Is the math off?

Kzach · Nov 12, 2009

Recently I posted a few discussions around various messageboards asking about the 4e math and whether it was 'bad' or needed fixing.

Primarily this was a reaction to a particular thread that brought the issue into question and made me investigate. Previously I had ignored most discussions on this issue as I had been concentrating on the heroic level where the problem, if there is one, is far less prevalent.

After reading through several threads on the issue and having investigated it by creating characters of my own and comparing them to monsters within their level range, I must say that the issue doesn't seem as clear-cut as I first thought.

There seems to be a strong argument to contend that the bonuses granted by various feats aren't 'fixes' but rather gap-fillers. Generally a build will have a weakness and it's nice to be able to plug it. And in the case where magical item bonuses and various character powers aren't compensation enough for the level disparity, these feats fill that niche.

But for players who have a strong grasp of optimisation and who work well as a group in a well-rounded party that fills all the roles and each player knows their role well, these feats seem to become superfluous. Other options seem to provide greater benefit.

And so I find myself, through lack of actual play experience at high levels, somewhat on the fence about it all. I can clearly see the arguments for and against and can't quite decide which side has the greater merit.

So I figured I'd take the pulse of the internet community and see where the majority have sided. Do you think the math is off, or is it just fine as it is?

Destil · Nov 12, 2009

I think the player vs. monster math is slightly off at higher levels. However it's in small ways that I don't suspect affect many groups, and is only noticed by those who really get into the optimization aspect. As such I doubt it really matters, since said groups are pretty good about ringing the rules for everything they're worth...

Mustrum_Ridcully · Nov 12, 2009

I am still not convinced that the Expertise feats weren't planned from the start. Or if not the feats itself, then at least some approach to increase the attack bonuses.

Doesn't mean I like the particular approach, but I don't like +X items either.

Asmor · Nov 12, 2009

So, if I may sum up, you feel that it's unclear whether there are optimal choices and it seems to be dependent on the player, the character, the group makeup, and their experience?

That sounds like the exact sort of thing they should be striving for.

DEFCON 1 · Nov 12, 2009

Well the math can't be "fixed"... at least not in the way that the folks who have gotten very upset with the inclusion of the Expertise feats seem to want. Because "fixing" the math would mean having to reprint the entire Player's Handbook. The math is underneath the entire game... it's not something you can just change a line or two in errata and voila, it's all "fixed". Heck, I bet 95% of current D&D players don't even realize how the "math" works, let alone how it's "off". I know I would never in a million years ever have thought to add up all my bonuses for a 30th level character and compare it to the "build a monster" section of the DMG to see how they lined up, until I read all about it in some of the vitriolic rants here on ENWorld.

What I find ironic though, is that knowing the reality that you can't "fix" the math without a full reprint of the Player's Handbooks with additional plusses inserted into various character generation sections to balance things out... apparently most of the folks upset at the "math" would rather have had the problem just be ignored by WotC instead of getting the "fix" they were given... i.e. the Expertise feat. It amuses me that some people are so beholden to the rules that they'd rather a rule they don't like just not exist, rather than just not use said rule (or just houserule it). By putting in the Expertise feat, WotC is "admitting there's a problem"... and not "actually fixing it"... but rather "just patching it poorly" by making players spend a feat for it. Now they can't play the game "as-is"... they have to change it or play it differently than how the rules say.

To be honest... I think WotC made the right call. Because the so-called math problem is not something that most players will ever realize exists, let alone care enough to see fixed. And those same players will never look upon the Expertise feats as feats they are "required" to have, because the idea of a so-called "feat tax" is not something they'll ever even think of. They'll choose those feats the same way they choose any other ones... is it cool? Will it be fun to have? Etc. etc.

As much as it bothers many of the more advanced players here on ENWorld... WotC doesn't tailor the game to us... they are concerned about the player base as a whole and their own costs and measures. So why rip apart and have to reprint all of their books because of this supposed problem with the math (which pretty much disappears once you add in Combat Advantage each round anyway) just to satisfy those select few that are up in arms about it? Drop in a few feats... make them available for players who want to use them... and let the players ignore or houserule those feats who don't. Bottom line is... there's just no pleasing some people.

Mustrum_Ridcully · Nov 12, 2009

DEFCON 1 said:
Well the math can't be "fixed"... at least not in the way that the folks who have gotten very upset with the inclusion of the Expertise feats seem to want. Because "fixing" the math would mean having to reprint the entire Player's Handbook. The math is underneath the entire game... it's not something you can just change a line or two in errata and voila, it's all "fixed". Heck, I bet 95% of current D&D players don't even realize how the "math" works, let alone how it's "off". I know I would never in a million years ever have thought to add up all my bonuses for a 30th level character and compare it to the "build a monster" section of the DMG to see how they lined up, until I read all about it in some of the vitriolic rants here on ENWorld.

What I find ironic though, is that knowing the reality that you can't "fix" the math without a full reprint of the Player's Handbooks with additional plusses inserted into various character generation sections to balance things out... apparently most of the folks upset at the "math" would rather have had the problem just be ignored by WotC instead of getting the "fix" they were given... i.e. the Expertise feat. It amuses me that some people are so beholden to the rules that they'd rather a rule they don't like just not exist, rather than just not use said rule (or just houserule it). By putting in the Expertise feat, WotC is "admitting there's a problem"... and not "actually fixing it"... but rather "just patching it poorly" by making players spend a feat for it. Now they can't play the game "as-is"... they have to change it or play it differently than how the rules say.

To be honest... I think WotC made the right call. Because the so-called math problem is not something that most players will ever realize exists, let alone care enough to see fixed. And those same players will never look upon the Expertise feats as feats they are "required" to have, because the idea of a so-called "feat tax" is not something they'll ever even think of. They'll choose those feats the same way they choose any other ones... is it cool? Will it be fun to have? Etc. etc.

As much as it bothers many of the more advanced players here on ENWorld... WotC doesn't tailor the game to us... they are concerned about the player base as a whole and their own costs and measures. So why rip apart and have to reprint all of their books because of this supposed problem with the math (which pretty much disappears once you add in Combat Advantage each round anyway) just to satisfy those select few that are up in arms about it? Drop in a few feats... make them available for players who want to use them... and let the players ignore or houserule those feats who don't. Bottom line is... there's just no pleasing some people.

I think the Expertise feats can count as a fix within the system. The game rules "force" us to spend our treasure on +X items. If we don't do that, attack bonuses and defenses won't measure up against monsters. The Expertise feats now "force" us to spend feats to keep in line with the monsters.

The only difference is that the force to buy or "find" particular items was already in Core I. But spending a feat to get the desired attack or defense bonus only started with PHB 2 - That doesn't sit so well with us, because it feels like something was taken away from us - one or more of our feat slots.

We have an "equipment tax", now we have a "feat tax". But... If we can accept weapons or magical armor and cloak as a necessity, why can't we accept some feats as a "necessity". Or do we really have to treat them as such? Is it not that it's only really relevant for character optimization? The game doesn't become unplayable when you have only a +1 Sword at 16th level. 16th level monsters might just feel a little tougher than the 5th level monsters you fought at 5th level. That alone doesn't have to be a problem.

Kzach · Nov 12, 2009

Asmor said:
So, if I may sum up, you feel that it's unclear whether there are optimal choices and it seems to be dependent on the player, the character, the group makeup, and their experience?

Not quite. I'm not sure I can really rephrase what I've already said in any more clear a manner.

I will try.

In my research on the subject, there appeared to be two camps. One side argued that there is a 'feat tax' and that the math of 4e is wonky because these feats are required to 'fix' the math.

The other camp argued that the only reason they take said feats is because they are so clearly superior to any other feat that it's almost ludicrous not to take them. But having said that, they are not necessary because through character optimisation, teamwork, character powers, and strategic item choices, there is nothing at all wrong with the math.

Therefore the feats were included mainly for people who aren't doing all the above. Some groups, for instance, may have three strikers and a tank but no leaders or controllers. Therefore they may need those feats to compensate for a lack of in combat bonuses and mob control. Some groups may just not be all that interested in optimisation, and so to maintain a fun game, their characters need such feats to remain effective.

So when all is said and done, there seemed to be two camps: one who claimed the math of the system was broken and needed fixing and that these feats were included to do just that, and those who felt the math was just fine and that the feats were there simply to compensate the non-optimal party/character, etc.

Mustrum_Ridcully · Nov 12, 2009

I am not sure I identify strongly with either of these teams.

My thinking is more that the math is not broken, a way to get the 1 point to attack/defense per tier was always planned. It was just not included from the start. Maybe they weren't sure which approach to take.

Both sides have good arguments. If we ignore situational modifiers, special abilities by Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies, the points are "missing" compare to the monsters. But - again, we are ignoring part of the picture, possibly because we don't really know how to account for it correctly.
The other side might note that 3 points of difference is not all that much, considering the modifiers you can sometimes bring up. Sure, it will always help, but that doesn't mean it's required. How do we define "required" anyway? Do we need a specific to-hit chance to balance the game? How does this interact with extra hit points, extra damage and countless other special abilities?

Crothian · Nov 12, 2009

The math works. We are still adding 1+1 and getting 2.

RangerWickett · Nov 12, 2009

With just PHB 1, combat took too long, and there was too much missing. Maybe we got better at the game, but with PHB 2, combat goes marginally faster. Since I think 4e combat is slow as a bleeping tortoise, any increase in speed is good.

When I run my own campaign, I plan to have PCs and monsters both use a straight 1/2 level bonus to d20 rolls and damage rolls (well, for the monsters I'll assume this is already factored in).

On the PC end, there'll be no more stat increases as they level, and magic items won't grant enhancement bonuses to attacks or defenses.

On the monster end, I'll just reduce attack rolls and defenses by 1/2 level.