
> check out about 14, 15 mins in when Expertise comes up...these feats are tests to see what group is more prevalent A(have to have it) B(Don't want it forced on them)




Thanks, *GMforPowergamers*, but....uggg.   I do NOT want to listen to 14 minutes of drivel to get to a passing reference of something I'm interested in.  I want them [WotC] to issue a clear (typed!) reason behind these feats that I can read.


----------



## Regicide (Jun 12, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> Now, they are backpedaling to say that they intended for the feats to be temporary and replaced by a more comprehensive solution if a large part of the gaming community takes them.




  I can think of exactly 1 way to make a feat temporary.  Publish an even better feat so no one takes the old one.


----------



## keterys (Jun 12, 2009)

Nail said:


> Thanks, *GMforPowergamers*, but....uggg.   I do NOT want to listen to 14 minutes of drivel to get to a passing reference of something I'm interested in.  I want them [WotC] to issue a clear (typed!) reason behind these feats that I can read.




Can always fast forward (or mute play) to the right point. At any rate, Mike Mearls wrote up a bit on Expertise weeks ago and Chris Perkins actually mentions that he has no idea how this didn't get posted yet so he's going to track it down so it does. So... soon.


----------



## ki11erDM (Jun 12, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> They didn't explicitly say.




From what I can tell from your other posts if they did say explicitly... you would just say they were lying.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 12, 2009)

Nail said:


> Thanks, *GMforPowergamers*, but....uggg.   I do NOT want to listen to 14 minutes of drivel to get to a passing reference of something I'm interested in.  I want them [WotC] to issue a clear (typed!) reason behind these feats that I can read.




I typed the relevant section in post #328 for people so that they would not have to listen to it.


----------



## Nail (Jun 12, 2009)

keterys said:


> Can always fast forward (or mute play) to the right point. At any rate, Mike Mearls wrote up a bit on Expertise weeks ago and Chris Perkins actually mentions that he has no idea how this didn't get posted yet so he's going to track it down so it does. So... soon.



Oooo...that would be good.


----------



## Nail (Jun 12, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> I typed the relevant section in post #328 for people so that they would not have to listen to it.



No offense meant, KarinsDad, but you were paraphrasing what Chris Perkins said.  That's cool an' all, but: I want to know *exactly* what he said.

Actually, I want to know *exactly* what WotC officially says about their (group) reasoning behind the Expertise line of feats.  One guy (say, Chris Perkins) on one web-cast call-in show (say, The Tome Show), isn't all that informative or useful, since one guy can say pretty much anything and later say "I didn't quite mean that".

FWIW, I fast-forwarded to 14:21 to get to what's asked and what's answered.

What's asked is "What sort of mechanical changes can we expect to see over the next year to speed up combats, especially in paragon and epic tier."

A WotC guy answers that (I'm gonna paraphrase a bit too! ) "_one example of that sort of thing_" is the Expertise feats in PH2.  He goes on to say that "_we've implemented those feats as a kind of a stop-gap_", and that if the feats become something everyone must take, then they'll come up with a "_more comprehensive solution_".

Eeerm.  I really don't like the sound of any of that.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 12, 2009)

Nail said:


> No offense meant, KarinsDad, but you were paraphrasing what Chris Perkins said.  That's cool an' all, but: I want to know *exactly* what he said.




No offense meant, Nail, but I wrote *exactly* what he said in the quoted section.

The only thing I left out was the "ah"s and "err"s because he was stumbling over his words.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 12, 2009)

so at the end of day one on the complety not scientfic poll we have 63 people responded and exactly 1/3 (33.33%) said they don't want the feat changed...

can those of you that want it changed atleast see why WotC has to tread lightly here...since atleast some players like it as is...


----------



## Nail (Jun 13, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> No offense meant, Nail, but I wrote *exactly* what he said in the quoted section.
> 
> The only thing I left out was the "ah"s and "err"s because he was stumbling over his words.



You did?

<goes back, reads over KD's post carefully>

Oops!  You did!  

FWIW, the quote bracket you used (in which you transcribe the WotC developer comments) looked like it came from *GMforPowergamers*, as you had quoted him immediately above that.  My mistake!

Anyway, I *still* don't like their reasoning, at least as expressed in the pod-cast.  This sounds like the same approach they used for 3.xe's polymorph, which also didn't work.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 13, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> so at the end of day one on the complety not scientfic poll we have 63 people responded and exactly 1/3 (33.33%) said they don't want the feat changed...




You do realize that there is a high percentage of people who very rarely want anything that gets into print changed.

For whatever reasons, they prefer to play the game as written, almost regardless of what is written. If WotC had written a rule solution instead of a feat solution, they would vote against a feat solution.



GMforPowergamers said:


> can those of you that want it changed atleast see why WotC has to tread lightly here...since atleast some players like it as is...




Like? Maybe. Prefer? Maybe. Voted in a given way, yes.

And yes, I see your point.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Jun 13, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> so at the end of day one on the complety not scientfic poll we have 63 people responded and exactly 1/3 (33.33%) said they don't want the feat changed...
> 
> can those of you that want it changed atleast see why WotC has to tread lightly here...since atleast some players like it as is...




All I thought the poll said was that I believed it was a "math fix." And I do believe this, since monster defenses clearly scale faster than player to hit does. But that response is not meant to imply that I want them to change the feat. It's kind of nice having feats that aren't "I get a +1 to hit once in a blue moon, and only if I'm standing on one toe and have combat advantage."


----------



## Nail (Jun 13, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> You do realize that there is a high percentage of people who very rarely want anything that gets into print changed.



I game with a few of these people.

My sense is that they "just want it to work"...and just hope that it does.  Examining the math of the game (etc) is the antithesis of fun for them, so their working assumption is "Everything printed is right."  Full stop.


----------



## Regicide (Jun 13, 2009)

Nail said:


> Examining the math of the game (etc) is the antithesis of fun for them, so their working assumption is "Everything printed is right."  Full stop.




  Considering how long they tested 4E for, including feeding ill-fitting garbage into 3E to test it out, it should be right.  The people you played with pay money for the books, it should be right, that's WHY they bought the books.

  When WotC is willing to ship me out an updated version of the book gratis, then I'll be willing to put up with their  ups.  Until then, get it right, then print.


----------



## Intense_Interest (Jun 14, 2009)

Regicide said:


> When WotC is willing to ship me out an updated version of the book gratis, then I'll be willing to put up with their  ups.  Until then, get it right, then print.




"Get it Right"?  At who's subjective whim are we deciding here?  The cohort that enjoys hitting Vecna on an 8+?  The ones who don't want to spend a feat to hit on an 8, yet are hypocritically okay with having to buy stronger magic items as they level (GP TAX, I TELLS YA!)?  The ones who are pretty much okay with everything in the books?

Whoops, looks like we can't wave a flag and call things conclusions then.


----------



## keterys (Jun 14, 2009)

Slight tangent, but now I'm curious what it takes to hit Vecna on an 8. Let's see, AC 49 or Ref 47 seem to be the way to go...

Without party buffs, your rogue demigod with a dagger and a Ref attack like Piercing Strike is looking at Pre-Expertise +37 (Level +15, Stat +9, Enh +6, CA & Nimble +3, Prof +4) or +40 after... a less hit-optimized rogue will be around +34/+37, or needing a 10/7 or 13/10, bumping required rolls all by 2 for AC-required attacks.

A dragonborn warlock would more likely be looking at something like +29 (Level +15, Stat +8, Enh +6), needing an 18 to hit Reflex, 20 to hit AC or Fort, and 20 to hit Will with no crits possible. Post-Exp and Arcane Power, the extra +6 would drop those to 12-14 needed.

That's... a truly interesting disparity between the possible types. Of course, you are going to bring some bonuses and penalties into it. Vecna is good about slipping out of some setups and dropping conditions, but probably not quite good enough, especially for the first couple rounds. The long at-will slog later on would be less pleasant.


----------



## Regicide (Jun 14, 2009)

keterys said:


> Without party buffs, your rogue demigod with a dagger and a Ref attack like Piercing Strike is looking at Pre-Expertise +37 (Level +15, Stat +9, Enh +6, CA & Nimble +3, Prof +4) or +40 after... a less hit-optimized rogue will be around +34/+37, or needing a 10/7 or 13/10, bumping required rolls all by 2 for AC-required attacks.




  Another tangent but I like the Flying Blade Adept's high-crit chance coupled with an encounter-long -2AC penalty on a crit.  A +2 to hit AC at paragon, maybe it was a MATH FIX!!!! Dun dun dun!

I'm sure there are better paragon options though.

  Anyway, Vecna is a chump.



Intense_Interest said:


> "Get it Right"?  At who's subjective whim are we deciding here?




  Skill challenges?  Stealth?  Skill check DCs?  Incorrect beginner "help" for the classes?  The DM screen has errata!  Is there any surprise the basic math of the system is... questionable, when they can't even get the simplest things like DCs correct?


----------

