# Feat Taxes, or, It's That Time of the Week Again



## Tequila Sunrise (Apr 15, 2011)

A few game devs (three that I know of) have publicly written that some feats (Expertise and NAD boosters, namely) are 'no-brainers' or 'math fixes' or some such.

But what do the other devs have to say about feat taxes? Have any of them said anything to the effect of "No, really, they're _just_ options like other feats" or "The math was fine to begin with, and these feats are overpowered mistakes"? Or, barring such opinions, are there any other devs who've joined the "Feat tax!" chorus?

(I know that the PSG advises "If you want to hit more, Expertise is an easy way to boost your chances," but everybody knows that. I'm looking for professional opinions.)


----------



## Aulirophile (Apr 16, 2011)

History

Gencon 2008, Developer Q&A panel: "We want 55% to be the absolute minimum possible to hit a PC can have vs even level." So 16 stat vs NADs (4 vs 13 NAD average), 16 stat+2 prof vs AC (6 vs 15 AC average). We're good. 

Community: Wait... as we level up we slowly lose to hit, we're not hitting at 55% (and associated NAD issues, Initiative, yada yada yada, all the scaling issues are identical. AC would be in here to if not for Masterwork which was a last minute fix, but I digress). 

Developers: "Oh, wow, thanks, we changed the way scaling worked partway into playtesting and didn't notice that. We'll 'release a fix in the PHB2.'"

Community: Why is the fix a feat tax?

Developers: (Note this is prior to their decision to really embrace mass online errata) "We wanted everyone to have equal access to it." 

Community: ....

Essentials: Nifty bonus for your tax... if you're lucky enough to be a class that isn't Weapon and Implement (except Staff) and uses something that I care about. 

Community: So what is the timeline on (Totem, Holy Symbol, Implements, Dual classes, Insert unsupported option here) Expertise?

Devs play two kinds of games. Home games and playtesting games. As far as I know without a single exception every Dev gives out Expertise in their homes (pre Essentials expertise feats). Playtesting games are played by RAW (and all the characters take Expertise). 

Links to two developers stating this. You can dig up dozens of posts of devs talking about their home games. 

Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible
House Rules: Bonus Feats  Eye of the Beholder


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 16, 2011)

Aulirophile said:


> we changed the way scaling worked partway into playtesting and didn't notice that.



I'd really like to know what that change was.  Because, I think it was removing stat boosting items (+2 per teir stat boosters would neatly plug that 'hole').


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 16, 2011)

i´d also like to know how the original math worked... i guessed for a while now, that skill bonuses and defenses also were in line somewhere in the playtests...

And I still believe, the game works without expertise...


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Apr 16, 2011)

Thirded. I'd also be interested to know how close to final deadline that change happened.



Aulirophile said:


> History...



I don't suppose you have a link to a recording of this, do you?



Aulirophile said:


> Links to two developers stating this. You can dig up dozens of posts of devs talking about their home games.



Thanks, those are two of the posts I already have.

I'm sure there are more, but my search-fu sucks. I wouldn't even know where to begin looking.


----------



## Aulirophile (Apr 16, 2011)

I was at Gencon. I don't have a recording of it, someone might. 

[MENTION=8900]Tony[/MENTION]: That makes a lot of sense. You'd have to ask a Dev, I couldn't get them to tell me when I asked (though it wouldn't fix the NAD issue... I think the reason Masterwork armors have a bonus to NADs is actually for that, but then they realized that it wouldn't always line up and were getting close to deadline. That is just a theory, though.)


----------



## Herschel (Apr 16, 2011)

The disconnect is where people glommed on to that 55% number like the holy grail, losing context and objectivity. As you level, there are also more buffs/de-buffs available, etc. The "55%" is an average (if you will) but too many gamers now claim that's a right on every attack. While they may have been surprised at the number of people who didn't understand the robust tactical aspect of the game (which I think they planned to account for later, because they did), they built a robust system that handled the "math" so long as people filled the roles and understood the tactics. 

Also, if "55%" were a magic number, they wouldn't have had varying defenses between the enemy types (soldier, lurker, brute, controller, artillery).

When they expanded the game, they took measures for people who a) wanted to play non-stat-aligned race/class/weapon/etc. combos, b) weren't grasping the tactical aspects fully and (directly or indirectly) c) optimization players.

When the game expanded again, they took measures for people who didn't grasp, like , understand or want character building/playing complexity at it's current level so they came out with the Red Box and Essentials. 

It's been shown time and again the game works fine without expertise feats. They're nifty, but not necessary. "Feat Tax" is an utterly ignorant term with no bearing on reality.


----------



## KarinsDad (Apr 16, 2011)

Herschel said:


> It's been shown time and again the game works fine without expertise feats. They're nifty, but not necessary. "Feat Tax" is an utterly ignorant term with no bearing on reality.




This might be true for weapon users, but it's not so true for implement users.

The straight up difference between level 1 and 30 for weapon users without Expertise is:

+2 proficiency, +4 ability score and often +1 weapon talent, +1 more proficiency, +1 charge, +2 combat advantage = +6 to +11 vs. AC 15 = 60% to 85%

+2 proficiency, +9 ability score, +6 magic weapon, +15 half level and often +1 weapon talent, +1 more proficiency, +1 charge, +2 combat advantage = +32 to +37 vs. AC 44 = 45% to 70%

Yes, they are at -3 to hit compared to first level, but they still hit quite frequently because they have a lot of options (upwards of +5 to hit where some of those are not really conditional) to boost their to hit.

Implement users do not typically get +1 weapon talent, +1 charge, +2 combat advantage, or the extra bonus +1 from weapon proficiency.

The straight up difference between level 1 and 30 for implement users without Expertise is:

+4 ability score = +4 vs. NAD 13 = 60%

+9 ability score, +6 magic implement, and +15 half level = +30 vs. NAD 42 = 45%

They are almost always on the low end of the percentage chance to hit of the weapon users and have a lot fewer options for increasing their to hit chance.

Sure, implements users can get combat advantage once in a while, but it's typically based on extra powers or feats whereas weapon users can often get it just by shifting one square.

Expertise is a feat tax for implement users because they suck so much to begin with compared to weapon users.

A straight up 45% chance to hit at level 30 is just plain awful and that's why the designers added in Accurate Implements as well (another feat tax for all intents and purposes).


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 16, 2011)

KarinsDad said:


> A straight up 45% chance to hit at level 30 is just plain awful and that's why the designers added in Accurate Implements as well (another feat tax for all intents and purposes).



I can't help but note your weapon-user examples, when excluding a charge and combat advantage, produce the same numbers as the implement users. So unless you're charging (and therefore being restricted on what your attack can be) and have combat advantage (certainly not a given), are these weapon-users just plain awful at level 30 as well?

If you're saying it's a must for implement users but not for weapons, why the difference?


----------



## Aulirophile (Apr 16, 2011)

Herschel said:


> The disconnect is where people glommed on to that 55% number like the holy grail, losing context and objectivity. As you level, there are also more buffs/de-buffs available, etc. The "55%" is an average (if you will) but too many gamers now claim that's a right on every attack. While they may have been surprised at the number of people who didn't understand the robust tactical aspect of the game (which I think they planned to account for later, because they did), they built a robust system that handled the "math" so long as people filled the roles and understood the tactics.
> 
> Also, if "55%" were a magic number, they wouldn't have had varying defenses between the enemy types (soldier, lurker, brute, controller, artillery).
> 
> ...



You're objectively wrong. The hit percent was calculated based on how many rounds, on average, encounters should take (during playtesting they occasionally had encounters last 14+ rounds). Based on E/E+1/E+2/etc. 

Without Expertise the correct number of rounds are flat out not achievable in Paragon/Epic, even by otherwise optimized characters (exceptions of course exist... if you design the party around this limitation, but that isn't 'fun'). And this issue gets _worse, _not better, as you level; despite Expertise, because of the way monster HP/defenses scales and PC damage doesn't. 

One of the very strongest complaints I've heard about 4e is combat length. This is a problem I have literally _never had _because I understand the math and make sure my group does to. Result: No exceptionally long and grindy combats. 

The disconnect is where people don't understand the reasoning for the minimum hit vs even level. It isn't arbitrary, it was a number arrived at for a large variety of objective, mathematical, reasons and was intended to create a parity of experience all the way up to Epic. An E+1 should always take a 5 person party 4 rounds on average. Damage/Hit %/etc need to all exist in relative balance to each other for that to be true. Expertise fixes an error where they _don't _exist in relative balance to each other. And, in case you missed it, this is an average, not an absolute. Varying defense levels are fine if you're only trying to achieve an average

You can actually see this with Essential classes. eStrikers are basically optimized out of the box to achieve minimum striker baselines and look how many threads we have with people freaking out that they are "overpowered" or "do to much damage." But I'll cheerfully bet you that an eStriker introduced into a campaign where someone immediately thought that about them suddenly had shorter fights. Their is a straightforward reason for this. eClasses have a much narrower performance band. It is _very _difficult to make an eClass perform below the expected mathematical minimum (at least in Heroic, they have the same issues of scaling). Not so for older classes, who often perform _far _below with a poor build, especially if they don't take the fix feats. 

Ignorance, by definition, is a lack of knowledge. Developers, people who have done the math in the community (extensively) say "This is how it is." You have a _belief _about the math (based, near as I can tell, on intuition, anecdotal experience, and the idea that monsters don't get more HP then PCs do damage as you level), but it is no way justified by the numbers. And an unjustified belief is the worst kind of ignorance. You think you know something, but you don't. Socrates said it was poisonous.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Apr 17, 2011)

Herschel said:


> It's been shown time and again the game works fine without expertise feats. They're nifty, but not necessary. "Feat Tax" is an utterly ignorant term with no bearing on reality.



I keep seeing statements like this, as if it addresses the issue.

Everybody knows that savvy players can compensate for poor design. (How many years did high level players optimize their way through the even wackier math of high level play in previous editions?) Heck, one of the guys in my group refuses to pay his feat taxes if not given to him for free, and he seems to think the game works just "fine."

In fact, I'm sure that I could _ban_ the feat taxes and impose an additional -3 screw-you penalty to all their stats. The game would be pretty hard, but it's all "fine" because they're smart guys and they'd survive and get their treasure. I could even be nice and give access to an "Expert" feat that negates the screw-you penalty. That would be even more "fine," because savvy players could take more interesting feats while casual players could take the Expert feat to compensate for not optimizing or team-playing.

But playing a "fine" game isn't the point. The point is that 4e is a level-based system. And the whole point of a level-based system is to have consistent math to make DM adjustments easier and to cut down on system mastery.

But hey, what do I know? I'm just some ignorant sod who wants to play a _great_ game.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 17, 2011)

Herschel said:


> The disconnect is where people glommed on to that 55% number like the holy grail, losing context and objectivity. As you level, there are also more buffs/de-buffs available, etc. The "55%" is an average (if you will) but too many gamers now claim that's a right on every attack.




That's not exactly a surprise when WotC comes out and says they've "fixed the math". People generally expect that it is, indeed, fixed. But whether they'd said they had fixed it or not, people would *still* have glommed onto it as long as someone from WotC had said that 55% was the average value - just as, to many players, Wealth By Level became a birthright in 3e. Whatever nuance would have accompanied it, it would have been missed by a significant number of players who still would raised the cry "Feat Tax!"


----------



## KarinsDad (Apr 17, 2011)

Fifth Element said:


> I can't help but note your weapon-user examples, when excluding a charge and combat advantage, produce the same numbers as the implement users. So unless you're charging (and therefore being restricted on what your attack can be) and have combat advantage (certainly not a given), are these weapon-users just plain awful at level 30 as well?
> 
> If you're saying it's a must for implement users but not for weapons, why the difference?




Look closer.

The weapon users only have the exact same to hit chance IF:

1) They do not have a +3 proficient weapon, and
2) They do not have weapon talent (this is more rare because only a few classes get it).

That's +2 to hit there for some weapon users that's available every single attack and it doesn't cost them a feat or a power.

In addition to that, the weapon users can get +1 for charge and/or +2 for combat advantage most rounds. The implement user can almost never get +1 for charge.

Right out of the box, the weapon users can have a +1 or +2 to hit PLUS they can gain another +1 to +3 some rounds.

The implement users have NONE of these options (except for a rare CA). They can have the same 45% chance to hit at level 30, or they might be as much as 25% less. All of those bonuses to hit are also in the control of the player of the weapon user.

So if an implement user takes Expertise, he can basically be 60% to hit whereas without Expertise, the weapon user can be 55% to 80% to hit.

Just to stay in the same ballpark, the implement user has to pay the feat tax for Expertise. That's the difference.

If the high to hit weapon user takes Expertise, the implement user cannot catch up, even with taking Superior Implement Accurate and Expertise.


----------



## ceiling90 (Apr 17, 2011)

The 55% is an assumption made by the game, that on average; meaning that players with average stats, with buffs, penalties and odd assortment of numbers will always hit at that rate. The game math itself is saying this; you can mess with the numbers all you want, but that's the game math. You can purposely gimp your characters if you want, you can purposely use higher level encounters, but with the averages the game assumes; this is supposed to be the case.

Yet, as the game progresses, even the averages fall behind on this assumption. The game as someone pointed out became grindy or a little more punishing than it should have. When you're not in that sweet spot of even 50% to 55%, and you're playing exactly average, then something isn't quite right. Isn't it a little odd that even developers in house all play with these feats as free as a houserule? What does that say about the base assumptions of this game? Are not these feats closer to taxes or "auto" get feats that somehow or another is supposed to already accounted for within gameplay?

While the game runs fine, it could be running better. Isn't that something everyone wants?


----------



## Herschel (Apr 17, 2011)

Aulirophile said:


> Ignorance, by definition, is a lack of knowledge. Developers, people who have done the math in the community (extensively) say "This is how it is." You have a _belief _about the math (based, near as I can tell, on intuition, anecdotal experience, and the idea that monsters don't get more HP then PCs do damage as you level), but it is no way justified by the numbers. And an unjustified belief is the worst kind of ignorance. You think you know something, but you don't. Socrates said it was poisonous.




My belief is justified. Because you feel you have "the right" to hit at a certain percent rate does not mean the game breaks down when you "don't". The math is not relevent in any more than a base sense. You can't see the forest through the trees as you (and others) have no objective base. 

You talk about "grind" as if it's defined when it's not. It's a different feeling for different people. It's also about tactics. There's a boatload of bonuses floating around the game, if you use them, that enhance the hit percentage. Also, if the tactical flow of battle is "moving" then the battle should "feel" quicker, for example, while a static battle of even a few rounds can feel like a "grind". 

As it stands, the system is robust enough to handle the different styles and desires. It's not badwrongfun to make interesting RP characters that are also fully functional in battle without trying to milk the system. A certain segment of the gaming public want to optimize, and they have that option, but that doesn't make it a necessity for those playing the game to have fun. 

As an example, one gaming group I play in has 10 players at 16th level (we rotate modules, groups and DMs). There are three leaders, two defenders (both Assaault Swordmages), three wizards, a rogue and a warlock. I can count the number of people with expertise on one hand with fingers left over and yet we don't have regular character deaths, sessions run long as much because we joke around as anything else and we have fun. Occasionally a battle will bog down, more often because dice go cold, but it isn't very often. 

A tax would imply that it's something needed to make the game work, which it does just fine without it.


----------



## KarinsDad (Apr 17, 2011)

Herschel said:


> As an example, one gaming group I play in has 10 players at 16th level (we rotate modules, groups and DMs). There are three leaders, two defenders (both Assaault Swordmages), three wizards, a rogue and a warlock. I can count the number of people with expertise on one hand with fingers left over and yet we don't have regular character deaths




I would hope that you don't have regular character deaths with 3 Leaders out of 10 PCs.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 17, 2011)

Herschel said:


> The disconnect is where people glommed on to that 55% number like the holy grail, losing context and objectivity.



Nod.  If the devs really wanted the 4e treadmill to be that fixated on something that close to 50/50, they could've dumped most of the mechanics, and resolved everything with coin tosses instead of heavily-modified d20 rolls.  



> It's been shown time and again the game works fine without expertise feats. They're nifty, but not necessary. "Feat Tax" is an utterly ignorant term with no bearing on reality.



'Feat Tax' may seem a little odd, but it's not quite litteral.  Part of the idea is that a feat that is too good is just going to be taken by everyone (maybe not out the gate, but eventually, everyone), and that reduces the number of 'real' feat choices you have.   The other part, which I think your objection too is a little more justified, is the idea that, rather than fixing a broken mechanic, a feat or other /option/ is introduced to patch the mistake.   If the mechanic isn't /really/ that broken, then the 'tax' can be ignored... unless, it's /also/ just too good.  Expertise feats were just too good, already, and the versions in Essentials are /better/.


----------



## Aulirophile (Apr 17, 2011)

Herschel said:


> My belief is justified. Because you feel you have "the right" to hit at a certain percent rate does not mean the game breaks down when you "don't". The math is not relevent in any more than a base sense. You can't see the forest through the trees as you (and others) have no objective base.
> 
> You talk about "grind" as if it's defined when it's not. It's a different feeling for different people. It's also about tactics. There's a boatload of bonuses floating around the game, if you use them, that enhance the hit percentage. Also, if the tactical flow of battle is "moving" then the battle should "feel" quicker, for example, while a static battle of even a few rounds can feel like a "grind".
> 
> ...



Again, you're objectively wrong. I _have _an objective base. You don't. You're basing your opinion _purely _on anecdotal experience while simultaneously making the argument that groups can compensate for the problem. Yet it somehow isn't occurring to you that your group has somehow compensated for the problem. As I pointed out was possible. So you've seen a couple of trees, to use your analogy, and you think that is the forest. It ain't. Especially since you're defining the game being "broken" as "non-functional" (which is absurd, since _any _game system will be houseruled into functionality if needed) instead of "Hey, these things are _actively bad _in that they destroy the designed intent of the game's pacing, mechanics, and character power levels." 

"Grind" is easily definable, actually. More then two standard deviations outside of the expected average encounter length, calculatable by party size and E level. Done. Again, math. Done extensively. Your personal experience is... well, not enough to _justify _the belief you have. So you're just ignorant. Which is OK actually, it is just a game and there isn't any particular reason to put the effort into understanding it if that isn't interesting to you. But if you _don't _put the effort into understanding it, you shouldn't complain about your opinion not being valid in any objective sense.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 17, 2011)

Sorry, but your post is

a) very impolite,

b) objectively wrong.

If you have not been a designer, you have no reason to assume, that the game was supposed to work as it works today.

There once were bonuses, like rghtous brand, that scaled with level and easily compensated the "gap"

It was just recently nerfed because of the existence of expertise feats. Also, a hit with the old righteous brand followed by dailies heavily imbalanced the mathematic. 

Maybe it was intended, that combat length increased, as you have more powers to use at higher levels, and leader to hit combos were assumed to exist. (3 encounters, 3 dailies and 2 at wills...) It however may be, that the game didn´t play that smoothly by lesser experienced players and expertise was a fix for that...


----------



## Herschel (Apr 17, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> If the mechanic isn't /really/ that broken, then the 'tax' can be ignored... unless, it's /also/ just too good. Expertise feats were just too good, already, and the versions in Essentials are /better/.



.

I'm close with you on this one. They are really very good and hard to beat. I just have real issues with calling them a "tax" when they aren't necessary.


----------



## Herschel (Apr 17, 2011)

Aulirophile said:


> Again, you're objectively wrong. I _have _an objective base. You don't. You're basing your opinion _purely _on anecdotal experience while simultaneously making the argument that groups can compensate for the problem. Yet it somehow isn't occurring to you that your group has somehow compensated for the problem. As I pointed out was possible. So you've seen a couple of trees, to use your analogy, and you think that is the forest. It ain't. Especially since you're defining the game being "broken" as "non-functional" (which is absurd, since _any _game system will be houseruled into functionality if needed) instead of "Hey, these things are _actively bad _in that they destroy the designed intent of the game's pacing, mechanics, and character power levels."
> 
> "Grind" is easily definable, actually. More then two standard deviations outside of the expected average encounter length, calculatable by party size and E level. Done. Again, math. Done extensively. Your personal experience is... well, not enough to _justify _the belief you have. So you're just ignorant. Which is OK actually, it is just a game and there isn't any particular reason to put the effort into understanding it if that isn't interesting to you. But if you _don't _put the effort into understanding it, you shouldn't complain about your opinion not being valid in any objective sense.




Again, you totally misunderstand a very simple fact: this is a game enjoyed by millions by people who aren't you as well as you. Just like when people on this forum give a character concept and ask for build advice and you stear off the rails directly the CharOp stuff every time basically saying they're having badwrongfun if they don't do it your way.

As for compensating, the group hasn't compensated, WotC has for people who don't/can't/want more. The game worked before the feats, they came later. 

As for grind, again, you are simply wrong for anyone but you. I've been in four-hour battles that were a dynamic blast to play and 30-minute, two-round battles that were dull as Hades. As an example, we experimented in one group with lowering monster HPs and upping their damage last week. At least one person enjoyed it, I did not. It was basically "pick the two, possibly three powers you want to use this encounter and cue them up, line up and roll". There was no ebb & flow it was just "*smack, smack, smack, slice* two characters were bloodied and we won".

Some people may enjoy that type of game, and D&D supports them also, but not everyone does. The biggest factor in "grind" to many has absolutely NOTHING to do with math, it's the DM. D&D is (now) a very dynamic game but can be enjoyed by those who may not take advantage of all of its features. You can't quantify everyone's feeling with an equation.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Apr 17, 2011)

UngeheuerLich said:


> If you have not been a designer, you have no reason to assume that the game was supposed to work as it works today.



This may have been a freudian slip on your part, but this is my sentiment exactly. I'm amazed at how many gamers assume that the game works exactly as intended, even with compelling evidence, professional opinions to the contrary and apparently no agreeing professional opinions whatsoever. I guess some people are just fundamentally content.

I've come to believe that, had 4e been designed with similar math except for a 1/3 level bonus rather than the 1/2 we have, the same gamers would be insisting that the game works just "fine," and that "that's the way it's supposed to be." To each their own I guess, but I'm not waiting for 5e to fix the math. (And mark my words, 5e _will_ have consistent math as a result of this issue.)



Herschel said:


> Some people may enjoy that type of game, and D&D supports them also, but not everyone does. The biggest factor in "grind" to many has absolutely NOTHING to do with math, it's the DM.



You can't be serious. Look, you would've been right had you said that math isn't the only grind factor. You might've even been right had you said that DMing is the biggest grind factor; I wouldn't argue that point. But math _does_ effect grind.

As an experiment, go run a one-shot with an exaggerated math hole. Apply a hefty screw-you penalty to make sure the players can't hit or dodge even half the time. Or simply use monsters at the N + 7 level ceiling. Then come back and tell us that grind has absolutely nothing to do with math.


----------



## Herschel (Apr 17, 2011)

Tequila Sunrise said:


> 1) This may have been a freudian slip on your part, but this is my sentiment exactly. I'm amazed at how many gamers assume that the game works exactly as intended, even with compelling evidence, professional opinions to the contrary and apparently no agreeing professional opinions whatsoever. I guess some people are just fundamentally content.
> 
> 2) You can't be serious. Look, you would've been right had you said that math isn't the only grind factor. You might've even been right had you said that DMing is the biggest grind factor; I wouldn't argue that point. But math _does_ effect grind.




1. I'm amazed at how many gamers are so eager to feel they're smarter than the designers. Sure, nothing is ever perfect but everything we've seen shows they had a progressive plan for game options being added. That plan isn't "written in stone" but it's been pretty well laid out from introduction to Red Box.  

2. Which actually is what I said. The problem is where does each person feel grind is. Some people don't want combats over four rounds, others want numerous combats over four rounds. If the math were spectacularly screwed up, the game wouldn't work. It did and does. Some feel entitled to hit and (not be) hit at a certain clip, but that differs from person to person. The game is robust to support numerous types of gaming experiences. Did it at first? No, but it was never meant to include everything at the beginning. Remember all the hand-wringing when the Gnome, Half-Orc, Bard, etc. weren't in the PHB1?


----------



## wayne62682 (Apr 17, 2011)

One thing I've learned from my time in WoW is this: The theorycrafters *do* know more than the designers.  There is often mathematical proof of certain things being underpowered, overpowered, or design flaws that the designers ignored for one reason or another (often simply the fact they aren't as well versed in theorycraft and didn't consider the possibilities).

Even in past editions it was a known fact to all but the most obtuse people (the type of people that think if they don't experience something, there is no problem) that the game had flaws which were completely ignored because the designers weren't capable of understanding why they were flaws (the "I expect everyone who plays X class to play it this way, because I play it this way" concept) or because they knew they were flaws but didn't want to properly fix it (the "Let's fix it in this new splatbook that not everybody is going to use so we can make more profit" concept).

Now, I've been away from the game for a long time so I'm not quite up to speed on the debate here (I do remember those Expertise feats though; the ones that give you bonuses that should have been built-in from the start and are to cover up WotC's shoddy math, or so the argument goes, right?) but my MMO experiences have demonstrated that it's always better to trust the mathematically-inclined number crunchers than the designers/developers because the designers are often not well-versed in theorycraft and can easily miss exploits and flaws because they aren't actively looking for them.  That goes double for a company that is infamous for it's absolutely terrible editing/proofreading and overall lack of even remembering their own rules in published material (remember the PrC in 3.5 Complete Warrior that said you had to be Lawful alignment but the sample character was _Chaotic Neutral_?).


----------



## Aulirophile (Apr 17, 2011)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Maybe it was intended, that combat length increased, as you have more powers to use at higher levels, and leader to hit combos were assumed to exist. (3 encounters, 3 dailies and 2 at wills...) It however may be, that the game didn´t play that smoothly by lesser experienced players and expertise was a fix for that...



It wasn't, we have public statements from devs to that effect. And your RB analogy is fundamentally flawed because RB had to _hit _first. It in _no way _compensated for not having Expertise, because of the Clerics low chance of applying it (particularly at Epic). 

I would encourage you to educate yourself on this issue if you want to discuss it, rather then making baseless statements that have no place in fact. I don't think it is really much to ask that you actually acquire factual information about a subject before attempting to form an opinion about it and then posting that opinion _as if it were objectively true_. I think of that of that is impolite, and it is _certainly, _by definition, ignorant, so calling someone who does it ignorant (about this subject) is perfectly true.


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 17, 2011)

Being a designer doesn't automatically make you a math wiz. It just means that you had a good idea pitch and decent enough writing skills to get published. Dragon magazine has been plagued by errata for just this reason. As with other games, the best thing to do is have the math people work with the creative people.


----------



## Herschel (Apr 17, 2011)

And vice verse. The math is easy enough if you have the time and staff to micro-analyze. Macro-analysis is generally accepted as good enough in non-critical situations (as gaming is). It's not feasible to expect to catch every potential glitch in development when you have to market dates. That said, they caught the big things and errata'd the corner cases that were abused.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 17, 2011)

Aulirophile said:


> It wasn't, we have public statements from devs to that effect. And your RB analogy is fundamentally flawed because RB had to _hit _first. It in _no way _compensated for not having Expertise, because of the Clerics low chance of applying it (particularly at Epic).
> 
> I would encourage you to educate yourself on this issue if you want to discuss it, rather then making baseless statements that have no place in fact. I don't think it is really much to ask that you actually acquire factual information about a subject before attempting to form an opinion about it and then posting that opinion _as if it were objectively true_. I think of that of that is impolite, and it is _certainly, _by definition, ignorant, so calling someone who does it ignorant (about this subject) is perfectly true.



Wow, I am amazed how insulting your post sounds... of course, RB needs to hit first... I don´t know why you try to imply i didn´t... here is the relevant part: "Also, a *hit* with the old righteous brand followed by dailies heavily imbalanced the mathematic." 


back to the point:
there may have well been a point where it didn´t have to hit first, I don´t know, and you don´t know that. 

And it could as well have been the intend that the leader does not hit that often, but when he hits, then every other person can unleash a lot of pain on the target...

this does not mean that this idea didn´t work out that well and fixing it is a good idea. If you look at the warpriest, there you see my preferred method of dealing with the issue: leaders usually have effect lines and their effects usually work on themselves too... they don´t really need to hit that often, and they can inspire themselves...

Another good fix would have been making expertise not into an unnamed bonus, but a power bonus. This would have allowed leaderless play, and leader would be able to have a different method of making their leader bonuses reliable.

And I can even live with expertise as it is now. I just see it like the old ADnD weapon proficiencies: you have basic knowledge in some weapons, but you need to take training in a weapon to become a real master...

the only thing i can´t agree with is people looking at the math and powers after errata (many to scaling to hit bonuses are fixed now, as expertise scales) and telling me that there were no mechanics (aforementioned scaling leader bonuses) that tried (and failed more or less) to bridge that gap...

I also believe behaving like you do is productive in any discussion... i think I reported you in a different thread and i will report you again if you don´t stop insulting people...


----------



## Aulirophile (Apr 17, 2011)

Um, you're threatening to report me because pointing out you're objectively wrong, this is math not opinion, and are therefore ignorant of the relevant factors, because you are, and _I'm _being rude? Riiiiight. 

It isn't an insult to tell someone who is saying 2+2=5 they are ignorant of math. If you feel insulted for being called ignorant when you are, that is your problem.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Apr 17, 2011)

To sum up the thread: I asked for professional opinions. But other than Aulirophile's account of the GenCon Q&A, nobody has provided anything close. Instead, I got more of the same ol' apologist song and dance:

"I don't like the term feat tax because nobody's outright _required_ to take them." Well, nobody's outright required to pay real taxes either; some people live off the grid and off the books. But for most people, the benefits of paying their taxes far outweigh the benefits of dodging them, so the slang term is apt.

"It's not a problem in _my_ game, so there's no problem." That's good for y'all, but for every anecdotal experience to excuse the problem, there's another that highlights the problem. Ex: The guy in my group who fills his feat slots with non-combat ones thinks the game plays just fine without paying his taxes, but the rest of us grind our teeth when we're in a tight spot and he keeps wiffing. So we all get to take Expertise and Improved Defenses as we choose, but the choice only creates frustration. There's zero benefit to the 'choice' to pay our feat taxes or not, because the one guy is just as happy in my campaign where he gets them for free. Everyone else is happi_er_.

I'm trying to open my mind about this, but it's hard when the PSG all but _tells_ players to pay their feat taxes. This, coupled with all other evidence and opinions, just keeps pointing me toward design mistakes and math holes.



Herschel said:


> 1. I'm amazed at how many gamers are so eager to feel they're smarter than the designers. Sure, nothing is ever perfect but everything we've seen shows they had a progressive plan for game options being added. That plan isn't "written in stone" but it's been pretty well laid out from introduction to Red Box.



Who claimed to be smarter than the devs? I didn't.

The devs made a mistake, probably as a result of making system tweaks close to final deadline. I just happen to have been one of the first amateurs to notice the mistake because, well, I have no deadlines. Had I been on the design team, I might have spotted it in time but that doesn't make me smarter than anyone.



Herschel said:


> 2. Which actually is what I said. The problem is where does each person feel grind is. Some people don't want combats over four rounds, others want numerous combats over four rounds. If the math were spectacularly screwed up, the game wouldn't work. It did and does. Some feel entitled to hit and (not be) hit at a certain clip, but that differs from person to person. The game is robust to support numerous types of gaming experiences. Did it at first? No, but it was never meant to include everything at the beginning. Remember all the hand-wringing when the Gnome, Half-Orc, Bard, etc. weren't in the PHB1?



I apologize; my attention was focussed on the "...NOTHING to do with math" part.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 17, 2011)

Aulirophile said:


> Um, you're threatening to report me because pointing out you're objectively wrong, this is math not opinion, and are therefore ignorant of the relevant factors, because you are, and _I'm _being rude? Riiiiight.
> 
> It isn't an insult to tell someone who is saying 2+2=5 ignorant of math. If you feel insulted for being called ignorant when you are, that is your problem.



intersting what you read into my posts...

You could read my post again and quote the relevant part where I actually say that 2+2 is 5 and the part where I say that the math works as it should have worked...

I just stated, that you should better not make assumptions about the intend of other people. If you are not a designer you can only state that it does not work as you like it, or state, that you observe designers having reevaluated the worth of leader powers... you can´t however state, that the math does not have worked as intended, because you don´t know what the intend was...

(when it was intended to allow a PC to use every encounter power + 1 daily + all your at wills in an encounter (what we don´t know), combats in epic need to last 8 rounds or so, not 4 or 5. And if teamwork should have been encouraged more, than the reliance on leader powers to bridge a gap also seems to have been reasonable at that time...)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 17, 2011)

Personally, I think its a case of mind over matter: if you don't mind, it doesn't matter.

I'm running a 4Ed PC right now, and as is typical of me since 1990, I've got a plot about how I plan the PC to develop over the next however long I play him.  That plan isn't set in stone, but it gives me an idea as to how I think this guy would grow.  I pretty much know which feats this PC is eying up to the lower reaches of the Epic tier.

...And, to be honest, I don't have "Expertise" anywhere on his list.  Sure, I've griped on these boards about his accuracy, but a goodly portion of that has just been a statistically long aberrational cold streak with the dice.


----------



## Aulirophile (Apr 17, 2011)

UngeheuerLich said:


> intersting what you read into my posts...
> 
> You could read my post again and quote the relevant part where I actually say that 2+2 is 5 and the part where I say that the math works as it should have worked...
> 
> ...



Um, designers have said all the statements that I am referring to. No assumptions needed. 

See what ignorance does?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 18, 2011)

Herschel said:


> ======Originally Posted by Tony Vargas  ====
> If the mechanic isn't /really/ that broken, then the 'tax' can be ignored... unless, it's /also/ just too good. Expertise feats were just too good, already, and the versions in Essentials are /better/.
> ====================================
> 
> ...



I guess it's a symantic issue, at that point.  I suppose you could also think of them as a sort of 'luxury tax,' in the inverse.  If you /don't/ take them, then, for the 'luxury' of choosing other feats, you're 'taxed' 1 AB per tier...?


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 18, 2011)

snip...


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 18, 2011)

Aulirophile said:


> Um, designers have said all the statements that I am referring to. No assumptions needed.
> 
> See what ignorance does?



I just read about designers realizing issues... and trying to use expertise as a "hot fix". I did not read anything about the original intend... I even think to remember that someone stated, that synergy should make up for the gap, but i am not sure it was a designer...

And, yes, i see what ignorance does... your ignorance of manners seems to be symptomatic...


----------



## Aulirophile (Apr 18, 2011)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I just read about designers realizing issues... and trying to use expertise as a "hot fix". I did not read anything about the original intend... I even think to remember that someone stated, that synergy should make up for the gap, but i am not sure it was a designer...
> 
> And, yes, i see what ignorance does... your ignorance of manners seems to be symptomatic...



So.. you didn't actually read the thread then? Not that I'm surprised. 

Again, calling someone ignorant _when they are ignorant, _is not rude. At all. You're saying that me calling a tall person tall is rude. It isn't. They are tall. 

All discussing your opinion of my manners does is demonstrate how weak your position is. It is kind of sad, though that is jut my opinion.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 18, 2011)

Aulirophile said:


> So.. you didn't actually read the thread then? Not that I'm surprised.
> 
> Again, calling someone ignorant _when they are ignorant, _is not rude. At all. You're saying that me calling a tall person tall is rude. It isn't. They are tall.
> 
> All discussing your opinion of my manners does is demonstrate how weak your position is. It is kind of sad, though that is jut my opinion.



Did read the thread, just don´t read those statements as you do. I can´t believe it was pure oversight. In guess they had a reason to change the scaling during the beta... and i guess they realized, in an optimized group, enemies were hit very easy, and i guess leader bonuses were one reason for that...

I however believe, that there were things, the developers broke shortly before finallizing the rules... and i guess it was not the developers inability to count to 29, but some wrong estimations.

And 8 rounds of combat in epic still seem reasonable, i won´t repeat, why i believe such things... it is just, that it was implemented in a way, that could get frustrating:

leaders not hitting well enough or having no leaders that have to hit bonus powers broke the assumptions...
I read you were at gen con, but i guess the real oversight was that leaders in the final version (I don´t know previous versions) can´t do their job if they are hitting less than 55%, which they did...

edit:i adressed your post and tried to answer... your only defense is "i was at gen con and developers also use houserules NOW"
You still don´t know why they changed the scaling, and they didn´t tell you why they did... i guess it wasn´t: "hey, it is working perfectly now... why not change it arbitrarily?"

And you are still rude, and ignorant of it...


----------



## Aulirophile (Apr 18, 2011)

Ah, so you're just making things up then to justify your beliefs, rather then taking the statements of the devs at face value. Good to know. 

8 rounds at what level of encounter? You clearly don't understand the factors involved here. 8 rounds is not inherently unreasonable, but it is unreasonable under certain circumstances, which are subject to a pure math analysis. 

Yes, my only defense is that I an intimate familiar with _all _aspects of the subject and you're not and that makes me right by default. This is very similar to an Astronomer being right by default when discussing Astronomy with someone who has never studied it, but has many opinions about it. Knowledge of a subject makes what you say on that subject more valuable. A very important concept in general.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 18, 2011)

Tequila Sunrise said:


> This may have been a freudian slip on your part, but this is my sentiment exactly. I'm amazed at how many gamers assume that the game works exactly as intended, even with compelling evidence, professional opinions to the contrary and apparently no agreeing professional opinions whatsoever. I guess some people are just fundamentally content.




I don´t disagree with that. No freudian slip or something... I just say, it can´t be pure oversight. They must have had reasons to change something, some reason why they believed the older scaling didn´t work well enough...

maybe combats at higher levels were to short for their tastes... who  knows? Maybe leader bonuses were so high, that hitting became trivial... maybe the designers were just mistaken, when they changed the scaling for all classes...

Beginning of D&D:
lack of +4 to hit at epic, rightous brand exactly giving +4 more to hit at epic... problem: rightous brand itself does not hit well enough...

today:
+4 to hit nearly compensated by expertise feats, righteous brand having a fixed bonus. New leader powers usually don´t scale anymore. Other old leader bonuses revised...

There was an oversight, that is sure... but it was not pure stupidity on the designers part... there has to be some intend...

I can perfectly see problems... I can perfectly see why it is called a feat tax... I just disagree that it is a necessary part... I rather send lower level enemies which reduces grind much more than increasing just to hit bonuses and NAD´s of PC´s... the added benefit is lower HP of monsters and lower to hit... MM3 monster math neatly increases deadliness of slightly lower level monsters... -15% to hit at level 30 for + 12 damage seems like a fair trade. (MM3 level 27 monster compared to a pre MM3 level 30 monster)


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 18, 2011)

Aulirophile said:


> Ah, so you're just making things up then to justify your beliefs, rather then taking the statements of the devs at face value. Good to know.
> 
> 8 rounds at what level of encounter? You clearly don't understand the factors involved here. 8 rounds is not inherently unreasonable, but it is unreasonable under certain circumstances, which are subject to a pure math analysis.





Show me the statements... show me your intimate knowledge... your references in your posts just show, the developers have realized a mistake... and are doing things to compensate... show me where they say:
"we have not been able to calculate up to 29"



Aulirophile said:


> Yes, my only defense is that I an intimate familiar with _all _aspects of the subject and you're not and that makes me right by default.



Also, even if i am wrong that does not make you right...
maybe you should take a lesson in logics...


----------



## Aulirophile (Apr 18, 2011)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Beginning of D&D:
> lack of +4 to hit at epic, rightous brand exactly giving +4 more to hit at epic... problem: rightous brand itself does not hit well enough...



RB gave Str mod... if your Str mod at Epic was +4 you'd need to roll an 14 (scaling to 17+ by late epic) to hit an even level (without Expertise). At Epic, on a Str Cleric, RB was giving 5-9 (5 is 16 starting stat, 9 is 16+2 racial+ED boost). Technically it could go as high as 10, but 20 starting Str for Clerics wasn't (and isn't) a good idea mechanically. And since it only applied to one ally it didn't solve the _groups _problem. At all. 

This is bizarre. The numbers you present are wrong, but they are wrong in such a way that the problem would be _worse, _not better. How far off from reality can you be?


----------



## wayne62682 (Apr 18, 2011)

UngeheuerLich said:


> There was an oversight, that is sure... but it was not pure stupidity on the designers part... there has to be some intend...




I disagree.  While I don't think it was "stupidity", I think that many of the issues with 4e's balance, and with 3.x before it, is due to a fundamental lack of both understanding theorycraft and a lack of time to run through all the use cases that would reveal deficiencies or more loopholes.

That's forgivable.  The refusal to admit and correct the mistakes when they're revealed later on, however, not so much.


----------



## Aulirophile (Apr 18, 2011)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Show me the statements... show me your intimate knowledge... your references in your posts just show, the developers have realized a mistake... and are doing things to compensate... show me where they say:
> "we have not been able to calculate up to 29"
> 
> 
> ...



True, we could both be wrong... but it isn't _probable. _The idea that I am right because I am familiar with the information available on the issue is inductively strong. The idea that you are wrong when the information you present as basing your ideas off of is wrong is deductively valid. You cannot be right if your premises are wrong. So you're definitely wrong and it is probable that I am right. Free lesson in logic for you.

You just... won my argument. "Mistake" OK, they made one, got it. "Compensate." If it isn't a problem... why does it need to be compensated for? Oh, right, because it causes issues. I don't claim to know _why _they made the mistake, you did, I said they publicly declared they _made _a mistake with the scaling and that it was, in fact, a mistake because it invalidated built-in assumptions (character power, encounter length, damage scaling, dozens of things).


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 18, 2011)

wayne62682 said:


> I disagree.  While I don't think it was "stupidity", I think that many of the issues with 4e's balance, and with 3.x before it, is due to a fundamental lack of both understanding theorycraft and a lack of time to run through all the use cases that would reveal deficiencies or more loopholes.
> 
> That's forgivable.  The refusal to admit and correct the mistakes when they're revealed later on, however, not so much.



You don´t go out and change something that you don´t believe it is broken. In Aurilophiles post, which i believe to be true, it is stated, that the developers have changed the scaling.
But the result of the change were: other broken rules not working smoothly... mostly because of a 4 point difference to it... and this most surely was due to your stated lack of time...


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 18, 2011)

Aulirophile said:


> True, we could both be wrong... but it isn't _probable. _The idea that I am right because I am familiar with the information available on the issue is inductively strong. The idea that you are wrong when the information you present as basing your ideas off of is wrong is deductively valid. You cannot be right if your premises are wrong. So you're definitely wrong and it is probable that I am right. Free lesson in logic for you.
> 
> You just... won my argument. "Mistake" OK, they made one, got it. "Compensate." If it isn't a problem... why does it need to be compensated for? Oh, right, because it causes issues. I don't claim to know _why _they made the mistake, you did, I said they publicly declared they _made _a mistake with the scaling and that it was, in fact, a mistake because it invalidated built-in assumptions (character power, encounter length, damage scaling, dozens of things).



It was absolutely not my intention to win anything... i don´t deny they made a mistake... but i honestly believe they believed before gen con, that they did not make a mistake...

that they thought scaling leader bonuses and synergies were enough to compensate... of course the inability to apply those bonuses and synergies resulted in dramatically bad results. You see, that those leader bonuses were nerfed after the introduction of expertise?


----------



## wayne62682 (Apr 18, 2011)

UngeheuerLich said:


> You don´t go out and change something that you don´t believe it is broken.




Even if a lot of people say it's broken and, more to the point, can provide mathematical evidence that it is?  I remember the days of 3.5 where CharOp would show empirical proof that such-and-such powers were broken, and I remember only one time that Wizards ever admitted it and fixed it (and that was with the changes to the Polymorph spells).

If WotC doesn't consider something broken, but people who have more of a grounded theorycrafting background show them "Yes, this is broken", and WotC responds to the effect of "I don't think it's broken, so I won't fix it" then who is in the wrong?

EDIT: The issue is also the fact of HOW they implemented the fix, i.e. by tacking something on instead of actually correcting the fix.


----------



## Aulirophile (Apr 18, 2011)

wayne62682 said:


> I disagree.  While I don't think it was "stupidity", I think that many of the issues with 4e's balance, and with 3.x before it, is due to a fundamental lack of both understanding theorycraft and a lack of time to run through all the use cases that would reveal deficiencies or more loopholes.
> 
> That's forgivable.  The refusal to admit and correct the mistakes when they're revealed later on, however, not so much.



Exactly. I'm not speculating on they "Why" they changed it (there may or may not have been a good reason, it could've been sleep deprivation for all we know, deadlines can suck) but the reason isn't relevant. They said, after the community did all the theorycraft, that it was a mistake and it ought to be fixed. Their solution, feats that plug the hole, is justifiably labeled a feat tax and lambasted by a large portion of the community. 

Tony's idea that originally there were stat boosting items very nearly plug the hole perfectly. Perhaps they decided to completely remove this as an artifact of 3.x late in the development cycle. It could be any number of things, and it is very difficult for people, conceptually, to grasp that minor changes can propagate throughout a rules system and change things in an unintended manner. And that is one idea that explains the change and you can easily see the logic chain, considering what stat boosting items did in 3.x. That is one of dozens of ideas that would perfectly explain it. 

But explaining it isn't necessary. They said it was a mistake and they understood what the issues it caused were, because of the community that pointed them out. Simple. Easy.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 18, 2011)

Aulirophile said:


> RB gave Str mod... if your Str mod at Epic was +4 you'd need to roll an 14 (scaling to 17+ by late epic) to hit an even level (without Expertise). At Epic, on a Str Cleric, RB was giving 5-9 (5 is 16 starting stat, 9 is 16+2 racial+ED boost). Technically it could go as high as 10, but 20 starting Str for Clerics wasn't (and isn't) a good idea mechanically. And since it only applied to one ally it didn't solve the _groups _problem. At all.
> 
> This is bizarre. The numbers you present are wrong, but they are wrong in such a way that the problem would be _worse, _not better. How far off from reality can you be?



+4 more than at level 1...

+8 to strenght over the course of 30 levels... (if not counting epic destiny). Again helping your reading comprehension:
"rightous brand exactly giving +4 *more* to hit at epic..."


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 18, 2011)

wayne62682 said:


> Even if a lot of people say it's broken and, more to the point, can provide mathematical evidence that it is?  I remember the days of 3.5 where CharOp would show empirical proof that such-and-such powers were broken, and I remember only one time that Wizards ever admitted it and fixed it (and that was with the changes to the Polymorph spells).
> 
> If WotC doesn't consider something broken, but people who have more of a grounded theorycrafting background show them "Yes, this is broken", and WotC responds to the effect of "I don't think it's broken, so I won't fix it" then who is in the wrong?
> 
> EDIT: The issue is also the fact of HOW they implemented the fix, i.e. by tacking something on instead of actually correcting the fix.



Hey, i stated the exact opposite:

If you don´t believe something is broken, you don´t fix it. Wizards sometimes refuse to change something that IS broken... why should they change something (in beta) that they believe to work correctly?

I was not speaking of the later expertise "fix".


----------



## Aulirophile (Apr 18, 2011)

UngeheuerLich said:


> +4 more than at level 1...
> 
> +8 to strenght over the course of 30 levels... (if not counting epic destiny). Again helping your reading comprehension:
> "rightous brand exactly giving +4 *more* to hit at epic..."



My mistake, missed the modifier. ^.^ It still wouldn't solve the overall accuracy problem of the group though (especially not round to round, because the Cleric wouldn't use RB every round).


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 18, 2011)

Aulirophile said:


> My mistake, missed the modifier. ^.^ It still wouldn't solve the overall accuracy problem of the group though (especially not round to round, because the Cleric wouldn't use RB every round).



Exactly: and this is where the fixes were needed, IF you want to stay ahead of equal level monsters (on the offensive)... which most surely IS intended now by the designers...

Also note, that defensive abilities, especially high level surgeless healing was also nerfed and damage increased... it is clear, that WotC wants the game to be a bit more deadly and faster than originally intended... and certainly faster than it WAS in actual play.


----------



## Eridanis (Apr 18, 2011)

Cut the personal sniping and keep to the topic, or there will be vacations handed out. Thank you.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 18, 2011)

I find it extremely hard to believe that the WotC designers were incapable of counting to 29 (to borrow UngeheuerLich's phrase).

It would also seem strange to drop stat bonus items without noticing the effect that this would have on the maths.

It seems more likely to me that the game, as played after release, turned out different in various ways from what had been understood/intended by the designers (eg Paragon Path action point bonuses turned out to play differently, or leaders were played differently, or the game was seen as playing too slowly, or . . .).


----------



## kaomera (Apr 18, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I find it extremely hard to believe that the WotC designers were incapable of counting to 29 (to borrow UngeheuerLich's phrase).
> 
> It would also seem strange to drop stat bonus items without noticing the effect that this would have on the maths.
> 
> It seems more likely to me that the game, as played after release, turned out different in various ways from what had been understood/intended by the designers (eg Paragon Path action point bonuses turned out to play differently, or leaders were played differently, or the game was seen as playing too slowly, or . . .).



One of the things I was most liking about the 4e design ideas I was seeing before launch was the removal of item bonuses as a central part of "the math". It seemed to me at the time that they got added back in, possibly at the last moment, when things weren't adding up otherwise. But I think that the real issue was a combination of trying to deal with bonuses at every level and a potentially unlimited number of different bonus types. If you cut levels where attack / defense bonus is going to see significant change down to 15 or 20 or limit the system to a finite number of bonus types I would think it would be easier to balance.


----------



## KarinsDad (Apr 18, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I find it extremely hard to believe that the WotC designers were incapable of counting to 29 (to borrow UngeheuerLich's phrase).
> 
> It would also seem strange to drop stat bonus items without noticing the effect that this would have on the maths.
> 
> It seems more likely to me that the game, as played after release, turned out different in various ways from what had been understood/intended by the designers (eg Paragon Path action point bonuses turned out to play differently, or leaders were played differently, or the game was seen as playing too slowly, or . . .).




If it were just one area of weakness like the ridiculous lowest NAD, then I might agree with you.

But, it was four areas of the game that they "fixed", three areas of which are extremely critical to the balance of the game system:

1) Heavy Armor masterwork armor bonuses.
2) To hit bonuses.
3) Defenses.
4) Monster damage and hit points.

A well designed mathematical model with graphs would have easily pointed out these flaws pre-release. The community started pointing out these flaws less than 3 months after the game came out.

The fact is that they came up with math rules for some aspects of the game system, but dropped them for other aspects and relied on limited playtesting instead.

It is obvious that they would have to tweak the game as designed due to some elements playing out differently than they expected, but a solid mathematical model from day one would have resulted in a solid framework for which to make those tweaks as opposed to a moving target based on feat selection.


----------



## Aulirophile (Apr 18, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I find it extremely hard to believe that the WotC designers were incapable of counting to 29 (to borrow UngeheuerLich's phrase).
> 
> It would also seem strange to drop stat bonus items without noticing the effect that this would have on the maths.
> 
> It seems more likely to me that the game, as played after release, turned out different in various ways from what had been understood/intended by the designers (eg Paragon Path action point bonuses turned out to play differently, or leaders were played differently, or the game was seen as playing too slowly, or . . .).



Again, we don't need to guess. They outright said they changed scaling in some way right before release (though not how) and that it is directly responsible for the issue. They made a mistake, said so, and (from their perspective) "fixed" it. 

Your faith in the devs perfection is nice, but it doesn't stand up to their own statements, or their track record in general. What edition of D&D had no mechanical errors, exactly?


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 18, 2011)

Aulirophile said:


> Again, we don't need to guess. They outright said they changed scaling in some way right before release (though not how) and that it is directly responsible for the issue. They made a mistake, said so, and (from their perspective) "fixed" it.
> 
> Your faith in the devs perfection is nice, but it doesn't stand up to their own statements, or their track record in general. What edition of D&D had no mechanical errors, exactly?



You are missing the point... noone disagrees with you here...

so lets sum it up again:

mistake? yes!

changed scaling at a bad point in development? yes!

Designers believing the newer scaling works better than the old? 

Here we have to assume, that the designers honestly believed, the new scaling worked better than the old. Otherwise they would not have changed it.

I guess, they thought, the "gap" would have been bridged by some means or at least somehow compensated (my guess, misevaluation of leader and synegy effects as I explained above)...


----------



## Aulirophile (Apr 18, 2011)

Since they called it a mistake it seems nonsensical to believe they thought it was better, in the end. You believe they changed something and thought it'd be OK. I believe they changed something and didn't realize the impact it'd have (because, lets face it, it their track record isn't good in that area). 

_Neither _interpretation changes the outcome: Expertise feats are a math fix, and ought to be baked into the game math.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 18, 2011)

Aulirophile said:


> Since they called it a mistake it seems nonsensical to believe they thought it was better, in the end. You believe they changed something and thought it'd be OK. I believe they changed something and didn't realize the impact it'd have (because, lets face it, it their track record isn't good in that area).
> 
> _Neither _interpretation changes the outcome: Expertise feats are a math fix, and ought to be baked into the game math.



yes


----------



## Herschel (Apr 18, 2011)

The issue with "the math" is in the variety, not the math itself. Take the good old 18 (or even 20) post-racial primary ability score with the +3 proficiency weapon vs. the 16 with the +2 as a simple example. In a campaign, weapon "upgrades" don't usually happen at the same time in a lot of games. If the +3 user gets his "upgrade" sooner, then he's at a +3 for a time. Sure, there are trade-offs as there's definite benefits from allocating points in to other abilities, but not all classes need a lot of tertiary stats also. Certain backgrounds made it so you don't have to put a lot of points in to Constitution to be a functional defender, for example, but an increased number of surges is still very helpful. 

With Expertise, that 16/+2 character is on even footing with the 18/+3 at paragon so long as they spend the feat. Without it, the 16/+2 character may feel they're falling  behind at the start of the new tier when foe's abilities go up. Expertise gives them a chance to be on even footing. It beats either becoming unhappy with a character and "killing it off" after 10 levels for a new one. 

This then opens up a conundrum of tied powers to ability scores and different proficiency bonuses but that's not really the focus of this thread. The "best" alternative would not have been in any way simple or efficient: a wall of pre-requisite text. I mean can you imagine what that would look like?

Heavy Blade Expertise
Prerequisite: Must be wielding a heavy blade with an initial post-racial primary ability score of less than 18 and/or use of a weapon with a proficiency bonus of less than +3. etc. etc. 

How cumbersome is that? It was better off just leaving it with less text and letting those accuracy optimizers have their toy too.   

There are two feats I generally find closer to "must take" for a character: Toughness for a low-level defender (or potentially Durable) and Speed Loader for a non-striker crossbow user.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 18, 2011)

Herschel said:


> With Expertise, that 16/+2 character is on even footing with the 18/+3 at paragon so long as they spend the feat. Without it, the 16/+2 character may feel they're falling  behind at the start of the new tier when foe's abilities go up. Expertise gives them a chance to be on even footing. It beats either becoming unhappy with a character and "killing it off" after 10 levels for a new one.



Thing is, the kind of player who comes up with a 16/+2 character is NOT the kind of player who thinks to take Expertise at 1st level (or at all) - they're more likely taking feats related to character background or covering 'blind spots.'  Conversely, the 18/+3 character is probaby one the player thinks of as 'specialized,' and Expertise will be topping his list.  For that mattter, the player who comes to the table with a  20/+3 character has Expertise at first level, and probably has more tricks waiting in the wings that'll stack with it.  

So, far from being a way of putting a sub-optimal 'concept character' back in the running, the existance of Expertise feats puts such characters further behind, in the likely event that they fail to 'pay their taxes.'


----------



## MrMyth (Apr 18, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> Thing is, the kind of player who comes up with a 16/+2 character is NOT the kind of player who thinks to take Expertise at 1st level (or at all) - they're more likely taking feats related to character background or covering 'blind spots.' Conversely, the 18/+3 character is probaby one the player thinks of as 'specialized,' and Expertise will be topping his list. For that mattter, the player who comes to the table with a 20/+3 character has Expertise at first level, and probably has more tricks waiting in the wings that'll stack with it.
> 
> So, far from being a way of putting a sub-optimal 'concept character' back in the running, the existance of Expertise feats puts such characters further behind, in the likely event that they fail to 'pay their taxes.'




This pretty much covers it - the presence of such a feat doesn't narrow the gap, it _widens_ it.


----------



## Herschel (Apr 18, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> Thing is, the kind of player who comes up with a 16/+2 character is NOT the kind of player who thinks to take Expertise at 1st level (or at all) - they're more likely taking feats related to character background or covering 'blind spots.' Conversely, the 18/+3 character is probaby one the player thinks of as 'specialized,' and Expertise will be topping his list. For that mattter, the player who comes to the table with a 20/+3 character has Expertise at first level, and probably has more tricks waiting in the wings that'll stack with it.
> 
> So, far from being a way of putting a sub-optimal 'concept character' back in the running, the existance of Expertise feats puts such characters further behind, in the likely event that they fail to 'pay their taxes.'




I disagree in a larger sense while agree that yeah, that issue will also come up. Look at a Genasi Sorcerer, for example. The flavor of a Chaos or Storm sorcerer fits perfectly for the race, yet their ability boosts don't line up at all.  Their are a few feats that help out but simply buying an 18 Charisma would nigh "cripple" the character in a lot of ways. That's not an "out there" character concept. With expertise they can be on par with a Charisma-boosted race from an attack standpoint in heroic, where apparently most games take place. Yeah, the Charisma-based character can also take it, but he doesn't need to take it (technically the non-Charisma doesn't either, but there's more incentive to take it).


----------



## Herschel (Apr 18, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> This pretty much covers it - the presence of such a feat doesn't narrow the gap, it _widens_ it.




Again, this makes some rather large assumptions in painting gamers with a really big brush, too broad to be accurate. While in some cases this will happen, in others it won't. Throwing up walls of pre-requisite text isn't a useful solution.

As we've seen from all the edition warring, a larger "overhaul" of the system isn't either.


----------



## MrMyth (Apr 18, 2011)

Herschel said:


> Again, this makes some rather large assumptions in painting gamers with a really big brush, too broad to be accurate. While in some cases this will happen, in others it won't. Throwing up walls of pre-requisite text isn't a useful solution.
> 
> As we've seen from all the edition warring, a larger "overhaul" of the system isn't either.




It's happened in every case I've seen. If you have characters who are already optimized - with 20's in their primary stats and +3 proficiency weapons and other options to boost their accuracy - odds are very, very high that they will take Expertise feats. 

If you have players who are more likely to build an average character, Expertise may not even be on their radar - or if it is, may take backseat to elements that help support their concept. 

And the DM now has to deal with an even larger difference between the optimized and unoptimized character, and that honestly helps no one. 

In the past, the solution I used was to give out Expertise for free. (Trickier, now that we have weapon-specific expertises with additional benefits, and bonuses that now scale at different levels). I suspect my next game will involve just banning the feats entirely, since I have never been convinced they were necessary to fix the math, and have bothered me pretty much from the start.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 18, 2011)

Another way to look at the problem of Expertise as a 'gap narrower' feat is that it only narrows the gap if the higher-bonus character /doesn't/ take it.  That puts the effectiveness of a choice for a less-optimized character in the hands of the optimizer, which isn't that great an idea.  

While it might be painting with a broad brush, the examples are still valid.  It might not be true of every pair of gamers who bring 16/+2 and 20/+3 characters to the table, but it'll certainly be true of some of them, and balance isn't something that's only a problem if everyone abuses something, it's a problem that at it's worst when some do, and some don't.

If you really want a 'gap narrowing' feat, you will, indeed, need to come up with feats that reward an attack bonus with race/class or multiple-secondary-stat preqs.  

Plus, of course, choosing to have an 18 or 20 stat is a major sacrifice in secondary stats, and a +2 weapon has bigger damage, and typically something like high crit or other advantages going for it over a +3 weapon.  So gap-narrowing, if enforced, is just erroding the advantage that a player may have sacrificed quite a bit to get.

So, on the one hand, 'gap narrowing' may not be such a great idea.  OTOH, Expertise allows for /greater/ gaps.  So it's a bad idea either way you slice it, it just adds yet another way one PC can have an attack bonus higher than another.  Add up enough of those - weapon, stat, class, feat bonus, stacking bonuses - and you'll get more situations where it's hard to reasonably challenge everyone in the party.

FREX:  pre-Expertise, a character could take a 20 primary stat, a +3 prof weapon, fighter to get weapon talent, then Kensai to get another +1 on top of that at paragon.  Compared to a 16-STR, +2 prof weapon, no weapon-talent class, that's an already problematic 5-point spread in AB.  3 point spreads were actually quite common at Heroic, too.  Adding Expertise makes the spread in the above example potentially as high as 7.  Which means if one character hits on a 10 the other hits on a 3 (or, worse, one hits on a 10, and the other needs a 17).  Just not workable.  Sure, it could, instead, narrow the gap, but the gap is already potentially 0, anyway, so if anyone was up for some restraint, the problem doesn't exist, to begin with.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 18, 2011)

Aulirophile said:


> Since they called it a mistake it seems nonsensical to believe they thought it was better, in the end. You believe they changed something and thought it'd be OK. I believe they changed something and didn't realize the impact it'd have (because, lets face it, it their track record isn't good in that area).



Aulirophile, have you got the actual quote that you paraphrase (in your post on page 1) as "Oops, we change the scaling and didn't notice that it doesn't add to 29 anymore"?

I'm happy to accept that they changed something late in the day about how bonuses are gained/stack/play out. But I guess I still find it pretty hard to believe that they didn't notice that 3 relevant numbers didn't add to 29. That's not a mechanical weakness - it's an inability to do primary school arithmetic!


----------



## Mirtek (Apr 18, 2011)

Tequila Sunrise said:


> This may have been a freudian slip on your part, but this is my sentiment exactly. I'm amazed at how many gamers assume that the game works exactly as intended, even with compelling evidence, professional opinions to the contrary and apparently no agreeing professional opinions whatsoever. I guess some people are just fundamentally content.
> 
> I've come to believe that, had 4e been designed with similar math except for a 1/3 level bonus rather than the 1/2 we have, the same gamers would be insisting that the game works just "fine," and that "that's the way it's supposed to be."



 However that's only the case if you dare to point out the errors before WotC themselves admit them. 

E.g. if WotC hadn't come out and admitted their mistakes with skill challenge DCs and monster damage expressions you would still be called today for daring to criticize the old values


----------



## mudlock (Apr 18, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> In the past, the solution I used was to give out Expertise for free. (Trickier, now that we have weapon-specific expertises with additional benefits, and bonuses that now scale at different levels). I suspect my next game will involve just banning the feats entirely, since I have never been convinced they were necessary to fix the math, and have bothered me pretty much from the start.




Maybe don't ban them, but remove the attack bonus: the other bonuses from the new expertise feats are pretty cool in their own right, and often quite worth a feat.

(Ditto with the +defense feats. Or at least remove the scaling aspect of the bonuses; a flat +1 may not be so bad. And for people who think the "math fix" is necessary, remove the scaling and give everyone a per-tier +1 to all attacks and defenses.)


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 18, 2011)

giving tem out for free woul not be the worst idea... actually i would give out 2 of them for free... think of it like weapon proficiencies...


----------



## Aulirophile (Apr 18, 2011)

There's a basic error at work here: 55% vs even level is a minimum. There _isn't _a maximum (barring 95%, miss on 1). Not designed into the system by intent, at least. So it doesn't matter if one guy is 18+3 and the other is 16+2. They've both achieved the minimum, combats will not go _longer _then they are supposed to on average. Which was the only objective Wizards had, they didn't want grindy 14+ round combats (which happened to often at 50% during playtesting apparently). The players, to use an analogy, are The House in Vegas. They are always supposed to win, so they have a very minor edge to make sure that, on average, that happens. 

Now if you want to argue there is a psychological component to one player hitting more then another one does, fine... but baking in Expertise to the system would make the gap identical, as well, so the argument is contradictory. In fact by baking in Expertise one player can no longer get as far ahead by making better choices, so the psychological gap cannot happen even if you build characters poorly. This is a good argument against Expertise feats, but is a very poor argument against fixing the math.

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]: This whole thing happened almost right after the real release. You could dig it up no doubt, but I don't have a link handy. It was three years ago, almost.


----------



## mudlock (Apr 18, 2011)

Herschel said:


> Heavy Blade Expertise
> Prerequisite: Must be wielding a heavy blade with an initial post-racial primary ability score of less than 18 and/or use of a weapon with a proficiency bonus of less than +3. etc. etc.




"Initial post-racial primary ability score" is cumbersome, yes. How about:

"Heavy Blade Expertise
You have overcome your lack of innate ability through diligent practice.

When wielding a heavy blade, if the attack bonus from your attribute is less than 4, you gain a +1 feat bonus to hit.

Level 11:  If the attack bonus from your attribute is less than 6, you gain +2 feat bonus to hit.
Level 21: If the attack bonus from your attribute is less than 8, you gain +3 feat bonus to hit."


----------



## mneme (Apr 18, 2011)

mudlock:  As stated, a 16 primary would lose the bonus at 14th and 18th level, and never have it in epic unless they took really bad paragon paths--if you're catering it to 16 stat, you want 4/6/8 as your thresholds.


----------



## Herschel (Apr 19, 2011)

mudlock said:


> "Initial post-racial primary ability score" is cumbersome, yes. How about:
> 
> "Heavy Blade Expertise
> You have overcome your lack of innate ability through diligent practice.
> ...




That's still really awful, although slightly better.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 19, 2011)

> You have overcome your lack of innate ability through diligent practice.




How about, simply:
"Your practice with these weapons has improved your skill with them."


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 19, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> How about, simply:
> "Your practice with these weapons has improved your skill with them."



You're not gonna get the big bucks writing simple stuff like that.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 19, 2011)

Aulirophile said:


> This is a good argument against Expertise feats, but is a very poor argument against fixing the math.



I agree with this - I just recently posted the same thing on another thread.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 19, 2011)

> You're not gonna get the big bucks writing simple stuff like that.




I'm a lawyer. 

My Wills prof, Stanley Johanssen (an Ichabod Crane body double) gave us a wonderful lesson on the evils of "legalese"*, and promised that if he ever heard of our work being like his "bad" example, he would hunt us down.  Even if he were dead...

I believe him.



* he gave us a 10 page document and told us to read it. After 4 minutes, he had us stop and started asking questions about what we read.  Then he handed out another piece of paper with a single 8-sentence paragraph on it.  That paragraph was what he had boiled that 10-pager down to.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Apr 19, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> How about, simply:
> "Your practice with these weapons has improved your skill with them."




But doesn't that flavor text imply anyone should be able to take the feat?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 19, 2011)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> But doesn't that flavor text imply anyone should be able to take the feat?



Context matters, and it's the mechanics language that forms the context of the flavor text.  It's the "Bouncer at the door", as it were.

IOW, if the feat has a prereq that limits who can take it, no.  If no mechanics text limits who can take it, then yes.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 19, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'm a lawyer.
> 
> My Wills prof, Stanley Johanssen (an Ichabod Crane body double) gave us a wonderful lesson on the evils of "legalese"*, and promised that if he ever heard of our work being like his "bad" example, he would hunt us down.  Even if he were dead...



In my business law courses we learned that way back when, lawyers were literally paid by the word. This is what presumably led to legalese in the first place.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 19, 2011)

Yep, yep- and when you add in the fact that unclear language can be used as a weapon...well, that was that, and legalese became king.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 19, 2011)

Here's a gap-filling feat:

Plucky Side-Kick 
_You learn a lot from your more capable allies._
Prerequisite: You must be adventuring with at least one ally who has an attack bonus at least two higher than your own.
Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus to weapon attacks (if a qualifying ally uses a weapon) and/or implement attacks (if a qualifying ally uses an implement).


FREX:   Pauline the Paladin has a STR 16, CHA 16 and uses a longsword for some of her powers and a holy symbol for others. Her bonus to hit with her longsword is +9, her bonus to hit with the holy symbol is +5.  Her allies include Fritz the Fighter, 20 STR, greatsword, +12 to hit; and Wadsworth the Warlock, 18 CON, accurate rod, +7 to hit.   When she takes the Plucky Side-Kick feat, Pauline gains a +1 to her attack rolls with both weapon and implement powers.


----------



## Jhaelen (Apr 19, 2011)

Just define a hard cap for attack bonuses. Make it a general rule that your (static) attack bonus can never be higher than (level +x). Done.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 19, 2011)

Or make automatic misses on 1-4 instead of only at 1...


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Apr 25, 2011)

Or this: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1A2FcpOt_v53rEwh8h7DWaV1o9YpAQIfGsxE0nyS-4yA/edit?hl=en&pli=1#


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 27, 2011)

I don´t like the way you did your fixed bonus... for one thing, +5 is too much.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Apr 27, 2011)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I don´t like the way you did your fixed bonus... for one thing, +5 is too much.



That's not my document - I only linked to it.

Further, the whole point of it is to remove a lot of optimization by assuming that every character is fully optimized, hence +5 (20 stat) for attacks, +3 (16 stat) secondary effects. There is another option out there for +4/+4 for classes that benefit more from having double 18s.

The net effect is supposed to be (as I understand it) that when fluff and mechanics are fully divorced, then you are more free to be creative with your concept. No more arbitrary limitations or tendency based on so-called 'optimal' combos.

And really, the fixed bonus can be set to whatever you want (within the design expectations of the game), so if you are more comfortable with lower-powered characters, going as low as +3/+1 or +2/+2 is fine too, since everyone is the same.

This document has its flaws, to be sure, but I really like the concept.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Apr 27, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> The net effect is supposed to be (as I understand it) that when fluff and mechanics are fully divorced, then you are more free to be creative with your concept. No more arbitrary limitations or tendency based on so-called 'optimal' combos.
> 
> And really, the fixed bonus can be set to whatever you want (within the design expectations of the game), so if you are more comfortable with lower-powered characters, going as low as +3/+1 or +2/+2 is fine too, since everyone is the same.
> 
> This document has its flaws, to be sure, but I really like the concept.



The problem I have is that it makes things more of thensame... Unless I can choose 2/2 or 3/1 but even then what about classes that don't need a second stat...


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Apr 27, 2011)

GMforPowergamers said:


> The problem I have is that it makes things more of thensame... Unless I can choose 2/2 or 3/1 but even then what about classes that don't need a second stat...



Then presumably, you take the +5 (or whatever the highest option offered by the DM is) and be happy. You wouldn't be any better or worse off if you could put a 20 in that stat.

Clearly this document is not perfect, but it's a start. It's particularly good if your group has a mix of min/maxers and actors who don't care about mechanics - this keeps everyone mostly on the same page (especially if you also disallow expertise or grant it to everyone).

Yeah, everyone ends up pretty much the same mechanically, but you are so much more free with the fluff (since it can then be whatever you want), that no two characters are likely to be "the same."

YMMV, but I really like this concept (and again, it's not my idea, I just linked this from something I found on the SA forums - it's some SA goon's pet project).


----------



## Jhaelen (Apr 28, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> YMMV, but I really like this concept (and again, it's not my idea, I just linked this from something I found on the SA forums - it's some SA goon's pet project).



It clearly has its advantages. After seeing theme powers which automatically use your highest ability bonus for attacks and damage I've been wondering if this isn't the way to go.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Apr 28, 2011)

The one thing about the "feat tax" brouhaha I always found amusing was the claims by some people that the reason why Expertise was such a bad design was that it was "too good" and thus you felt like you "had" to take it... thereby making you lose a feat slot to it and thus the possibility of taking other, more "fun" feats.

Heh heh, yeah... as though the only thing stopping that player from taking a "fun" roleplaying feat like Long Jumper was "DARN IT, THAT DAMN EXPERTISE FEAT!"  You know he would have been all over Alchemist if *not* for Expertise.  And that Linguist feat?  Would've been right there on his character sheet, but now he is stuck taking Expertise because it's just too good not to.

Please.  Let's be honest with ourselves here... if the Expertise didn't exist, most of us would just go right down our list of mechanically superior feats like we always do.  "Fun" would never enter into it.  So using that as a reason to decry the existence of Expertise I've always found to be a mite silly.


----------



## MrMyth (Apr 28, 2011)

DEFCON 1 said:


> The one thing about the "feat tax" brouhaha I always found amusing was the claims by some people that the reason why Expertise was such a bad design was that it was "too good" and thus you felt like you "had" to take it... thereby making you lose a feat slot to it and thus the possibility of taking other, more "fun" feats.
> 
> Heh heh, yeah... as though the only thing stopping that player from taking a "fun" roleplaying feat like Long Jumper was "DARN IT, THAT DAMN EXPERTISE FEAT!" You know he would have been all over Alchemist if *not* for Expertise. And that Linguist feat? Would've been right there on his character sheet, but now he is stuck taking Expertise because it's just too good not to.
> 
> Please. Let's be honest with ourselves here... if the Expertise didn't exist, most of us would just go right down our list of mechanically superior feats like we always do. "Fun" would never enter into it. So using that as a reason to decry the existence of Expertise I've always found to be a mite silly.




Well, sure, I'll be honest - no, no I wouldn't. 

I would most likely take plenty of feats that give mechanical benefits, and plenty of feats that enhance flavor and concept. 

What I would not do is constantly have Expertise feats hovering overhead as simply _better choices _than anything else I can take. 

For example, I was in a game where a friend played a Paladin, and really enjoyed a feat that gave her bonuses to hit when defending injured allies. (Mechanicall, a +1 bonus to hit when she herself or the enemy being attacked is adjacent to one of her bloodied allies.) 

And.... there is _never _a reason to take that feat when Expertise is on the table. It is always a better first choice. Indeed, even with feats previously considered some of the best in the game, like Nimble Blade... Expertise is just better. Worlds better, at later levels. And, yeah, that bugs me. 

The other real issue that gets me is that the Expertise feats simply expand the gap between the average or flavor-driven PC and the optimized one. And that's what bugs me, because I'm fine with there _being _a difference, but the more extreme is gets, the more of an issue it becomes. 

And, finally, it locks characters in to certain choices. Once you expect that bonus to be part of the system, then powers that don't include it suddenly don't match up. Characters wanting to try out a ranged weapon find themselves way behind. Finding a cool new weapon of the wrong type isn't just inconvenient, it is completely _useless_ until you can retrain some feats. It's a mess. 

Anyway, you can find my position amusing and silly if you like, but I'll hold to it - the Expertise feats are unnecessary for the game, poorly implemented in practice, and actively get in the way of letting players make choices based on their character concepts.


----------



## Herschel (Apr 28, 2011)

DEFCON 1 said:


> The one thing about the "feat tax" brouhaha I always found amusing was the claims by some people that the reason why Expertise was such a bad design was that it was "too good" and thus you felt like you "had" to take it... thereby making you lose a feat slot to it and thus the possibility of taking other, more "fun" feats.
> 
> Heh heh, yeah... as though the only thing stopping that player from taking a "fun" roleplaying feat like Long Jumper was "DARN IT, THAT DAMN EXPERTISE FEAT!" You know he would have been all over Alchemist if *not* for Expertise. And that Linguist feat? Would've been right there on his character sheet, but now he is stuck taking Expertise because it's just too good not to.
> 
> Please. Let's be honest with ourselves here... if the Expertise didn't exist, most of us would just go right down our list of mechanically superior feats like we always do. "Fun" would never enter into it. So using that as a reason to decry the existence of Expertise I've always found to be a mite silly.




Must spread xp but day-um, well said.


----------



## Herschel (Apr 28, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> What I would not do is constantly have Expertise feats hovering overhead as simply _better choices _than anything else I can take.
> 
> ...
> The other real issue that gets me is that the Expertise feats simply expand the gap between the average or flavor-driven PC and the optimized one. And that's what bugs me, because I'm fine with there _being _a difference, but the more extreme is gets, the more of an issue it becomes.
> ...




Have you ever stopped to wonder if you can't have fun without a mechanically superior character that maybe the problem isn't with the game? 

There are so many fallacies in the last two quoted paragraphs it's hard to count them all.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Apr 28, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> ...and plenty of feats that enhance flavor and concept.




Just out of curiosity... how many feats of this type by level 10 do you usually take?  Because whenever I see people suggest builds here on ENWorld, we can go right down the line of the usual standards... Expertise, Weapon Focus, Superior Weapon Proficiency, Toughness, Action Surge, Unarmored Agility etc. etc.

And that's what I've always found amusing.  Every human seems to be able to surge with action, every warrior seems to be preternaturally tough, every spellcaster is agile while wearing robes, every wielder of a heavy blade somehow is geared towards opportunity.  And the truly original so-called 'flavor and concept' feats that players take are few and far between.  So the complaints about "losing" a feat slot to take expertise when they probably weren't going to take anything but the old stand-bys anyway is the part I chuckle at.  

And bear in mind... I don't _blame_ anyone for taking Expertise, I think it's a smart move.  It's just the "losing a feat slot" excuse for why expertise shouldn't exist at all that I find amusing.


----------



## MrMyth (Apr 28, 2011)

Herschel said:


> Have you ever stopped to wonder if you can't have fun without a mechanically superior character that maybe the problem isn't with the game?




I don't think that's a fair attack to make, or one that is especially appreciated. I find that one of 4E's strengths, when it came out, was in making viable for different types of characters to play at the same table and both capable of contribution. The optimized character could be built to be better at combat than the PC whose feats are invested in flavor or background benefits... and yet, the difference between them wasn't overwhelming. 

That element of balance was, I felt, an important part of the game. 

When the difference between those characters grows, yes, I feel it can have a negative impact on the game. If the DM, in order to challenge the optimized character, must present enemies that non-optimized characters cannot even hit... that is problematic. Expertise feats make it easier for such things to occur. 

I don't think it is unreasonable for me to want the system to avoid such problems, nor is it unreasonable for me to want to be able to choose options that are not mechanically powerful, while still having a _viable _character in comparison to the rest of the party. 



Herschel said:


> There are so many fallacies in the last two quoted paragraphs it's hard to count them all.




I'd... be interested to know what they are. I presented a list of various problems I found the Expertise feats to add to the game. 

Your response was to suggest that I am flawed as a player, and to dismiss my argument as formed of a nigh-uncountable number of fallacies. I'm... not entirely sure I can consider that a reasonable response.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Apr 28, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> When the difference between those characters grows, yes, I feel it can have a negative impact on the game. If the DM, in order to challenge the optimized character, must present enemies that non-optimized characters cannot even hit... that is problematic. Expertise feats make it easier for such things to occur.




See, I would consider that a flaw of the DM, not the system.

There is no character so optimized that I can't kick the crap out of him while leaving the other PCs relatively unscathed.  It's just a matter of choosing the right situations to put the PCs in, the right type or number of monsters/traps/terrain, and the right emphasis of how often it should happen.

That's my job as the DM.  Use whatever rules WotC puts forth that I like (and ignore the ones I don't) to make sure I challenge my players.  And if that means taking an extra five minutes to consider how a certain encounter might effect one player next to another, then so be it.


----------



## Herschel (Apr 28, 2011)

Because you're complaining about things that are perspective, not fact. The P/A stance doesn't give you any creedence either. 

1. It only "widens the gap" in cases where one person doesn't care, doesn't stat out functionional and another optimizes to the hilt and one of them DOESN'T HAVE FUN because of it. It's not badwrongfun not to optimize. The feats help you make up the difference if you want to flavor against just purely math in race/attribute/proficiency choices. 

2. "Extreme" is personal preference. Some feel a +2 difference is "extreme" others +6 or more. 

3. There's also more to the game than personbal attack bonuses and damage numbers. 

4. Your trying to say you are forced to make other choices because of them, which is also patently false. Nobody forces you to take them, nor do they force you to take anything else. That's just your own "need" to have a mechanically superior character. If I have a 16 Strength Barbarian with a Great Axe I may want Expertise to be more on par in accuracy with the 18 Strength, Fullblade wielding one.  If he takes it too that doesn't invalidate my character. I have stats and features that will be stronger than his. 

5. Again, your expectations are not universal or fact.

6. As for ranged weapons, where's the issue? If I'm a Strength-based character, I try a heavy thrown vs. a bow if I want decent accuracy. I don't expect to necessarily be just as accurate with a backup ranged weapon as I do with the one(s) I use all the time. 

7. Finding a cool new weapon of a type you're proficient with is good enough unless you have expectations of being just as accurate or whatever the moment you pick it up as you are with the weapon(s) you always use. That's not very "realistic" on so many levels. 

8. It's not a mess, it's your expectations not being in line with what the game offers.


----------



## Herschel (Apr 28, 2011)

DEFCON 1 said:


> There is no character so optimized that I can't kick the crap out of him while leaving the other PCs relatively unscathed. It's just a matter of choosing the right situations to put the PCs in, the right type or number of monsters/traps/terrain, and the right emphasis of how often it should happen.
> 
> That's my job as the DM.




This.


----------



## wayne62682 (Apr 28, 2011)

DEFCON 1 said:


> See, I would consider that a flaw of the DM, not the system.
> 
> There is no character so optimized that I can't kick the crap out of him while leaving the other PCs relatively unscathed.  It's just a matter of choosing the right situations to put the PCs in, the right type or number of monsters/traps/terrain, and the right emphasis of how often it should happen.
> 
> That's my job as the DM.  Use whatever rules WotC puts forth that I like (and ignore the ones I don't) to make sure I challenge my players.  And if that means taking an extra five minutes to consider how a certain encounter might effect one player next to another, then so be it.




I hate to do this but.. Oberoni Fallacy: Just because the DM can fix something doesn't mean that it's not a problem.  

Sure, you can ignore the power gap, or you can houserule that everyone gets those Expertise feats for free, or that they don't exist, but that's skirting the real issue: The feats themselves exist as a duct tape fix for WotC's shoddy math at the start of 4E, and their unwillingness to say "Yeah, we screwed up the math so we're going to Errata it properly" and instead creating feats that fix the problem but cost you (in other words, you have to pay for their mistakes).

It's a non-issue unless you have powergamers and non-powergamers (I won't use the term "roleplayers" since powergamers can still roleplay) in the same group, and the powergamer ekes ahead of the others with the feats.  Even then, the DM can tailor things to make it balanced, as Defcon said.  Neither of those things, however, indicate that everything is fine.


----------



## mudlock (Apr 28, 2011)

To add to MrMyth's list:

When a "choice" is so good that everyone wants to/feels compelled to take it, it's no longer a choice.

Feats are suppose to be there to make characters more diverse from each other. Each player gets 18 feats over 30 levels; with 5 players, that's 90 feats. There are over 3,000 feats in the game. There's no reason for there to be any duplication of the same feat on multiple characters. (Although now that each weapon group and implement has a different one, I guess that's not TECHNICALLY true anymore, but you know what I mean.)

At character creation, I sit down with my players to make sure that we have a diverse set of roles and that we cover as many skills as possible; to make sure everyone's got a their own "shtick." But there are 4 roles and less than 20 skills. I shouldn't have to do that when there are 3,000 feats, but apparently, I do. That's kind of sad.


----------



## Herschel (Apr 28, 2011)

mudlock said:


> When a "choice" is so good that everyone wants to/feels compelled to take it, it's no longer a choice.




Again, this is pure fallacy based on a certain group's expectations or desires. They're powerful feats, but they're not required to be proficient or have fun.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Apr 28, 2011)

You keep saying "fallacy."

That word, it doesn't mean what you think it means. [/Montoya]


----------



## wayne62682 (Apr 28, 2011)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> You keep saying "fallacy."
> 
> That word, it doesn't mean what you think it means. [/Montoya]




Probably not, but I was introduced to the idea of that as the "Oberoni Fallacy" back on the WotC boards:



> Oberoni Fallacy (noun): The fallacy that the existence of a rule stating that, ‘the rules can be changed,’ can be used to excuse design flaws in the actual rules. Etymology, D&D message boards, a fallacy first formalized by member Oberoni.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Apr 28, 2011)

wayne62682 said:


> I hate to do this but.. Oberoni Fallacy: Just because the DM can fix something doesn't mean that it's not a problem.




Oh believe me, I'm under no illusions that there was a problem with the math for many people that needed to be addressed.  I'm just pointing out the reason some people got all up in arms about as to _why_ it was a problem I just thought was rather silly... because more often than not, (based upon the build lists I see all over the place) I can barely imagine they would ever actually do what they claimed they would, which would be to use the feats they "lost" on ones that were meant for roleplaying rather than mechanical benefit.  So they'd get pissy while trying to maintain some sort of moral roleplaying high ground.  "You know, I _would_ try and build my character with all sorts of roleplaying and fluff, but WotC won't _LET_ me!"

Frankly, I don't have any horse in the race as to whether Expertise as a feat was good/bad, needed/unneeded (since I will just use it if it is, not use it if not)... but instead just try and point to people being more intellectually honest with themselves and us when making claims here on the boards.

But you know... maybe I'm just not giving people enough credit.  Perhaps everyone here does speak completely rationally with absolutely *heh* no evidence *heh heh* of hyper-- *snicker* bo-- *heh heh* le... BWAHAHAHA!!!

Sorry, sorry!  Couldn't keep it together.  Woo!  I kill me!


----------



## Herschel (Apr 28, 2011)

Actually, fallacy means exactly what I think it does: incorrect reasoning resulting in a misconception.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Apr 28, 2011)

wayne62682 said:


> Probably not,




You're fine; I was talking to Herschel.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Apr 29, 2011)

When I'm a player, I want my character to hit 100% of the time. Is that so bad?

I'm even willing to take a feat to get that.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 29, 2011)

TarionzCousin said:


> When I'm a player, I want my character to hit 100% of the time. Is that so bad?
> 
> I'm even willing to take a feat to get that.




Playing a Gas Spore, are we?


----------



## Jhaelen (Apr 29, 2011)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Just out of curiosity... how many feats of this type by level 10 do you usually take?  Because whenever I see people suggest builds here on ENWorld, we can go right down the line of the usual standards... Expertise, Weapon Focus, Superior Weapon Proficiency, Toughness, Action Surge, Unarmored Agility etc. etc.



Well, _I_ don't even visit any threads where someone is asking for 'a build'. I don't believe in 'builds', I believe in characters that have abilities that match their backstory.

This is like being surprised by a CO board member suggesting your ranger should take twin-strike.

None of my characters have any expertise feats. One of my characters has the 'Dragonborn Sorcerer' feat (the one that grants +1 attack/damage if a power's damage type matches your dragon breath's type) but that's only because I only gave him Cha 14 (+2 racial for 16).

And imho, that's the only legitimate reason for the existence of the expertise feat: To make sure your character stays viable even if you've made suboptimal choices when creating the character.


----------



## MrMyth (Apr 29, 2011)

DEFCON 1 said:


> See, I would consider that a flaw of the DM, not the system.
> 
> There is no character so optimized that I can't kick the crap out of him while leaving the other PCs relatively unscathed. It's just a matter of choosing the right situations to put the PCs in, the right type or number of monsters/traps/terrain, and the right emphasis of how often it should happen.
> 
> That's my job as the DM. Use whatever rules WotC puts forth that I like (and ignore the ones I don't) to make sure I challenge my players. And if that means taking an extra five minutes to consider how a certain encounter might effect one player next to another, then so be it.




I think I disagree, both about the fault being on the DM, and the ease by which this can be done. 

If there is a flaw in the game, then yes, a good DM can overcome it. But that doesn't mean the flaw still didn't originate in the rules themselves, and in an ideal system, he shouldn't _have to _spend any effort fixing such a problem. 

Even if a DM can do so, that doesn't change the fact that it is not always as easy as you suggest. Especially as the gap between optimized and non-optimized characters grows. At the extreme, in order to persent an enemy that your optimized character doesn't easily hit, you are presenting an enemy that the average character can only hit on a 20 - that's a problem. 

How do you address that? Include different monsters for different PCs, and encourage them only to attack the ones intended for them to fight? Or build enemies that focus on a players weaknesses - but if you bypass one characters AC by attacking his Reflex in _every single encounter_, it gets real old, real fast. 

The flaw remains in the system. Even if a DM is willing to invest the time to address it, he really shouldn't have to - especially since it may not even solve the problem if it gets too extreme.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Apr 29, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> I think I disagree, both about the fault being on the DM, and the ease by which this can be done.
> 
> If there is a flaw in the game, then yes, a good DM can overcome it. But that doesn't mean the flaw still didn't originate in the rules themselves, and in an ideal system, he shouldn't _have to _spend any effort fixing such a problem.
> 
> ...



I agree with you.

This argument (both sides) is starting to resemble that _other_ thread, the 1600-post monster, though on a lesser scale. You have people arguing that it isn't a system problem because they don't experience it or see it, arguing that any 'good' DM can just patch it on the fly, and the other side of that coin where the argument is that you shouldn't have to fix something in the rules to make the game work as intended.

I, again, fall into the latter camp, but it seems this is not a popular position. *shrug*


----------



## MrMyth (Apr 29, 2011)

Herschel said:


> Because you're complaining about things that are perspective, not fact. The P/A stance doesn't give you any creedence either.




P/A stance?



Herschel said:


> 1. It only "widens the gap" in cases where one person doesn't care, doesn't stat out functionional and another optimizes to the hilt and one of them DOESN'T HAVE FUN because of it. It's not badwrongfun not to optimize. The feats help you make up the difference if you want to flavor against just purely math in race/attribute/proficiency choices.




The feats _never help make up the difference_. The optimizer will always take them. The player who has already chosen not to optimize may or may not. You will basically never have a situation where the character with average stats picks Expertise and is able to catch up to the character who maxed his stats and then... didn't take Expertise. 

Meanwhile, if I make a non-optimized character, 'not having fun' isn't something that happens during the desing process. It is something that happens during the game, when I discover how far behind my character is compared to the optimized PC. I'm not sure where badwrongfun comes into this. 



Herschel said:


> 2. "Extreme" is personal preference. Some feel a +2 difference is "extreme" others +6 or more.




When the PHB came out, there was a certain gap between an average PC and an optimized one. Say we had a Cleric at epic levels... at level 21. Starting with Str 16, he is up to Str 22. With a +5 Warhammer, he has an attack bonus of +23.

Say we also have a Fighter. He started with Str 20, and gets an extra +1 to hit from being a fighter, and went Kensai for another +1 to hit, and Demigod to boost his Str by another 2, and has a +5 Bastard Sword with a +3 proficiency. His attack bonus is +29. 

That's a difference of +6, which basically covers the gap between the two extremes - the PC who hasn't made any effort to optimize at all, and the one who has. 

Add in Expertise, which increases that potential gap by 3 points - by _half again as much - _via a single feat. 

In the PHB, a feat might be considered exceptional if it gave +1 to hit _on a conditional basis_. Expertise feats now give 3 times that all day long, and usually with other potent benefits as well. 

Both of those differences - the degree to which the feats expand the gap, and the difference in power between those feats and other 'good' feats - is, yes, what I would consider extreme. 



Herschel said:


> 3. There's also more to the game than personal attack bonuses and damage numbers.




Sure. But, in an ideal game, those numbers are reasonably balanced. That was, in fact, one of the goals of 4E. Why should we set that aside now? What advantage do we gain by doing so? 



Herschel said:


> 4. Your trying to say you are forced to make other choices because of them, which is also patently false. Nobody forces you to take them, nor do they force you to take anything else. That's just your own "need" to have a mechanically superior character. If I have a 16 Strength Barbarian with a Great Axe I may want Expertise to be more on par in accuracy with the 18 Strength, Fullblade wielding one. If he takes it too that doesn't invalidate my character. I have stats and features that will be stronger than his.




No one is physically forced to take them, no. But the presence of feats so far superior to other choices does unbalance the feat selection process, and does make it more possible to end up feeling 'encouraged' to take them. 

You mention wanting to take it since you might have a character who is a few points behind another character in accuracy, and are already feeling that lack. What happens if you didn't plan to take it but wanted to take something else, and suddenly the Fullblade wielder _also _has Expertise and is even farther ahead of you?

That sort of dilemma is, to me, a problem. 



Herschel said:


> 6. As for ranged weapons, where's the issue? If I'm a Strength-based character, I try a heavy thrown vs. a bow if I want decent accuracy. I don't expect to necessarily be just as accurate with a backup ranged weapon as I do with the one(s) I use all the time.




Let's say we're at epic levels. My main weapon is a +5 sword, but I also carry a +3 javelin if I need to target something at range. It's heavy thrown, so I get to keep my str in the equation, but I accept that, between the lower proficiency and enhancement bonus, I won't be great with it. My attacks with it will be at -3 compared to my normal attacks - a hindrance, but it still can be occasionally useful. 

Add Expertise to the equation, and the game's assumption that Expertise is in play. My attacks with the javelin will be at _-6 _compared to my normal attacks. That's a big difference. 

Similar, say I spot a +5 Greataxe of Demonslaying, and want to pick it up and deliver the deathblow to this Balor who is beating the crap out of the party? Without expertise, switching away from a favored weapon would not cost anyone too much unless they are really built around that weapon - a few points of damage or the like. But suddenly being at -3 to hit... and why bother? 

I don't object to feats that support the use of a favored weapon. But the benefits of Expertise are so extreme that they effectively _limit _your options once they are in play - just one more mark against them, in my book. 



Herschel said:


> 7. Finding a cool new weapon of a type you're proficient with is good enough unless you have expectations of being just as accurate or whatever the moment you pick it up as you are with the weapon(s) you always use. That's not very "realistic" on so many levels.




Except that we already have that represented in the game, via something called _proficiency_. If I'm actually untrained in the use of greatswords, I will indeed be at a penalty if I just grab one and start swinging. But if I _am _trained, shouldn't I expect to be able to make decent use of it once it becomes available?

So yeah, it works on the realism level. And on the level of what is fun for the game, a style of play that limits your options for no particular benefit is _not _what I would consider good for the game. 



Herschel said:


> 8. It's not a mess, it's your expectations not being in line with what the game offers.




Well, sure. But the game offered different expectations at launch, and this _one single element _is the primary component that has disrupted those elements. And, in my experience, has caused or has the potential to cause quite a few problems, as I have described above.


----------



## MrMyth (Apr 29, 2011)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Just out of curiosity... how many feats of this type by level 10 do you usually take? Because whenever I see people suggest builds here on ENWorld, we can go right down the line of the usual standards... Expertise, Weapon Focus, Superior Weapon Proficiency, Toughness, Action Surge, Unarmored Agility etc. etc.




I think the Superior Weapons/Implements are close behind Expertise in being universal, but none of the others even come close. 

And even the Superior Weapons... if I upgrade to a really cool weapon, it _might _give me +1 to hit. Or, more often, will give me an extra +1 or so damage per W, or some conditional damage in the form of High Crit, or defensive benefits. Same thing for the Superior Implements - either just +1 to hit, or a conditional +1 to hit and some damage, or some other minor unique effects. 

Expertise gives me between +1 and +3 to hit, plus other benefits. Which could themselves be another untyped +1 to +3 damage, or benefits like not granting combat advantage or not provoking with ranged and area attacks...

There is simply such a huge difference between that and the ones you list. Sure, many common optimized builds take them, but not all of them - giving them up for other choices, whether build-specific choices or reasons of flavor or otherwise, those are relatively easy to do. 

But how many characters will you see at Paragon levels without Expertise?

I'm in one game that has been played since level 1, and is just into Paragon levels. Our Human Ranger has Action Surge and Weapon Focus and Expertise (but no Superior Weapon Proficiency). Our Dwarven Paladin has Expertise. Our Human Warlock has Action Surge and Expertise. Our Human Bard has Expertise. Our Dwarven Invoker has Expertise. Our Dragonborn Fighter has Superior Weapon Proficiency and Expertise. 

Notice the one common denominator? 

In another 5-player Paragon game (started at level 15, up to level 18), it is a dungeon crawl with a heavy emphasis on optimization. And even there, 4 players don't have Toughness. 3 players don't have superior weapons or implements. 2 players don't have Action Surge (even though all characters are human) and 1 player doesn't have Weapon or Implement Focus. 

Everyone has Expertise.


----------



## Herschel (Apr 29, 2011)

And I play with 18 different Pargaon level characters in three different games ranging from Level 11 to 17 and you know how many players have an Expertise feat? 3. Add in the Six I DM for? It becomes 5.


----------



## AntiStateQuixote (Apr 29, 2011)

I gotta go with [MENTION=61155]MrMyth[/MENTION] on this one. Since the introduction of the Expertise feat I've seen doznes of characters in our home game. I can't recall a single one that didn't have Expertise by 6th level.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Apr 29, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> Everyone has Expertise.




Well, again... my point was never that this wasn't true.  My point has always been the _reason_ some people have given as to why the creation of the feats were bad, I have thought is kind of ridiculous.

The points being made about how it doesn't bridge the gap between optimized/non-optimized characters, or how it was a weaker fix to the math than some other options would have been... those I'm right there with you.  I understand and in many ways agree with those sentiments.

It was specifically those people who made the claim that they were _losing roleplaying feat slots_ because they HAD to take Expertise that has made me look at those claims askance.

***

The one other point I'd like to make though is in reference to what Nemesis Destiny mentioned with regards to the arguments here starting on the path of the other thread.  As he said...



			
				Nemesis Destiny said:
			
		

> You have people arguing that it isn't a system problem because they don't experience it or see it, arguing that any 'good' DM can just patch it on the fly, and the other side of that coin where the argument is that you shouldn't have to fix something in the rules to make the game work as intended.




I think the reason why this continues as it does is because of one salient point... those that argue the latter half of that quote are arguing for something that _can't exist_.  It's too late.  The math already got screwed up.  Expertise exists.  Both of these points are true and unchanging.  So to keep stating in threads like this that WotC shouldn't have screwed the math up in the first place, or that they should have found a better solution than Expertise to fix it... is to argue for nothing.  In fact, you really aren't arguing, you're just venting.

Where the real argument occurs is after the fact, when people like Herschel or myself then make posts stating "well, here's how you could get around the problems you have"... which is basically presenting a solution that you really didn't ask for, for a problem you actually don't have.  You (and I mean the royal 'you', not you Nemesis Destiny specifically) don't need to know how to "make due" with the problems that now exist because of Expertise... you know how you can get around it if you really need to.  Your real problem is just that it exists.  And short of Herschel or I somehow turning back time to a point when PHII was being developed and clocking James Wyatt et. al. over the head when they come up with the idea for expertise... there is no way we can actually solve anything.  Herschel and I are wasting our breath under the mistaken hope we can convince you to stop arguing for something that can't happen.

And THAT'S when the bickering starts.

Unfortunately, there are only two solutions to this.  One is for our camp to stop posting work-arounds for problems you folks don't actually have and to just let you have your vent... and the other is for you folks to stop posting wishes for things you can never have.  If either of our sides could restrain ourselves on either of these two points, this circular argument wouldn't continue.


----------



## Herschel (Apr 29, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> The feats _never help make up the difference_. The optimizer will always take them. The player who has already chosen not to optimize may or may not. You will basically never have a situation where the character with average stats picks Expertise and is able to catch up to the character who maxed his stats and then... didn't take Expertise.




Here's where your (and others') point completely breaks down: Optimizers aren't the be all/end all of game play. Pure optimizers are the disgusting, narcissistic funk on the bottom of your shoe whose only goal is to milk every mathematical bonus out of the game in a vain and misguided attempt to "prove" their smarter than the designers and "win" the game. You take them in to account but you can't let them limit you otherwise you have an incredibly sterile game that even semi-well-adjusted people will avoid. So the Op-weenie crows "I just hit on a 3 for 872 r0xx0rs damage per round" while other gamers just roll their eyes and have fun doing something cool. No big deal.


----------



## MrMyth (Apr 29, 2011)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Well, again... my point was never that this wasn't true. My point has always been the _reason_ some people have given as to why the creation of the feats were bad, I have thought is kind of ridiculous.




Fair enough. I do certainly get what you are saying - if a player feels the need to take Expertise instead of an RP feat, wouldn't they feel the same urge with Superior Weapon Proficiency or similar choices? And there may be some truth to that.

Still, though, I think the sheer difference in power level makes Expertise stand out. Especially once you hit Paragon and the bonus as started to ramp up - I might take every other choices based on what fits the concept, but by that point, at least one feat pretty much feels reserved for Expertise. I might not feel the lack of Toughness or a Superior Weapon, but would definitely feel the lack of Expertise. 



DEFCON 1 said:


> I think the reason why this continues as it does is because of one salient point... those that argue the latter half of that quote are arguing for something that _can't exist_. It's too late. The math already got screwed up. Expertise exists. Both of these points are true and unchanging. So to keep stating in threads like this that WotC shouldn't have screwed the math up in the first place, or that they should have found a better solution than Expertise to fix it... is to argue for nothing. In fact, you really aren't arguing, you're just venting.




Just to clarify, I'm pretty firmly in the camp that the math _isn't _broken in the first place. The few numbers that diminish on the PC side of the fence by epic levels are more than made up for by the greater number of powers and, generally, the sorts of benefits and capabilities that are being thrown around by that level, even accounting for enemies _also _having more potent abilities. That was what I suspected from the start, and my experience has largely born it out. 

Now, I won't say that my experience is universal or that I know any of this for an absolute fact. But I think that if WotC had never released the Expertise feats, the game would not have suffered in the slightest. It is one of several areas where I think WotC made a kneejerk response to a problem, and even if there was a problem in need of fixing, the response was disproportionate to the cause. (See also: Skill Challenge DCs and their first 'fix'.) 

That said, its true that WotC isn't likely to just remove the Expertise feats from the game at this point, and _instead _has largely focused on amping up the power level of other feats to try and match them. (Which I'm not especially a fan of either). While also amping up the danger and difficulty of monsters so they aren't overwhelmed by the power creep of the characters. 

There certainly doesn't seem to be any quick and easy solution that would fix things for the game as a whole - though, in my own game, I'm relatively confident I can remove the Expertise feats entirely without any real damage done. 

I admit you may be correct that no matter what we argue, this is an area of the game that isn't likely to change at this point - Essentials has shown that rather than back away from this decision, WotC has pretty much embraced it wholesale.

Of course, my original input here was mainly to try and counter the position you seemed to be mocking people for - and I don't think you intended any insult, and _were _genuinely just pointing out what seemed like an absurdity to you. But it came across as assigning a straw man argument to the other side of the debate, and then mocking them because of that. 

And so I felt the need to weigh in, and offer up both other legitimate reasons for a dislike of the feat, as well as to point out that the Expertise feats are potent enough that, honestly, it isn't that simple to compare them with other 'good' feats. And, having made that case, that probably would have been the appropriate time for me to let the matter lie and depart the thread, but I've never been especially good at that.


----------



## MrMyth (Apr 29, 2011)

Herschel said:


> Here's where your (and others') point completely breaks down: Optimizers aren't the be all/end all of game play. Pure optimizers are the disgusting, narcissistic funk on the bottom of your shoe whose only goal is to milk every mathematical bonus out of the game in a vain and misguided attempt to "prove" their smarter than the designers and "win" the game. You take them in to account but you can't let them limit you otherwise you have an incredibly sterile game that even semi-well-adjusted people will avoid. So the Op-weenie crows "I just hit on a 3 for 872 r0xx0rs damage per round" while other gamers just roll their eyes and have fun doing something cool. No big deal.




Yeah, I'm... not sure that is an accurate depiction of folks who optimize. Nor do I think there is some sort of binary between "fun and entertaining player invested in RP and character development who you enjoy playing with" and "optimizer who is about nothing but numbers and damage."

Many, many players enjoy _both _making effective characters _and _ones that have an interesting concept and background and investment in the story. And, indeed, even a character who focuses only on optimized mechanical options can still roleplay his character well and isn't just out to 'win' the game - implying otherwise falls into the Stormwind Fallacy, the idea that optimization is somehow directly opposed to roleplaying. 

In an actual game, all of these are sliding elements on a vast spectrum that changes from player to player. And that's precisely why this becomes an issue, for all the reasons noted above, which you've basically avoiding addressing. Should the game designers plot everything out solely for the mindset of the optimized crowd? Probably not... but it probably should certainly be on their minds. 

The ideal _should _be to present balanced options that also retain whatever flavor or usefulness they set out to provide. _Ignoring _the potential for optimization is hardly good game design, since even those who aren't out to 'win the game' could stumble upon broken combos that disrupt their group's enjoyment - or result in characters being extremely unbalanced in comparison to each other. 

Sure, you can still have fun in the non-combat scenes in such a case, but shouldn't every _also _be able to have fun and contribute in combat, too? That's one of the goals of 4E, and I don't think it serves the edition well to move away from it. 

That said, I'm certainly not claiming that this is going to be an _inevitable_ problem in every game. But it does present problems, along the lines of the ones I discussed, in many games, and the potential for harm is undeniably there.


----------



## TheUltramark (Apr 29, 2011)

ya know...before I started coming to this board, I thought I knew a little about D&D.

I have no clue what dev's are, or avp's or any of those other deals I am totally lost.
PLEASE, someone explain what the feat tax is, and what is all the talk about  math about? is it just several modifiers added together????

I mean, if I am not "into my game" as much as I should be, I certainly would like to correct that.


----------



## Kinneus (Apr 29, 2011)

TheUltramark said:


> ya know...before I started coming to this board, I thought I knew a little about D&D.
> 
> I have no clue what dev's are, or avp's or any of those other deals I am totally lost



"Devs" are mysterious, magical monsters that live on the coast. They have the power to rewrite reality at their slightest whims. Depending on who you ask, they're either benevolent creator-gods, bringing the joys of magic and adventure to the masses, or horrible, evil tyrants that drain heroes of their power with their feared "Pee-dee-effs of errata." Some think they're just drunken lunatics, slashing at the laws of the world with their quills at random.

Whatever your view, they are an ancient and mysterious force to be feared and respected.


----------



## Aulirophile (Apr 29, 2011)

TheUltramark said:


> ya know...before I started coming to this board, I thought I knew a little about D&D.
> 
> I have no clue what dev's are, or avp's or any of those other deals I am totally lost.
> PLEASE, someone explain what the feat tax is, and what is all the talk about  math about? is it just several modifiers added together????
> ...



Devs is short for Developers, people who make the game. 

On average Monsters have the following defenses Level+14 AC, Level+12 NADs. There are differences in role and elite/solo, but let us ignore that for a moment (as the difference is expected by the system). 

A level 1 character hits 15 AC (14+1, so a level 1 monster) on a 9 on the die. That is the expected minimum to hit vs even level (and there is no designed maximum, except miss on a 1 barring rerolls, so 95%), if you need a 10+ to hit a level 1 standard something is wrong. 

At level 30 they hit a 44 AC monster (14+30) on a 13 on the die. This is not intended. Expertise plugs the gap (+3), making you need a 10+ on the die. The other +1 in theory comes from an stat boosting ED (which is why very few EDs without a stat boost are competitive, but that is another issue). 

The devs acknowledged this scaling was a mistake because of a change made late in development (and if someone else's post in this thread is true that very little paragon/epic playtesting was done no wonder the effect was missed). So that point is not really debatable, and the math is pretty clear anyway given that we know combat has certain built in statistical assumptions (including a certain number of expected rounds per difficulty of encounter that is basically not possible to achieve without expertise a statistically significant amount of the time). 

This exact same scaling issues applies to: Skills, Initiative, Defenses. It is systemic, but in many ways the accuracy issue is the most egregious (followed by one NAD and sometimes two being auto-hit at epic for PCs).

The issue is more complex then that and if you really wanted to read about it I'd be happy to provide some links.

[MENTION=78357]Herschel[/MENTION]: Wow, welcome to ignore.  Even if optimizers were that way, and they aren't, I'd rather hang out with them then someone who talks about people that way.


----------



## Herschel (Apr 29, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> 1. Yeah, I'm... not sure that is an accurate depiction of folks who optimize.....Many, many players enjoy _both _making effective characters _and _ones that have an interesting concept and background and investment in the story.
> 
> 2. The ideal _should _be to present balanced options that also retain whatever flavor or usefulness they set out to provide. _Ignoring _the potential for optimization is hardly good game design, since even those who aren't out to 'win the game' could stumble upon broken combos that disrupt their group's enjoyment - or result in characters being extremely unbalanced in comparison to each other.
> 
> ...




1. It's exactly as accurate as claiming people who don't take expertise feats are ineffective because of it and that people who don't optimize are playing the game wrong. When I build a character, I'm probably around maybe 75% "optimized". I do well in combat, but I leave some stuff "on the table" in lieu of other things and actually play with a party instead of only looking at my own character. I also enjoy the tactical side of the game. These give me a lot of bonuses.  

2. Ideal is a paradigm that can't be met because of the sliding scale of customer expectations. Sure you want to account for optimization but you can't let it rule you. Look at it this way from an expertise standpoint: 

Initial view: "Every optimizer is going to take this feat if we release it as-is" 
reply: "So? Let them have their fun, this also opens up a lot of options for character design. Would you rather we release it with needlessly complicated blocks of prerequisites?" 

Reply: "No, that would be ridiculous. You're right, it's better to just put forward as-is and let the optimizers have their fun."

3. Again, you're basing your stance on a false assumption that players have to have expertise to be effective. This simply is not true. They may need it to be fully optimized, but that's not the same thing. Expertise and effective are not mutually exclusive traits. 

4. The postential is always there, I agree, but only when people aren't mature enough to handle it. In that case, some issue will always come up and if expertise is off the table, they'll move on to the next issue du jour.


----------



## Herschel (Apr 29, 2011)

Aulirophile said:


> @Herschel : Wow, welcome to ignore.  Even if optimizers were that way, and they aren't, I'd rather hang out with them then someone who talks about people that way.




It's no different than you always telling people they are wrong if they don't build characters your way. That was the point: to see how the people bashing non-optimizers like being put on the other end of it.


----------



## TheUltramark (Apr 29, 2011)

Aulirophile said:


> Devs is short for Developers, people who make the game.
> 
> On average Monsters have the following defenses Level+14 AC, Level+12 NADs. There are differences in role and elite/solo, but let us ignore that for a moment (as the difference is expected by the system).
> 
> ...




ok, i get that NAD's are fort, ref, & will but does it stand for non-armor defense?

as far as "the math" - I assume that at 30th level, magic and other "outside modifiers" arent taken into account? 

Also - what is the intended hit% for monsters?


----------



## Aulirophile (Apr 29, 2011)

Jhaelen said:


> Well, _I_ don't even visit any threads where someone is asking for 'a build'. I don't believe in 'builds', I believe in characters that have abilities that match their backstory.
> 
> This is like being surprised by a CO board member suggesting your ranger should take twin-strike.
> 
> ...



Is this a good time to point out that Draconic Spellcaster is an Expertise feat _and _a Focus feat rolled together?

You took an Expertise Feat by another name, still fixing the math.


----------



## Aulirophile (Apr 29, 2011)

TheUltramark said:


> ok, i get that NAD's are fort, ref, & will but does it stand for non-armor defense?
> 
> as far as "the math" - I assume that at 30th level, magic and other "outside modifiers" arent taken into account?
> 
> Also - what is the intended hit% for monsters?



All expected static modifiers are taken into account. Other things are intended to be bonuses on top of the minimum, not intended to bring you up to the minimum. 

Yes, NAD = Not Armor Defense.

Well, monsters range from 95% hit to 5% hit, depending on the PC, in practical terms (a monster attacking a Str/Con Warden's Will who hasn't taken Improved Defenses and doesn't have any item bonuses to defenses, can basically hit on a 2+). Simultaneously, in the same group, a Cha-primary class with Superior Will and an Item bonus to Will the monster might need a 16-17+. However monsters attack gain a bonus of +1 per level (rather then 1/2 level+stuff), so they never have this scaling issue of not being at their intended hit%. The monsters _relative _attack bonus is static. Since, without investment, PCs lose defenses as they level and in some cases to the point where it just isn't ever possible to catch up to where they were, relatively, at level 1, monster hit% isn't an issue in the current dynamic.


----------



## TheUltramark (Apr 29, 2011)

so here is a question 
how do you "fix it"

It hasn't come up at my table yet, but my first thoughts are to suggest a home rule that expertise isn't available until you are an expert - say level 11 ??? 
-or- add expertise to all soldiers, brutes, lurkers and leaders????

these aren't even in the idea phase yet, how do/will all of you handle this 'problem'


----------



## TheUltramark (Apr 29, 2011)

Aulirophile said:


> All expected static modifiers are taken into account. Other things are intended to be bonuses on top of the minimum, not intended to bring you up to the minimum.
> 
> Yes, NAD = Not Armor Defense.
> 
> Well, monsters range from 95% hit to 5% hit, depending on the PC, in practical terms (a monster attacking a Str/Con Warden's Will who hasn't taken Improved Defenses and doesn't have any item bonuses to defenses, can basically hit on a 2+). Simultaneously, in the same group, a Cha-primary class with Superior Will and an Item bonus to Will the monster might need a 16-17+. *However monsters attack gain a bonus of +1 per level (rather then 1/2 level+stuff), so they never have this scaling issue of not being at their intended hit%.* The monsters _relative _attack bonus is static. Since, without investment, PCs lose defenses as they level and in some cases to the point where it just isn't ever possible to catch up to where they were, relatively, at level 1, *monster hit% isn't an issue in the current dynamic*.




my philosophy in the past (earlier ed's) has been that when the players start hitting more frequently, find a way for the bad guys to hit more frequently.  All in an effort to continue the same threat of death, that at our table keeps things interesting


----------



## Aulirophile (Apr 29, 2011)

TheUltramark said:


> so here is a question
> how do you "fix it"
> 
> It hasn't come up at my table yet, but my first thoughts are to suggest a home rule that expertise isn't available until you are an expert - say level 11 ???
> ...



Well actually reasonable people disagree about how to fix it (unreasonable people disagree it is an even an issue, but they can't do math). 

Some people think the Devs fix is fine, particular with Essentials Expertise feats adding a second feat basically rolled in. Though the power level of those extras is not consistent and not all options have an expertise feat like that, which causes issues, and it penalizes MID classes (Multiple Item Dependent, think someone who casts through a Holy Symbol and hits things with a sword). 

You don't need to do anything to monsters. Again, they don't have a scaling issue. This is purely on the PC side of things. 

The issue doesn't really exist for most of Heroic (you lose 1 hit at 5+, relatively), so there is nothing inherently wrong with restricting Expertise to 11+, though I wouldn't do it personally as actually level 9 is one of the toughest levels in a general sense. 

The most common houserule fix, including the one that devs use in their home games, is giving out Versatile Expertise free at level 5.


----------



## Herschel (Apr 29, 2011)

Aulirophile said:


> Well actually reasonable people disagree about how to fix it (unreasonable people disagree it is an even an issue, but they can't do math).




See, here you go again. It's not people "can't" do the math it's that they don't let the math rule them or care enough to micromanage it when they're having fun.


----------



## Herschel (Apr 29, 2011)

TheUltramark said:


> my philosophy in the past (earlier ed's) has been that when the players start hitting more frequently, find a way for the bad guys to hit more frequently. All in an effort to continue the same threat of death, that at our table keeps things interesting




This is a good philosophy. As long as the game is fun for you, don't sweat it. People like Aulirophile just don't get it because they're too concerned about "the math" and the only way to play is their way.


----------



## MrMyth (Apr 29, 2011)

Herschel said:


> 1. It's exactly as accurate as claiming people who don't take expertise feats are ineffective because of it and that people who don't optimize are playing the game wrong. When I build a character, I'm probably around maybe 75% "optimized". I do well in combat, but I leave some stuff "on the table" in lieu of other things and actually play with a party instead of only looking at my own character. I also enjoy the tactical side of the game. These give me a lot of bonuses.




It really depends on the game. But if the expectation is that Expertise is the norm, a character without it will remain that much farther behind the curve. I noted above how the gap between optimized and average widened from +6 to +9 with the presence of Expertise. So, at Epic levels, prior to Expertise the DM could present an enemy with 36 AC. The average character hits it on a 13, the optimized character hits it on an 7. 

The optimized character is a bit ahead of the curve, but hardly hitting it all the time. The average character is a bit behind the curve, but still hits enough to feel effective. 

Expertise enters the picture. Now, the optimized character hits it on a 4. What happens then? Now, maybe the DM is of Aulirophile's mindset, and figures that a PC hitting on as low as a 2+ is a perfectly reasonable expectation for the game. On the other hand, maybe the start bringing in tougher monsters to compensate - meaning the average PC is now hitting even less. Even if the adjustment doesn't take place, having an enemy you hit 1/3 of the time, while your ally hits almost all the time, may start to get frustrating. 

Basically, if the expectation is built into the system - either due to the base math itself, or due to a DM compensating for the power creep caused by Expertise - then having the 'choice' of taking or not taking Expertise is a trap for the non-optimized character. That is simply way too much impact for one single feat to have. 



Herschel said:


> 2. Ideal is a paradigm that can't be met because of the sliding scale of customer expectations. Sure you want to account for optimization but you can't let it rule you.




Even if the ideal can't be achieved, that isn't any reason not to aim for it. And trying to keep feats at an equivalent power level in the game, as well as trying to preserve a reasonable balance between average and optimized PCs, doesn't seem like "letting optimization rule you". 



Herschel said:


> 4. The postential is always there, I agree, but only when people aren't mature enough to handle it. In that case, some issue will always come up and if expertise is off the table, they'll move on to the next issue du jour.




I don't think that is true _or _fair. Maybe some groups will always find something to bother them. But in my group, being bothered by a flaw in the game doesn't mean there is an issue in the group, it means there is a _flaw in the game_. 

Saying that a player should just 'suck it up' and be mature about having the game discouraging non-optimized characters is, in my opinion, unreasonable. As I said before regarding the DM 'fixing' things - sure, you can get around a problem by a DM fixing it. Sure, you can get around it by having players ignore their growing frustraton and just keep playing. But wouldn't it be best if the problem didn't exist in the first place?



Herschel said:


> It's no different than you always telling people they are wrong if they don't build characters your way. That was the point: to see how the people bashing non-optimizers like being put on the other end of it.




This is what I especially don't get. I am trying to argue for a system that better supports the ability for players to _not optimize if they don't want to_ - as 4E set out to do from the start - and your response is to unleash a string of invective ranting about powergaming. 

We're trying to push for a system that allows for both the average PC and the optimized PC to each contribute and be able to function at the same table, and your response is to claim that powergamers are the filth of the earth and WotC shouldn't even acknowledge their existence. 



Aulirophile said:


> Well actually reasonable people disagree about how to fix it (unreasonable people disagree it is an even an issue, but they can't do math).




Well, count me in as one of those unreasonable people. I've said from the start that Expertise was not needed despite the math, due to all the other factors typically ignored when focusing on the math in isolation from the rest of the game. My experience since that has pretty much supported that. 

I'm not going to claim that I have absolute truth on my side, but I do think that casually dismissing any other point of view is the same sort of behavior that Herschel is doing that you are objecting to.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Apr 29, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> We're trying to push for a system that allows for both the average PC and the optimized PC to each contribute and be able to function at the same table, and your response is to claim that powergamers are the filth of the earth and WotC shouldn't even acknowledge their existence.




There's no point in pushing for anything.  Expertise already exists.  The genie is out of the bottle.  Until 5E is released, your choice is either use Expertise as-is or you houserule your game and "fix it" like Herschel's been trying to point out all along.


----------



## MrMyth (Apr 29, 2011)

DEFCON 1 said:


> There's no point in pushing for anything. Expertise already exists. The genie is out of the bottle. Until 5E is released, your choice is either use Expertise as-is or you houserule your game and "fix it" like Herschel's been trying to point out all along.




That's pretty much I've done - handled it via one house rule or another. I'm not disagreeing with that being pretty much the option we have at this point - that doesn't mean we shouldn't offer our opinions on what we think would make for a better game. 

In any case, as mentioned above, I was pretty much content to leave the topic alone until a post specifically started poking fun at those who felt there was a problem with expertise, and I felt I could address whatever misunderstandings led to that post. And, since then, have largely been defending my reasoning where it has been disagreed with.


----------



## Herschel (Apr 29, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> 1. It really depends on the game. But if the expectation is that Expertise is the norm, a character without it will remain that much farther behind the curve.
> 
> 2.  Even if the adjustment doesn't take place, having an enemy you hit 1/3 of the time, while your ally hits almost all the time, may start to get frustrating.
> 
> ...




1. But again, this is basing on a personal expectation. It's not the game itself. The "issue" is when expectations within the group are too widely spread. 

2. I agree with you but again it depends on the player. Many simply don't care to pay enough attention to how often they hit compared to someone else. I know if I'm feeling like I'm hitting a little less than I want to I do look more for tactical things like combat advantage, charging, wait for leader/controller bonuses, etc. 

3. I think you're asbolutely right on the first part, I just disgaree that D&D no longer fits that mold. It's got a lot of versatility built in, especially when you factor in a DM.   

4. I'm in complete agreement with you on this. The place I differ is in opening up the game for characters like Dwarf Barbarians, for example (pre-second stat split). For Dwarves, a 16 strength/+2 weapon could be felt as kind of harsh and I find buying pre-racial 18s a really heavy cost. I would have preferred Expertise would have been a straight +1 bonus with the rider myself but it is what it is.


----------



## Aulirophile (Apr 29, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> Well, count me in as one of those unreasonable people. I've said from the start that Expertise was not needed despite the math, due to all the other factors typically ignored when focusing on the math in isolation from the rest of the game. My experience since that has pretty much supported that.
> 
> I'm not going to claim that I have absolute truth on my side, but I do think that casually dismissing any other point of view is the same sort of behavior that Herschel is doing that you are objecting to.



OK. 

Math > your anecdotal experience, sorry. I've played epic games without Expertise. The built-in system assumptions don't hold up without Expertise. And that was with MM1 monsters, I shudder to think what it'd be like now. But that is also anecdotal, so moving along...

1.) We know the intentions and assumptions behind the scaling. This is not a debateable point, we know _exactly _what the intentions were and _why. _
2.) We know that those aren't met without Expertise. 
3.) Expertise is a patch to make the system work as intended. 

None of that is debatable. Period. 

For 4e to work _as intended _you need Expertise. That is an objective fact and not subject to debate. The idea that you can compensate for the system failure by ignoring the feat and adjusting all your encounters is true, but if you're houseruling the system you're just proving the point: it doesn't work as intended without Expertise (assuming, of course, it was intended to work). 

I'm not casually dismissing anyone. I _am _dismissing people who have not done the math, know the intended point of the math, or know the history and therefore feel qualified to have an opinion. They aren't. I treat them like they aren't. If they happen to feel insulted that is their problem, dismissing the opinions of the uninformed is a privilege of the informed in any given area of knowledge.


----------



## MrMyth (Apr 29, 2011)

Aulirophile said:


> Math > your anecdotal experience, sorry. I've played epic games without Expertise. The built-in system assumptions don't hold up without Expertise. And that was with MM1 monsters, I shudder to think what it'd be like now. But that is also anecdotal, so moving along...
> 
> 1.) We know the intentions and assumptions behind the scaling. This is not a debateable point, we know _exactly _what the intentions were and _why. _
> 2.) We know that those aren't met without Expertise.
> ...




Sorry, but no, debate is still entirely possible. 

Look, you've covered some of the math earlier. A level 1 PC's expected accuracy as compared to a level 30 PC drops by about 3-4 points. 

This is the result of, over those levels, an enemy's defenses increasing by 29. For a PC, they increase by 15 via level, by about 4 via ability score boosts, by 6 via magic enhancement, resulting in that 4 point gap. 

However, this doesn't account for the fact that a level 1 PC has no magic items to call upon, and has 1 Encounter Power, 1 Daily Power, and 0 Utility Powers.

By level 30, they will have 4 Encounter Powers, 4 Daily Powers, 7 Utility Powers, 3-4 Paragon Path Features, and 3-4 Epic Destiny features. 

Note only do they have _more _powers, but the capabilities of those powers has significantly increased. 

Between the potential for those path and destiny features and item qualities to give bonuses to hit, as well as the increased ease of being able to coordinate and obtain combat advantage, as well as the greater presence of temporary buffs (and debuffs for enemies), the average group will have enough resources to more than make up for those few points of difference in their basic numbers, while the optimized group will likely be well _ahead _of where they started. 

Now, the usual counter to this is that enemies have _also _gained greater capabilities. But, in general, on a much smaller scale. We are more likely to see enemies inflicting more vicious conditions and doing more damage - we are less likely to see enemies using powers that give themselves enormous bonuses to attack or defense, or inflicting similar penalties on the PCs. And while an Epic enemy may have a few more powers compared to a Heroic enemy, it isn't nearly the multiplication of options that a PC has undergone. 

Now, does that conclusively prove that Expertise was never needed? Of course not. Like I said - my opinion. 

But, similarly, everyone who claims that 'the math' definitely proves the need for Expertise? Also just opinion. Yes, you can objectively look at the math alone. But doing so in isolation reveals exactly nothing about the game as a whole. You can't ignore the different context of an Epic PC vs a Heroic PC. Indeed, given so many options out there, it is practically impossible to measure that context at all, which means neither of us can prove our side of the argument to be absolute... which is all I'm really trying to argue.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 29, 2011)

Aulirophile said:


> I'm not casually dismissing anyone. I _am _dismissing people who have not done the math, know the intended point of the math, or know the history and therefore feel qualified to have an opinion. They aren't. I treat them like they aren't. If they happen to feel insulted that is their problem, dismissing the opinions of the uninformed is a privilege of the informed in any given area of knowledge.



Meh.  The math wasn't hard.  That the 4e treadmill didn't quite add up at higher levels was obvious from the beginning.  That the scaling bonuses of leaders along with many powers, items, and and even the odd back-from-the-dead feature of higher levels might well eclipse the problem was also pretty obvious.

Yeah, the developers have come out and admitted they'd tried to get the tradmill to work a little more precisely than they delivered, and, yes, Expertise is in large part a feat tax to patch that problem instead of a legit fix for it.  FWTW.

I think you may be mistaking people who have moved past the simple, obvious math issue for people who don't understand it.  I doubt anyone doesn't understand it at this point.  It's there, it's glaring, it's been expounded upon in detail.


----------



## Aulirophile (Apr 29, 2011)

No, funny thing about facts, they aren't subject to debate. It is kind of weird you can't see that, but /shrug. I get you have an opinion... but your opinion isn't in way relevant when I'm dealing with objective information. It is subjective. Reasonable people can disagree about subjective things. Reasonable people cannot disagree about objective things if they are equally well informed. 

Reasonable people can therefore disagree about the best method of fixing the _explicit _mistake in the system math (according to the people who made the system, ffs). Reasonable people cannot disagree that the mistake _exists. _Because it does. 

So. Expertise _is _fix for the math. According to the people who made the game (question: Do you ever go over to Parker Brothers and argue with them about the rules for Monopoly and tell them how you think it ought to be? Just curious). Not an opinion. 

The disconnect for you is quite evident. You can't separate your opinion from the objective material. 

Also you _really _don't seem to understand how extensive the math in question is. We're only dealing with statistical averages so no, it can't be proved absolutely... but it _can _be proved beyond reasonable statistical significance. You're welcome to calculate the baseline DPR and DPE for every given class role (been done) compare it monster HP and defenses (been done) and from that work out exactly how many rounds each E+y takes on average, and what the standard deviations are (been done). Then you can take that, work _backwards, _and arrive at a certain hit% that PCs must have to achieve that number of rounds. And, again, it _doesn't matter _if you get less then a certain number of rounds, or a higher amount of DPR/DPE, it only matters that you don't get _more _rounds or _less _DPR/DPE(at least not more in a statistically significant way)_. _Because that is the designed intention. 

You'll find the minimum accuracy needed is 55%. You will also find, as you progress into Paragon, that those "increased options" which mostly just do more damage, account for a bump in monster HP. I mean, the math isn't perfect, there are corner cases, and strange scenarios, and you'll of course be doing this multiple times to account for changes in Monster math to try and equalize the curve, but again, the system was only designed to maintain a specific statistical average. 

You will also notice it doesn't quite work out without Expertise. 

Have I mentioned that WotC actually hired professional statisticians early in development? There is a reason this works out so well in the standard cases. The fact that they screwed it up later is kind of irrelevant (though they obviously did, see the skill systems extensive revisions).


----------



## Aulirophile (Apr 29, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> Meh.  The math wasn't hard.  That the 4e treadmill didn't quite add up at higher levels was obvious from the beginning.  That the scaling bonuses of leaders along with many powers, items, and and even the odd back-from-the-dead feature of higher levels might well eclipse the problem was also pretty obvious.
> 
> Yeah, the developers have come out and admitted they'd tried to get the tradmill to work a little more precisely than they delivered, and, yes, Expertise is in large part a feat tax to patch that problem instead of a legit fix for it.  FWTW.
> 
> I think you may be mistaking people who have moved past the simple, obvious math issue for people who don't understand it.  I doubt anyone doesn't understand it at this point.  It's there, it's glaring, it's been expounded upon in detail.



No, I'm pretty sure most people have not spent _any time at all _doing the actual math. The hit% is a result of extensive stats work to ensure a certain average number of rounds for E+y. The disparity is just pointing out that this built-in conclusion fails to hold because one of baseline assumptions does not continue to be true, has diddly to do with the actual math that proves the baseline assumption is necessary for the system to work as intended (and it is). 

You are, of course, welcome to go do the actual math if you want me to stop saying you haven't done the math. If you're good at statistics shouldn't take terribly long.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 29, 2011)

Aulirophile said:


> No, I'm pretty sure most people have not spent _any time at all _doing the actual math. The hit% is a result of extensive stats work to ensure a certain average number of rounds for E+y.



It doesn't take much time.  You can glance at what PCs get, compare it to the monsters +1-everything-per-level, and it's there staring at you.  I can see how you might miss it if you don't take a moment to think about it, but there's no need for a detailed analysis.  If you can add, you can see the problem.

Whether it's a big problem, and whether Expertise was a /good/ fix for it, is debateable, and more exhaustive analysis might have some role in that debate - but it actual play experience also comes into it, as do differences in play style, and, ultimately, it comes down to judgments and opinions.

Personally, I find Expertise to be a feat tax and a poor fix (it plugs one of the holes, but inelegantly).


----------



## MrMyth (Apr 29, 2011)

Aulirophile said:


> No, funny thing about facts, they aren't subject to debate. It is kind of weird you can't see that, but /shrug. I get you have an opinion... but your opinion isn't in way relevant when I'm dealing with objective information. It is subjective. Reasonable people can disagree about subjective things. Reasonable people cannot disagree about objective things if they are equally well informed.




That the base math is different at higher levels is an objective things. That the number of powers is different at higher levels is an objective things. 

What the combination of these two elements says about the effective power level of the PCs at either level is not an objective fact, and reasonable people can have entirely different interpretations of how those two elements interact. 



Aulirophile said:


> According to the people who made the game (question: Do you ever go over to Parker Brothers and argue with them about the rules for Monopoly and tell them how you think it ought to be? Just curious).




Well, no, but I'm not especially invested in Monopoly. But I'll tell you what I did do! See, also early in 4E, there was a big commotion about how the Skill DCs were too high for Skill Challenges (primarily due to those DCs also being used for Skill Stunts, and the presence of a footnote that increased the DC table specifically for skills.)

WotC responded with a new table that both lowered the DCs _and _removed the footnote. And I felt the DCs were now too low. And when they put out a series of columns on Skill Challenges, I typically pointed out whenever they adjusted for this, as those articles tended to use higher DCs than the standard - and the designers continued to insist that, no, the lower DCs were what they wanted the standard to be. 

Until, you know, they fixed them. And started using DCs pretty much spot on with what I and others already used. 

So... yeah, I tend to trust game designers more than random folks off the street, but that doesn't make them infallible. 



Aulirophile said:


> The disconnect for you is quite evident. You can't separate your opinion from the objective material.




I think it might be the other way around. Or, rather, than you cannot disconnect the objective information you have (the math) from the conclusion you are drawing (the system is flawed). 

My point of contension is that you cannot isolate those two elements and ignore all other elements of the game, and that by doing so, you are coming to a faulty conclusion. 



Aulirophile said:


> Also you _really _don't seem to understand how extensive the math in question is. We're only dealing with statistical averages so no, it can't be proved absolutely... but it _can _be proved beyond reasonable statistical significance. You're welcome to calculate the baseline DPR and DPE for every given class role (been done) compare it monster HP and defenses (been done) and from that work out exactly how many rounds each E+y takes on average, and what the standard deviations are (been done).




Problem is, that math isn't _extensive enough_. It is a bunch of math done without accounting for pretty much any power choices, items, feats, paragon paths, etc, that PCs are taking advantage of. No one has run the math for every combination of options, nor are we _capable _of determing what the most commonly chosen options among all groups might be. 

Trying to pretend this is clearcut, and handwaving that most powers just 'add some damage' that is accounted for in increased monster hp... sorry, I don't agree.


----------



## Aulirophile (Apr 29, 2011)

Thankfully you don't have to agree for me to be right. Again, you're welcome to go and do the math for the baseline assumptions, which as I _continually _have to point out to you, is an upper bound. There is no designed limit in the other direction so it _doesn't matter _if options increase PC power over the baseline (though, in fact, every such upper bound _has _been changed barring two, so clearly one exists even though we aren't aware of it, but it is in the realm of one-rounding solos by yourself for the most part if the changes are any indication) as far as the system is concerned. Your counter-argument is null. The math is perfectly extensive enough (more then, actually) to account for the designer's intent. 

Also if Skill DC's were a mistake, and you accept that because Devs said so, why don't you accept that the scaling was a mistake, when the Devs said so? Hypocrite much? Because the objective conclusion of one aspect of the system was one you agreed with was fixed, that was a mistake, but this other aspect of the system you don't agree with wasn't? When we have the same objective basis for both: The devs _said it was a mistake. _Fantastic logic there sport.

You are demonstrably incapable of separating fact from your biased opinion. 

And the system is flawed isn't my conclusion from the facts, it is a fact period, because the people who built the system _said so. _Fact: System flawed. The math is the conclusion of _why. _You have it backwards.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 30, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> Problem is, that math isn't _extensive enough_. It is a bunch of math done without accounting for pretty much any power choices, items, feats, paragon paths, etc, that PCs are taking advantage of. No one has run the math for every combination of options, nor are we _capable _of determing what the most commonly chosen options among all groups might be.



It doesn't need to be.  If a PC takes every possible primary-stat boost and attack buff from 1st level on, he'll be a point or three behind on AB relative to monster AC at the highest level.  He'll go from generally hitting on something like a 9 or 10 at 1st to hitting on something like a 12 or 13 right before he retires.  If you add Expertise to the game, and everyone takes it, that discontinuity is neatly ironed out, and everyone has one less feat choice. 

If you use some other fix that's universal - like an automatic 'tier bonus' - that'd also take care of it.

If you add Expertise and not everyone takes it, you have a greater potential disparity between characters - less game balance, another 'reward for system mastery.'

If you don't do anything to 'fix the math,' you have this oddity that PCs don't hit quite as well at Paragon and Epic as they did at lower level.  They have more powers to choose from, more options, feats, items and bigger scaling buffs from leaders and a lot of other things (and the mosnters have more and nastier powers, too), but none of those /neatly/ makes up for the disparity.  All those factors could easily provide enough 'noise' and variability that the 'math problem' is masked, and thus, in a practical sense, not a problem.

But, it's still there.


----------



## Herschel (Apr 30, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> /
> All those factors could easily provide enough 'noise' and variability that the 'math problem' is masked, and thus, in a practical sense, not a problem.
> 
> But, it's still there.



 But the point is that in a practical sense is the only sense that matters. This isn't banking or medical data, the math can be a bit wonky and variable, that doesn't mean it's broken or doesn't work well enough. Heck, attack rolls are made with a random number generator. It's nice to have a way to "even it out" for gamers/groups who can't/won't use the other "modification" powers but doesn't make it mandatory or even necessary.


----------



## MrGrenadine (Apr 30, 2011)

Herschel said:


> And I play with 18 different Pargaon level characters in three different games ranging from Level 11 to 17 and you know how many players have an Expertise feat? 3. Add in the Six I DM for? It becomes 5.




Wow, that seems highly unusual.  Honestly--why do you think that is?  The style of game?  Are the DMs dissuading folks from taking it?  Are the players getting together and deciding not to take it?

Because at level 21, average monster AC is what?  35 or so?  And NADs a few points lower?  So a lvl 21 meleer with a +3 weapon, +2 proficiency, +10 half level, and STR at 25 will be +22 to hit AC, meaning he or she only hits on a 13 or better, much less than half the time.  One feat knocks down that chance to hit to 10 or better, which is a huge difference, especially for my Cleric, for instance, who HAS to hit to buff and heal and do other Cleric-y things.

If a DM isn't allowing inherent bonuses, damn right I take Expertise.  Every time.


----------



## Aulirophile (Apr 30, 2011)

Versus a standard, you'll need 15+ to hit an Elite. Yeah, I'm sure no one notices missing 75% of the time. /eyeroll. 

I really do find it fascinating that people can say their anecdotal experience is somehow relevant. If you don't even _know _the baseline assumptions for say, combat length, how do you know if you're going over them consistently? Answer: You don't. So whether the system is working as intended is a literally a question you cannot answer, no matter how much you've played. 

Also if that were somehow relevant, I sincerely doubt there are many peopleon this board who have played more 4e then I have. I've played over 20 characters from 1-30, and an additional 30 from 11 to anywhere from 25-30. I did some of that pre-expertise (and if you haven't played epic pre-expertise, you really have no place to talk, but I digress). If amount of personal experience is somehow a deciding factor (which is retarded, so we're clear) I win. Oh, that was my home games, I'm not counting LFR characters or LFR I've DMed. Or home games I've DMed, actually. So... approaching 500 characters I've seen in play or, to put it more in perspective, something over 8,000 levels worth of 4e play.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 30, 2011)

Aulirophile said:


> Have I mentioned that WotC actually hired professional statisticians early in development?



Do you have a source for this by any chance? If you need to make sure numbers adds up to 29, you don't need a statistician; you just need someone comfortable with fairly basic math. Adding up numbers is not what professional statisticians do.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 30, 2011)

Aulirophile said:


> You are demonstrably incapable of separating fact from your biased opinion.




*
And you are addressing the personality of the poster, rather than the content of the post.  Basically, ad hominem, making the argument personal, rather than about the topic.

This is rhetorically weak, kinda rude, and historically shows a tendency to start fights.  We often see such in cases where posters are getting frustrated with each other - if that's what is happening here, I suggest you take a break, or stop responding to the people who are frustrating you, rather than engage on this level. 

In other words, folks, please don't continue the discussion in this fashion.  We expect everyone to show respect for their fellow posters, no matter how much you disagree with them.  Thanks.*


----------



## renau1g (Apr 30, 2011)

Aulirophile said:


> Also if that were somehow relevant, I sincerely doubt there are many peopleon this board who have played more 4e then I have. I've played over 20 characters from 1-30, and an additional 30 from 11 to anywhere from 25-30. I did some of that pre-expertise (and if you haven't played epic pre-expertise, you really have no place to talk, but I digress). If amount of personal experience is somehow a deciding factor (which is retarded, so we're clear) I win. Oh, that was my home games, I'm not counting LFR characters or LFR I've DMed. Or home games I've DMed, actually. So... approaching 500 characters I've seen in play or, to put it more in perspective, something over 8,000 levels worth of 4e play.




Wow...that's amazing! How often do you play? The games been out around 3 years or so, so about 150 weeks and the 20 PC's is 600 levels + say 30 x 15 levels = another 450 levels, so you've leveled up well over 1000 times in 150 weeks?!?!?!


----------



## Herschel (Apr 30, 2011)

MrGrenadine said:


> Wow, that seems highly unusual. Honestly--why do you think that is? The style of game? Are the DMs dissuading folks from taking it? Are the players getting together and deciding not to take it?
> 
> Because at level 21, average monster AC is what? 35 or so? And NADs a few points lower? So a lvl 21 meleer with a +3 weapon, +2 proficiency, ...




I think there's a few things here. For one, swords are popular so there's a +3 proficiency more often than a +2. Secondly, there are +4 weapons starting in P2. Thirdly, mobility powers are big and combat advantage is gained a lot. Fourthly, full skill coverage and a lot of monster knowledge checks and items even for helping discern which defense for casters to attack. Fifthly, a lot of people take buff/de-buff powers and sometiimes there's a warlord. And sixthly, there isn't much rivalry to see who hits more and most build upon a theme and are more worried about "cool".


----------



## Herschel (Apr 30, 2011)

renau1g said:


> Wow...that's amazing! How often do you play? The games been out around 3 years or so, so about 150 weeks and the 20 PC's is 600 levels + say 30 x 15 levels = another 450 levels, so you've leveled up well over 1000 times in 150 weeks?!?!?!









(for the Doctor Who Series 4 fans)


----------



## MrGrenadine (Apr 30, 2011)

Herschel said:


> I think there's a few things here. For one, swords are popular so there's a +3 proficiency more often than a +2. Secondly, there are +4 weapons starting in P2. Thirdly, mobility powers are big and combat advantage is gained a lot. Fourthly, full skill coverage and a lot of monster knowledge checks and items even for helping discern which defense for casters to attack. Fifthly, a lot of people take buff/de-buff powers and sometiimes there's a warlord. And sixthly, there isn't much rivalry to see who hits more and most build upon a theme and are more worried about "cool".




I'll grant that using high prof weapons, using +4 weapons (if your DM drops them), using CA and knowledge checks and having a warlord in the party are all terrific ways to increase chances of hitting, and should all be utilized whenever possible.

Can you grant that perhaps for non-sword users without access to +4 weapons in parties without a warlord, Expertise is a must-have?


----------



## TheUltramark (Apr 30, 2011)

I soooooooo don't wanna piss anyone off, but.....

[MENTION=86312]Aulirophile[/MENTION] = w/out expertise, but with all the bells and whistles that come with being 30th level, how often do you see characters hitting  a 30th level elite

not what the math says...actual on table experience.  Is it really only 25% of the time? Do fights not last the "predetermined length" (by the way - how long is a fight supposed to go anyway??????)

Again, not picking, I am inexperienced with 4e

another fix idea - a +1 to hit @ level 10, 20 & 30 ????? (or 6, 16, & 26 - or other predetermined level)


----------



## TheUltramark (Apr 30, 2011)

renau1g said:


> Wow...that's amazing! How often do you play? The games been out around 3 years or so, so about 150 weeks and the 20 PC's is 600 levels + say 30 x 15 levels = another 450 levels, so you've leveled up well over 1000 times in 150 weeks?!?!?!




That is almost 1 level a day for 3 years


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 30, 2011)

Herschel said:


> But the point is that in a practical sense is the only sense that matters. This isn't banking or medical data, the math can be a bit wonky and variable, that doesn't mean it's broken or doesn't work well enough. Heck, attack rolls are made with a random number generator. It's nice to have a way to "even it out" for gamers/groups who can't/won't use the other "modification" powers but doesn't make it mandatory or even necessary.



It can be both 'broken' (not performing to spec) and working well enough.  Like a crappy car you can put up with because you can't afford a new one.  

I think the bottom line is that Expertise isn't a problem if no one uses it (the math hole just isn't that big a hole, and everyone suffers from it equally), or if everyone gets it for free (the hole is plugged for everyone).  It's when it's used as presented: as a feat that some players may take and others may not (or that everyone takes, thus everyone is down a 'real' feat), that it's actually problematic. 

As a 'even it out' feat, it's worthless as presented.  You'd have to use DM fiat to keep the already tuned-to-hit-well characters from taking it, and force it down the throats of the players who were a little too far behind.


----------



## Aulirophile (Apr 30, 2011)

renau1g said:


> Wow...that's amazing! How often do you play? The games been out around 3 years or so, so about 150 weeks and the 20 PC's is 600 levels + say 30 x 15 levels = another 450 levels, so you've leveled up well over 1000 times in 150 weeks?!?!?!



True story: my fiancee of 6 years (well, one as a fiancee, five as a live-in girlfriend) cheated on me and we broke up right around the time 4e came out. I joined every single local group that formed and started many, many more (two colleges in my town, tons of people wanting to game). I played nearly every day, with four campaigns on the weekends, with different groups. It was a coping mechanism. For the first year if I wasn't working, I was playing 4e. Given the vast mechanical experience this gave me in 4e my groups just started burning through content, most of the groups were easily doing a level per 6 hour session at the 7 combat encounters, 3 skill challenges template (I've talked about this before in other threads, I was so familiar with the mechanics that player turns were like 45 seconds and the DM took 2 minutes for his whole round of monsters, on average) which, if you do the math, leaves about 3 hours of RP time and 3 hours of combat. That accounted for roughly 1/2 of my total 4e play and I've been slowly cutting back since the first year ended. Particularly in cases where I set up the group and scheduled everything and etc., I just feel bad abandoning the group so I have to wait for them to die naturally. 

I'm down to two home games+some LFR atm. 

@Ultramark: Level 30 monster will have 44 AC. An Elite will have 46 AC. Assuming the character started with the minimum to hit at level 1 (hit on an 11+ for a level 1 elite) and didn't take an ED that boosted their primary stat (not all of them do, after all) they will have 7+6+15+2 to hit. Or +30. So they'll need to roll a 16+. A +3 Prof weapon, 18 starting stat, and a boosting ED will reduce that to 13+. That is literally all the bonuses you can be guaranteed, not all leaders (or all classes, for that matter) give out additional power bonuses to hit. It is in fact quite easy to find yourself without such perks (I have, it isn't pretty, the first Dwarf Warrior I played with had +31 at 30 and, because of the classes picked, we had _zero _ways of increasing hit chance outside of CA). And that is vs even level, monsters can be higher level then PCs (and often are). And you can't flank while dazed. Dazing is pretty popular on epic tier monsters. Gaining CA consistently these days is basically trivial, it was not quite so easy at release.

+1 to hit at 5/15/25 is the basic fix.


----------



## Aulirophile (Apr 30, 2011)

Fifth Element said:


> Do you have a source for this by any chance? If you need to make sure numbers adds up to 29, you don't need a statistician; you just need someone comfortable with fairly basic math. Adding up numbers is not what professional statisticians do.



Hell, it was in one of the development blog interviews about skill DCs and they mentioned early on they really wanted the game to be consistent, so they hired and etc.

Remember the scaling change (whatever it was) was made late in the development cycle. The math guys had already done the consulting work for the baseline assumptions. Someone screwed up something bad at some point. We just don't know what.


----------



## Herschel (Apr 30, 2011)

MrGrenadine said:


> I'll grant that using high prof weapons, using +4 weapons (if your DM drops them), using CA and knowledge checks and having a warlord in the party are all terrific ways to increase chances of hitting, and should all be utilized whenever possible.
> 
> Can you grant that perhaps for non-sword users without access to +4 weapons in parties without a warlord, Expertise is a must-have?




Almost, depending on what other powers are available but yes it becomes much more important. (there's still a lot of modifiers floating around IF the party chooses to take/use them) In my view that's the situation expertise is for, to even things out when characters are "behind". There are usually benefits to taking an axe, for example, that make up for the one less proficiency bonus. If the DM goes a little.....light? on enchanment bonuses then I may start to notice, especially if I'm not getting combat advantage. Taking a feat to make up for that difference at some point doesn't bother me.

I do find it offensive to refer to it as a tax that everyone must take, as do I the "you must optimize or you're playing it wrong"  view that's pushed by some. I generally play weapon users and I have yet to take Weapon Focus, for example, outside of one level at paragon for one character in LFR to try it out and found I didn't miss the two damage at all while still having a lot of fun.


----------



## Herschel (Apr 30, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> It can be both 'broken' (not performing to spec) and working well enough. Like a crappy car you can put up with because you can't afford a new one. .





I disagree. To me "broken" means non-functional. If my car burns a little extra oil it still works. In that case I may defer to the expertise of "Stop Leak" or I can replace the rings. One's a lot easier but both may get the desired results.


----------



## Tony Vargas (May 1, 2011)

Herschel said:


> I disagree. To me "broken" means non-functional.



If you prefer some other term for an inferior game mechanic that reduces balance and playability, I'd be happy to use that term in this discussion.


----------



## wayne62682 (May 1, 2011)

Herschel said:


> See, here you go again. It's not people "can't" do the math it's that they don't let the math rule them or care enough to micromanage it when they're having fun.




This attitude is utter nonsense.  The math is what makes the game playable.  Just because you can ignore half the rules in the book and "still have fun" doesn't mean that those rules are fine and that people should just ignore shoddy work.

I really don't understand why people continue to have that oldschool 1st edition AD&D attitude of "All the rules are just guidelines"; it's led to so much pain and suffering in games (personal experiences, obviously) as people haven't evolved to the new edition's style and refuse to change to it.


----------



## Herschel (May 1, 2011)

I do compliance and data analysis for a living, I don't care to let my hobbies get bogged down in it. I'd rather focus on the cool and the tactical. The game is robust enough to handle multiple playstyles but one of teh biggest themes in 4E is teamwork. That means needinf your allies and them needing you to make everything work best. Give eachother bonuses find synergies that work with other characters not just trying to find "broken" combos for yourself. 

Your idea of "evolution" is not, it's of being a narcissist who can't see the big picture. Balance is achieved in many ways, they made concessions to those who aren't as teamwork oriented to make the game playable for more people.


----------



## Jhaelen (May 2, 2011)

wayne62682 said:


> I really don't understand why people continue to have that oldschool 1st edition AD&D attitude of "All the rules are just guidelines"



It's so easy to understand, though: It's because all the rules are _still_ just guidelines


----------



## TheUltramark (May 2, 2011)

Herschel said:


> I do compliance and data analysis for a living, I don't care to let my hobbies get bogged down in it. I'd rather focus on the cool and the tactical. The game is robust enough to handle multiple playstyles but one of teh biggest themes in 4E is teamwork. That means needinf your allies and them needing you to make everything work best. Give eachother bonuses find synergies that work with other characters not just trying to find "broken" combos for yourself.
> 
> Your idea of "evolution" is not, i*t's of being a narcissist who can't see the big picture*. Balance is achieved in many ways, they made concessions to those who aren't as teamwork oriented to make the game playable for more people.




no need for name calling


----------



## MrGrenadine (May 3, 2011)

Herschel said:


> I do find it offensive to refer to it as a tax that everyone must take, as do I the "you must optimize or you're playing it wrong"  view that's pushed by some. I generally play weapon users and I have yet to take Weapon Focus, for example, outside of one level at paragon for one character in LFR to try it out and found I didn't miss the two damage at all while still having a lot of fun.




I totally agree--it bugs me, too, when folks feel like you have to optimize.  However, the devs could easily encourage players to create off-kilter, interesting, non-optimized characters by adjusting the math so a non-optimized character could still consistently hit 55% of the time, (or more), at high levels.  Anything less starts to get into "unfun" territory, especially since the player could be missing with dailies and encounters, (and in 4e, power management is so important).

Also, about Weapon Focus--I personally wouldn't consider any feat that boosts damage as a tax.  The attack roll is everything, since powers do so much more than just deal damage, and hitting with a specific power at the right time could be the difference between success and failure.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 3, 2011)

Aulirophile said:


> Hell, it was in one of the development blog interviews about skill DCs and they mentioned early on they really wanted the game to be consistent, so they hired and etc.



I was hoping for something a bit more precise than "it was in an interview".


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 3, 2011)

wayne62682 said:


> This attitude is utter nonsense.  The math is what makes the game playable.  Just because you can ignore half the rules in the book and "still have fun" doesn't mean that those rules are fine and that people should just ignore shoddy work.
> 
> I really don't understand why people continue to have that oldschool 1st edition AD&D attitude of "All the rules are just guidelines"; it's led to so much pain and suffering in games (personal experiences, obviously) as people haven't evolved to the new edition's style and refuse to change to it.




I do not have an old school mind set at all...

I feel that it is a tight rope we must walk though... see M&M has set bonus limits per level... so after a while all level 10 characters have a +10 to hit +10 damage... and the game bogs down. Now they keep it intresting with trade offs...but even still it is too easy to see the man behind the curtin...


what we have with expertise is close enough...


see at level 1 we are all very close to even... but every choice as we level makes us uniqe... I feel I can make a very useful and powerful character with or with out the 'feat tax' feats...

heck I made a Gnome Slayer... and made the optimizers laugh... but I still was a perfect complamant to the game...


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 4, 2011)

MrGrenadine said:


> I totally agree--it bugs me, too, when folks feel like you have to optimize.  However, the devs could easily encourage players to create off-kilter, interesting, non-optimized characters by adjusting the math so a non-optimized character could still consistently hit 55% of the time, (or more), at high levels.  Anything less starts to get into "unfun" territory, especially since the player could be missing with dailies and encounters, (and in 4e, power management is so important).
> 
> Also, about Weapon Focus--I personally wouldn't consider any feat that boosts damage as a tax.  The attack roll is everything, since powers do so much more than just deal damage, and hitting with a specific power at the right time could be the difference between success and failure.



I personally like those encounter powers that can be used on a hit with an at will. Not hitting with an encounter power is really depressing. Not hitting with a daily is usually no big deal, because of miss effects.

I guess the game would have been indeed be a bit better if encounter powers were more reliable in general.
The martial E-classes are a good example. More than 2 at wills and some boosts with power strike or backstab or assassins strike.


----------



## Tony Vargas (May 4, 2011)

MrGrenadine said:


> I totally agree--it bugs me, too, when folks feel like you have to optimize.  However, the devs could easily encourage players to create off-kilter, interesting, non-optimized characters by adjusting the math so a non-optimized character could still consistently hit 55% of the time, (or more), at high levels.



Keeping the gulf between non-optimized and optimized characters fairly narrow keeps the non- and sub-optimal builds viable enough to see play.  

Any option that lets one character pull ahead of another in the areas of most basic functionality (like hitting with your powers), widens that gulf.


----------



## MrGrenadine (May 5, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> Keeping the gulf between non-optimized and optimized characters fairly narrow keeps the non- and sub-optimal builds viable enough to see play.
> 
> Any option that lets one character pull ahead of another in the areas of most basic functionality (like hitting with your powers), widens that gulf.




I agree.  What I'm saying is the numbers should work so the non-optimizers are hitting 55% of the time, which is the minimum that a character should be hitting.  Then if someone has the interest and time to optimize, his or her character will do better than that--say, 60-65% of the time.  The benefits of optimizing should be significant, but not so much as to make everything a cakewalk.


----------



## TheUltramark (May 5, 2011)

I asked this in another thread, but it seems more appropriate here

if you need a feat tax to keep hitting as a pc
and you need mm3 monsters to keep doing damage 

couldnt you 86 both of them and still be ok??????


----------



## Tony Vargas (May 5, 2011)

MrGrenadine said:


> I agree.  What I'm saying is the numbers should work so the non-optimizers are hitting 55% of the time, which is the minimum that a character should be hitting.  Then if someone has the interest and time to optimize, his or her character will do better than that--say, 60-65% of the time.  The benefits of optimizing should be significant, but not so much as to make everything a cakewalk.



Sure, a swing of one or two attack bonus would be acceptable.  That would be a good target.  Even a three-point swing wouldn't be terrible.  

Add up the difference between a 16 stat and an 18 (or even a 20), a +2 prof weapon and a +3 (or an accurate implement), a class with or without Weapon Talent, and maybe a +1 feat bonus from something like Hellfire blood, and you've already got a potential gulf between optimized and non-optimized characters of 3 or even 5.  

Expertise feats add 1-3 to that depending upon level.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 5, 2011)

TheUltramark said:


> I asked this in another thread, but it seems more appropriate here
> 
> if you need a feat tax to keep hitting as a pc
> and you need mm3 monsters to keep doing damage
> ...



Actually two different matters. And actually, expertise would have not been needed (for most classes) if monsters were not so weak on the damage side.

DM´s used way overleveled monsters to try and threaten the players, because of their low attack damage values. The result was combats where monsters nearly always hit players and put annoying status effects on them, but do very low damage. Players on the other hand had problems hitting enemies. Leader bonuses were usually hard to apply since the leader himself could not boost himself and thus not hit a lot. Double leader parties could make it a bit easier, but then excessive healing also resulted in less scary combats.

So expertise was invented to close the gap and leader bonuses were usually fixed instead of dependent from a secondary attribute so at least leaders can perform reliably.
Increase of monster damage makes the game smoother in general: lower level monsters don´t hit as often and are hit more easily. The result is a combat where players just have more fun.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 5, 2011)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Actually two different matters. And actually, expertise would have not been needed (for most classes) if monsters were not so weak on the damage side.
> 
> DM´s used way overleveled monsters to try and threaten the players, because of their low attack damage values.




Maybe that is why my groups never ran into this... I as a dm use level -2 through level +3 for most encounters and level +4 or 5 for big fights


----------



## Herschel (May 5, 2011)

MrGrenadine said:


> I agree. What I'm saying is the numbers should work so the non-optimizers are hitting 55% of the time, which is the minimum that a character should be hitting. Then if someone has the interest and time to optimize, his or her character will do better than that--say, 60-65% of the time. The benefits of optimizing should be significant, but not so much as to make everything a cakewalk.




In a perfect world, yes, most definitely, but if this were truly the case many of the same people and others would be complaining about how 'everything feels/is the same'.


----------



## Aulirophile (May 5, 2011)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Actually two different matters. And actually, expertise would have not been needed (for most classes) if monsters were not so weak on the damage side.
> 
> DM´s used way overleveled monsters to try and threaten the players, because of their low attack damage values. The result was combats where monsters nearly always hit players and put annoying status effects on them, but do very low damage. Players on the other hand had problems hitting enemies. Leader bonuses were usually hard to apply since the leader himself could not boost himself and thus not hit a lot. Double leader parties could make it a bit easier, but then excessive healing also resulted in less scary combats.
> 
> ...



Except the developers stated why Expertise was put in the game and it had nothing to do with _anything _you mentioned. 

Sigh. You'd really think the developers outright stating why Expertise was put in would be enough to correct this sort of . But no...


----------



## wayne62682 (May 5, 2011)

Do you think they would admit that they fouled up the math and the Expertise feats were meant to correct it?  I remember when those feats were first introduced, and it was basically *proven* on the CharOp boards that they were a fix to cover up shoddy math.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 6, 2011)

> I remember when those feats were first introduced, and it was basically *proven* on the CharOp boards that they were a fix to cover up shoddy math.



I was on the front line of that fight here and on the op board... Heck even on the errata boards

I remember no one was willing to do the math out entirely even when I explained the flaw in there math.

I know some people declared victory on both sides but no real consensus ever reatched


There was nothing "proven" just everyone having different options and talking past each other


----------



## Dice4Hire (May 6, 2011)

Aulirophile said:


> Except the developers stated why Expertise was put in the game and it had nothing to do with _anything _you mentioned.
> 
> Sigh. You'd really think the developers outright stating why Expertise was put in would be enough to correct this sort of . But no...




I think more people are unhappy as it is a feat people need to take. It can take a lot of fearts to fix the math, assuming you are one hwo thinks it needs to be fixed.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 6, 2011)

> fearts




Is that a sniglet for feat + fart?


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 6, 2011)

Aulirophile said:


> Except the developers stated why Expertise was put in the game and it had nothing to do with _anything _you mentioned.
> 
> Sigh. You'd really think the developers outright stating why Expertise was put in would be enough to correct this sort of . But no...



Yeah, the gap was closed, because they noticed there is a gap. And expertise was brought in to close it.

But they did also state: Righteous brand fixed to +3, because leader bonuses should not scale with level.

If the game would have worked without leader bonuses, no one would have complained, expertise would not have been needed, even though they made a mistake when rescaling the math.


----------



## Tony Vargas (May 6, 2011)

UngeheuerLich said:


> But they did also state: Righteous brand fixed to +3, because leader bonuses should not scale with level.



There are still plenty of scaling leader bonuses.  Rightous Brand was problematic because it scaled with a /primary/ stat, so was quite high from the beginning.  If it had scaled with WIS or CHA it'd've been a non-issue.


----------



## Aulirophile (May 6, 2011)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Yeah, the gap was closed, because they noticed there is a gap. And expertise was brought in to close it.
> 
> But they did also state: Righteous brand fixed to +3, because leader bonuses should not scale with level.
> 
> If the game would have worked without leader bonuses, no one would have complained, expertise would not have been needed, even though they made a mistake when rescaling the math.



If the game worked _as intended _without Expertise, this wouldn't be a discussion, that is true. This has _nothing to do _with Leader bonuses (or any bonuses) however, as those were _always _considered in addition to the minimum, and not a method of maintaining the minimum. If you can bring up class/leader/racial/etc bonuses to hit as part of the discussion around why Expertise is needed then you just don't have your facts straight, because they aren't in any way relevant to the facts at presented by the developers.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 6, 2011)

I just bring up leader bonuses, not race or class or anything. The dscussions back then always went this way:

"But at higher levels there is a gap between to hit and defense"

"Yes, but there is increased synergy and leader bonuses that make up for it"

"But at level 1 you already get a high leader bonus"

"But it gets higher as you level"

"But the leader himself needs to hit first to apply such bonuses, and not all leaders can give out that good bonuses"

"Damn. You are right. This needs to be fixed..."



There may be the other discussion:

"Hey, +15+6+4 equals 25, not 29"

"Oops, math fail on our part"

I only noticed the first type of discussions. The second may be true or not. I guess you have heard that on your seminar, i never read such a statement anywhere.


----------



## Jhaelen (May 6, 2011)

wayne62682 said:


> I remember when those feats were first introduced, and it was basically *proven* on the CharOp boards that they were a fix to cover up shoddy math.



Nothing was proven, neither basically nor in any other way. All attempts at proving it have fallen short because they used too simple models, basically excluding everything that might get in the way of their 'proof', afaik.


----------



## Dice4Hire (May 6, 2011)

wayne62682 said:


> Do you think they would admit that they fouled up the math and the Expertise feats were meant to correct it?  I remember when those feats were first introduced, and it was basically *proven* on the CharOp boards that they were a fix to cover up shoddy math.




That is one side of the argument. It seems no more valid to me than other sides.

The main problem I saw with this 'proof' was it was proof in a vacuum.


----------



## FireLance (May 6, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> There are still plenty of scaling leader bonuses.  Rightous Brand was problematic because it scaled with a /primary/ stat, so was quite high from the beginning.  If it had scaled with WIS or CHA it'd've been a non-issue.



Actually, I think the fact that _righteous brand_ is an at-will attack is more of an issue than whether the scaling is based on a primary or secondary ability score (since most characters would have secondary ability scores close or equal to their primaries and increase them in step). Scaling bonuses on encounter and daily powers are (IMO) less problematic.


----------



## FireLance (May 6, 2011)

wayne62682 said:


> Do you think they would admit that they fouled up the math and the Expertise feats were meant to correct it?  I remember when those feats were first introduced, and it was basically *proven* on the CharOp boards that they were a fix to cover up shoddy math.



The unstated assumption in that argument is that the "to-hit" chances are meant to remain constant over the entire 30-level range. An alternate interpretation is that the game was originally intended to be easier in the beginning and harder at higher levels (shocking, I'm sure) but when the developers realized that a significant number of players expected the hit chances to remain constant, the Expertise feats were added to fix the "problem".


----------



## Colmarr (May 6, 2011)

FireLance said:


> The unstated assumption in that argument is that the "to-hit" chances are meant to remain constant over the entire 30-level range. An alternate interpretation is that the game was originally intended to be easier in the beginning and harder at higher levels




I'm not an authority on this topic but that does seem contrary to te stated goal of extending the "sweet spot".


----------



## FireLance (May 6, 2011)

Colmarr said:


> I'm not an authority on this topic but that does seem contrary to te stated goal of extending the "sweet spot".



Arguably, the "sweet spot" has more to do with the balance of power between the PCs (the level range where the linear warriors and the quadratic wizards were more equal) and, gameplay wise, where the PCs were not so low level (and so fragile) that they could be killed with a single lucky hit, and not so high level that monsters (especially spellcasting monsters) got rather complex and save-or-die abilities (or save or die unless you had the necessary magical protection abilities) started to dominate the game. 

I think that 4E, has addressed these issues fairly well, both pre- and post-Essentials. Depending on who you ask, there may have been other issues, but I don't think that the PC vs. monster balance was really one of them.


----------



## Herschel (May 6, 2011)

UngeheuerLich said:


> If the game would have worked without leader bonuses, no one would have complained, expertise would not have been needed, even though they made a mistake when rescaling the math.




Yep, but the game was designed to focus on teamwork and interdependence of roles so it was expected that leader bonuses would be in play. I do think they underestimated the non-teamwork-oriented crowd as an overall portion of their audience and that their views wouldn't change (enough) to fit a more team-focused game. 

Is this a flaw or a feature is what it boils down to.

The teamwork focus is what brought me back to the game in its "current" incarnation.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 6, 2011)

Even when fokussed on teamwork, i guess the fear of the CoDzilla was something that made the initial design problematic.

The leader could usually not give himself a bonus. Which means, no matter how much teamwork, one character could not fullfill his role: the leader.

I once proposed expertise giving a power bonus to attack rolls. Which would allow leaderless play and a leader fullfilling his role, but made expertise a real choice in a group. (Which does not rule out a different fix for the math gap. I do however believe, it would not have been necessary then. Teamwork would compensate.)


----------



## mneme (May 6, 2011)

TheUltramark said:


> if you need a feat tax to keep hitting as a pc
> and you need mm3 monsters to keep doing damage
> 
> couldnt you 86 both of them and still be ok??????




No, for multiple reasons.

The first is that if you have monsters doing pitiful damage, and PCs missing, fights get very long and boring.

Basically, PCs missing = boring.

Monsters doing insignfiicant damage = boring.

For that matter, monsters being overlevelled so they can do damage means the PCs miss -more- = boring and frustrating.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 6, 2011)

mneme said:


> No, for multiple reasons.



Well, it really depends on what you mean by "okay." Some people never had a problem with it, so it's not universal.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 6, 2011)

I can disprove part of this arguement... the math part...


the argument goes something like this (I admit i do not belive it so i may mess it up a bit) at level 1 PCs have +x to hit and monsters have Y def,  at level 30 the PCs have +x+26 and monsters have Y+30 so the PCs lose 4 pt as they level (5 if there epic destiny does not increase a stat).

Now here is my point... that is so short sighted. See at level 1 my swordmage has 2 at wills, 1 encounter attack, 1 daily attack, and 1 encounter race power. He has no magic items, and only 1 feat (2 if human)

at level 11 that swordmage has atleast 2 new paragon path features, 3 daily powers (most have miss effects, but some may be reliable) 4 encounter powers, 2 utlity powers, and those same two at wills.  7 feats, and most likly atleast 5 items. even if only half of them have powers of there own it is atleast 2 other powers. 

A fight at level 11 is very diffrent then a fight at level 1. Infact you mostly have more fights per day too. Now from my own (very limted) experance, at level 1 you range from 1-4 encounters per day with most beign 1 or 2. At level 11 you have 3-4 fights per day with maybe 3 or more other encounters added in...

at level 21 the game changes even more... epic destinies, a few more powers...and bunch mor eitems and feats.



in order to truely do that math out, you need to have avrage PCs and figure out what a true avrage increase is... I tried once to make a level 1 fighter, level 2 fightger, level 3...all the way up to 30 useing the money for creating high level characters. 

I found the math was way beyond what I can do. In fact The real problem became synergy. I finaly decided that the only way to do this was to play 30 levels with 5 genric pcs following the parcel rules to the letter...then record the results of each level in both numbers and opion.,.

in the end I decided that we had to go with what we all saw, but what we saw was diffrent. the math was to complex and some of us saw easy mode others saw hard mode...


infact I have seen in the same game, a 20 wis with expertise full blade avenger and a 16 str kopesh non expertise warlord, in the same game as an 18 int 16 dex accurate wand wizard, in the same game as a fighter with a 16 str, and longsword. talk about running the gambit.

avenger at 1st level +9 2d20 rolls 
Warlord at 1st level +5
wizard at 1st level   +5 vs NADs
fighter at 1st level   +7

guess who the only person who ever complained the Def were too high... the avenger. 

at level 8 the avenger had a +3 weapon, the warlord was still useing a +1 and the warlord not once complaied about missing... mean while when the warlord had lend might (+1 to attacks he grants) useing warlords favor (+4 to ally attacks) then action point for commander strike on the avenger in flank, the avenger had +24 to hit... the warlord had +13 to hit... the avenger rolled 2d20... 

[sblock=monster]Dragonborn Gladiator
Medium natural humanoid , dragonborn
Level 10 Soldier XP 500 Initiative +9        Senses Perception +6
HP 106; Bloodied 53
AC 24; Fortitude 23, Reflex 20, Will 21
Speed 5

   [/sblock]

i remember this fight well... becuse with the avenger needing anything but a 1, after the fight he still complained that the monster was too high level...and the warlord player told him off in a huge like 5 min rant about how he needed to grow up...

that game made it to 23rd level and we could count on 1 hand the number of times that avenger missed with aan attack... the warlord and fighter never took expertise, although the fighter did go kensi... so i guess that counts for something...


I have also seen rouge dagger masters with 80%-90% of there powers targeting nads... infact i can in theory buid one that only has 1 at will targeting AC


----------



## Aulirophile (May 6, 2011)

Uh, your anecdotal experience and pointing out PCs get more powers as they level proves diddly. And the fact that you don't even understand the argument (by your own admission) but disagree with it is just sad. How can you possibly competently disagree with something you don't understand?

You got options here:

Anecdotal Experience Argument: Unless someone else in this thread played 4e for slightly more then 10 hours a day on average for a year, you have nothing to stand on here. Not the best decision of my life but I'll be damned if _anyone _in this thread can claim more anecdotal experience then I can, so if you want to drag the argument down to that level as if it has some significance: I win. 

Math: You can clearly see that PCs do not maintain a 55% hit rate vs even level, which is the stated minimum and every bonus (including mundane things like CA) is _on top of _that. In addition to. So you _cannot _count that and even then, nothing besides Expertise, no party composition, no leader buffs, _nothing else in the entire game _fixes this. So yes, the math is proveable, and yes it does so in a vacuum, and no, that doesn't matter, because it is supposed to work regardless of party composition and only does so with Expertise. 

Developer Statements: 55% vs even level is the minimum and we made a mistake, Expertise is explicitly the fix for this self-admitted mistake. 

What exactly does it take when the developers said they had a minimum hit% they wanted based on extensive playtesting, the math clearly shows the minimum isn't maintained, the developers said that it was a mistake based on a change (which if they would tell us wtf it was would hopefully settle this debate even in the minds of the most obdurate) and released Expertise as a "fix", their words, and the "fix" neatly closes the gap? 

Expertise makes the game work _as intended. _Period. In previous editions Feats like that were considered taxes. So Expertise is a Feat Tax. It is quite possible to do without it (I played for a long time before it was even released) but it is a _horrible _experience at Epic. I played multiple Epic characters without Expertise vs MM1 Monsters. It was arduous at best. 

Also, if you really want to mathematically prove that Expertise isn't needed, you need to calculate encounter length for every single party composition with and without it, from 1-30. Just doing a handful should drive the point home: Doesn't work.


----------



## mneme (May 6, 2011)

GM, that's not a disproof; that's an anecdote.  And it's an anecdote involving the most accurate classes in the game, plus a warlord who's not bothering to make attacks most of the time.

There have been long, long threads with lots of math -and- examples showing that the high level math was broken; that sure, you could game around it, but it was still a serious problem.

Why don't you resurrect (or just read) one of those rather than trying to start the same tired argument, yet again?


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 6, 2011)

You could just compare MM3 monsters with MM1 monsters, average lifetime and damage over that lifetime and then look how much you have to delevel a monster that it poses the same threat:

So if your MM3 monsters in Epic may pose the same thret level as a MM1 monster 3 levels higher, it would have an equal result as expertise to make the game fun.
Of course, maybe expertise, a feat tax (i guess anybody should pay between level 1 and 8), AND MM3 monsters make the game even more fun and make the math work more smoothly and as intended by the designers who obviously made some mistake...

(+1 for telling us what they changed that attack vs defense and skill vs defense don´t work well (actually the skill vs xx+level and skill vs defense both don´t work at all... so we need a more or less seemingly arbitrary table to maintain the right chances...)


----------



## Herschel (May 6, 2011)

mneme said:


> GM, that's not a disproof; that's an anecdote. And it's an anecdote involving the most accurate classes in the game, plus a warlord who's not bothering to make attacks most of the time.
> 
> There have been long, long threads with lots of math -and- examples showing that the high level math was broken; that sure, you could game around it, but it was still a serious problem.
> 
> Why don't you resurrect (or just read) one of those rather than trying to start the same tired argument, yet again?




The problem is the math presented in the threads is in a vacuum. Generally, that's a problem with CharOp threads and characters also. The game wasn't designed around the solo character. When you add up all the anecdotes it becomes pretty clear the game does work fine without them, just under more narrow constraints. 

With the feats things work slightly differently and they do open up a whole lot of options. Many things run a bit smoother and if your main goal is shortest combat possible with the least amount of character interaction, they help a lot. 

This isn't limited to Expertise feats either. Skill feats open a whole lot of cross-role goodies too, for example. If a couple of characters train in heal, all else being equal, you can play leaderless. Play without a defender? It's tough but a Warlord has options of a lot of interrupts where he gets a defensive boost as the new target of the attack and gets to attack back, for example.

Things work a smoother with an actual defender and a leader, IMO a LOT, but there are options to make things plausible without them.


----------



## Tony Vargas (May 6, 2011)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I can disprove part of this arguement... the math part...
> 
> 
> the argument goes something like this (I admit i do not belive it so i may mess it up a bit) at level 1 PCs have +x to hit and monsters have Y def,  at level 30 the PCs have +x+26 and monsters have Y+30 so the PCs lose 4 pt as they level (5 if there epic destiny does not increase a stat).



But, that's really as far as it goes, and you can't 'disprove' it, it's a fact.  You can (and did) point out why it might not be a very important fact, but you didn't 'disprove' it.  Because you said 'disprove,' though, you've got people ignoring the point you did make.. 

And, that's too bad, because it is a valid point.  With the number of choices - both build and in-play - high level characters get, the fact they loose three points of hitting power 'all other things held equal' is drowned out by all the other things that aren't held equal.  It's a flaw in the game, but one that may not even be noticed because of all the choices players are making that affect the same thing.

Given the very basic and automatic nature of the problem, then, a good solution would also have to be very basic and automatic.  The solution given, Expertise, though just adds another choice to the plethora of choices already obscuring the issue.  The issue doesn't go away, because some players are just going to miss Expertise or not choose it because it's bland or whatever.  All Expertise does is increase the possible gulf between a tightly-optimized-for-AB character and a 'normal' one.


----------



## Argyle King (May 6, 2011)

Aulirophile said:


> Uh, your anecdotal experience and pointing out PCs get more powers as they level proves diddly. And the fact that you don't even understand the argument (by your own admission) but disagree with it is just sad. How can you possibly competently disagree with something you don't understand?
> 
> You got options here:
> 
> ...





I'd honestly say that -when 4E first came out- I probably did -on average- play D&D for more than 10 hours per day.  I would also say Expertise was not needed; if I can find the old thread over on the WoTC boards, I did the math to prove it.  At higher levels, players should have a better grasp on teamwork and tactics which allow them to generate better hit chances.  Examples include flanking, aid another, various Warlord buffs, and various debuffs which other classes have... sometimes, against tougher opponents, you need more than one of those.

However, even with not needing the feats, I still always take them simply because it's stupid for me not to.  They're so much better than the other feat options that there's really no comparison.  It's hard to argue against being able to reliably hit with my current character even when rolling single digits.  

I've gone from stomping the monsters to stomping them even worse... honestly, most of the time I have to hold back with my character because it leads to the DM getting frustrated if I don't.  I don't in any way consider myself an optimizer either; there are just some choices which are so obviously better than others that I'd have to be brain damaged to not take them...  Expertise falls into that category.  (The Warlord Power Guileful Switch* is another)

(* has there ever been errata to that power?)


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (May 6, 2011)

Johnny3D3D said:


> (The Warlord Power Guileful Switch* is another)
> 
> (* has there ever been errata to that power?)



Yes, apparently;







			
				Compendium said:
			
		

> Revision (7/30/2009)
> Requirement: You must use this power during your turn before you take any other actions.


----------



## Aulirophile (May 6, 2011)

Can't count any other bonuses, they are always in addition to the minimum. So... null. Minimum is supposed to be maintained regardless of tactics or party composition. You _can't _prove it isn't needed when the _system designers _say it is for the system to work _as intended. _The moment you bring up "Warlord bonuses" you've actually proved you don't even understand all the facts behind the issue. And that is all you've proved. 

Also, did you play at Epic? Because characters who started with the minimum, at epic, go down to 35% chance to hit vs even level if they don't happen to have class bonuses. Elites: 25%. Add four levels for an E+4, 5%. Solo.. oops, another defense boost. You can literally get to the point where an E+4 solo requires a 20 to _hit, _not crit, and even with CA you crit on a 20... but miss on a 19. Not that this situation was terribly threatening with MM1 monsters, you just whacked the thing till it died anyway, but it wasn't _intended _to be possible at all. 

The minimum exists for a good reason. Expertise is the only way of maintaining the minimum (nearly, anyway, every ED should have a stat boost, a reroll mechanic, or a flat +1 to attacks, or something powerful enough to compensate for _not _having it, but I digress). 

And yes Guileful Switch was errata'd, you can now only use it as the first action on your turn, so no more double-turning.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 7, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> But, that's really as far as it goes, and you can't 'disprove' it, it's a fact.  You can (and did) point out why it might not be a very important fact, but you didn't 'disprove' it.  Because you said 'disprove,' though, you've got people ignoring the point you did make..
> 
> And, that's too bad, because it is a valid point.




first thank you... second my problem is i am not good at argueing my point even when my point is right... I could loose an arguement that the earth is round if the other guy is better with words... that doesn;t make me wrong or him right.

second what I am trying to disprove is the quastion the math asks not the answer it gives...

if you ask what is 2x2 and someone says 4... but I say that the real way to get the size of the cube is 2x2x2... then you can;t say back "well prove 2x2 isn't 4"


maybe I may not say it right...but if people really want to argue... look at my version as well...


these arguments remind me of my first girl friend... who use to tell me I never did what she wanted, so I would name things we did that she wanted...then she said those dont count...
in the end I realized if nothing I do counts then of cource i do nothing..



Aulirophile said:


> Also, did you play at Epic? Because characters who started with the minimum, at epic, go down to 35% chance to hit vs even level if they don't happen to have class bonuses. Elites: 25%. Add four levels for an E+4, 5%. Solo.. oops, another defense boost. You can literally get to the point where an E+4 solo requires a 20 to _hit, _not crit, and even with CA you crit on a 20... but miss on a 19. Not that this situation was terribly threatening with MM1 monsters, you just whacked the thing till it died anyway, but it wasn't _intended _to be possible at all.





I did play at epic... up to level 27 once and 23 a fey times... and one game at 30 as a one shot. and with or without expertise is fine...

again if you don;t count all the extra options and bonuses, then you are doing 2x2 to get a cube...instead of 2x2x2


----------



## Tony Vargas (May 7, 2011)

Aulirophile said:


> Minimum is supposed to be maintained regardless of tactics or party composition. You _can't _prove it isn't needed when the _system designers _say it is for the system to work _as intended. _
> ...The minimum exists for a good reason. Expertise is the only way of maintaining the minimum.



It doesn't maintain the minimum, though, does it.  Because it's optional, not automatic.  An automatic 'tier bonus' would fix the math.  

OTOH, if it's so good/obvious that it everyone takes it, sure, it 'maintains the minimum' - but it's also a feat tax.


----------



## Aulirophile (May 7, 2011)

All the math asks is "Does parity exist?" "No." Done. If you want to argue that parity isn't important... well, in the extreme example in an encounter built to guidelines (so not going outside of system expectations) you cannot hit except on a 20. Does that seem intended? No? Well... done, then. It not only isn't intended, but in some cases it is really God damn important. 

Expertise is necessary for the system to function as intended. That is beyond dispute, the system does not "work fine" without it... it might _work, _but that is not the same thing at all.


----------



## Tony Vargas (May 7, 2011)

Aulirophile said:


> Expertise is necessary for the system to function as intended. That is beyond dispute, the system does not "work fine" without it... it might _work, _but that is not the same thing at all.



As it stands now, it's necessary, but not sufficient... because everyone has to take Expertise for it to work as a math-fix (in which case it becomes a 'feat tax').


----------



## Aulirophile (May 7, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> It doesn't maintain the minimum, though, does it.  Because it's optional, not automatic.  An automatic 'tier bonus' would fix the math.
> 
> OTOH, if it's so good/obvious that it everyone takes it, sure, it 'maintains the minimum' - but it's also a feat tax.



It maintains it if you take it. You won't find me arguing it shouldn't be baked into the system inherently or that the current fix isn't a feat tax.. but some people don't accept the reality that it 

1.) Actually is a fix to a real issue, according to the people who _made the game._
2.) Is therefore a feat tax. 

What to do about this situation is different from just getting people to acknowledge that is how the math works out and the devs said so, so we know that is the case anyway. Though if everyone _would _acknowledge that, and they should, the developers would no doubt be more inclined to errata in an actual fix.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 7, 2011)

So three posts in a row ignore tha people who disagree and declare victory there point proven the first post here I said nOthing was proven people just said "I am right" and stopes talking even ignoring points we made...




Can I just start posting I proved it unnnescery ???


----------



## Aulirophile (May 7, 2011)

The people who disagree are either unaware of all the facts _or _are aware of all the facts and are irrational. This isn't really subject to debate, it is nothing but facts (with one fact missing that would complete the story of _why_, but it isn't necessary). Those are the options. 

Now how to fix it is certainly subject to debate. The devs think Expertise Feat+another feat rolled in to make it taste better is the best fix, at least at the moment. Some people, like you, think it doesn't need to be fixed and the system limps along just fine. That is an opinion and is subjective, so you can't prove it one way or the other, only objective information can be proved or disproved.


----------



## Tony Vargas (May 7, 2011)

So, Expertise is either a fix /and/ a feat tax.

Or it's not a fix, and /is/ an overpowered feat that further widens the gulf between even a casual optimizer and any non-powergamers.

Can we all agree, then, that the Expertise feats are bad?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 7, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> So, Expertise is either a fix /and/ a feat tax.
> 
> Or it's not a fix, and /is/ an overpowered feat that further widens the gulf between even a casual optimizer and any non-powergamers.
> 
> Can we all agree, then, that the Expertise feats are bad?




No ... As I have said before I feel they are fine but I would tweak them slightly


----------



## TheUltramark (May 7, 2011)

here is my next question about this....
how many rounds is a combat encounter "supposed" to go in the minds of people who give a crap about that sort of thing?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 7, 2011)

TheUltramark said:


> here is my next question about this....
> how many rounds is a combat encounter "supposed" to go in the minds of people who give a crap about that sort of thing?




I find that 3-7 is best but for big slog feasts 8 or 9 any time the round count gets to 10 or over  2 hrs (at epic we had it once or twice)


----------



## tiornys (May 7, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> So, Expertise is either a fix /and/ a feat tax.
> 
> Or it's not a fix, and /is/ an overpowered feat that further widens the gulf between even a casual optimizer and any non-powergamers.
> 
> Can we all agree, then, that the Expertise feats are bad?



Man, I've been saying this since they created the Expertise feats.  And GMforPowergamers has disagreed for just as long.  I doubt we're going to change his mind this time around.

But, to address his actual argument: the added factors are necessary to make up for the disparity between player at-will DPR and monster HP.  Seriously.  It takes more at-will attacks to kill a 30th level monster than it does to kill a 1st level monster; however, a 30th level PC has access to a lot more options to help them do more than at-will DPR than a 1st level PC.

So, Expertise fixes the accuracy gap.  Improved Defenses (partially) fixes the defensive gap.  Epic NAD feats fix the weak NAD (or NADs on some characters) while overpowering the strong (or moderate) NADs.  Masterwork Armor fixes the AC gap.  Encounter/Daily/Utility powers, items, and teamwork compensate for the HP gap.

All of those but the last are easy to spell out mathematically.  You can demonstrate the HP gap with reasonable precision, but demonstrating closure of the gap is exceedingly messy.  Which is fine, because that's where a lot of the meat of the game lies.  The fact that it's possible to ramp power selection, synergies, and teamwork to the point where you start compensating for other gaps does not invalidate the existence of those gaps.

t~


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 7, 2011)

Aulirophile said:


> It maintains it if you take it. You won't find me arguing it shouldn't be baked into the system inherently or that the current fix isn't a feat tax.. but some people don't accept the reality that it
> 
> 1.) Actually is a fix to a real issue, according to the people who _made the game._
> 2.) Is therefore a feat tax.
> ...



I don´t want a real fix baked into the math to be honest. I just want a free expertise feat at level 1,11 and 21 or so...

I don´t like everyone beeing as good with all weapons from the beginning. So expertise allows specialization on one weapon. The problem, is giving out one or 2 expertises on level 1 and maybe some more later. As to defenses: a simple +1 at 11 and 21 would be sufficient, and feats reverted to +2 etc. And maybe a third attribute bump at level 4,8 etc...


----------



## Argyle King (May 7, 2011)

Aulirophile said:


> *Can't count any other bonuses, they are always in addition to the minimum.* So... null. Minimum is supposed to be maintained regardless of tactics or party composition. You _can't _prove it isn't needed when the _system designers _say it is for the system to work _as intended. _The moment you bring up "Warlord bonuses" you've actually proved you don't even understand all the facts behind the issue. And that is all you've proved.
> 
> Also, did you play at Epic? Because characters who started with the minimum, at epic, go down to 35% chance to hit vs even level if they don't happen to have class bonuses. Elites: 25%. Add four levels for an E+4, 5%. Solo.. oops, another defense boost. You can literally get to the point where an E+4 solo requires a 20 to _hit, _not crit, and even with CA you crit on a 20... but miss on a 19. Not that this situation was terribly threatening with MM1 monsters, you just whacked the thing till it died anyway, but it wasn't _intended _to be possible at all.
> 
> ...





I very strongly disagree with the part I bolded...  Honestly, if that's what the designers intended, then I can only say that (not surprisingly) I also strongly disagree with their views on how the game should work.

If the game is supposed to maintain the same exact chances at all levels of play, I don't see the point in having levels.  To me, it makes sense that Epic Threats would be more difficult -and require greater teamwork- than lesser threats.  

To answer your other question, yes, I did play Epic.  I've gone from 1 - 30 many times.  I never once experience what you are suggesting whenever I had a character which I built within the reasonable expectations of the game.  By this I mean that I started with stats in my primary scores which the game suggested I should have.

In my eyes, having different resources at those higher levels do indeed matter.  Even if I'm not counting bonuses, having a power which targets Will or Reflex instead of AC (for example) is a big boost simply because those are (typically) easier defenses to hit.  This too is part of what I mean by better tactics - knowing your enemy.

Like I said, I'll search for the old thread in which I had this conversation before when looking at MM1 vs a Character without any bonuses.  I have been looking; it's just taking a while because it was several years ago.  For now I'll concede that -if you're not allowed to factor in any of the party's resources- the feats were needed when facing opponents four levels higher.

Best case scenario, let's say you're 100% correct and I am 100% wrong.  That still ends up being somewhat shoddy design because it does in fact mean you need to choose this feat.  Meaningful choice has been removed from an area of the game where choice is supposed to give the player freedom to mold their character.

Even if the feats aren't needed, they still end up being no-brainer choices simply because of how much they boost a character's power.  This is actually something I can comment on from a current campaign.  I'm playing a Warlord; the party also has a second Warlord in the party.  I chose Expertise; the other player didn't and instead went with more flavorful choices (which, normally, I am very much in favor of when not playing D&D.)  He also chose a weapon which has less of a proficiency bonus than mine does.  We both have attacks which grant bonuses and healing to the party; I hit far more often...  needless to say, even though I do not feel I *need* the feat, seeing the difference in what amount of power I contribute to the party with it as opposed to without it makes me choose the feat every time.

To be sure, and to go back and press upon my point again, I do in fact believe there are flaws in how 4E is built.  I in no way disagree with that.  However, I do not feel that Expertise feats were necessary; other options (which include prompting players to be a little more thoughtful when combating tougher foes,) I believe, would have been far more satisfying to fix some of the issues.

Real quick though, let's assume you really did need a 20 to hit, and, out of curiosity, see what happens if we are allowed to factor in party resources.  Flanking brings that 20 to an 18; aid another can be used to get to 16; I'd be flabbergasted if somebody in the party didn't have something to at least give a +2 bonus to get to 14, and I'd also be highly surprised if the creature didn't have one defense which was a point or two lower than the others... let's say 13 to be generous to the monster.  Keep in mind, this is 4 levels higher than the party.  Oh, and lest we forget that one of the new design changes was the remove some of the defense boosts to solos... hmm, weird.

I can hear the response now "but that means some members of the party need to use their turns to help somebody else instead of getting to do something."  Um, well, yeah, I thought that was the point of how 4E was built?  To work as a team.  Also, weren't we talking about a solo in this example?  A monster which is supposed to be equal to five creatures?  Yet it seems odd that it would take multiple characters to effectively combat one?  Not to me..

So, what's the alternative?  Well, let's give out expertise; let's make the defenses of monsters easier, and on top of that let's still allow characters to keep everything they had before too.  "Solos suck!  They die too easy!  They can't challenge the party."  One of the biggest complaints against solos had been economy of actions; hoever, looking at my first theoretical situation, the problem was shared by both sides of the fight.  The solo has only one turn; the party had to pool their resources together to combat the solo... seems balanced to me.


----------



## keterys (May 7, 2011)

Eh... the "need a 13 to hit with half the party dedicated to one person's attack" means that you're averaging less than one hit per round. Are you arguing that 20+ round combats are desirable? I mean, I've done the 18 round combat against a solo before, and it really got pretty old 

I'm in the "one way or another, Expertise is messed up" camp. Either it's waaaay too powerful, or it should have been baked into the system like masterwork bonuses. Even if they decided to do it like inherent bonuses and make it an option for DMs to adopt or not.


----------



## Argyle King (May 7, 2011)

keterys said:


> Eh... the "need a 13 to hit with half the party dedicated to one person's attack" means that you're averaging less than one hit per round. Are you arguing that 20+ round combats are desirable? I mean, I've done the 18 round combat against a solo before, and it really got pretty old
> 
> I'm in the "one way or another, Expertise is messed up" camp. Either it's waaaay too powerful, or it should have been baked into the system like masterwork bonuses. Even if they decided to do it like inherent bonuses and make it an option for DMs to adopt or not.





I'm not saying I want 20+ rounds.  I was saying that, worst case scenario (needing a 20 to hit at all,) it was still possible to hit before Expertise.  That's the worst case scenario, and it does not take into consideration either that I was being very generous in favor of the monster by giving only paltry bonuses to the party.

Likewise, as I said, part of some of the new design ideals included lowering the defenses of monsters.  Doing that in conjunction with making PCs stronger seems a little bit of overkill.

I do agree with you though.  Either way you look at it, Expertise doesn't quite add up right.  From one point of view it was needed, so you have to take the feat or else you can't hit.  From the other, it wasn't needed, but it's still so good that you'd be a fool to not take it in most cases.


----------



## Aulirophile (May 7, 2011)

You disagree with an objective fact stated by the game designers. Um. K. /shrug. That makes this a reasonable discussion, starting out with facts and then trying to substitute your opinion. 

In the scenario I presented CA _already _brought you from hitting on a 20 to crititng on a 20... but still missing on a 19. And that was realistically possible with a 16 stat character in an E+4 solo encounter. The thing you _really _don't seem to get is that 4e was designed so that unoptimized characters would be minimally effective, and never go below that minimum. Short of one-rounding solos there _isn't _a maximum level of effectiveness that the devs seem to care about, so it doesn't matter, from a design perspective, how much extra bonuses and team work increase you over the minimum. But the minimum _must _exist regardless of party composition, tactics, or power selection. If a generic PC isn't hitting the minimum hit% the system isn't working as intended. 

And, in fact, the reason for this is that during playtesting they _had _14+ round combats on a regular basis. That is why 55% is the minimum, slightly tilted in the player's favor, just like the house in Vegas. 

You can disagree with the designers if you like... but you can't say the system is working as intended without Expertise. Because it doesn't. 

Now I'm not inclined to argue that Expertise is the best fix for the systemic flaw (and the flaw is not only about hit%, is goes into nearly every bonus that scales by level) but it is the fix we have. Given that it _is _a fix, and it is, it is a Feat Tax by the definition we use for Feat Taxes. So it should be truly fixed and baked in.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 7, 2011)

No. Not baked in. Please bonus feats. Why should you be equally good with every weapon? So please, just give out 2 extra feats at level 1, and some more later on. It is an easy fix. Breaking nothing. No taxes to pay. You just get an extra resource, period!


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 7, 2011)

basic level break down...

level 1
16 attack stat +2 prof weapon
+5 to hit  Ac14-18   needs a 9-13

level 8
18 stat +2 magic +2 prof weapon
+12 to hit  AC 21-25  needs a 9-13

Level 14
20 stat +4 weapon
+18 to hit   AC 27-31 needs a 9-13

level 21
22 stat +5 weapon
+23 to hit  AC 34-38  needs an 11-15

Level 28
24 stat +6 weapon
+29 to hit AC 41-45 needs a 12-16


monster by DMG...lv +3 for easy, lv +5 for mod and lv +7 for hard...

at 28th level it is the worst... fighting a hard fight needts a 16 for the LEAST optimized a character can be and still be viable...

lets do a very optimized version (I wont call it the most optimized)

A rapier rouge...

level 1
18 attack stat +3 prof weapon
+7 to hit  Ac14-18   needs a 7-11
+7 to hit NAD 11-15 needs 4-8

Level 14
22 stat +4 weapon
+20 to hit   AC 27-31 needs a 7-11
+20 to hit NAD 25-28 needs a 5-8

level 21
26 stat +5 weapon
+28 to hit  AC 34-38  needs an 6-10
+28 to hit NAD 31-35 needs 3-7

Level 28
28 stat +6 weapon
+37 to hit AC 41-45 needs a 4-8
+37 vs NADs 

see if you built in those +1/2/3 how way too easy it


----------



## shamsael (May 7, 2011)

For the attack roll disparity, I houserule a +1 bonus to attacks at 15, and a +2 at 25 while expertise becomes a flat +1 to attacks with the appropriate weapons or implements.

The defense disparity doesn't bother me as much.


----------



## MrGrenadine (May 8, 2011)

GMforPowergamers said:


> see if you built in those +1/2/3 how way too easy it




According to your numbers, starting with an 18 stat, using +3 proficiency weapon, and having access to +4 or better weapons starting at level 14(!?), all render the Expertise feats unnecessary.

However, for a V shaped character that started with a 16 Str, using a +2 prof weapon, with more reasonable enhancement for the given level...well, I see the necessity of the feats.  

In short, the feats are a way to fix the math for anyone who doesn't want to create a character who is optimized to fix the math.


----------



## Aulirophile (May 8, 2011)

Um,  +29 at 28 is correct but that'd be vs 42 AC for even level (level+14). You'd hit on a 13+, vs an even level solo you'd need a 17+, and versus a +4 (for an e+4 monster, which is well within guidelines) you'd need a 21+ on the die... oh wait. Hell, vs a level+3 solo you'd need a 20 on the die. Granted you'd crit... but you'd miss on a 19. 

You're well away from the minimum, which just proves the point. The minimum isn't maintained without Expertise. The intention to have a minimum is a fact. So.... should you keep proving my point or are we good? 

Also your Rogue example is just poor for a variety of reasons, up to and including the numbers are wrong. 

Rogues are hyper accurate strikers. That is their whole shtick. Rogues are supposed to to be, roughly, 10-15% more accurate then the average character, not accounting for all the powers that allow them to get CA trivially. So that puts the class minimum for Rogues at 65%. vs 42 AC that would be +34 at 28. At 28 that is +7 (stat)+3 (prof)+14 (1/2 level)+6 (Enh) is +30... (and these numbers are right, I'm just not sure how you got +37) that is... ohhh 12+, darn, missed the minimum by 4. 

Again, _there is no maximum. _In order for you to be right _every single class _needs to maintain 55% all the way to level 30 vs average even level defenses. They don't. It doesn't matter if that means Rogues are hitting on 2s and 3s, hyper-accuracy is part of their class. 

So, _again, _it doesn't matter if a character without Expertise can maintain the minimum by optimizing (and some can, though your example was incorrect and you picked a class that is actually supposed to be _more _accurate then the minimum, invalidating it even had your numbers been correct). It only matters if _all _characters can provably maintain the minimum without optimizing. They can't. Expertise fixes this gap. The gap that the designers admitted was _their mistake and was not their intention. _


----------



## MrGrenadine (May 8, 2011)

Johnny3D3D said:


> ...other options (which include prompting players to be a little more thoughtful when combating tougher foes,) I believe, would have been far more satisfying to fix some of the issues.
> 
> Real quick though, let's assume you really did need a 20 to hit, and, out of curiosity, see what happens if we are allowed to factor in party resources.  Flanking brings that 20 to an 18; aid another can be used to get to 16; I'd be flabbergasted if somebody in the party didn't have something to at least give a +2 bonus to get to 14, and I'd also be highly surprised if the creature didn't have one defense which was a point or two lower than the others... let's say 13 to be generous to the monster.  Keep in mind, this is 4 levels higher than the party.  Oh, and lest we forget that one of the new design changes was the remove some of the defense boosts to solos...




I'm all for better tactics, but I'm not sure being thoughtful during combat is as elegant and useful a fix as a simple and consistent +1/2/3.

In your example, knocking the 'to hit' target down from 20 is never going to be as simple as flanking to get to 18, and aiding another to get to 16, etc.  All of those buffs are conditional, need a hit to take effect, last only one round, and can easily be disrupted by tactics on the opposing side.

For instance, in your example, Character #1 moves to flank and has to hit with a 20, and then the Character #2 moves to flank and can hit on an 18.  Then Character #3 aids the one character who hasn't yet attacked--Character #4--so he needs an 18.  Assuming Character #4 has a power that gives a +2 to hit to another character, hits with his power, and chooses the first of the flanking attackers, then next round Character #1 will be able to hit with a 16...unless of course, on its turn, the monster shifted out of the flank, and/or hit one of the flankers with a power that caused a status effect that disrupted the flanking or simply made a character lose its attack that round, etc.

So, 'yes' to better tactics, and 'yes' to teamwork, but good tactics + teamwork are conditional and not reliable and characters are not always in perfect synergy, so they =/= fixed math.

And then consider the issue of resource management as well.  A character could try to hit a high defense with an Encounter or Daily, and miss more often than not and lose that power for the rest of the encounter, or longer.  Or, in my Cleric's case, he could use an At Will to do 1W damage and give a character +2 to an attack vs the same target (until EoNT), but if thats the case, why does my character even have Encounter and Daily attack powers?  If they're tough to hit with, and using them makes it tougher for everyone else to hit, too, I may as well just spam my measly 1W At Will the whole battle, which would be the opposite of fun.

All that being said, if taking one feat gets me closer to hitting more than half the time, I'll take it--especially with a leader, who is of no use to a party if he can't hit.


----------



## TheUltramark (May 8, 2011)

you gotta talk to me like im a child sometimes, i swear

complaint #1 - players don't hit often enough
complaint #2 - monsters don't do enough damage

someone explain to me in easy to understand, acronym free english why this isn't a wash ?????


----------



## MrGrenadine (May 8, 2011)

TheUltramark said:


> you gotta talk to me like im a child sometimes, i swear
> 
> complaint #1 - players don't hit often enough
> complaint #2 - monsters don't do enough damage
> ...




Grind.


----------



## drothgery (May 8, 2011)

TheUltramark said:


> you gotta talk to me like im a child sometimes, i swear
> 
> complaint #1 - players don't hit often enough
> complaint #2 - monsters don't do enough damage
> ...



If the PCs are missing a lot, and the monsters are doing very little damage, then you end up with very long combats. And while a one and a half hour combat encounter vs. the BBEG and its associates is usually cool, spending over an hour on the fight to clear out dungeon room 12 is not.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (May 8, 2011)

TheUltramark said:


> you gotta talk to me like im a child sometimes, i swear
> 
> complaint #1 - players don't hit often enough
> complaint #2 - monsters don't do enough damage
> ...




Because very, very, very long combats are boring.

If players do not hit enough, then the monsters don't fall down dead quickly.

If the monsters aren't doing enough damage, then the players don't fall down dead quickly.

Ergo, no one falls down dead quickly.

Ergo, combat lasts for a long time.


----------



## Argyle King (May 8, 2011)

MrGrenadine said:


> I'm all for better tactics, but I'm not sure being thoughtful during combat is as elegant and useful a fix as a simple and consistent +1/2/3.
> 
> In your example, knocking the 'to hit' target down from 20 is never going to be as simple as flanking to get to 18, and aiding another to get to 16, etc.  All of those buffs are conditional, need a hit to take effect, last only one round, and can easily be disrupted by tactics on the opposing side.
> 
> ...





Like I said in that previous post, those were not very good bonuses at all I was assuming, and again a solo 4 levels higher.

Let's also look at things such as ye olde Sure Strike from PHB1.  Currently, it is viewed as a terrible at-will power.  However, in the needing a 20 example, it becomes a lot more useful; it has a purpose instead of being a 'red choice' as it now is.  I'd like to believe the designers didn't create powers of that nature with the intention to be trick choices; I'd like to believe they were added to the game for a reason - having an easier time hitting being the reason.

Again, I'll also say that example was using a very tough foe and also giving the PCs crap bonus - which has the net result of meaning that a horribly built collection of PCs against a solo several levels higher can hit, but will have a difficult time ending the fight quickly.

Also, those characters would not move and do nothing.  The first character could move *and* use a buff which gives the next person a bonus... meaning he's granting flanking and the buff.  Alternatively, he could flank *and* use aid another on the same turn.  That's one character granting +4 to his allies without even using a power.

I'm not saying to not choose Expertise.  Whether or not I feel Expertise was necessarily needed, the fact is that there's no reason to ever not take Expertise feats.  My main point with saying anything else was just to express that I reliably hit before Expertise already; now, with it, I have characters (one I played tonight actually - Eladrin Barbarian McFighter) who are able to hit on low single digit rolls.

I'm also not saying that I feel 4th Edition math was perfect right out of the gate.  I wholly agree there were some flaws to the design.  I'm just not convinced that feats were needed to fix the problems.  I'm even less convinced that Expertise was the way to go.


----------



## Argyle King (May 8, 2011)

Aulirophile said:


> You disagree with an objective fact stated by the game designers. Um. K. /shrug. That makes this a reasonable discussion, starting out with facts and then trying to substitute your opinion.
> 
> You can disagree with the designers if you like... but you can't say the system is working as intended without Expertise. Because it doesn't.
> 
> .




I'm saying if that was the intention, then I've found yet another element behind 4E design which I don't see eye to eye with.

I'm also saying that I feel there were much better ways to fix the end result -even if it wasn't their intention to have it turn out the way it did- which would have been far better.

I'm thirdly saying that before Expertise, I already often didn't take the threat of most monsters seriously.  Now, with Expertise, I feel the power level discrepency when comparing monsters to PCs has grown more extreme.

I do see the appeal of being able self-gimp your character with low scores in your primary attack stat and making up the difference with a feat.  It allows more freedom to place higher numbers into other stats.  However, I'm not really sure why a 4E PC would do so.  The game itself tells you that it expects you to place importance on certain stats.

All of this is really moot point though because -no matter our different views- we still both agree that there is indeed a feat tax.


----------



## keterys (May 8, 2011)

GMforPowergamers said:


> basic level break down...




A couple of these numbers look off...



> level 21
> 26 stat +5 weapon
> +28 to hit  AC 34-38  needs an 6-10
> +28 to hit NAD 31-35 needs 3-7



10+8+5+3=+26



> Level 28
> 28 stat +6 weapon
> +37 to hit AC 41-45 needs a 4-8
> +37 vs NADs



14+9+6+3=+32

If it matters, monster NADs are basically -2 from AC, not 3. 



> see if you built in those +1/2/3 how way too easy it




You were off by +2 and +5 so, does that change your conclusion at all? Also... as noted, rogues are hyper-accurate by design. Hammer-wielding clerics and wardens wouldn't want to be painted with quite the same brush.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 8, 2011)

keterys said:


> A couple of these numbers look off...
> 
> 
> -bunch o math-
> ...





ok first that is why I use the character builder... my math is off all the time...

second...the warden useing a hammer has the option to take expertise if they feel they need more accuracy... so does the rouge...


my conclusion is that when you are 4pts behind the monster you have other things to make up for it.


if tonight we drew up 5 1st level characters.... lets say a Warden, invoker, warlord, warlock, and assassin... and ran them vs 5 level 1 monsters... then 2 level 1 elites and 4 level 1 minnons, then a level 2 solo... 

then we take those same 12 monsters... and gave them all +29 to hit and defences, then gave the PCs +25 to hit and defenses... then ran the fights again... That would be Really tough.... that would look alot like your arguement...


BUT... what if we then took the pcs and took away 6 pts to def and attack, in it's place let them each tak any neck item, weapon or implment, and armor they want in the game... then let them swap that 1st level encounter power they have for any 25th or lower level encounter power... then swap there 1 Daily for any 1 20 or lower level daily... then choose any 3 feats from phb 1.... then pick any 1 2nd or 6th level utlitiy power i bet that would be as easy or maybe even easier then the 1st time throught...


----------



## Aulirophile (May 8, 2011)

Johnny3D3D said:


> Let's also look at things such as ye olde Sure Strike from PHB1.  Currently, it is viewed as a terrible at-will power.  However, in the needing a 20 example, it becomes a lot more useful;



No it doesn't, Twin Strike still has a higher accuracy and a higher DPR even when you need to roll a 20. It is terrible. 

The PCs were getting the minimum bonus the system expects. Problem: the system was designed with them having a 15% higher bonus. Fix: Expertise. If you find you hit all the time because you optimized, fine, there is no system maximum (99% accuracy is more then achievable if you really want it). 

Also if you don't think Monsters are threatening you probably haven't upgraded to MM3/MV monsters. The monster side of the equation was flawed for, entirely differently, reasons. Those have been fixed. No reason not to fix the PC side.


----------



## Argyle King (May 8, 2011)

Aulirophile said:


> No it doesn't, Twin Strike still has a higher accuracy and a higher DPR even when you need to roll a 20. It is terrible.
> 
> The PCs were getting the minimum bonus the system expects. Problem: the system was designed with them having a 15% higher bonus. Fix: Expertise. If you find you hit all the time because you optimized, fine, there is no system maximum (99% accuracy is more then achievable if you really want it).
> 
> Also if you don't think Monsters are threatening you probably haven't upgraded to MM3/MV monsters. The monster side of the equation was flawed for, entirely differently, reasons. Those have been fixed. No reason not to fix the PC side.





I don't optimize, that was part of my point.  I'm nowhere near as proficient with the system as anyone on the Char Op boards would be; even less so now that D&D is no longer my primary game.  Even in the group I play with, I'd say I am the least proficient at optimization.  Yet, I can still realize that certain choices -as presented- are rather obviously better than others.

As for the monsters... it really hasn't made much difference.  Yes, they hit harder, but part of the new design also has them with lower defenses.  If they're dead, they can't hit back.  While they have continued to get better, so too have the powers and options presented to the players.


----------



## Aulirophile (May 8, 2011)

I'm a regular CharOp poster. >.> 

Anyway. Dead is the best condition, but E+1 encounters with MM3/MV are reasonably threatening even to optimized parties. E+3 can actually result in TPKs of optimized characters (CharOp runs several weekly games via MapTools, some for LFR and some home groups. The switch to MM3/MV monsters made a noticeable difference in encounter difficulty even for CharOp groups, running heavily optimized characters). 

It really does make a difference. If you feel like you've never been threatened then that might be a DM failure, designing encounters is not after all the easiest thing in the world.


----------



## keterys (May 8, 2011)

GMforPowergamers said:


> second...the warden useing a hammer has the option to take expertise if they feel they need more accuracy... so does the rouge...




If expertise is an option, then they both have it. If you're arguing that it's not necessary, you should either exclude it as an option or not.



> if tonight we drew up 5 1st level characters.... lets say a Warden, invoker, warlord, warlock, and assassin... and ran them vs 5 level 1 monsters... then 2 level 1 elites and 4 level 1 minnons, then a level 2 solo...
> 
> then we take those same 12 monsters... and gave them all +29 to hit and defences, then gave the PCs +25 to hit and defenses... then ran the fights again... That would be Really tough.... that would look alot like your arguement...
> 
> BUT... what if we then took the pcs and took away 6 pts to def and attack, in it's place let them each tak any neck item, weapon or implment, and armor they want in the game... then let them swap that 1st level encounter power they have for any 25th or lower level encounter power... then swap there 1 Daily for any 1 20 or lower level daily... then choose any 3 feats from phb 1.... then pick any 1 2nd or 6th level utlitiy power i bet that would be as easy or maybe even easier then the 1st time throught...




And _then_ if instead of using level 1 monsters with +29, you replaced the monsters with actually level 30 monsters... this isn't really a logical string of replacements, and the weirdest part is that doesn't really matter for the argument at hand.

It doesn't even matter if expertise should have been made in the first place, cause we've already got it. If it were just a +1, non-scaling, then it could be just another feat that some have and some don't. If it were a bonus feat that everyone got, it would be slightly strange but mean that it's a system math fix that requires a choice about what you use. Instead, we have a set of even-more-overpowered-since-Essentials feats that every character should take at one point or another. And, with the upgrades, often sooner rather than later. Before Essentials I often saw people wait til 8th or higher level, sometimes even as late as 15th. Post-Essentials most have it by 2nd.

On the other hand, there is less griping about their existence in general. Lot of people would have at least considered spending a feat for Light Blade Expertise or Bow Expertise, and certainly Staff Expertise, even without the expertise hit bonus.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 8, 2011)

keterys said:


> If expertise is an option, then they both have it. If you're arguing that it's not necessary, you should either exclude it as an option or not.



 or anyone weaither they are an accurate class or not can choose to become more accurate...





> And _then_ if instead of using level 1 monsters with +29, you replaced the monsters with actually level 30 monsters... this isn't really a logical string of replacements, and the weirdest part is that doesn't really matter for the argument at hand.



 replaceing the monsters would defeat the arguement entirely becuse you nees other things then too...like the rest of your attack powers... see all i did was show the vacume YOU guys make th arguememnt...

if All you get was +26 and all they got was +29 then the 3 pt diffrence would be a big deal... but there attacks scale at one rate, ours another... there number of powers scale diffrent too...and there hit points dont scale like pc eaither... a 30 level monster is not a 1st level monster with +29...but neaither is a pc at 30 level a 1st level one with +26 that is the core of my argument...

can you understand any of my arguement or what?



> It doesn't even matter if expertise should have been made in the first place, cause we've already got it. If it were just a +1, non-scaling, then it could be just another feat that some have and some don't. If it were a bonus feat that everyone got, it would be slightly strange but mean that it's a system math fix that requires a choice about what you use. Instead, we have a set of even-more-overpowered-since-Essentials feats that every character should take at one point or another.




I do belive expertise feats would be better with some modfications...I think it and weapon focus should both work like the essential ones a flat bonus of +x and a rider based on weapon (althought I think axe expertise should xhange)
the only thing I would do diffrent other then that is skip the 11th level bump... if I was a deasigner at wotc it would be +1 to hit, increase to +2 at 21st.



> And, with the upgrades, often sooner rather than later. Before Essentials I often saw people wait til 8th or higher level, sometimes even as late as 15th. Post-Essentials most have it by 2nd.




I see it the same as ever... optimizers take it by level 4...non optimizers eaither take it or dont depending on what else they want. I have seen many post esential characters (especialy slayers and scouts who both get +1 to hit anyway) skip expertise 



> On the other hand, there is less griping about their existence in general. Lot of people would have at least considered spending a feat for Light Blade Expertise or Bow Expertise, and certainly Staff Expertise, even without the expertise hit bonus




the funny part is my new character was setting up for light blade expertise and totaly pissed off the optimizer becuse of how 'dumb' I am... I have a resourceful warlord who took prof in kurkri and now is getting ready to take LBE... and all he does is moan how it is dumb of me not to fight with a kopesh or longsword.... some people are never happy...


----------



## keterys (May 8, 2011)

GMforPowergamers said:


> see all i did was show the vacume YOU guys make th arguememnt...




I haven't made an argument about the level gain / hit progression (not lately, anyways). 

I did make a point about the feats themselves, that was actually entirely neutral to that debate.

I also pointed out the flaws in your own math and arguments... I might not have, but I'd rather have headed things off before mistakes spawn pages of their own arguments.



> can you understand any of my arguement or what?




Of course. I just think they're deeply flawed. 

You're perfectly fine with characters being +2 to +4 hit apart from each other, through difference in system mastery or willful disregard for it. That's perfectly fine, but it doesn't necessarily lead to a better system. If the expertise feats were +10 to hit, you could still make that same argument, but the feats themselves would be even more ludicrous. And if people without the feats actually needed a "20" to hit without them then the system would be despairingly broken.

Thankfully, the game doesn't go to level 100, so we can dodge that entire problem.



> I have seen many post esential characters (especialy slayers and scouts who both get +1 to hit anyway) skip expertise



Depends a bit on what weapons folks wield, but +1 push/slide, or damage with combat advantage or charging, or immunity to opportunity attacks and a little better reach, all seem to cement things even for the non-optimizers. Staff Expertise in particular seems to show up nice and early. Master at Arms for swapping ranged and such has been pretty popular too.

I've only seen one character not take one by 11th level since Essentials... and that's because he's a bard so can't pick a single feat. Kicking up to +2 at 11th, on top of the extra benefit, seems to really throw things askew.



> the funny part is my new character was setting up for light blade expertise and totaly pissed off the optimizer becuse of how 'dumb' I am... I have a resourceful warlord who took prof in kurkri and now is getting ready to take LBE... and all he does is moan how it is dumb of me not to fight with a kopesh or longsword.... some people are never happy...



Well, it is a feat (weapon proficiency) to use a weapon that's worse than a military weapon (-1 attack, -.5 damage), that makes you less likely to hit (and for warlords, hitting is the critical part more than damage so you trigger the benefits). If you were using a dagger, at least you could throw it too, but not so much on a kukri. If you were using a rapier, he wouldn't complain about the light blade expertise. If a dagger or short sword, he might still complain, but at least you wouldn't really be giving up much (a feat, downgrading attack bonus, possibly gaining a thrown option).

It's basically the same argument as before - you _can_ intentionally make decisions that make your character less effective, such as not taking expertise once you're in the +2 to +3 range, but it's disingenuous to make arguments about it on messageboards as if that's a valid system decision. Any more than you'd suggest to a new player that they take a 10 Str as a fighter, cause hitting's not terribly important as long as they have a high Con. There are ways to make that work, but you better be really explicit about how or you're misleading someone who doesn't know better.

If anything, it's actually a serious system flaw how big of a gap that exists between optimizers and not at the moment. (And one that was reported to WotC as part of the "What works, what fails" questions they asked)


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 8, 2011)

keterys said:


> I haven't made an argument about the level gain / hit progression (not lately, anyways).
> 
> I did make a point about the feats themselves, that was actually entirely neutral to that debate.
> 
> I also pointed out the flaws in your own math and arguments... I might not have, but I'd rather have headed things off before mistakes spawn pages of their own arguments.



sorry... sometimes I group people when I should not...again thank you for pointing out the math error...





> You're perfectly fine with characters being +2 to +4 hit apart from each other, through difference in system mastery or willful disregard for it. That's perfectly fine, but it doesn't necessarily lead to a better system.



I will go back to my mutants and mastermind argument... when everyone at level ten has +10 to hit and +10 to AC and +10 to damage... no matter what the flavor added it all starts to blur togather (atleast in my mind)

slight diffrences make the game feel more fun... I have +8 to hit, he has +12, I do 2d12+7 he does 2d6+9... my AC is 21 his is 18 I have 30 hp he has 31...

as ong as we all can add to the game and be viable a range is good...

(((((now what that range is can be argued... I have in the past said 3 pts is perfect 5 is good 8 is not bad 10 is getting worrysome... 11+ is bad) But the only times I have ever seen a 9+ is when the top end guy needs to roll a 1 to miss.)))))







> If the expertise feats were +10 to hit, you could still make that same argument, but the feats themselves would be even more ludicrous. And if people without the feats actually needed a "20" to hit without them then the system would be despairingly broken.



um... I would go with no one is say +10 is ok... infact I have even posted n the errat board I would rather see expertise nerfed by 1... +1 incease to +2 at 21st

so we are in the same basic thoughs... we just have differing thresholds 




> Depends a bit on what weapons folks wield, but +1 push/slide, or damage with combat advantage or charging, or immunity to opportunity attacks and a little better reach, all seem to cement things even for the non-optimizers. Staff Expertise in particular seems to show up nice and early. Master at Arms for swapping ranged and such has been pretty popular too.




I have still scean slayers without it... 




> Well, it is a feat (weapon proficiency) to use a weapon that's worse than a military weapon (-1 attack, -.5 damage), that makes you less likely to hit (and for warlords, hitting is the critical part more than damage so you trigger the benefits). If you were using a dagger, at least you could throw it too, but not so much on a kukri. If you were using a rapier, he wouldn't complain about the light blade expertise. If a dagger or short sword, he might still complain, but at least you wouldn't really be giving up much (a feat, downgrading attack bonus, possibly gaining a thrown option).



my warlord wants to fight with 2 kurkri... I also plan on multi classing into rouge someday... I still am useing my powers I still hit most of the time...




> It's basically the same argument as before - you _can_ intentionally make decisions that make your character less effective, such as not taking expertise once you're in the +2 to +3 range, but it's disingenuous to make arguments about it on messageboards as if that's a valid system decision.




my vaild system decisions are what I (or in some cases others) want to play. it is a game...I am not makeing my character less effective, I am making him diffrent. We had a time when the most effective chose was the right one... and some of us are still there....it gets boreing. 

I have seen a player play almost the same character 3 times in a row becuse X Y and Z feats are 'must have' and Z X and Y powers are the 'best of the level' and YX and Z items are the 'best you can buy' and we only made it to level 9... 

that is not how I choose to play, this warlord will have diffrent feats and powers and items then the last one I played




> Any more than you'd suggest to a new player that they take a 10 Str as a fighter, cause hitting's not terribly important as long as they have a high Con. There are ways to make that work, but you better be really explicit about how or you're misleading someone who doesn't know better.




I always tell new players to take a 16 or higher in there prime stat...and that if you see one of us doing other wise we have some way to balance it... (I know we did have a 13 str spear fighter with a good dex and wis and other things upping attacks... expertise was his 1st feat... I wish I could remember the whole build now)




> If anything, it's actually a serious system flaw how big of a gap that exists between optimizers and not at the moment. (And one that was reported to WotC as part of the "What works, what fails" questions they asked)




ok so lets take weapon users...

I start with a 16 stat, have a +2 prof, and no epic destiny benfirts to attack or attribute

you start with a 20 stat, have a +3 prof epic sestiny +2 stat, and a class +1 to hit

+5 diffrence to hit 

with you having expertise it is up to +8 at epic +7 at paragon and +6 at heroic



			
				myself said:
			
		

> (((((now what that range is can be argued... I have in the past said 3 pts is perfect 5 is good 8 is not bad 10 is getting worrysome... 11+ is bad) But the only times I have ever seen a 9+ is when the top end guy needs to roll a 1 to miss.)))))




so I see this as fine...I would if I could I would take the paragon +1 away from expertise... but I can't


----------



## keterys (May 8, 2011)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I am not makeing my character less effective, I am making him diffrent.



With expertise instead of (some other feat), you can make that argument, because the other feat might truly be more effective, but the kukri argument doesn't work.

Let's say you're choosing between using a rapier and a kukri.

Rapier: +3 Proficiency, 1d8 damage
Kukrui: costs a feat, +2 Proficiency, 1d6 brutal 1 damage

So, the rapier is 1 less feat, 1 more attack, and .5 more damage. That's factually less effective. If you want to compare using an off-hand weapon to using a light shield, sure, there's an argument to be made there, but pure raw weapon comparison, system mastery says it's a mistake.

Me, I'd rather the game didn't actually work that way, but there you go.



> ok so lets take weapon users...
> 
> I start with a 16 stat, have a +2 prof, and no epic destiny benfirts to attack or attribute
> 
> ...




Sure, for comparison let's say we're both strikers and do 1d12 damage base (greataxe vs. fullblade, say) with a d8 extra damage kicker for striker goodness, bumping every die every tier for encounter powers and scaling, weapons going to +3 at 11 and +5 at 21st)

"You": 
1st - 1d12+1d8+3 at +5 vs AC 15 (14 avg damage at 55% hit chance, 7.7dpr)
11th - 2d12+2d8+7 at +14 vs. AC 25 (29 avg damage at 50% hit chance, 14.5dpr)
21st - 3d12+3d8+11 at +23 vs. AC 35 (44 avg damage at 45% hit chance, 19.8dpr)
(3,4,6 stat / 0, 3, 5 enh / 0 feat / 0 class / 2 prof)

"Me":
1st - 1d12+1d8+5 at +10 vs AC 15 (14 avg, 80% hit chance, 11.2dpr)
11th - 2d12+2d8+9 at +20 vs AC 25 (29 avg, 80% hit chance, 23.2dpr)
21st - 3d12+3d8+13 at +31 vs AC 35 (44 avg, 85% hit chance, 37.4dpr)
(5, 6, 9 stat / 0, 3, 5 enh / 1, 2, 3 feat / 1 class / 3 prof)

Which results in about a 50% difference early on, widening to almost 100% difference later on.

And that's before adding in other damage bonuses, like feat or item. Every damage bonus you add stretches the gap just a bit more. The real craziness starts when you assume the optimizer also starts picking up extra attacks, while the non-optimizer doesn't... but that's separate from expertise. The basic flaw that "2 type As do the job of 3 type Bs" isn't really a game benefit. Choosing a 16 vs 18 vs 20 is a real choice - you can use those points somewhere else, you can get particular racial benefits, etc. Choosing a +2 vs +3 proficiency is usually a real choice - damage vs accuracy.

Choosing expertise vs not... rapidly becomes a trap choice. Hence, why we get threads like this, and why some of the WotC developers give out expertise for free in their home games, and others added extra benefits to the feats to ensure that people would take them without as much complaint.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 8, 2011)

keterys said:
			
		

> Let's say you're choosing between using a rapier and a kukri.
> 
> Rapier: +3 Proficiency, 1d8 damage
> Kukrui: costs a feat, +2 Proficiency, 1d6 brutal 1 damage
> ...



I want to and do fight with 2 kurkri... And I sill contribute to the game... Heck most seasons people like my character the most.


----------



## keterys (May 8, 2011)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I want to and do fight with 2 kurkri... And I sill contribute to the game...



Of course you do. As noted, it's just 1 less feat, 1 less to hit, and .5 less damage per W. That's probably only 10% worse than another option and most people won't even notice that difference unless they really pay attention to math.

Similarly, a barbarian might choose to use a morningstar instead of a greatsword. It's factually less effective (-1 attack for no other trade) but that doesn't make it utterly ineffective. Or a quarterstaff, for another -1 damage. 

Or a ranger might use a sling instead of a longbow for 2 less damage per W, and half the range.

Escalate to a fullblade or greatbow comparison and more people might start noticing the difference, but eh. That's just how it goes.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 8, 2011)

keterys said:


> Of course you do. As noted, it's just 1 less feat, 1 less to hit, and .5 less damage per W. That's probably only 10% worse than another option and most people won't even notice that difference unless they really pay attention to math.
> 
> Similarly, a barbarian might choose to use a morningstar instead of a greatsword. It's factually less effective (-1 attack for no other trade) but that doesn't make it utterly ineffective. Or a quarterstaff, for another -1 damage.
> 
> ...



If you admit they are nearly noticeable then we agree 


Buy our local math dude hates it... To the point where if he has a bad luck streak he rants about how he mathematical is a better character even if the two in ops did more in a fight


----------



## Umbran (May 9, 2011)

Aulirophile said:


> The people who disagree are either unaware of all the facts _or _are aware of all the facts and are irrational. This isn't really subject to debate, it is nothing but facts...





Let me make everyone aware - unless you can show us all a legal document that says you've been appointed Arbiter of Reality, this form of argument is a complete wash.  Rhetorically, this is an appeal to your own authority, and it fails completely to advance your cause unless you've already gotten people to accept your authority on the matter.  And if they did, they'd probably have accepted your thoughts earlier.  So if you need to say it, it won't help you.

More importantly, asserting that everyone who disagrees with you is either stupid, ignorant or somehow mentally not all together comes off as arrogant, and is rather insulting. It cheeses people off, and starts arguments.

So, really folks, avoid this kind of construction.  Please and thanks.


----------



## Herschel (May 9, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> So, Expertise is either a fix /and/ a feat tax.
> 
> Or it's not a fix, and /is/ an overpowered feat that further widens the gulf between even a casual optimizer and any non-powergamers.
> 
> Can we all agree, then, that the Expertise feats are bad?




The issue with your point is it's made as an absolute( and from a biased viewpoint). That does not break down practical usage in any meaningful way. The foundation of your point has merit obviously, but your conclusion is simply flawed because it states an absolute when it's much more gray. 

It works as a "fix" to balance trade-offs in a character. With so many options in the game, the math can get a bit wonky and rightfully so. That doesn't make it a "need" every character.

It is very strong (and rather bland), but "over-powered" is further than I would say it is. 

As for the "optimizers", they need to realize the game isn't about them. They're kind of useless in figuring out the playability of a game because they are trying to milk the system by nature. 

It also paints everyone with too broad a brush. Some people will build accuracy, some for damage, some for defense, some for shear weirdness. Most will mix & match and do so in degrees and everyone's degree is different. Sure, expertise can widen the gulf but that doesn't mean it always does because again, people generally don't build in absolutes.

So no, I don't think they are bad, I do think they are bland and very powerful. I like having an option in the game if I don't want to stat-match a race/class or take a +2 proficiency weapon because I have a theme in mind. I also don't mind having the option to boost my accuracy if I so desire. They're not my favorite feats, but they're not the end of the world either.


----------



## tiornys (May 9, 2011)

Herschel said:


> It is very strong (and rather bland), but "over-powered" is further than I would say it is.



If you're going to argue that the Expertise feats are not over-powered, you should provide examples of other feats that you believe have a similar power level.  In my opinion, the only combat-related feats that are even close are the Expertise-modeled racial attack boosting feats for dragonborn and gnomes, and frankly I include those under the Expertise label, as they are clearly intended as alternatives to Expertise.  If you can't provide relevant examples, you're effectively conceding that no other feats are close to being as powerful as the Expertise feats are--and that's the definition of an overpowered game element.

t~


----------



## Tony Vargas (May 9, 2011)

Herschel said:


> The issue with your point is it's made as an absolute( and from a biased viewpoint). That does not break down practical usage in any meaningful way. The foundation of your point has merit obviously, but your conclusion is simply flawed because it states an absolute when it's much more gray.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Herschel (May 9, 2011)

I look at it more as an if/then as in if I make these choices then I'll want expertise. If I make "more accurate" choices then I won't need it. It's powerful enough I may still want it but I don't need it.

The math gets wonky because characters face varied baddies. They have different defenses, etc. If things get too homogenous, they get boring.


----------



## TheUltramark (May 9, 2011)

again, I hate to bring down the average intelligence level of this thread with my own brand of dim-wittedness, but...

is toughness a feat-tax too?  Isn't it in the "must have" range of feats?

also - 20 rounds for an epic fight and only two hours isnt so bad.  In a 2e game I played in, the big fight at the end of one particular campaign was easily 4 hours long, and pulse pounding, nail-biting, edge-of-your-seat the entire time.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 9, 2011)

TheUltramark said:


> again, I hate to bring down the average intelligence level of this thread with my own brand of dim-wittedness, but...
> 
> is toughness a feat-tax too?  Isn't it in the "must have" range of feats?




well if I remember right there was atleast a small group a few months ago that had a list longer then the heroic teir amount of feats you get that were 'must have' and there complaint was that it was all forced on them as a feat tax...

I know in my home games one player calls the following ones:

Sup weap prof
Expertise
Weapon focus
Paragon def
some AC up (eaither better armor, unarmored agility)

to the point of not playing in a game that the DM said no sup weapons until after 5th level...

he mostly plays Avengers, Rouges and Rangers (more then 2 of each so far)

he also will not play a race/class combo that does not give +2 to both his prim and second stat (although we do have another player that does that as well)


----------



## tiornys (May 9, 2011)

TheUltramark said:


> again, I hate to bring down the average intelligence level of this thread with my own brand of dim-wittedness, but...
> 
> is toughness a feat-tax too?  Isn't it in the "must have" range of feats?



Toughness is a nice feat, but it has nowhere near the power level of epic-tier Expertise (epic tier being where Expertise grants +3, which is the point where it becomes ridiculously overpowered).

Toughness represents at most a 28% increase in HP (L1 Wizard, 8 Con, no HP boosting background), but by level 2 that drops to 23%, and the percentage continues to drop as the character levels, with spikes at level 11 (17%) and 21 (15%).  By level 30, it's only an 11% increase in HP.  This is a somewhat unrealistic but best case for Toughness.

By Epic tier, a highly optimized character without Expertise can be hitting an on-level skirmisher 75% of the time (20 starting stat bumped every level, Fighter/Rogue weapon talent, +3 proficiency weapon, Kensei, stat-boosting Epic Destiny, +5 weapon at level 21).  In this worst case scenario for the power level of Expertise, +3 to hit represents a 20% increase in the character's offense.  Put this character at level 30 (with a +6 weapon), and the percentage increase is 23%.

So, in a worst case for Expertise and best case for Toughness, Expertise is still a significantly larger boost to a character's offense than Toughness is a boost to  character's durability, except for a couple of levels at the start of a character's career.

If you consider more "average" cases, the comparison is even more lopsided.  That is, for a L1 striker/leader with 25 base HP, Toughness is a 20% gain (13% at 11, 12% at 21, 9% at 30), while for a character who starts with an 18, uses a +3 proficiency weapon, takes a stat-boosting epic destiny, and already has a +5 weapon at L21, Expertise is a 25% boost (30% at level 30).

And this doesn't address the concept that character offense is more important than character defense, or that Expertise has a more comprehensive effect on offense than Toughness has on durability.

So, no, I wouldn't consider Toughness to be at "must-have" power level (or more accurately, I don't consider Toughness to be overpowered, let alone ridiculously overpowered).

t~


----------



## MrGrenadine (May 10, 2011)

tiornys said:


> Toughness is a nice feat, but it has nowhere near the power level of epic-tier Expertise (epic tier being where Expertise grants +3, which is the point where it becomes ridiculously overpowered).




I agree, except I wouldn't label Expertise 'overpowered'.  Toughness is not a feat tax, because its not necessary to make the game work as intended.

Furthermore, in 4e, hitting is everything.  If you need to decide between buffing attacks or damage, buff attacks.  If you need to decide between buffing attacks or hp, buff attacks.  If there's a chance to buff attacks or anything else, buff attacks.

Hitting doesn't just deplete the opponents' hp--its also necessary to add status effects to enemies, or removes status effects from allies.  Hitting triggers healing, allows the attacker to teleport or stop an enemy from teleporting.  Hitting allows pushes, pulls, slides.

Its all about hitting.

That being said, according to the game's designers, characters should be hitting a minimum of 55% of the time.  If a character can do that without taking Expertise, then all is well.  But, if a character can't consistently hit on a 10 or better--which is true more often than not because, in part, monster defenses scale faster than PC attack bonuses--then Expertise is a must-have.


----------



## TheUltramark (May 10, 2011)

tiornys said:


> Toughness is a nice feat, but it has nowhere near the power level of epic-tier Expertise (epic tier being where Expertise grants +3, which is the point where it becomes ridiculously overpowered).
> 
> Toughness represents at most a 28% increase in HP (L1 Wizard, 8 Con, no HP boosting background), but by level 2 that drops to 23%, and the percentage continues to drop as the character levels, with spikes at level 11 (17%) and 21 (15%).  By level 30, it's only an 11% increase in HP.  This is a somewhat unrealistic but best case for Toughness.
> 
> ...




if you make a 30th level character, then yeah, toughness might not be so great

if you make a 1st level character, it REALLY comes in handy (almost to the point of being a must have for the defender, no?)


----------



## keterys (May 10, 2011)

Haven't taken having toughness on any of my (couple dozen) PCs yet, and it's a pretty solid feat.

It's definitely something to look at and consider. Usually about 1-10 feats after however many I'm allowed. Maybe less likely, for certain characters.


----------



## tiornys (May 10, 2011)

TheUltramark said:


> if you make a 30th level character, then yeah, toughness might not be so great
> 
> if you make a 1st level character, it REALLY comes in handy (almost to the point of being a must have for the defender, no?)



Ironically, no.  The Defender gets the least percentage benefit from Toughness at level 1, since they have the highest base HP.  Your typical non-Warden is gaining less than 20% from Toughness (Wardens even less).  Definitely not a must-have there.

Anecdotally, I've seen around 40-50 1st level characters of varying optimization levels in LFR.  Less than 10 had Toughness.  If you look at play-intended builds on CharOp (that is, builds that are meant to be played from levels 1 through 30), you'll find that almost none of them take Toughness either.  There are just too many things to take that are more important--and better at helping you survive to level 2--than Toughness.

Toughness is most valuable for melee strikers and leaders who have strong incentive to allocate most of their stats away from Constitution.  And even then, it's not a top pick.

t~


----------



## TheUltramark (May 10, 2011)

tiornys said:


> Ironically, no.  The Defender gets the least percentage benefit from Toughness at level 1, since they have the highest base HP.  Your typical non-Warden is gaining less than 20% from Toughness (Wardens even less).  Definitely not a must-have there.
> 
> Anecdotally, I've seen around 40-50 1st level characters of varying optimization levels in LFR.  Less than 10 had Toughness.  If you look at play-intended builds on CharOp (that is, builds that are meant to be played from levels 1 through 30), you'll find that almost none of them take Toughness either.  There are just too many things to take that are more important--and better at helping you survive to level 2--than Toughness.
> 
> ...




ok, I am sooo not meaning this to be combative or argumenative, I am genuinely ignorant to this, but dude, you just typed in a language I don;t speak.

Why does % of increase factor into a 1st level character? at that point, isnt sheer number of HP the real concern?

then you got into flr, and optimizationalism, and ...  "play intended builds"
all of which might as well have been in that weird avatar language.

and finally, we have a total of 9 characters in our "group" and 6 of them have toughness, and it has come in handy more than once


----------



## tiornys (May 10, 2011)

TheUltramark said:


> ok, I am sooo not meaning this to be combative or argumenative, I am genuinely ignorant to this, but dude, you just typed in a language I don;t speak.
> 
> Why does % of increase factor into a 1st level character? at that point, isnt sheer number of HP the real concern?
> 
> ...



Heh, sorry.  I get used to "everyone" being familiar with various terms.

The percentages were just used as a metric of comparing Toughness at it's strongest (level 1) to Expertise at the levels where its power level is problematic (Expertise at level 1, while very good, is not ridiculously overpowered).

Anyway, yes, Toughness is good, especially so at level 1.  But even when it's at the zenith of its power, there are several other feats that are competitive or superior.  That keeps it from being a "must have" in the same way that people mean when they say Expertise is a "must have".

t~


----------



## TheUltramark (May 10, 2011)

tiornys said:


> Heh, sorry.  I get used to "everyone" being familiar with various terms.
> 
> The percentages were just used as a metric of comparing Toughness at it's strongest (level 1) to Expertise at the levels where its power level is problematic (Expertise at level 1, while very good, is not ridiculously overpowered).
> 
> ...




wow - I would be scared to have some of you guys sit in at our table, for fear that we are playing WAY wrong.

at first level we were getting pummeled - like veal.  When we all leveled up to level 2, the 3 "in front guys" took toughness.  They were then surviving, where as the some of the middle and rear ranks were dropping, so now at third level:
warden , barbarian, avenger, rogue, cleric, and fighter all have toughness
the sorcerer, psion, and shaman do not


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 10, 2011)

You ARE playing it wrong..._and so is everybody else!_


----------



## eamon (May 10, 2011)

MrGrenadine said:


> Hitting doesn't just deplete the opponents' hp--its also necessary to add status effects to enemies, or removes status effects from allies.  Hitting triggers healing, allows the attacker to teleport or stop an enemy from teleporting.  Hitting allows pushes, pulls, slides.



In complete agreement.  To go one step further (in case it's not obvious), hitting more often means your opponents die faster and in the period before their defeat will thus deal less damage (and other effects) to you.  

The same argument goes for defenses, of course: the better your defenses, the longer you survive, thus the more damage you can deal.  The difference is in the "details": it's quite feasible to maintain a hit ratio of 55% (and situationally much higher), whereas it's virtually impossible to maintain decent defenses, certainly if you consider NADs which (even if you take improved defenses and otherwise focus on them) will generally be trivially hit by monsters.

Scaling defenses is also more difficult because it involves 4 stats, and almost no rule elements boost all four.  Tactics also plays a role; 4e is quite team-play and combo focused, and pulling off a groups best combat tends to require a series of attacks - if one fails, the rest are weakened too.  So there's a kind of multiplier going on: the more accurate your attacks, the more elaborate team plays you can make.  On the monster side of the fence, the same is generally much less the case for various reasons.  Focusing on attacks over defenses reduces combat length; again, a factor in PC's favor, who have a limited number of encounter/daily powers that don't recharge and represent a greater improvement over their at-wills than monsters' recharge powers.  So as the combat takes longer, the scales slowly shift to the monsters' favor: if you can't win using dailies and encounter powers, then by the time both sides are down to at-wills (and the monster to occasional recharge powers), the PC's have lost more.

Then there's the fun!  It's just more fun to dramatically and swiftly kill things rather than merely die so slowly you win by default.  It's fun to build the occasional tough-as-nails tank valuing survivability over offense, but most characters are more dependent on their active abilities, and while one defensive turtle in a party can be cool, as a strategy for an entire party, it's not fun.

So, there's truly _lots_ of ways in which 4e encourages focus on offense over defense.  When it's easy to get or critical to your role/character concept, defenses make sense, but that's the exception, not the norm.


----------



## tiornys (May 10, 2011)

TheUltramark said:


> wow - I would be scared to have some of you guys sit in at our table, for fear that we are playing WAY wrong.
> 
> at first level we were getting pummeled - like veal.  When we all leveled up to level 2, the 3 "in front guys" took toughness.  They were then surviving, where as the some of the middle and rear ranks were dropping, so now at third level:
> warden , barbarian, avenger, rogue, cleric, and fighter all have toughness
> the sorcerer, psion, and shaman do not



Hey, if everyone is having fun, then you aren't playing the game "wrong".  I suspect that your group has room to improve in terms of tactical acumen, but play experience should solve that.  Toughness is definitely good for buying you space to deal with misfortune, whatever the source.

Here's another perspective on Toughness:  Toughness gives you extra HP.  HP are a measure of how much damage you can take, which (along with your defenses) is roughly a measure of how many attacks team monster needs to make in order to drop you to unconscious.  A level 1 monster has an average at-will damage per hit of about 8.5, with limited damage expressions averaging about 10-12.  Since a monster hits you around half the time, the 5 HP from Toughness represent roughly one extra attack that you can absorb before falling unconscious.

Now consider a feat like Dwarven Weapon Training (admittedly, one of the strongest available feats at 1st level).  DWT lets you upgrade from a Warhammer to a Craghammer, and adds 2 bonus damage on top of that upgrade.  That's an average of 3 extra damage per hit.  More precisely, it increases your expected damage per hit from 9.5 to 12.5, which is a 32% increase in damage.  That's generally enough to reduce a 4 round kill to a 3 round kill (3*1.32=3.96, or almost 4), easily sufficient to drop a 5 round kill to a 4 round kill, and goes a long way towards reducing a 3 round kill to a 2 round kill.  If you kill a monster one round faster, you've effectively denied it the chance to make an attack.

So on the one hand, you have a feat that lets you absorb an extra attack.  On the other you have a feat that denies team monster an extra attack.  There's a rough equivalency there, but for various reasons, denying an attack is slightly better than absorbing an attack, especially because it's easier to make enough attacks for DWT to result in multiple denied attacks than it is to receive enough healing for Toughness to result in multiple absorbed attacks.

t~


----------



## Herschel (May 10, 2011)

tiornys said:


> Ironically, no. The Defender gets the least percentage benefit from Toughness at level 1, since they have the highest base HP. Your typical non-Warden is gaining less than 20% from Toughness (Wardens even less). Definitely not a must-have there.
> t~




This is simply an incomplete view in practical play. Battleminds, certain fighters, certain wardens and Shielding Swordmages are fine without it, but Assault Swordmages, Tempest Fighters, etc. generally get a huge amount of mileage out of it (as do the melee strikers and leaders). If you only want to choose from half the defender builds then yeah, it's not an issue. (though it still can help in numerous situations)

It also depends on what backgrounds are available to help mitigate a lower Con score (Durable comes in to play also). Defenders draw the most attacks and take the most damage. They get a huge benefit from it early on. Training out later is okay but it is great to have at level 1 and arguably until level 4 (depending on party composition).

And yes, party composition is big too. If there are numerous melee combatants to take pressure off the defender then some of those hits will go elsewhere, but in a range-heavy band the defender generally takes more hits.

And of course, the DM's choice of opposition is the biggest swing factor of all.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 10, 2011)

Depends how much you are fokussed. The leader can make good use of another 5 hp.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 10, 2011)

tiornys said:


> Ironically, no.  The Defender gets the least percentage benefit from Toughness at level 1, since they have the highest base HP.  Your typical non-Warden is gaining less than 20% from Toughness (Wardens even less).



This is the problem with this type of purely mathematical analysis: it does not factor in the utility that a defender receives from those hit points, relative to a controller.

A wizard's hit points are just not as important to him as a fighter's are to the fighter. So while the fighter might receive less of a benefit, as a percentage of his total hit points, the utility he receives from those additional hit points is much greater than the wizard's, since the fighter expects to need those hit points to soak all the hits he's going to be taking as a defender. More hit points and a higher surge value are valuable to those characters expected to get attacked a lot.

How much greater? I don't think that can be accurately calculated.


----------



## tiornys (May 10, 2011)

Certainly.  I'm not trying to say that Toughness isn't a good feat, because it is.  I absolutely agree that it's one of the stronger feats available at lower levels.  My point is simply that it does not approach the power level of epic tier Expertise, nor does it outclass other feats the way Expertise does.  Therefore, it is not ridiculously overpowered, nor is it a "must have" in the sense that some people use that term in relation to Expertise.

t~


----------



## FireLance (May 11, 2011)

Warning: OT quip ahead.

[SBLOCK=Secret comment. You not tiornys, you no read.]







tiornys said:


> desires a dream of destiny but despairs of death and destruction



Just noticed the status line above, and I wanted to ask:

Don't you delight in delirium, Daniel? The possibilities are endless. [/SBLOCK]


----------



## tiornys (May 11, 2011)

[sblock=Off Topic]







FireLance said:


> Warning: OT quip ahead.
> 
> Just noticed the status line above, and I wanted to ask:
> 
> Don't you delight in delirium, Daniel? The possibilities are endless.



Shhh!  You'll give away the gag when I get around to updating my status!

I noticed the oversight a day after I made that my tagline, but decided to roll with it and eventually update to something like "has become delirious" or "delights in his delirium" or mix my sources and go really obscure with "enjoys watching euphoric fireflies".[/sblock]


----------



## FireLance (May 11, 2011)

tiornys said:


> [sblock=Off Topic]Shhh![/sblock]



Done!


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 12, 2011)

on the wotc board someone asked for help with the 'math problem' and I of cource defended the no hole theory.. but then I proposed the following and I want to know if you guys think it would be fair...




> now at level 1 you have +x to hit. and monster s have Y AC were X is between +5 (16 stat and +2 prof) and +9  (+1 class, +3 prof, 20 stat) and Y is between 13-17
> 
> 
> over 29 levels  the PCs gain 8-10 stat bumps and 15 half level, and 6 magic and 1 or 0 class bonus
> ...


----------



## Aulirophile (May 12, 2011)

Your numbers are still wrong. I'll ask the same question: you self-admitted you didn't understand the math, how can you competently claim there is no problem if you can't do the math? 

Nothing else fixes the problem. You fall behind by 4. There is nothing else in the whole game that even comes close to making up for that _and _the developers admitted this was a mistake. We don't need to speculate, it isn't a theory. We know there is a scaling issue that isn't intended. 

Sigh.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 12, 2011)

Aulirophile said:


> Your numbers are still wrong. I'll ask the same question: you self-admitted you didn't understand the math, how can you competently claim there is no problem if you can't do the math?




1, what did I do wrong this time?
2, even with out the math being right, there are other things...and I really belive that the math is only a theory work, and that as much as theory had it's place (and belive it or not I am thankful there are people that do that math theory stuff) at the end of the day what happens in play matter more. IF the math and theory says A but on the other hand 2 million years of playing proves B then B is right even if we do not know why... 

     ((((Last night on mythbusters they handled a neuton physics quastion that in theory should be something...and all the numbers say it is so...but it did not work that way it was busted (blow your own sail)... that show alone has on many diffrent epasodes show just becuse everyone belives X does not make X true)



> Nothing else fixes the problem. You fall behind by 4. .



so as per my above examples...


> then PC A has at 30 level +36 and PC B has at 30 level +30 to hit... since Y is the same spread 42-46
> so PC A needs a 6 to hit an easy one and a 10 for the hard one... PC B needs a 12 to hit the easy one and a 16 for the hard one... notice giving a +3 to PC A makes it WAY overly easy, and PC B gets brought back into line with PC A with out it...




with a 6 point diffrence between PC A and B how can both be 4pts behind? heck with a +36 to hit and a 42 AC if I give a +4 more then I only miss on a 1...how is that fair?? 



> There is nothing else in the whole game that even comes close to making up for that _and _the developers admitted this was a mistake. We don't need to speculate, it isn't a theory. We know there is a scaling issue that isn't intended.
> 
> Sigh.




now you are just makeing things up... Mike mearls stated that was not true here on enworld...diffrent devs have diffrent opions on it (being human that happens)  but as a whole they have NEVER said that...

  It is theory craft becuse IN GAME pre PHB2 atleast 100 games played epic...

I can tell you I layed epic 2 times pre pHB2

We had MORE players saying epic was easy then hard and almost none saying it was impossable.

I am sick and tired of being dismissed...it is insulting in the worst way...and this time even not the point so lets try this again...

If you really want to be fair and balanced try this... every 5 levels ask what the PCs have for attack Vs AC and Attack Vs FOrt, and Att vs Ref and Att vs Will... then do the avrage (add togather divied by number of players) then give anyone under that avrage a +1...


----------



## Herschel (May 12, 2011)

GMforPowergamers said:


> on the wotc board someone asked for help with the 'math problem' and I of cource defended the no hole theory.. but then I proposed the following and I want to know if you guys think it would be fair...




For those who believe there's a huge math problem, it doesn't address that directly. It addresses party attack bonus disparity.


----------



## Aulirophile (May 12, 2011)

Was stated at the developer Q&A panel, Gencon 2008, that is the official line from the development _team. _Period. I can see you haven't read the thread, I encourage you to do so, because those are the facts. If you want to not be aware of the facts in a debate and then feel insulted that you're dismissed... well, that is roughly equivalent to someone who says the Earth is flat being left out of an Earth Science debate. Mythbusters analogy is null, this isn't science, it is pure math with stated postulates. It doesn't have any interactions with the physical world to throw it off. 

Also Mike Mearls is the same guy who said that Barbarian 2h powers didn't need to be errata'd... a month before they were errata'd. Incompetent does not begin to describe him, he's damn near worse then CS about the game. So even if he did say that... well. Also Mike gives out expertise free in his home games. /eyeroll.

Monster AC is level+14 (there is no "spread" the math is done vs the even level standard, deviations up/down involve elite/solo/level differences, which are different for a reason. One way you're numbers are wrong). PC A needs an 8+ to hit, which is expected, he went with an 18 stat and a +3 weapon, which ups his minimum by 10%. PC B needs a 14+ to hit, which is... 4 pts under the minimum. Expertise. He's almost at the minimum... one off. Almost as if he fell behind by 4 and made up 3 of it. 

PC B is wrong, mathematically, from what the designers _said _was intended. 

And, again, if you want to bring this down to an anecdotal experience argument: I win. 

If you want credibility, operate from the established facts. The only thing truly up for debate is _how _to fix the hole, not whether the hole exists. Developers originally thought Expertise Feats are the best Fix (even though they give them out free in all of their home games, which is generally considered the best solution. Generic Expertise that is, many of the Essentials ones are just plain worth taking even without the hit... so they leave those open for people to take for that benefit). Lately they decided that rolling in a second feat into them was the best solution.


----------



## MrMyth (May 12, 2011)

Aulirophile said:


> Nothing else fixes the problem. You fall behind by 4.




The problem remains that you keep treating these two sentences as identical, when they are completely disconnected. Yes, you fall behind by 4. 

You also quadruple the number of encounter and daily powers, not to mention utility powers, paragon path and epic destiny features, over a dozen feats and numerous magic items.... with many of those abilities being, by far, more potent than similar abilities at level 1. 

Now, you _feel _this doesn't compensate for the lost 4 points of bonuses. You claim that all those benefits only amount to the equivalent of a +1 bonus to hit, presumably, since Expertise would make up for the other 3 points. I don't agree, myself, but I can somewhat see how you could make such an assumption, presumably based on the idea that monster capabilities also scale, even if not to the same extent. 

But the idea that that is the _only _interpretation is where I really have to disagree. I can accept that you _feel _the lost numbers are far more significant than the acquired powers, items, feats and features. But your claim is that you have mathematically _proven _that this is so... and you haven't. We haven't seen any such math. 

For myself, I'll maintain that the various benefits PCs acquire over the levels more than make up for the lost points of raw math. Especially given those benefits can include those lost points _and more_. Feel free to disagree, sure, but you certainly haven't proven your interpretation any more mathematically correct than our own.


----------



## Aulirophile (May 12, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> The problem remains that you keep treating these two sentences as identical, when they are completely disconnected. Yes, you fall behind by 4.
> 
> You also quadruple the number of encounter and daily powers, not to mention utility powers, paragon path and epic destiny features, over a dozen feats and numerous magic items.... with many of those abilities being, by far, more potent than similar abilities at level 1.
> 
> ...



It doesn't compensate. Math. Welcome to do it yourself. Have fun. For the record your conclusion will be that the increase in DPE (damage per encounter) from more encounter powers neatly compensates for the way monster HP scales, assuming you do the math competently and assume minimum bench marks, because the system doesn't give a damn if combats are shorter, only if they are longer (oh, and the ability to use one daily per encounter in a four encounter work day). Also... by level 11 you have almost all the attack powers you're going to get (barring the level 20 PP daily). The problem is most pronounced at Epic. Argument seems a little off. You quadruple your powers and then it becomes a problem much later. Wait. 

That is in addition to the developer statements, and their experience of 14+ round combats during playtesting without the minimum (but with all the fancy powers you mentioned). I don't "feel" anything. I'm dealing with objective facts, derived from math and the people who, literally, built the system we're playing in. You're not. So I can understand how you_ feel _you know what you're talking about, but you don't. 

And actually I don't claim that at all, the other +1 is made up for by taking a stat boosting ED. If you didn't fall behind by 4 and took a stat boosting ED you'd be ahead by 1. This is why non-stat boosting EDs or ones without a reroll mechanic are, usually, quite bad. I consider that to be a separate issue though, though still related to game design.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 12, 2011)

Aulirophile said:


> Was stated at the developer Q&A panel, Gencon 2008, that is the official line from the development _team. _Period. I can see you haven't read the thread, I encourage you to do so, because those are the facts. If you want to not be aware of the facts in a debate and then feel insulted that you're dismissed... well, that is roughly equivalent to someone who says the Earth is flat being left out of an Earth Science debate.




ok, I may be wrong (I still do not belive I am) but you sir are a rude mean spirited person... I am sick and tired of personal things comeing up... but lets try your way...

earth is round is a fact... it is not math...but people in space (astrnuts) can see it that way, satalitels work that way...

math whole is math theory NOT A FACT... stop claiming you won mid arguement.





> Mythbusters analogy is null, this isn't science, it is pure math with stated postulates. It doesn't have any interactions with the physical world to throw it off.





wrong you do all the math theory you want... play testing in large numbers trumps theory... and 3 or so years of playing by atleast a thousand groups is worth way more then numbers ever will...

   You can't make a cement boat, you can;t blow your own sail. you can;t hit at epic... all fine in theory but in pratice you CAN build a cement boat (someone did) you can blow your own sail (last night on mythbusters) you can hit at epic and play fien with out expertise...

so my mythbuster anogoly that you don't like is a great example of ignoreing what you don't like... didn't you say something about people like that???



> If you want to not be aware of the facts in a debate and then feel insulted that you're dismissed... well, that is roughly equivalent to someone who says the Earth is flat being left out of an Earth Science debate







> Also Mike Mearls is the same guy who said that Barbarian 2h powers didn't need to be errata'd... a month before they were errata'd. Incompetent does not begin to describe him, he's damn near worse then CS about the game. So even if he did say that... well. Also Mike gives out expertise free in his home games. /eyeroll.




so just to be sure on this... Some of the developers are dumb and not worthy of quoteing or listening to... but the devs agree with you...  

that is the most crazy thing I ever read...




> Monster AC is level+14 (there is no "spread" the math is done vs the even level standard, deviations up/down involve elite/solo/level differences, which are different for a reason. One way you're numbers are wrong).




Um soldier, lurker and other each have diffrent ACs Level+X





> PC B is wrong, mathematically, from what the designers _said _was intended.




ok, so starting with a 16 str as a warlord with a battle axe is wrong???



> And, again, if you want to bring this down to an anecdotal experience argument: I win.




It is funny but no matter what anyone says you say that...



> If you want credibility, operate from the established facts. The only thing truly up for debate is _how _to fix the hole, not whether the hole exists.




so then how did the game work for the year after phb 1 before phb2?




> Developers originally thought Expertise Feats are the best Fix (even though they give them out free in all of their home games, which is generally considered the best solution. Generic Expertise that is, many of the Essentials ones are just plain worth taking even without the hit... so they leave those open for people to take for that benefit). Lately they decided that rolling in a second feat into them was the best solution.




see I still dont see it... they listen to people complain ad adjust it... but they also listen to people who like me say I don't want PCs getting more to hit without spending feats...

they are walking the tight rope trying to keep everyone happy...and failing


now about the math:


> Monster AC is level+14 (there is no "spread" the math is done vs the even level standard, deviations up/down involve elite/solo/level differences, which are different for a reason. One way you're numbers are wrong). PC A needs an 8+ to hit, which is expected, he went with an 18 stat and a +3 weapon, which ups his minimum by 10%. PC B needs a 14+ to hit, which is... 4 pts under the minimum. Expertise. He's almost at the minimum... one off. Almost as if he fell behind by 4 and made up 3 of it.




lets go back here to my post...



> then PC A has at 30 level +36 and PC B has at 30 level +30 to hit... since Y is the same spread 42-46
> so PC A needs a 6 to hit an easy one and a 10 for the hard one... PC B needs a 12 to hit the easy one and a 16 for the hard one... notice giving a +3 to PC A makes it WAY overly easy, and PC B gets brought back into line with PC A with out it...




pg 184 dmg1  brute and artillary have AC Level +12 so 42 at 30th level
Lurker, skirisher, and controler have an AC of Level+14 so 44 at 30th level
Soldiers have Level +16 so 46 at 30th level

I also belive that Monsters have a small range that things are in flux (and in our home games we play with it a bit) so the range of 42-46 come from level 30 monsters

at level 30 a PC with +36 is possible, and a PC with +30 is possible... even then I belive that if you really go full character op you can get atleast 3 or 4 more...if not more. However I will say 30-36 is a good range for MOST pcs...

so PC to hits range from 30-36 and Monster AC is 42-46... so where is my math off??






> then PC A has at 30 level +36 and PC B has at 30 level +30 to hit... since Y is the same spread 42-46
> so PC A needs a 6 to hit an easy one and a 10 for the hard one... PC B needs a 12 to hit the easy one and a 16 for the hard one... notice giving a +3 to PC A makes it WAY overly easy, and PC B gets brought back into line with PC A with out it...




Both PC fight a monster with a 42 AC, one needs a 6 and the other needs a 12...

both PCs fight a monster with a 46 AC, one needs a 10 the other needs 16...

that math is 100% right...

now if you do not want to debate, if you feel there is no debate... why post here at all were we are discussing it?

I even keep an open mind... if you can PROVE that all the other variables (items,feats,powers, epic destiny, paragon path, now themes) play in it as well and do not make up the diffrence... then I will relent 

However I have seen PCs min maxed (with expertise) that need 2 or 3s to miss well the rest of the group ranges from needing 10-14s to hit the same target... so If the feat was built in the min maxed pc would then get a diffrent (the next best most likely) feat and be MORE powerful...and I dont want that.

until you can explain to me why a warforged fighter kensi demigod that started with a 20 str and has the warforged feat for a bonus if an ally is adjacent, and a maxed out everything else NEEDS a +4 more..or +3 more or heck even a +1 more to hit...

+5 str +1 class +3 prof at level 1 is +9
+10 str +2 class (1 fighter 1 kensi)+ 3 prof, +1 feat, +15 level +6 magic=+37 ti hit (check my math) 

now a soldier of equal level is 46 AC... a soldier 5 levels higher has a 51 (The hardest AC you can ever face)

so 46-37 is 9... and 51-37 is 14 (go ahead check my math)

tell me what math whole that character faces.... and heck he can (with no leader) try for combat advantage +2... or get rerolls...

[sblock=personal experance]sorry I have seen that character in my games. He needs no help...infact he had expertise and was hitting on a 6-11 instead of 9-14...[/sblock]

add in leader bonuses... yea...


In my home game int eh heroic teir right now I am trying to make a truely scarey enemy for the end game...someone they are seeing now, a god killing warrior who is 'unbeatable' and is about to declairhimself king... I set him as a level 36 elite soldier with the monster build on (Very high) AC... witch gives him a 55...and I think my PCs will be fine with that (although to be fair part of that is a house rule that is why they will be able to handle it, as you see basic PCs would never beat it)


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 12, 2011)

Aulirophile said:


> And actually I don't claim that at all, the other +1 is made up for by taking a stat boosting ED. If you didn't fall behind by 4 and took a stat boosting ED you'd be ahead by 1. This is why non-stat boosting EDs or ones without a reroll mechanic are, usually, quite bad. I consider that to be a separate issue though, though still related to game design.




i want to adress this sepratly...

You really belive that if my epic destiny give no reroll, and no stat bump it is bad, and nothing can make up for that??


----------



## Umbran (May 12, 2011)

Aulirophile said:


> And, again, if you want to bring this down to an anecdotal experience argument: I win.





And if you want to make this about winning and losing, you will lose.

Crank it back several notches in your aggressive tone, please.  This forum exists for folks to discuss, teach, and learn.  Right now, you come across as trying to browbeat into submission.


----------



## keterys (May 12, 2011)

It's worth note that basing epic easiness without expertise, but also without post-MM3 damage values, and possibly without healing bonus errata, may not necessarily be that instructive. For example, it was actually possible to get to a state where PCs healed as much damage as monsters dealt, but combats still took 10 or so rounds.

On a more moderatey note: 
Keep responses civil. There is no excuse.

That includes not insulting any WotC designer, especially one who has often posted here on enworld, and is a ridiculously nice and honest guy.

That includes not belittling anyone's math, logic, or gut feelings about the game based on their own play experience.

Respectfully disagree all you want, but if you can't avoid becoming passionate or insulting about a topic. Don't post in that topic.

Edit: Bah, thread got a lot worse pre and post meeting. Going to leave it up there, even though Umbran beat me to it, to echo the point.


----------



## MrMyth (May 12, 2011)

Aulirophile said:


> It doesn't compensate. Math. Welcome to do it yourself. Have fun. For the record your conclusion will be that the increase in DPE (damage per encounter) from more encounter powers neatly compensates for the way monster HP scales, assuming you do the math competently and assume minimum bench marks, because the system doesn't give a damn if combats are shorter, only if they are longer (oh, and the ability to use one daily per encounter in a four encounter work day). Also... by level 11 you have almost all the attack powers you're going to get (barring the level 20 PP daily). The problem is most pronounced at Epic. Argument seems a little off. You quadruple your powers and then it becomes a problem much later. Wait.




I've looked at the numbers, and what I've seen generally shows that monster hp alone doesn't keep up with the benefits acquired by the average PC. I am not positive of this, admittedly, since pinning down the benefits of the 'average PC' is the really tricky part of the equation, and I am doubtful you can do so. But, if you _have _actually found a way to do so, feel free to show me. 

By level 30, a PC can have acquired a +1 or +2 bonus to hit from items, a +1 bonus from stat-bumps/etc via their Epic Destiny, a +1 bonus to hit from a Paragon Path, various conditional bonuses to hit via feats, and various temporary bonuses to hit via powers. 

Now, do those benefits represent the average PC? No, probably not. But the rules - as built by the designers you, yourselves, are championing as infallible - will assume that equivalent benefits are being acquired, certainly. It is harder to measure these bonuses, especially the more intangible they get - but they are there. Dismissing them as irrelevant, or assuming that 'monster hp' somehow automatically makes up for them seems... well, not the sort of objective conclusion you are laying claim to. 

I can certainly accept if you _feel _monster hp makes up for such things. But if you want to claim otherwise via absolute truth, you'll need to demonstrate so. First by finding a way to delineate what the average benefits are that a PC will likely acquire via these options, and then showing how those effect the math over the course of a PC's career. 



Aulirophile said:


> That is in addition to the developer statements, and their experience of 14+ round combats during playtesting without the minimum (but with all the fancy powers you mentioned). I don't "feel" anything. I'm dealing with objective facts, derived from math and the people who, literally, built the system we're playing in. You're not. So I can understand how you_ feel _you know what you're talking about, but you don't.




Wait, you believe that 14+ round combats are the norm in the absence of Expertise? If that isn't what you are claiming, you may wish to provide some exact quotes, here. 

As it is, though, the developers also felt that their initial fix of the Skill Challenge DCs was correct (though it wasn't), and eventually they corrected that. I will certainly give their views a lot more weight than most, but they aren't infallible, and they _do _tend to try to put forward whatever proof they can to support their current iteration of the rules. 

You keep making claim to objective fact. I keep... not seeing any proof of this. If you want me to believe that the benefits PCs acquire from levels 1 - 30 are exactly compensated for by increased, hitpoints, please show me. Simply claiming this as fact, and continuing to state that all other views are made because I "don't know what I'm talking about"... well, it's a relatively insulting form of discussion, and not really an approach that supports your case all that well. 



Aulirophile said:


> And actually I don't claim that at all, the other +1 is made up for by taking a stat boosting ED. If you didn't fall behind by 4 and took a stat boosting ED you'd be ahead by 1. This is why non-stat boosting EDs or ones without a reroll mechanic are, usually, quite bad. I consider that to be a separate issue though, though still related to game design.




What about gaining that +1 to hit from... a Paragon Path? Or an item? Or from feats? 

If you consider it possible - and even expected - to do so in one place, why are the other avenues disregarded? Or even the potential to acquire the benefit from all of those sources? 

Or, often, the potential to acquire an _equivalent _benefit? It's true not all Epic Destinies are created equal. But that doesn't mean they are automatically worse, either. How does the Deadly Trickster's 3 free rerolls stack up against that bonus? Or the Harbringer of Doom rerolling all natural 1s? Or an extra use of a daily power? Or the Glorious Spirit doing +2d8 damage and ignoring the resistances of one enemy? Or the Godmind making an enemy vulnerable 5 psychic for an encounter? 

Can benefits like these compare to a loss of a +1 bonus to hit? One might argue so. And the various benefits of feats, items, and powers can add up too.


----------



## eamon (May 12, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> By level 30, a PC can have acquired a +1 or +2 bonus to hit from items, a +1 bonus from stat-bumps/etc via their Epic Destiny, a +1 bonus to hit from a Paragon Path, various conditional bonuses to hit via feats, and various temporary bonuses to hit via powers.



It may be _possible _for some build to get all of these things, but it's certainly not typical. I usually assume 1 extra +1 - that's fairly normal.  In particular, +1's from items, paragon paths, and conditional feats are far from common.

Note also that the game plays very poorly if PC's hit rarely.  Conversely, if they hit a bit more, it doesn't actually change much - the assumption has always been that creatures hit more often than not, particularly if they spend some tactical ammo to get a conditional bonus.

I just don't see conditional bonuses _ever_ really adding up to all that much.  Barring the rare item/paragon path (and don't underestimate the opportunity costs for getting these), most other conditional bonuses are uncertain at the best of times, and _if_ they work, they tend to last for a fraction of one encounter - a tiny fraction of the nominal adventuring day.

Over the course of 29 levels, that's +15+4stat+6enh+1something.

 Frankly, in my experience, even _with_ expertise, item bonuses to damage etc, combats take too long in late paragon/early epic (no experience later than that, but I presume it's worse).  I'm sure maximal charop might help, but that's an unsatisfactory requirement.

So the typical attack bonus falls behind, the typical damage bonus falls behind, and in my experience I've yet to see abilities that compensate.

For example, I've seen an artificer with some attack-roll boosting paragon path.  When he hits with his at-will magic weapon (which is itself with a +3 weapon, and the power has a built-in +1), adjacent PC's get a +3 (!) bonus to attack rolls.  But... magic weapon still misses, the leader uses other powers, and PC's aren't always clustered (and if they are... hehe).  As a percentage of attacks in a combat, perhaps just 10% are made made with this bonus, even though it's a focus of the tactics - it's just not that _practically_ easy to do this all the time - people aren't always adjacent, the leader misses, the leader chooses to use something else, the leader's attacks himself don't get the bonus, and sometimes the leader's stunned or otherwise incapacitated.

I've also helped build a seeker with lots of ranged basic attacks (this for a player that likes simple, effective PCs without too many twiddly bits).  That guy gets an absolutely uniquely powerful boost in things like eagle eye goggles.  But... it's a seeker, and still not super powerful.  And many of the best powers, even for seekers, are not ranged basic attacks.

So I can only conclude that the plainly obvious (basic) numbers fall behind without expertise, and that even with expertise _and_ some pretty twinked out attack rolls my experience is that the game gets grindier at high levels (of course, that's also cause damage doesn't scale well).

In addition, the moment a few PC's find some of those elusive attack bonuses, you get intra-party imbalance.  Particularly because people tend to focus on a few things - e.g. the 20 post-racial seeker with a crossbow and eagle eye goggles vs. the 18 post racial ranger with a longbow - that might end up being a systematic +6 difference (!).  That's huge, but can be OK so long as the ranger hits 55% of the time and the seeker 85%.  It's not going to be somewhat frustrating if the seeker hits 70% of the time and the ranger 40% (this would be without expertise).  And if the party ever encounters any even mildly overlevel opponents...

And while PC's get better powers, so do monsters - and these often get really nasty aura's, broad immunities, and extremely powerful at-wills - so that's not necessarily a net positive.

So basically, I just can't see how the game is improved by leaving out the expertise bonus.  Of course you fix it on the DM side of the screen, by reducing the level of opponents as levels rise, or by maintaining the DMG guidelines but reducing attack bonuses.

I think it's also really important to note that the problems with never hitting are much worse that the problems of always hitting.  If both PC's and monsters hit almost always, the game remains playable - this is perhaps not ideal balance, but not a huge problem.  But if hit rates go very low, things get really boring and/or really frustrating.  So as a basic design, you're much better off having a decent baseline that ensures any non-gimped PC will hit reasonably often, and go from there.  If that means that twinked out PC's hit lots of times - that's OK.


----------



## MrMyth (May 12, 2011)

eamon said:


> It may be _possible _for some build to get all of these things, but it's certainly not typical. I usually assume 1 extra +1 - that's fairly normal. In particular, +1's from items, paragon paths, and conditional feats are far from common.




Yeah, like I said, I don't expect that to be typical. But PCs are generally getting some other benefits in place of that, and those benefits add up. 

And as I've said from the start, I don't know this for sure. That's really been my point - figuring out what the _average _is, and measuring it, is not something that is easy to do. It's certainly been my experience that PCs acquire capabilities that more than compensate for the number difference. But, as noted, experience really doesn't count for all that much, and I don't think we have any easy way to fully analyze what the average actually _is_. 



eamon said:


> Note also that the game plays very poorly if PC's hit rarely. Conversely, if they hit a bit more, it doesn't actually change much - the assumption has always been that creatures hit more often than not, particularly if they spend some tactical ammo to get a conditional bonus.




I don't really think this is true. If the game is balance on the assumption that PCs will hit 55% of the time, and at Epic levels, with Expertise, they are hitting 80-90% of the time... well, that has an impact. (Presumably that impact involves the DM inventing harder monsters.)



eamon said:


> I just don't see conditional bonuses _ever_ really adding up to all that much. Barring the rare item/paragon path (and don't underestimate the opportunity costs for getting these), most other conditional bonuses are uncertain at the best of times, and _if_ they work, they tend to last for a fraction of one encounter - a tiny fraction of the nominal adventuring day.
> 
> Over the course of 29 levels, that's +15+4stat+6enh+1something.




My theory - and I admit it is only that - is that by level 30, of those '4 missing points', PCs have gained 1 point via a direct source (item/Epic Destiny/Paragon Path/feat/etc), have gained 1 effective point via more reliably gaining combat advantage, have gained 1 effective point via encounter powers that provide temporary bonuses to them or penalties to the enemies, and the final 1 point is compensated for by the various other benefits of their higher level encounter/daily powers, whether that be from making multiple attacks or targeting different defenses or so forth. 

Now, can you end up with a level 30 character who has not acquired any direct additional bonuses to hit, whose higher level powers _only _provide some additional Ws and nothing else, and whose party does not feature _any _powers that provide temporary buffs or debuffs? Yes, it is possible. But I don't think it is any more common - and probably even _less _common - than the group who has all of that, and hits enemies on a 2+ with multiple rerolls available. 



eamon said:


> Frankly, in my experience, even _with_ expertise, item bonuses to damage etc, combats take too long in late paragon/early epic (no experience later than that, but I presume it's worse). I'm sure maximal charop might help, but that's an unsatisfactory requirement.




I admit that high level combats do take longer than they should, but generally that is in real world time, not in the actual number of rounds in game. But, again, just in my experience. 

But again, I'll readily admit that experiences may be different, and it could be I'm wrong. Maybe monster capabilities do scale more potently than it appears on paper, maybe PC benefits don't always add up. I tend to believe otherwise, based on my own look at the numbers and my own experiences, but I certainly don't believe I've proven it. 

I just don't think anyone has proven the opposite side, either. And that's mainly what I've been objecting - the putting forth of a single possibility, a single interpretation, as absolute fact. (Which I don't think is what you've done here, for the record!)


----------



## Fifth Element (May 12, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> And as I've said from the start, I don't know this for sure. That's really been my point - figuring out what the _average _is, and measuring it, is not something that is easy to do.



This is the point I was trying to make with my comment about the relative value of the Toughness feat to wizards and fighters.

The math in 4E is easy...so long as you don't consider all the stuff that makes it not easy. There are many resources that a character has that cannot be directly translated to a "+X to attack" equivalency. And those resources increase as the character gains levels. You can determine for yourself whether you think these things balance out the "gap", but any claims of objectivity are specious.


----------



## tiornys (May 12, 2011)

As noted above, looking at only the attack rate ignores half of the scaling issue.  The other half is:  how many hits does it take to drop a monster?  At 1st level, a skirmisher has about 30 HP (exactly 30 with 14 Con).  A first level non-striker with no investment is going to average somewhere between 8 and 10 damage per hit, with higher damage values tending to occur on lower accuracy attacks.  Strikers will average about 4 more damage.  So, first level skirmishers are dying in somewhere between 2 and 4 hits.  Increase the levels and you start to see some decay in the rate of monster kill, depending on how generous you are with increasing PC damage.  Looking at 3rd level PCs and 3rd level skirmishers, it's taking more like 3-5 hits, although it rapidly becomes much more difficult to make reasonable assumptions about player damage values.  Still, let's lowball it.  Non-striker: 16 stat, 1d8 weapon/power: 7.5 average damage.  At third level, we'll add 1 damage for a magic weapon.  That's 4 hits to kill the 1st level skirmisher, and 5.4 hits to kill the 3rd level one.

Now let's look at 21st level (where PC damage just got a boost due to doubling the dice on at-will attacks).  A 21st level skirmisher with the same 14 Con has 190 HP.  Let's take a PC with a 20 starting stat, boosted to 28 (max possible).  A 1d12 weapon (and remember, 2[W] now).  +5 enhancement.  +4 item bonus from Iron Armbands or similar.  And heck, why not a +3 feat bonus from Weapon Focus or similar.  That's an average of 32 damage per hit.  Which means it takes almost 6 hits to kill the skirmisher.

That's right.  It takes MORE HITS for the 21st level PC with higher than baseline stats and every "normal" damage boost to kill an even level skirmisher than it does for a 3rd level PC with almost no damage investment whatsoever.  And 21st level is the zenith of Epic tier for this comparison.  By 30th level, the above PC has gained 4 damage (+6 enhancement, +6 IAoP, 30 stat).  The monster has gained 72 HP.  It now takes 7.28 hits for a kill. (edit: by comparison, a PC build more along the lines of the 3rd level example is taking 9.5 hits to kill the 21st level monster, and more than 11 to kill the 30th.)

Of course, since the number of *attacks* it takes to kill a monster is the number of hits divided by the hit percentage, when player hit rate also decays, you wind up with a rapid increase in the number of rounds required for combat.

So, easier combat advantage?  Encounter/daily powers?  They're compensating for the decay in PC damage vs. monster HP.  The PC is expected to pick up 1 point of direct attack bonus somewhere.  The other 3 come from Expertise.

t~


----------



## Aulirophile (May 12, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> I've looked at the numbers, and what I've seen generally shows that monster hp alone doesn't keep up with the benefits acquired by the average PC. I am not positive of this, admittedly, since pinning down the benefits of the 'average PC' is the really tricky part of the equation, and I am doubtful you can do so. But, if you _have _actually found a way to do so, feel free to show me.



"Average PC" is an irrelevant concept. You're trying to pin down the _minimum. _Devs started out with wanting a certain number of rounds per combat per encounter difficulty level and worked backwards, not forwards. The minimum hit% and the way damage on PC powers scales is the _result, _not the question. It isn't a matter of them being infalliable, it is a matter of they said it is supposed to work a certain way and the _only _way it works is with Expertise. The system does not _work as intended _without it. That is not subject to debate, and I take issue with people saying it is when it is a fact stated not only by the developers in that they intended it to work that way by default but made a mistake, but is clearly evident if you've ever bothered to do the math based on the minimum expectations. 

The minimum, in terms of damage, is quite easy. So, again, welcome to go do the math on your own. Or you could ask on CharOp, and no doubt someone will be willing to post it for you. I'm not because in my experience unless people do the math themselves they just don't learn anything. 

@GM: I am dealing with facts, is the problem. Designers designed the system and have public statements about it that flat out disagree with your opinion. Those are the facts of the way the system was designed, so, yeah, it is equivalent to telling an Astronaut the Earth is flat, when he's seen it is round. It isn't meant to be insulting, any more then knowing a fact and someone else not knowing it is insulting in any other area, but it is true. If this weren't factual I wouldn't care, people could have whatever opinion they wanted to because there wouldn't be any rational determinacy. That just isn't the case here.


----------



## FireLance (May 13, 2011)

All this talk about mathematical proof made me recall a thought experiment that I did, way back when 4E was just released. I developed a 5-PC party that could kill Orcus in five rounds, as long as nobody rolled a natural 1 on any attack (past the first round or so of set up attacks). I am now releasing my raw, unedited notes for your reading pleasure. 

Now, some of the rules exploits that I made use of in the notes have since been errata'ed, e.g. the ranger/pit fighter no longer gets to add his Wisdom bonus to the damage rolls of ranger powers, the warlord's _lead the attack_ now only grants a power bonus to attack rolls for one round*, the demigod encounter power recovery system has changed, and there may be a few others. However, I am fairly sure that whatever I have in the document was rules-legal at the time.

Note that the characters aren't fully fleshed out - not all their feat slots are filled and I did not equip them with anything beyond vanilla +6 magic items (I didn't need to). The battleground is also ignored and the thought experiment assumes that they start fairly close to Orcus. However, they key point is: they did not have Expertise and all of them could hit Orcus as long as they didn't roll a 1.

The round-by-round breakdown of the fight starts on page 11.

* To mitigate this problem, the warlord selects _thunderous fury_ as his 17th-level encounter power instead of swapping it out for _anvil of doom_ since the party needs more attack bonuses instead of stunning. He uses it in Round 3 (when he would use _anvil of doom_ in the original document) and grants a +9 power bonus to attack rolls until the end of his turn in Round 4.

EDIT: I should further add that apart from the warlord's genasi race, I believe that most of the rules material was from just the first PH. Most of the splatbooks weren't even released then.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 13, 2011)

Aulirophile said:


> "Average PC" is an irrelevant concept.



not to us it is not... and not to mike merls...





> @GM: I am dealing with facts, is the problem.




You aare dealing in facts...but not all of them. You ignore anything that does not fit your theory (Yes that is all you have a theroy we are discussing),

the same way if some one asked how to find the area of a cube was told 2x2 is 4 is a fact... it just is not the whole story becues cubes need 2x2x2... but you ignore all the other bonuses characters get as they level...

heck why just use at wills? everyone should have encounters and most dailys.... but I mean I guess those don;t count...



> Designers designed the system and have public statements about it that flat out disagree with your opinion. Those are the facts of the way the system was designed, so, yeah, it is equivalent to telling an Astronaut the Earth is flat, when he's seen it is round.




So why not do as you say? Oh... becuse mearls said there was not an agreement in house...like us they disagree with the fix...

heck they could make a dozen paragon paths that give +1 to hit...

but instead they gave us a choice... take the feat or not...




> It isn't meant to be insulting, any more then knowing a fact and someone else not knowing it is insulting in any other area, but it is true. If this weren't factual I wouldn't care, people could have whatever opinion they wanted to because there wouldn't be any rational determinacy. That just isn't the case here.




I really belive at this time you are trying to bully people into beliveing what you belive no matter what they do or say... that is not how enworld works...please just keep to the facts...



FireLance said:


> All this talk about mathematical proof made me recall a thought experiment that I did, way back when 4E was just released. I developed a 5-PC party that could kill Orcus in five rounds, as long as nobody rolled a natural 1 on any attack (past the first round or so of set up attacks). I am now releasing my raw, unedited notes for your reading pleasure.
> 
> Now, some of the rules exploits that I made use of in the notes have since been errata'ed, e.g. the ranger/pit fighter no longer gets to add his Wisdom bonus to the damage rolls of ranger powers, the warlord's _lead the attack_ now only grants a power bonus to attack rolls for one round, the demigod encounter power recovery system has changed, and there may be a few others. However, I am fairly sure that whatever I have in the document was rules-legal at the time.
> 
> ...






and that is awsome... like my above examples of characters with no math hole..

even if you belive that some characters are underpowered and need a +1/2/3 more to hit you can not really belive EVERY character needs it do you???


----------



## MrGrenadine (May 13, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> But the idea that that is the _only _interpretation is where I really have to disagree. I can accept that you _feel _the lost numbers are far more significant than the acquired powers, items, feats and features. But your claim is that you have mathematically _proven _that this is so... and you haven't. We haven't seen any such math.
> 
> For myself, I'll maintain that the various benefits PCs acquire over the levels more than make up for the lost points of raw math. Especially given those benefits can include those lost points _and more_. Feel free to disagree, sure, but you certainly haven't proven your interpretation any more mathematically correct than our own.




I think the issue is this:  It is easy to prove that character attacks fall behind monster defenses over lvls 1-30, and that to maintain a minimum 55% avg to hit percentage, characters will need a boost.  Expertise is that boost, and it fixes that discrepancy.  Now, you are correct that certain power/item/feat combinations will also help correct the discrepancy, but purposely choosing one of those particular combinations is essentially the same thing--it doesn't change the fact that characters should hit 55% of the time, and either have to take Expertise, or be very careful about powers/items and feats to get there.

The problem with your assumption that character powers help mitigate the 4 pt spread is that some of the benefits you're factoring in only work when the PCs hit.  Its kind of a vicious cycle:  the PCs are hitting on 14+, but *could* be consistently hitting on a 10 or better if they hit with certain powers.  However, they need a 14+ to hit with the buffing powers, which means they don't consistently get the buff.  And if some of those powers are Encounters or Dailies, the problem is compounded.

So why not go with a simple, consistent +1/2/3?


----------



## FireLance (May 13, 2011)

MrGrenadine said:


> I think the issue is this:  It is easy to prove that character attacks fall behind monster defenses over lvls 1-30, and that to maintain a minimum 55% avg to hit percentage, characters will need a boost.



It should be noted, however, that characters usually start at a bit of an advantage. At 1st level, the average weapon attack against a "standard" 1st-level monster is +6* vs. an AC of 15 (monster level + 14), hitting on a 9 or better (60%). At 30th level, assuming only standard bonuses, it becomes +31 vs. an AC of 44, hitting on a 13 or better (40%).

A +1 attack bonus as a class ability can shift this to 65% at 1st and 45% at 30th.

Attacking with combat advantage can further shift this to 70% at 1st and 50% at 30th, or 75% at 1st and the supposably "ideal" 55% at 30 if the character also gets a +1 attack bonus as a class ability.

What I conclude is that higher level characters have to work a bit harder to get the "ideal" 55% hit chance at 30th (or close to it, if they don't have a class attack bonus). YMMV as to whether it is a bug or a feature.

* I am assuming an ability 16, +3 weapon, or an ability 18, +2 weapon.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 13, 2011)

MrGrenadine said:


> it doesn't change the fact that characters should hit 55% of the time, and either have to take Expertise, or be very careful about powers/items and feats to get there.
> 
> The problem with your assumption that character powers help mitigate the 4 pt spread is that some of the benefits you're factoring in only work when the PCs hit.  Its kind of a vicious cycle:  the PCs are hitting on 14+, but *could* be consistently hitting on a 10 or better if they hit with certain powers.  However, they need a 14+ to hit with the buffing powers, which means they don't consistently get the buff.  And if some of those powers are Encounters or Dailies, the problem is compounded.
> 
> So why not go with a simple, consistent +1/2/3?




ok, so just to make sure I am clear... you see options that can keep you up with the math without expertise...

would those need nerfing...

I mean if we bake in the +1/2/3 at 5/15/25 as has been suggested do I take away fighter weapon talent, rouge weapon talent, kensi +1 to hit... epic destiny bonuses to stats???

 becuse again I am lefte asking about the super high to hit bonuses already that get 3 pts for free...


----------



## Aegeri (May 13, 2011)

FireLance said:


> All this talk about mathematical proof made me recall a thought experiment that I did, way back when 4E was just released. I developed a 5-PC party that could kill Orcus in five rounds, as long as nobody rolled a natural 1 on any attack (past the first round or so of set up attacks). I am now releasing my raw, unedited notes for your reading pleasure.



I am going to bet, with almost 99% certainty I'm going to see Lead the Attack on there (the original). In fact, if I don't see Lead the Attack I will eat my hat.

Edit: Oh look! There it is! My hat is safe! In any event, showing you can beat Orcus is like demonstrating that a heavy weight boxer could trivially beat a 99 year old grandmother in a fight. Orcus is one of the worst designed solos in 4E, plus suffers from being a brute and therefore having mechanical suck built into him.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 13, 2011)

Aegeri said:


> I am going to bet, with almost 99% certainty I'm going to see Lead the Attack on there (the original). In fact, if I don't see Lead the Attack I will eat my hat.
> 
> Edit: Oh look! There it is! My hat is safe! In any event, showing you can beat Orcus is like demonstrating that a heavy weight boxer could trivially beat a 99 year old grandmother in a fight. Orcus is one of the worst designed solos in 4E, plus suffers from being a brute and therefore having mechanical suck built into him.




I once (in the orginal mods) saw a tac lord keep warlord strike and lead the attack (lv 1 encounter and lv 1 daily) all the way through to the end in 20's for levels... a hint it might need a nerfing...


(((Haveing said that I do disagree with the nerf... I dislike it being such a short term buff...I just don't know if there was a better one)))


----------



## keterys (May 13, 2011)

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if you remove every single "+Stat to Attack" and "-Stat to Defense" power (like the dozen or so used in that example combat), or perhaps just cap them at +-3, and bake in the +1/tier Expertise bonus... you end up with a better game.

I'm also pretty darn sure that there shouldn't be any items that give bonuses to attack (Opal Ring of Remembrance, you're on notice), and frankly the epic destinies that give +2 to two stats have totally constrained epic destiny design space.

That doesn't necessarily mean I support Expertise, or am against it, but at a certain point you concede you've got a leaky ship and you look at your array of bailing and self-bailing technologies and you attend to matters.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 13, 2011)

Lets take a look at some more... lets say challangeing end guys...



> Pit Fiend Captain
> Large immortal humanoid (devil)
> Level 30 Elite Soldier (Leader) XP 38000
> HP 550; Bloodied 275
> AC 46; Fortitude 43, Reflex 39, Will 41






> Allabar, Opener of the Way
> Gargantuan aberrant animate
> Level 30 Solo Soldier XP 95000
> HP 1100; Bloodied 550
> AC 45, Fortitude 43, Reflex 41, Will 43







> Dregoth, Sorcerer-King
> Huge natural magical beast (shapechanger, undead)
> Level 30 Solo Controller XP 95000
> HP 1072; Bloodied 536
> AC 44, Fortitude 43, Reflex 40, Will 43






> Orcus Empowered
> Gargantuan elemental humanoid (demon)
> Level 34 Solo Brute (Leader) XP 195000
> HP 1525; Bloodied 762
> AC 48; Fortitude 51, Reflex 46, Will 49






> Vecna
> Medium immortal humanoid (undead)
> Level 35 Solo Controller (Leader) XP 235000
> HP 1580; Bloodied 790
> AC 49; Fortitude 49, Reflex 47, Will 51






> Bahamut
> Huge immortal magical beast (dragon)
> Level 36 Solo Soldier XP 275000
> HP 1316; Bloodied 658
> AC 52; Fortitude 47, Reflex 45, Will 47




lowest ac 44...highest 52
lowest Nads 39 highest Nads 51...

lets take the new book of shadows... Lets say i want to play a bad guy and kill Bahamut...



> AC 52; Fortitude 47, Reflex 45, Will 47




is that enough of a challange?

Ok, lets start with an 18 attack stat, and an accurate implment...and go for demi god (If I am takeing on a god I might want to take his power higlander syle)

+9 stat +6 magic +1 accurate imp+15 half level +31 to hit...since this is an implment attack i will be targeting a NAD... so I need Vs Fort 16, Vs Ref 14 Vs Will 16...

So a Volakya Vampire at 30th level without expertise can take on the biggest monster in the game needing a 14-16 to hit. Now if I take expertise... that becomes 11-13  

If I flank without expertise it is 12-14
If I flank with expertise it is 9-11 

Please...I am begging you...tell me I am miss doing this math...becuse the biggest baddest monster in the game (the only level 36 and it is a soldier) by something people are calling a bad striker... who is 6 levels lower then it...can hit it without expertsie...

so there is math with and without expertise... 


but what happens when he faces an equal level (insted of 1 level higher then lev+5) like that pitfiend from the top of the post...



> AC 46; Fortitude 43, Reflex 39, Will 41




without expertise +31 to hit...since this is an implment attack i will be targeting a NAD... so I need Vs Fort 12, Vs Ref 8 Vs Will 10...

if I have combat advantage and target ref... I only miss 25% of the time... that is crazy...


Put a warlord with that vampire and I think Bahamut will cry...


----------



## Aegeri (May 13, 2011)

GMforpowergamers said:
			
		

> Put a warlord with that vampire and I think Bahamut will cry...



The class with 2 (3 surges) without durable anyway, against a creature that has an MBA that reduces you by 2 surges when it hits (and can hit automatically with it on another power when he uses it)? Um, you need to rethink that statement a bit I feel 

Now if we're talking about a thief or something that REALLY kicks out the MBAs, now we're in business.

It's worth noting in the above that monster NADs are something curious in 4Es design. Most monsters have strength/con primary, so tank reflex/will very often. Even in Monster Vault, the majority of monsters are fort primary and reflex/will secondary. So targeting fort typically sucks the most, while attacking a creatures reflex and will is almost always optimal. Also Orcus Empowered still sucks, marginally less than the original but he's still not very good. At least he picked up an at-will burst though, but not enough to really give him the bite an end game antagonist really needs.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 13, 2011)

so I figured (after posting) that vecna is harder for the vampire to fight...higher NADS...



> AC 49; Fortitude 49, Reflex 47, Will 51




+9 stat +6 magic +1 accurate imp+15 half level +31 to hit...since this is an implment attack i will be targeting a NAD

You need a nat 20 to hit Will, an 18 for Fort, and a 16 for ref. That atleast seams hard... and like maybe fighting vecna is a bad idea... but...no lets forget the aura thing...it only make it easier for the vamp...

lets see this with expertise... 17 will, 15 fort, and 13 ref...

what about combat advantage you ask...

with out expertise  18 will, a 16 fort, and 14 ref
with expertise... 15 will,13 fort, 11 ref...

I mean here is the god of secretes who hate vampires...and the op board says the vamp sucks... and with outh expertise and with out combat advantage, and no leader bonuses he is again 16-20 ... and that is not starting with a 20 stat eaither...


so i can see that expertise make you more accurate, and more powerful... but I am not seeing them as needed... infact the hardest fight you can expect is still no un winable...


----------



## keterys (May 13, 2011)

75% chance to hit, with combat advantage, against an equal-level opponent's lowest defense? A defense that's 3 lower than the average for that level. How's that crazy?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 13, 2011)

Aegeri said:


> The class with 2 (3 surges) without durable anyway, against a creature that has an MBA that reduces you by 2 surges when it hits (and can hit automatically with it on another power when he uses it)? Um, you need to rethink that statement a bit I feel




You are right... infact that is my point most of the time... and you proved it well.

I only used def vs att and ignored all powers and other things that matter...

edit: minor nit pick (and not takeing away the fact that you are right) 3 with out durable...you get one at paragon levels...so 5 with durable...and can 3 times in the encounter can gain surges...4 if he has the right daily, so that is 6-9 surges depending on daily and durable feat



> Now if we're talking about a thief or something that REALLY kicks out the MBAs, now we're in business.




 I was useing the warlord for bonus to hit and damage, not grant extra attacks...but yea





> It's worth noting in the above that monster NADs are something curious in 4Es design. Most monsters have strength/con primary, so tank reflex/will very often. Even in Monster Vault, the majority of monsters are fort primary and reflex/will secondary. So targeting fort typically sucks the most, while attacking a creatures reflex and will is almost always optimal. Also Orcus Empowered still sucks, marginally less than the original but he's still not very good. At least he picked up an at-will burst though, but not enough to really give him the bite an end game antagonist really needs.




that is why in my last post I changed the fight to vecna (and yes I ignored the aura becuse:


> Any undead creature that starts its turn within the aura regains 50 hit points.




makes the fight too easy

I really pulled the monsters at random (except big plat drag god) to just show some range of defenses in the end game...


----------



## MrGrenadine (May 13, 2011)

GMforPowergamers said:


> ok, so just to make sure I am clear... you see options that can keep you up with the math without expertise...
> 
> would those need nerfing...
> 
> ...




I haven't seen the super-high to hits bonuses in your examples in play, but I can see how they'd be possible if a player is really conscientious about maximizing the right abilities, and a DM is really conscientious about dropping the highest level items possible.  I'm also not advocating inherent bonuses--thats a DM/group decision, case by case.

As far as I'm concerned, Expertise is there to make sure players can create the interesting, non-mechanically optimized characters they want and still hit 55% of the time through Epic--without having to min/max abilities, and without having to constantly be upgrading items every level, etc.

I _don't_ think useful feats or powers should be nerfed to dissuade folks from combining them with Expertise.  If extremely high to-hit bonuses become a problem, then thats something each particular DM and group needs to solve in whatever way is best for them.


----------



## FireLance (May 13, 2011)

Aegeri said:


> In any event, showing you can beat Orcus is like demonstrating that a heavy weight boxer could trivially beat a 99 year old grandmother in a fight. Orcus is one of the worst designed solos in 4E, plus suffers from being a brute and therefore having mechanical suck built into him.



Actually, the key point to that was not so much that Orcus could be beaten, but that for the majority of the fight, the PCs were hitting him as long as they didn't roll a 1, without using Expertise, and using powers and abilities from just the first PH. 

Admittedly, it's an optimized party, but even if you scale back on the optimization, hit chances should still be pretty good without Expertise.

As for being a brute, that is offset by the fact that he's 33rd level, which puts his AC on par with the 30th level solo soldier Ancient Red Dragon, and his other defences are higher.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 13, 2011)

FireLance said:


> Actually, the key point to that was not so much that Orcus could be beaten, but that for the majority of the fight, the PCs were hitting him as long as they didn't roll a 1, without using Expertise, and using powers and abilities from just the first PH.




Lets really look at this. with phb1 only (today with all erratta) that can play through any level 30 encounter...


----------



## FireLance (May 13, 2011)

GMforPowergamers said:


> Lets really look at this. with phb1 only (today with all erratta) that can play through any level 30 encounter...



From the warlord, we still have the attack bonus granting _lead the attack_, though it now only lasts one round. He can supplement it with _thunderous fury_.

The rogue still retains _feinting flurry_, the cleric still has _plague of doom_, the fighter still has _chains of sorrow_, and the paladin still has _hand of the gods_.

Even assuming the characters don't "double up" on these powers with the use of multiclassing and power swap feats, the PCs still have four encounter attack powers that can be used to grant allies a bonus to attack rolls or penalize an opponent's defenses. With the demigod epic destiny's Divine Miracle feature, they can recover and use them _continuously_.

EDIT: I forgot one more - the ranger's _armor splinter_. Although it only affects AC, it is is quite effective in a party that mostly uses mostly AC-targeting attacks.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 13, 2011)

FireLance said:


> _lead the attack_,  _thunderous fury_. _feinting flurry_,_plague of doom_, _chains of sorrow_, _hand of the gods_. _armor splinter_.






and that is one scary list of powers for a DM to be stareing down...


----------



## MrMyth (May 13, 2011)

Aulirophile said:


> "Average PC" is an irrelevant concept. You're trying to pin down the _minimum._





That seems a relatively flawed approach to game design. Ignoring the effect an option would have for the vast majority of games in order to compensate for a perceived weakness in the one game where no beneficial feat/item/power/PP/ED choices are made? Not exacty a reasonable approach, in my mind. 

Now, tiornys's argument (which you've also briefly mentioned before) is definitely the stronger one - the idea that monster hp has scaled enough that _this _is what compensates for the enhanced abilities of the PCs. 

At the same time, I'm not sure that his example... assuming that PCs are still just sitting there swinging with At-Wills with no other effects in play - is really accurate for an Epic party. 



Aulirophile said:


> I am dealing with facts, is the problem. Designers designed the system and have public statements about it that flat out disagree with your opinion. Those are the facts of the way the system was designed, so, yeah, it is equivalent to telling an Astronaut the Earth is flat, when he's seen it is round.




No, it really, really isn't. 

The only fact at hand is whether a PC loses 3-4 points of attack bonus, relative to monster's scaling defenses, over the course of levels 1 through 30. 

That is, yes, a fact. 

Whether other elements of the system compensante for that (in terms of PC options) or exarcerbate it (in terms of monster hp) is _not _something you can directly measure and offer up as objective fact. Similarly, the designers having their own opinion on the matter is not the end-all and be-all; while they may have positions of greater authority on the mechanics of the game, they are not infallible by any means. 



MrGrenadine said:


> The problem with your assumption that character powers help mitigate the 4 pt spread is that some of the benefits you're factoring in only work when the PCs hit. Its kind of a vicious cycle: the PCs are hitting on 14+, but *could* be consistently hitting on a 10 or better if they hit with certain powers. However, they need a 14+ to hit with the buffing powers, which means they don't consistently get the buff. And if some of those powers are Encounters or Dailies, the problem is compounded.




Well, yes and no - sometimes the bonuses do require hitting. Quite often they aren't, if the result of utility powers, Effects, feats, items, etc. 

And, especially by Epic levels, many PCs will often be able to bring some resources to bear to ensure a specific attack lands. So if you stack up some temporary attack bonuses for one key attack, which then gives a huge attack bonus to every else for the round... well, it is an effective strategy. 

Now, not every group, again, will have that exact approach or those exact powers. But almost every group will have _some _sort of advantage or approach along those lines, and Expertise only really makes sense when one ignores all those other possible resources. 



MrGrenadine said:


> So why not go with a simple, consistent +1/2/3?




Because it isn't an either/or - you put the +1/2/3 into the system _alongside _all the other benefits. And so suddenly Epic level PCs are regularly hitting significantly _more _often than they were at Heroic levels. 

Now, the argument that tiornys makes is that they need to be able to hit more often, to compensate for enemy hp, and maybe that is, though I'm not convinced. 

And the argument that Aulirophile makes is that it doesn't _matter _if most groups are now hitting far more often then they should, as long as some idealized 'minimum' group is now hitting at the exact same percentage as at level 1... which I don't agree with either, since, again, taking something like that out of the context of the rest of the game just doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## Aulirophile (May 13, 2011)

That would matter... if the game had been designed with a maximum power level in mind. It wasn't, just a minimum, a minimum _before _class/feature/PP/ED/power bonuses. So the argument that it can be optimized around is null: the minimum is designed so that all parties achieve it, even without optimizing. The fact that you can optimize higher is not relevant to the design, since no maximum was stated as a design limitation (though one obviously exists if you follow errata, one-rounding solos is to high).

And Tiorny's example was limited to at-wills solely to demonstrate that at level 21 monsters take _more _hits to kill with an at-will. Which is what those extra encounter/daily powers compensate for. But only if you hit at the correct percentage. If you don't... well, combats take more rounds, which is specifically counter to the design goal. It isn't a matter of the devs being infallible, but they made their design _intentions _clear, and those intentions are not met without expertise. So "the system does not work as intended without Expertise" is a fact, and not in any way subject to debate. Earth is round.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 13, 2011)

ok, way back when (like day 3 or 4 of 4e) people started doing DPR (Damage per round) math I brought this up, but now I will again...

If at level 1 I have 2 at wills, 1 encounter and 1 daily, and my race ability...

then instead of at will dpr should it not be all of it.

Assume 3 encounters a day, each 5-6 rounds then over the day each character would have 2 action points, so 18 attacks, 1 daily (most likly miss half), 3 as encounter attacks, and 14 as at will...

so then at level 21 we say 6-8 encounters each about 10-12 rounds...so lets go with 6 encounters we can call that with action points 70 attacks. 24 as encounter, 4 as daily, and 42 at will ((again please check my math))

but then we need to take the race power, the item powers, and ultlity powers into account as well (I have no idea how)

but even just basic DPR seams like if you fon't count those daily and encounters seams off...

infact, there is a barbarian encounter at heroic (I think 1dt but it might be 3rd) that does 3w... and most barbarians have large damage per W, so over 3 encounters per day 4 or 5 adventureing days that is going to up the DPR alot... easpacialy when compaired to say a swordmage with a 1w encounter power with a smaller w value as well... when you compair that to both having 1w at wills...


----------



## MrMyth (May 13, 2011)

Aulirophile said:


> That would matter... if the game had been designed with a maximum power level in mind. It wasn't, just a minimum, a minimum _before _class/feature/PP/ED/power bonuses.




Again, that doesn't make sense. You are saying that the game is designed around a base power level that, at Epic levels, ignores the benefits of feats; class, paragon path, and epic destiny features; magic items; and powers? That doesn't seem an exceptionally good approach to game design, or one that will result in a balance system. 



Aulirophile said:


> So the argument that it can be optimized around is null: the minimum is designed so that all parties achieve it, even without optimizing.




Remember, though, you aren't arguing against the relevance of optimized parties, you are arguing against the relevance of the _average _party. I don't think either the optimized party nor the minimum party are the relevant baselines for the power level of the game. And when that minimum is specifically designed, as you suggest, to ignore the context of the character's abilities at level 30 compared to level 1... well, as I said, I don't see much use in that approach. 



Aulirophile said:


> And Tiorny's example was limited to at-wills solely to demonstrate that at level 21 monsters take _more _hits to kill with an at-will. Which is what those extra encounter/daily powers compensate for.




Again, that is a valid interpretation, sure. It's a reasonable thing to believe in. But you keep putting it forward as objective fact - that all those various benefits add up exactly to being equal to the extra hp monsters have. I disagree with that, and I haven't seen any math that really shows otherwise. 



Aulirophile said:


> But only if you hit at the correct percentage. If you don't... well, combats take more rounds, which is specifically counter to the design goal. It isn't a matter of the devs being infallible, but they made their design _intentions _clear, and those intentions are not met without expertise. So "the system does not work as intended without Expertise" is a fact, and not in any way subject to debate. Earth is round.




Ok, I'm going to try and show where this logic breaks down for me. 

1) At level 1, combat takes X rounds with a 55% chance to hit. 
2) At level 30, characters have a reduced base chance to hit from level bonus, stat bonus, and enhancement bonus, ignoring other resources they may have. 
3) At level 30, monsters have more hp. 
4) At level 30, characters have significantly more resources, in the form of more powers, feats, items, features, etc.
5) At level 30, the specific powers and recent features they have acquired are more potent than equivalent ones they had at level 1.
6*) Elements 4 and 5, above, are precisely balanced by Element 3, but has zero impact on Element 2. 
7*) Thus, combats take more rounds. 

Those last two steps are where statements are suddenly being made that are subjective. No math has been shown to prove them true, nor am I certain if one _can _do so, since one would first have to approximate the value of the benefits of your average level 30 character - no easy task! 

Continuing to lay claim to absolute authority, to not just say that you disagree with others, but that _they aren't even allowed to debate with you_ - to say that your opinions are equivalent to saying that the "Earth is round", and the various implications that makes about those who are disagreeing with you...

...well, I'm not too big a fan of that approach to discussion, I have to say.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 13, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> 1) At level 1, combat takes X rounds with a 55% chance to hit.
> 2) At level 30, characters have a reduced base chance to hit from level bonus, stat bonus, and enhancement bonus, ignoring other resources they may have.
> 3) At level 30, monsters have more hp.
> 4) At level 30, characters have significantly more resources, in the form of more powers, feats, items, features, etc.
> 5) At level 30, the specific powers and recent features they have acquired are more potent than equivalent ones they had at level 1.



can we all agree on 1-5 as our agreed on basics where we all start?



> 6*) Elements 4 and 5, above, are precisely balanced by Element 3, but has zero impact on Element 2.
> 7*) Thus, combats take more rounds.




I personaly have seen 0 proof of these...and this is where the arguments all break down I belive...



> since one would first have to approximate the value of the benefits of your average level 30 character - no easy task!




See that is the big problem... how do i compair a level 30 fighter with X Y and Z utlity power to 30 level fighter with A b and C... then how do w find an avrage to call the avrage fighter... then do that to all defenders to get an avrage defender... but then an avrage party has what as a 5th character??


----------



## Tony Vargas (May 13, 2011)

Aulirophile said:


> That would matter... if the game had been designed with a maximum power level in mind. It wasn't, just a minimum, a minimum before class/feature/PP/ED/power bonuses. So the argument that it can be optimized around is null: the minimum is designed so that all parties achieve it, even without optimizing.



I'd think a 'minimum' design, non-optimized character wouldn't even have Expertise.  Heck, a true 'minimum' design might not even put all the stat bumps it should into it's primary (unthinkable though that may seem).  I think for your argument to work, you have to assume some basic optimization - starting with a good primary, bumping it at every opportunity, taking expertise, generally avoiding clearly inferior choices.  Otherwise Expertise doesn't even succeed as a feat-tax fix.



> And Tiorny's example
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What about the massive crits you get at higher levels?  Epic characters should all be criting on a 19-20 (except for those critting on an 18-20).  That d12 2[W] at-will does 43 damage on a crit, +5d (could be d6 or d12s if vicious), plus 3d12 if it's high crit, plus any feats that boost crits.  That could average anything from 60 up to 100 damage.  Critting on a 19-20 is one in ten swings, not hits, but swings.  That's more like 1 in 5 hits.  In the course of hitting a monster 6 times, there's a good chance you'll crit it once, doing two or three times the normal average damage, and downing the monster a hit or two early, in 5 or even 4 hits (right back to the 3rd level number of hits to kill).



> But only if you hit at the correct percentage.



Right!  I'm surprised Tiornys didn't point that out, too.  If you're hitting 40% instead of 55%, it takes more rounds to get in those 6 hits... but, it also means that one in 4 of your hits are criticals, so crits become an even bigger part of taking monsters down.  You'll still be taking down monsters in 4 hits, but getting those 4 hits, might, in the absence of any sort of additional attack bonuses from leaders and the like, take 10 rounds instead of 7 or 8.



> If you don't... well, combats take more rounds, which is specifically counter to the design goal. It isn't a matter of the devs being infallible, but they made their design _intentions _clear, and those intentions are not met without expertise. So "the system does not work as intended without Expertise" is a fact, and not in any way subject to debate. Earth is round.



It doesn't work as intended /with/ it, either - not unless it's manditory or automatic in some way.


----------



## Aulirophile (May 13, 2011)

Wow, average =! minimum. You seriously need to let that go, that wasn't what the designers did. 4e combat is heavily statistical.... there is a huge difference here you're just not acknowledging. It _doesn't matter _if PCs are _more _powerful. The _average _party is irrelevant. The _worst party _is all they cared about. They wanted _awful, retarded, stupidly built _PCs to be effective to a minimum (so long as they followed certain guidelines in the PHB, no 8 in your primary stat), so much so that a _whole party of them _would still be fine. And they never mentioned a maximum, though again one is evident from errata: one-rounding solos is to much. 

It doesn't ignore it, that'd be retarded, it established the minimum with _guaranteed _resources. Magic items (i.e., enhancement bonuses)? Yep (by the intended design, magic items are not optional in 4e barring inherent bonuses). +Hit items? Uh, no, actually. +Hit powers? No again. +Hit PP? Nope. 55% is the minimum before _any _of that. Sigh. That is the accuracy side. On the damage side... you have encounter and daily powers (whose damage, it must be noted, scales up as you get higher level versions)! Almost as if they compensate for something! Could it be? Yes, omg, monster HP scales faster then PC at-will damage! Wonder of wonders. Mmmm, I wonder if the developers ever said anything about that... oh, wait, they did, because they told us their design intentions. So glad we cleared that up. Again.

Yes, I do claim absolute authority in an area of facts which I happen to be aware of and you, apparently, are not. People with facts tend to do that. You can have whatever opinion you like, but the developers have stated their intentions, how they derived them, and on and on. The only way to make the system work _as intended _(and I sincerely hope you understand the difference) is with Expertise. So I'm putting it forward as an objective fact because it is one. Imagine that. Darn developers, designing systems and then saying things about them. One can argue they did it poorly perhaps, but to argue that it isn't the intent of the system is just asinine. 

If you want the math, I encourage you to go to CharOp and ask or do it yourself. Until then you're just uninformed. As with most subjects you have two options: continue to be uninformed, and therefore your opinion is as worthless as mine would be to an astrophysicist about astrophysics (knowledge works like that, funny) or go become informed. But I'm not inclined to let be bullied, to continue our metaphor, into saying the Earth is round is my opinion when I'm the astronaut. It is a fact, space capsule is over there, go see for yourself.


----------



## keterys (May 13, 2011)

I think you're harming your case more than you're helping it Aulirophile, and could probably use a vacation from the thread so it can generally cool down without any mention of absolute authority, uninformed, retarded, and other similar indicators, so as soon as I can figure that out, I'll make it so.

In the meantime and for the remainder of this thread, if people could not respond to any of his posts, so this thread can be more than repeated salvoes.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 13, 2011)

[edit: I was typeing well teh mod spoke, so I have to redo the post


edit 2:
       I think that the fact of the matter is , that the designers left the feats as they are, options. I mean the devs have to realize the benfit of people like myself who don't want to give out a free +1/2/3 to the characters.

I wonder though, inorder to give the benfit of the doubt (maybe there is a math hole). Can we try to put this togather?

I propose we  build 2 or 3 groups of characters that can be used as a baseline. kinda like the characters in 3e in the PHB lyda/jozan ect...

Group 1:  the basic D&D group (you know they are iconic for a reason)

Human Fighter guardian Build
Hafling Rouge artful dodger Build
Human Wizard Mage Build
Dwarf Cleric war priest Build
Elf Ranger Archer Build

Group 2: the 4e variant (I tried to come up with 5 characters unqie to 4e)

Goliath Warden Earth str Build
Deva Avenger 
Wilden Invoker 
Shardmind Warlord tac lord
half orc Assassin Excutioner

Group 3: half way between (these are characters that exsited in some prior edtions but not as iconic)

Human Paladin
Teifling Warlock fey pack
Kalashar Psion telpath
Half elf Artificer battlesmith
Mul Barbarian rageborn

then see if we can make say lv1,lv11,lv21,and lv30 to come up with how they handle the levels


----------



## tiornys (May 13, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> Now, tiornys's argument (which you've also briefly mentioned before) is definitely the stronger one - the idea that monster hp has scaled enough that _this _is what compensates for the enhanced abilities of the PCs.
> 
> At the same time, I'm not sure that his example... assuming that PCs are still just sitting there swinging with At-Wills with no other effects in play - is really accurate for an Epic party.



Of course it isn't.  In fact, it's not really accurate for a 3rd level party, and it sure isn't accurate for a 7th level party.  The point isn't to model play at a given level.  It's to establish a metric for determining the ratio of baseline PC damage to monster HP.  The decrease in that ratio is, in fact, a necessary and desirable part of the system; it's what makes it possible to have encounter and daily powers that are significantly better than at-will powers without making combat ridiculously easy.



> Now, the argument that tiornys makes is that they need to be able to hit more often, to compensate for enemy hp, and maybe that is, though I'm not convinced.



No, that's not what I'm saying at all.  What I'm saying is that higher level groups need the increased power level from encounter and daily powers in order to compensate for the increase in the ratio of enemy HP to baseline PC damage.  In some cases, that power boost comes in the form of attack bonuses, which can be viewed as damage multipliers, but the power boost can also take the form of directly increased damage through a variety of mechanisms, stronger control effects that prevent or hobble the added attacks a monster makes when it has a longer lifespan, and/or stronger defensive effects that reduce the impact of those added attacks.

Now, it's not practical to directly measure the increased power from encounter and daily powers to say whether or not it's equalizing the HP/damage ratio disparity.  It *is* possible to observe that the average combat length (assuming PC victory) will primarily be determined by three factors:  the ratio of baseline damage on hit to monster HP, the percentage of attacks that hit, and the added power level from non-baseline powers.  And therefore, it's possible to get useful information out of our model by carefully choosing assumptions.

If, to take a non-arbitrarily chosen and highly relevant example, we want an idea of the upper bounds on combat length from the PC side (to be compared with PC ability to handle incoming monster damage without dying), we would figure our baseline PC damage based on minimum expected combat optimization: 16 starting attack stat boosted every level, "correct" enhancement bonus for the level, a martial weapon or non-superior implement, and average encounter and daily power level.  And, if we were picking that example to prove a point, we might make somewhat unrealistic assumptions on the power level of encounter and daily powers, deliberately erring high on that assumption.

So, let's assume that the average encounter power is 3x as strong as an at-will power (which is actually pushing the upper limit on encounter powers, as demonstrated by the scarcity of triple-attacking powers*), and further assume that a daily power is 5x as strong as an at-will.

At first level, assuming a Warhammer vs. AC, our PC averages 8.5 damage with a 55% hit rate.  He needs to chew through 30 HP.  That takes him 3.53 hits, which will take 6.42 attacks to achieve.  His one encounter power counts as 2 extra attacks (three times the power, three total attacks, two extra), so he'll need about 4.42 rounds to kill an enemy.  Since standard combat assumes one enemy per PC, we can say that an average combat with unoptimized PC's will take 4.42 rounds at this level (ignoring action points and daily powers for the moment).

At third level, our PC should have a +1 weapon, and consequently has gained 2 points to his attack rate which equals the 2 points added to monster defenses.  He now does 9.5 damage and has a second encounter power.  He needs to chew through 46 HP.  That takes him 4.84 hits, or 8.8 rounds.  Each encounter power is 2 added attacks, so the overall expected combat length is 4.8 rounds (again ignoring action points and dailies).

At 21st level, generously giving the PC a +5 weapon and stat boosting ED, our PC has gained 4 enhancement, 9 from level, and 4 from stat to his attack.  The monster has gained +18 to his defenses.  Our PC averages 23 damage, has 4 encounter powers, and enough daily powers that we'll assume he uses one.  He's chewing through 190 HP, which takes 8.26 hits at a 50% hit rate, or 16.52 attacks.  Factoring in his 8 extra attacks from encounters and 4 from his daily, that leaves 4.52 rounds of combat.  Which seems great!  Except we just made a whole host of assumptions that favored this particular comparison and barely held even.

So now let's look at 20th level.  At 20th, we'll go ahead and keep the +5 weapon.  We lose 2 attack bonus from the epic destiny and the 21st level stat bump, while the monster loses 1 defense.  We lose a whopping 7.5 damage.  So now we're chewing through 182 HP with 15.5 average damage and a 45% hit rate.  That's 11.74 hits and 26.09 attacks, less 12 = 14.09 (!) expected rounds of combat.  Of course, this is in some ways a worst case just as the 21st level comparison was a best case.

So let's look at 28th level.  From the 21, we've gained 1 from enhancement, 4 from half level, and 1 from stat.  The monster has gained 7 to his defense.  Damage is 25, monster HP is 246.  We're looking at 9.84 hits, 21.87 attacks, or 9.87 rounds, twice as long as the low level combats.  edit: oh, and keep in mind that I ignored daily powers in heroic (should be about 1/5th of a daily per combat at low levels), so things are even worse here than indicated by the model, including the comments in the next paragraph.

Keep in mind that this is with an overgenerous estimate on encounter and daily power level, which has more impact at higher levels because those levels have higher dependence on encounter and daily powers (admittedly, I'm ignoring PC synergy and cooperation at all levels, but then I'm also ignoring monster control effects and the fact that those get stronger at higher levels).  Therefore, we can conclude that a practical example of the situation is likely to be worse than this model.  That is, for a group that does do the minimum combat optimization recommended by the PHB, but nothing more, combats will become more than twice as long as the PCs reach high paragon and epic tier.

*note: keep in mind that a 3[W]+stat attack is not three times as powerful as a 1[W]+stat attack.  Stat+enhancement starts out equal to slightly less than [W], and is sitting at about 2-2.5x[W] by epic tier.  Therefore, to make a single attack hit as hard as three baseline attacks, you're looking at 4-5[W] in heroic and 8[W] in epic, neither of which occurs on the encounter level with anything like regularity.  more edit: since baseline in epic is up to 2[W], you're actually looking at 11[W] to be three times as powerful in epic.  Which simply does not happen in terms of pure damage on a single attack (because it would be far to swingy when factoring crits in).


----------



## keterys (May 13, 2011)

Probably useful to have a "control" group, that isn't mucking about with any of that easier to hit stuff (so, avoid Expertise, avoid powers that swing things by stat modifier. They're pretty rare unless you actually hunt them down)


----------



## tiornys (May 13, 2011)

keterys said:


> Probably useful to have a "control" group, that isn't mucking about with any of that easier to hit stuff (so, avoid Expertise, avoid powers that swing things by stat modifier. They're pretty rare unless you actually hunt them down)



Sorry, that is the control.  If you add the bonuses from Expertise at the levels where they're needed to keep hit rate relatively constant (not the levels they're currently available), they have no effect on levels 1 or 3 (+1 isn't needed until level 7 or so), and the +2 at 20 cuts 3 rounds off, makes the 21st level comparison unworkable (my assumptions have overcome the natural deficit at that point, primarily because encounter powers REALLY aren't 3 times as powerful as 2[W] baseline attacks), and +3 at 28 drops the length down to a reasonable 4.4 rounds, although again, actual combat will be significantly longer since you aren't getting 11[W] out of your average encounter power.

t~


----------



## eamon (May 13, 2011)

tiornys said:


> Keep in mind that this is with an overgenerous estimate on encounter and daily power level, which has more impact at higher levels because those levels have higher dependence on encounter and daily powers (admittedly, I'm ignoring PC synergy and cooperation at all levels, but then I'm also ignoring monster control effects and the fact that those get stronger at higher levels).  Therefore, we can conclude that a practical example of the situation is likely to be worse than this model.  That is, for a group that does do the minimum combat optimization recommended by the PHB, but nothing more, combats will become more than twice as long as the PCs reach high paragon and epic tier.



Another relevant factor is that PC's are expected to deal with the occasional "hard" combat.  In fact, all WotC modules include these, particularly at climactic points.  And if you run the numbers for these, things get even more skewed.


----------



## Grabuto138 (May 14, 2011)

21 years ago I got a C in geometry. That is the extent of my math mastery.

I'd like an opinion from the experts, though. It seems to me that these marginal differences we are discussing end up being trivial considering how easily a DM can adjust an encounter.  Or, to look at it another way, a poorly made encounter can make the added bonuses from the Expertise feat irrelevant.

What impact does adding or subtracting a single minion have? Or an additional level-equivalent monster?

It seems to me that the differences we are talking about are trivial compared to the power that a good DM has (intentionally) or a bad DM has (unintentionally). And a good DM will always win the arms race regardless of the feat choices because he or she will simply adjust the encounters to keep them challenging. A bad DM will always also wins the arms race (but in the bad DM's case probably literarly) by throwing encounters that have no bearing on the math we are discussing.

I am not trying to derail or dismiss the thread. But I am not sure it is the hill worth dying on either.


----------



## tiornys (May 14, 2011)

Grabuto138 said:


> 21 years ago I got a C in geometry. That is the extent of my math mastery.
> 
> I'd like an opinion from the experts, though. It seems to me that these marginal differences we are discussing end up being trivial considering how easily a DM can adjust an encounter.  Or, to look at it another way, a poorly made encounter can make the added bonuses from the Expertise feat irrelevant.



Well, for starters, to say that a DM can adjust for something is to tacitly admit that there is a problem in need of adjusting.  Consequently, I rarely accept "the DM can fix it" as a good solution for a game design or development issue.

Moving to the example at hand, if all of the scaling were consistent, then it'd be relatively easy to simply adjust monster levels up or down as needed.  Unfortunately, player AC scales about the same as monster stats, but differently than player NADs or player hit rates in the absence of the feat "taxes" we are discussing.  Which means you have this weird situation where monsters with attacks against AC don't have an appropriate level point, ever.  Either it's too hard for the players to hit the monster, or it's too hard for the monster to hit the players.  This can still be fixed by the DM, but the easiest way to do so is to grant free Expertise and free Improved Defenses and move on with on-level opponents as a standard.

But let's say the DM doesn't like that solution, and is willing to do a bit more work.  Then the potential arises for the other problem created by the feat "taxes" existing as feats: namely, when people already optimizing for combat have them, and people running at system baseline do not.  This makes it much more difficult for the DM to present a reasonable array of challenges for the party.  It's easily possible for an enemy that one character hits normally to be one that another character either rarely hits or rarely misses.  In the absence (or ubiquity) of Expertise, it's much more difficult to achieve this level of discrepancy.  Ideally, you'd like everyone's hit rate to be within 10-15% of each other (i.e., 2-3 points on the die, with attacks against AC an extra 2 higher than attacks against other defenses).  When the difference reaches 30%, it is very noticeable in play, and that kind of difference generally detracts from player enjoyment.  Expertise is singlehandedly the entire ideal gap and half of what might be considered the start of problematic gaps*.

This kind of analysis is where you get statements like: "either the feats are necessary and shouldn't be feats, or they're overpowered and shouldn't exist".  Because they're demonstrably overpowered, and it's not hard to show how that power level has the potential to create problems.  If they're necessary, then the power level is justified, but their existence as an optional game element is questionable.  If they aren't necessary, then the power level isn't justified, and their mere existence is questionable.

Add in various designer comments, both on record and merely reported, and it's easy to see why many have come to the conclusion that the designers consider them necessary, and have therefore opted for some kind of houserule fix like giving the feats for free (which is what all designers we know about do in their home games).

t~

[sblock=*problematic gaps]At a 30% gap, you're talking about 6 points on the d20, or a third of the available space.  The same third, I might add, occupied by the suggested level range of creatures the party should encounter: level -2 to level +4.  Given the system baseline of hitting an even level opponent on a 10, that means you should be somewhere between hitting on an 8 to hitting on a 14.  If your characters have a 6 point hit gap, then there is exactly 1 level of monster that gives both characters a challenge that lies in that range.  Go a level up, and one character needs a 15.  A level down, the other hits on a 7.  This has the effect of constraining the monsters a DM can use.  He has one level band to present a reasonable challenge to both characters.  He can present higher level monsters to one character, but has to make sure that it's an appropriate monster for that character to deal with; he can present lower level monsters to the other character, but should avoid making them things that the higher power character would want to deal with.  Surmountable?  Yes (it takes a 9 point gap to get into scenarios where you really can't challenge both characters simultaneously--but I might add that without Expertise, 6 is the max you reasonably get, and Expertise boosts that to 9).  More trouble than you encounter when the baseline math is consistent?  Absolutely.[/sblock]


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 14, 2011)

Your spoiler tag thing is well reasoned. And it also explains, why monster math adjustments fullfills the same purpose to make the math work more smoothly:

While +3 to hit at epic brings players back into the expected middle of the monster range, increased damage adjusted the "viable monster range".

So you can now use "level -5" to "level +1" monsters instead of "level -2" to "level +4"

So in the end, without expertise and MM3 math, the game would have also worked. A combination of both however expands the good range to maybe level -5 to level +4 and as such mayb be the best experience!


----------



## keterys (May 14, 2011)

Decreasing monster level does compensate for decreased hit chance on the part of players, but at the cost of decreased hit chance on the part of monsters. If you're 22nd level with an AC 42 defender, the monsters are already looking for ~15 to hit without decreasing their chance further.

Much like it's not so simple to compare play experience using pre-MM3 damage values, or with clerics that could astral seal for 40 hp healed, or various anti-damage techniques that actually completely negated monster damage.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 14, 2011)

tiornys said:


> Well, for starters, to say that a DM can adjust for something is to tacitly admit that there is a problem in need of adjusting.  Consequently, I rarely accept "the DM can fix it" as a good solution for a game design or development issue.




I have one problem with this... they system even with free expertise STILL requares the DM pay attantion and adjust...


I have a friend who loves DMing...but we hate when he does becuse he puts no effort into this...

some quick examples:



			
				magic staff said:
			
		

> we were playing a swordmage, a warden, a warlock, a ranger and a shaman... the first item he put in the game (by the way we were level 2 before we got it) was a +2 staff of warwizard... we all got mad we could not use it...he said he did not know no one used staves... the second item he promissed would be more helpful... it was a magic instrument...and he said he thought our shaman coukd use bard instruments... the third was a magic weapon that eh enchant could only go on axes... the swordmage use rapier, the warden a big hammer, the ranger a bow...and the warlock wanted a pact dagger so bad. At level 3 we disenchanted everything we had and made a pact dagger for him... and a rust monster destroyed it int he first encounter he had it... that encounter gave us the treasure of a +2 staff of warwizard becue he really wanted someone to use it...






			
				solo's only said:
			
		

> we played a 3 person game with a warlock, a wizard and a tempest fighter... after the first encounter we had nothing but solo encounters...that game lasted 2 sessions before we got sicj of it






			
				darksun said:
			
		

> I will skip the iron golem incadent, and the green dragon misunderstanding and talk about level 6...our tpk... we had just had a really bad day. We were extendied resting and 2 of us had no surges...I was the only one with an offencive daily left (I think it is called comeback strike but it was not much good i had no surges to spend) and he had us ambushed in our sleep...then after the tpk said "I forgot you were spent"




other end of the spectrum same DM



			
				minon slaughter said:
			
		

> a fighter puts up raing of steel (I think that is the aura 1 1w stance... then an encounter with only minons (over 30 minis on the field) charged the fighter with the first group...then the second then the 3rd...we had1round and the fighter killed all of them.  then the DM complained how useless minnons are






			
				lava pit said:
			
		

> Dm put us over a lava pit fighting 4 elites...was supose to be a hard fight he wanted us to run... then the wizard thunder waved (yes an at will) 3 of them into the lava (killing or atleast taking out of the fight) 2 of them then the rouge and fighter did the same to the last 2 (Tide of iron, and postioning strike)
> the DM thre his hands up and quit the game... by the way we had been useing such tactics from day 1




3e example:


			
				 sneak attack undead said:
			
		

> I had an arcane trickster with force darts (reserve feat that gave d4s of force damage) that I sneak attack with,,, after a few times not haveing the ability to SA I picked up a spell that let me crit undead and SA (i think it was called grave strike)... for over a month every game at least 1 time he would put undead in, then complain I could sneak attack them...like it suprised him every time.. when at level 12 he brought in a golem and I had the same type of spells for constructs that I reaserched at the same time I atleast could see him forgeting..





now I as a DM may be lightyears better then him (you know I am a little slght bit above avrage) I know that a group with 2 controlers is good vs minons bad vs solos. I know a group with a fighter as defender and slayer as striker both with swords has WAY more accuracy then a group with a hammer weilding battlemind as defender and an Axe thaneborn barbarian striker group is... or that a solo with resisst psy 10, and special def agianst daze makes a psion telpath cry...

or, and this one is right out of my tuesday night game... when you have a multi attacking ranger, an avenger that never misses, a tac lord, a ardent paliden with a 3w encounter and 4 w daily and who has bonus dmage instead of lay on hands, and 2 other guys... then dropping 2 level+1 solos and 4 level-4 elites and an endless respawning group of minons is not a problem... even though the rules say it should be... becuse my dragon family (mom dad and kids) with waves of kobolds was an epic 9 round fight... in witch I got the best line in years... both mom and dad used bloodied breath in the same turn (due to postions that ment the paliden got hit by both...one was a crit) "How dare you turn me into a minon" 

or the time I did it out and had a hobgoblin lv 2 solo in my level 6 game leading a group of orcs that were levels 6-8... a level 2 should be a push over...but I knew 3 of my 5 players had slightly lower ACs, and he could get bonus from one of the orcs...so he was a threat...and a decent bag o hp... in other 6 level groups he would have been a joke.

or even the fact that my current game I am planing (way ahead group still in heroic teir) my big bad guy for 30th level as a level 36 elite soldier (leader) with a 55 AC... I am pretty sure that is a death sentice to most 30th level characters...but I am setting mine up to handle it.


see DMs have all the controle...and need to learn to adjust.







now having said all that I will admit if the system dosn't get the basics right then mucking in these things never get done becuse you need to start some where... this is why I always suggest 1st time dms run as close to raw as possible...then learn how to muck up this stuff.... but I am luky I was learning with my players...if a brand new DM sat down tonight with us playing the powergamers would eat him for a small snack


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 14, 2011)

keterys said:


> Much like it's not so simple to compare play experience using pre-MM3 damage values, or with clerics that could astral seal for 40 hp healed, or various anti-damage techniques that actually completely negated monster damage.




ok, I have to tell you my story of 2 defenders..

same dm diffrent games... I had a battlerage fighter dwarf maxed out on getting temp hps...I even had a cool item that let me start each encounter with temps... I once went blow for blow with an elite (pre mm3) that could nto hurt me becuae of my temps...in less he crit and the one time he did I second winded as a minor on my turn... it got tot eh point were matt (dm) said...ok superman I ignore you and shot batman... or to put it another way after round 2 of just about any given fight he would ignore my mark... finaly other players beged me to switch to a better defender...becuse mine was a striker most of the time

other player min maxed his AC as a swordmage, at one point it was 9 higher then the rest of us, and he had a ressit damage intrupt magic item...so he was a juggernut. then matt tried the same trick (Ignore the mark) and found most monsters could not get past his sheilding with out a crit... well my battlerager had been a bad defender for it...the swordmage was getting better and better.

just becuse a tactic works on one doesn;t mean it works on the other...and as you said playexperance with  techniques that actually completely negated monster damage well trump accuracy



and here is a related link http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?p=5045381#post5045381 posts 13 and 14 are my current sig


----------



## keterys (May 14, 2011)

Yep, I've seen a battlerager who could solo a module because the monsters didn't do enough damage and his temp stacked, so he had temp hp equal to his total hp after the first combat and chose not to rest.

I've seen a shaman's spirit companion block off a monster for an entire combat, because it couldn't roll higher than its "I ignore this" level of damage.

And I've seen an elite negated because a wizard / shielding swordmage was impossible to get into melee and his shield negated the elite's entire damage.

The game is _really_ different nowadays.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 15, 2011)

keterys said:


> Decreasing monster level does compensate for decreased hit chance on the part of players, but at the cost of decreased hit chance on the part of monsters. If you're 22nd level with an AC 42 defender, the monsters are already looking for ~15 to hit without decreasing their chance further.
> 
> Much like it's not so simple to compare play experience using pre-MM3 damage values, or with clerics that could astral seal for 40 hp healed, or various anti-damage techniques that actually completely negated monster damage.



Decreased hit chance of the monster is compensated by increased damage post MM3. I made a fast calculation in a different thread (or this one some weeks ago), and you see, that a MM3 monster of 3 levels lower in high epic does about the same damage as a pre MM3 monster, but with less hits. (note, that less frequent but more powerful hits has two added benefits: 1. Damage reduction is more easily overcome. 2. Status effects like stuns don´t hit players as often.) 

So the encounter range defined in the spoiler tag i responded to, was shifted 3 levels down, and the viable range of monsters is as big as with the expertise fit.

MM3 damage and exprtise should neatly expand the range upwards, as hitting more than expected makes the experience rather better than worse and the range of viable monsters is increased.


----------



## keterys (May 15, 2011)

*shrug* Having run a whole lot of level 22nd level play recently, I can say that hitting is already hard enough when using level 23 stuff against the party. It's a sad thing when your level 23 "big bad" uses their "big attack" and misses every single person in the party.

Level 17 stuff, as you suggested, would be looking for 20s to not crit against many PCs.

Maybe if you _also_ removed the entire line of improved/superior/epic defense feats, Champion's Countenance, and some items like the Helm of Able Defense and Golden Ring of Teros.

Regardless... damage is not the only factor in hitting. It's often not even the most important one. Also, the pre-MM3 damage levels were _bad_, so lowering level so you still hit them isn't really a full win.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 15, 2011)

I think i get what you are trying to say... but i think you are not getting what I try to say. I guess it is, that I try to explain something a bit complicated in a foreign language.

Expertise -> beeing able to hit equal level monsters with the chances the math expects (with defense boosting feats, you also can resist them well enough)
MM3 math -> MM3 monsters are as good as MM2 monsters of three levels higher in epic. So you can use monsters of 3 levels lower now.

Both approaches will result in the same lethality, the only difference is some less hp of MM3 monsters and somewhat faster fights, and somewhat lower xp.

I guess, the combination of both things will tilt the math in favour of the PCs, but if you use equal level MM3 monsters, the danger is great enough, that you don´t have to use so much higher Monsters to challenge the players, and this way, the play experience is better... but this last paragraph is only a guess...


----------



## keterys (May 15, 2011)

UngeheuerLich said:


> MM3 math -> MM3 monsters are as good as MM2 monsters of three levels higher in epic. So you can use monsters of 3 levels lower now.




I find this conclusion illogical. A change in damage is not a change in attack, hit points, defense, etc. A monster 3 levels lower dies much faster, for instance.



> I guess, the combination of both things will tilt the math in favour of the PCs, but if you use equal level MM3 monsters, the danger is great enough, that you don´t have to use so much higher Monsters to challenge the players, and this way, the play experience is better... but this last paragraph is only a guess...




It is certainly the case that a DM running epic in MM1 era might dig up an N+7 combat to challenge his PCs, and only need an N+3 now. In addition to new damage values, there are also better status effect protections on elites and solos, and many of the totally broken combinations have been addressed. 

Under no circumstances should you make the use of MM1 monsters contingent on expertise, or think that removing expertise means you shouldn't use newer monsters, though. The new really is much better than the old, and it's a _totally separate thing_.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 16, 2011)

You still don´t understand me... 

I never suggested using MM1 monsters and removing expertise... it is the worst idea i can think of...



> It is certainly the case that a DM running epic in MM1 era might dig up  an N+7 combat to challenge his PCs, and only need an N+3 now. In  addition to new damage values, there are also better status effect  protections on elites and solos, and many of the totally broken  combinations have been addressed.




This is the reason, why MM3 math changed the game in a similar way than expertise! Players hit monsters of an equal challenging encounters more easily leading to less frustration.

In conclusion, MM3 monsters + Expertise will result in PC characters hitting 35% more often in your example... I really don´t know how you read out of my post that i suggested anything near using no expertise and no MM3 monsters... :/


----------

