Is the math off?

[GMforPowergamers]

Just so we're clear, how many 25th+ level characters are we talking about?

I think i count 26 3 of witch are mine... inless you count the 26th level delve (one encounter per week no extended rest wotc event) then add 6 more totale ande 1 more to me...
[sblock=my characters]
27th level tac lord paragon multi into paliden then took homebrew ED (pre phbII)
25th level Ranger homebrew pp, eternal seeker ed (was epic when PHB2 came out)
28th level Avenger(invoker) , hammer of vengence, demi god

none of these took expertise...

and the delve I made 3 of the characters... I was a Swordmage pargan multi wizard archmage

we had a ranger storm warden demigod
we had a monk (Invoker), radiant fist, deadly trickster...

the monk had focused expertise, the others no
[/sblock]

And yet, it's part of the math of the system now. Whether you (or I) like it to be there or not.

but it is not an assumed part...it is an optional part, and not just per game but per character....

Yep, the variance is far tighter. Which is a good thing.

can I get an amen

Then the math is, indeed, off. We might disagree on the extent of the damage, but we are agreed that it's damage.

to be fair noone ever argued any system was perfect...as I have said before this is just the best I have ever seen...but far from perfect...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

5. Fans (a): Maybe that's because your PCs have more options at high level, and more magic item uses, and your Leaders give higher bonuses and this is okay because blah blah blah ...

7. WotC: Oh hey guys, buy this new book! *publishes PHB2*

8. Fans (a) and (b): Well I'll be damned. They were wrong about having the math all worked out, and their fix is lame.

The important part there is 8. Pretty much everyone who was aware of the mathematical disconnect -- be they group (a) or group (b) -- agrees that the fix is poor.

wait...what about us that still belive part 5...how come we get swept under the rug by you???

now then if you would like to show your math (I think I said this before) that shows ALL th diffences between 1st and 30th including 4 times the daily,and encounter powers, increase power of said powers, the adding of all the utlility powers, the adding of items and the scaleing power and versatility of said items, along side the + to hit and the + to ac and NADS then we can have a discussion...until then I say PROVE IT....

To get people to understand that the fix is poor, I spend a lot of time convincing them that the problem exists in the first place. The Expertise line of feats are evidence that even WotC sees the problem, and they are a bad fix for reasons I've already gone into. The new racial powers are more evidence of WotC's awareness.

abjection assuming facts not in evadance (I so wanted to say that )

your proof of wotc admiting I call pandering to the vocal group on the boards... they admit SOME people have these problems...but SOME don't hence why it is a feat you can CHOOSE to take or not...

Once we accept that the problem in 4e's math is real, we can discuss fixes -- and we can intelligently discuss why the Expertise feats are a good or bad idea. (IMHO they're bad, but you knew that already.)

if you really want to prove it in such away as to put everyone on the same page do ALL the math not just some of it as I have said many times in this thread no less...

becuse as you see only half the people on this website that voted agree with you...(and I don;t belive the sampleing is enough to draw conclusions beyond that)

 

[GMforPowergamers]

But it is unreasonable to assume that someone _won't_ take it.

um this poll alone shows only slightly over 50% agree with you on enworld...please tell me why you belive that it is way mroe then that?

There are always outliers. Some people intentionally sabotage their characters. Some people focus so completely on certain shticks that they overlook core competencies. Some people don't pick up anything that's not in a book they own, and don't buy lots of books. Etc.

what about people who feel there to hit is high enough, what about people who have other ways to increase ther core competencies...

or do you have nothing but vagley insulting "well some people" claims

Is it really that hard for you to understand that this obvius must have feat for you is NOT must have for everyone...and that is not becuse they are sabatageing themselvs or have a lower system mastery then you...

 

[rjdafoe]

Once we accept that the problem in 4e's math is real, we can discuss fixes -- and we can intelligently discuss why the Expertise feats are a good or bad idea. (IMHO they're bad, but you knew that already.)

Cheers, -- N

What about another option, one that seems, in my view, more likely:

WotC seems to have been making efforts to change some of the critisims of 4E - for good or bad. The PHB2 classes seem, on average better and more have a more complex build than the PHB1 classes. Some PHB2 powers and feats seem to be more powerful than PHB1 feats and powers.

This could be a change in direction just as easily as admitting there is a real problem. One thing that is never considered, is that the "problem" is intentional - or at least intentionally left that way, as it was never a big problem in real gaming, just calculations. Remember, besides toting the math - which I only remember them saying they fixed, or smoothed problems over vs 3E - I don't think they ever said it was a math "utopia", or even claimed that it was perfect, just leveled out better.

My feeling is that in general, PHB2 has more powerful components that PHB1 and that PHB3 will be the same towards PHB2.

To me, that is not fixing the game, that is power creep - which every game I have ever played has had. It is the nature of the beast. It is what players want - at least most.

 

[keterys]

um this poll alone shows only slightly over 50% agree with you on enworld...please tell me why you belive that it is way mroe then that?

This poll isn't about whether someone playing a level 25+ character would spend one of their feats for +3 attack.

what about people who feel there to hit is high enough

Barring some oddities from the DM (always throwing lower level critters) _and_ being something like an Avenger, they're failing to understand how valuable +3 to hit is. Unfortunately, that's one of the traps of making the fix +3 - and one of the things that WotC said they'd be taking out of the system (the reliance on system mastery)

what about people who have other ways to increase ther core competencies...

Once we're talking about their 14th feat, they're almost assuredly mistaken, but it is possible that with enough homeruled stuff they might have 14 better options. For example, a feat that gave +4 to hit instead. Or one that let their attacks autohit.

Is it really that hard for you to understand that this obvius must have feat for you is NOT must have for everyone...

Of course not. It's a boring feat. It is unfortunate that some people will look at their level 25+ character and make the mistake of thinking +3 to attack is no big deal and they can take Linguist a third time instead.

and that is not becuse they are sabatageing themselvs or have a lower system mastery then you...

In some extraordinarily rare cases, such as when there are fourteen other better options - most likely in a game with lots of non-WotC feats - you're absolutely correct.

In the rest... you're not. I'm sorry. That doesn't make those characters un-fun necessarily - though some people will object to missing that much more often. It doesn't make them horrible - obviously they can be quite competent. They're just a notable percentage less competent than if they'd taken Expertise. Probably in the 10-20% relative range, though potentially up to 30% depending on power choices - usually not nearly that high though.

It's not a tripling or quadrupling of effectiveness... but it's also only one choice, out of many. The more each choice matters, the more likely it is that you can take two characters and the difference between the optimized and not is that tripling of effectiveness. Which is bad. A bit better, absolutely.

 

[rjdafoe]

Once we're talking about their 14th feat, they're almost assuredly mistaken, but it is possible that with enough homeruled stuff they might have 14 better options. For example, a feat that gave +4 to hit instead. Or one that let their attacks autohit.



Of course not. It's a boring feat. It is unfortunate that some people will look at their level 25+ character and make the mistake of thinking +3 to attack is no big deal and they can take Linguist a third time instead.

You may not mean it that way, but it is language like this, that does not go over well with some of us.

You have basically said that we are wrong, if we do not choose the feats you think we should have, or we are somehow playing wrong.

 

[catsclaw227]

um this poll alone shows only slightly over 50% agree with you on enworld...please tell me why you belive that it is way mroe then that?

Yes, but unfortunately, of the ~50% that disagree, more than half also believe that there may be a problem, but it's not critical, or that Lemons will fix the math.

Barring some oddities from the DM (always throwing lower level critters) _and_ being something like an Avenger, they're failing to understand how valuable +3 to hit is. Unfortunately, that's one of the traps of making the fix +3 - and one of the things that WotC said they'd be taking out of the system (the reliance on system mastery)

Yes, but really, the "tax" of a single feat out of 14 isn't really a tax. And it certainly doesn't have much to do with System Mastery, because there are people that still feel that the math works just fine the way it is.

If the math had been smoothed over from the very start (with a built in +1/+2/+3 at 5/15/25) and there was one less feat gained on the leveling chart, would people be complaining?

I doubt it. Thirteen feats is quite a lot of feats, and I believe that very few would have batted an eyelash at it.

So essentially, it's the same scenario. One less feat, math fixed. I think the BIG question we should be looking at..... Is that 14th feat really going to make a difference in how the game is played?

This could be a change in direction just as easily as admitting there is a real problem. One thing that is never considered, is that the "problem" is intentional - or at least intentionally left that way, as it was never a big problem in real gaming, just calculations. Remember, besides toting the math - which I only remember them saying they fixed, or smoothed problems over vs 3E - I don't think they ever said it was a math "utopia", or even claimed that it was perfect, just leveled out better.

QFT. I don't think they ever touted math-perfection. And this edition of D&D has the best balanced math of all of them. Whether that is good or bad is a matter of opinion, but the math has really smoothed out.

 

[keterys]

You may not mean it that way, but it is language like this, that does not go over well with some of us.

I hesitated somewhat, but that's generally the case with almost anything you say on the internet.

You have basically said that we are wrong, if we do not choose the feats you think we should have, or we are somehow playing wrong.

Depends on what wrong means to you. If we're talking about creating a more effective character and this one particular feat at 25th+ level... then yes, that is what I'm saying, with the stated exception that it _may_ be possible to find fourteen other more effective feats. I haven't seen anyone provide such a list for any singular character, but it is possible.

If we're talking about making a fun character, then I hope I've made it clear that's not contingent on perfect math. Fwiw, I often purposefully play a less effective character than is possible, because I find it more enjoyable. And I certainly often find other feats to take before Expertise because they're important to my character concept, such as multiclass feats.

If you think that +3 to attack doesn't make a notable difference in a character's effectiveness, though, I will stand by my statement.

But, if you enjoy missing more often, then by all means don't take Expertise. Realize, of course, that your group may find it less enjoyable to have you missing more often, but they might not care. A lot of that may depend on whether you're a leader or not.

In the case of certain leader types, like tactical warlords and clerics with astral seal, missing may cause other party members to miss, detracting from their fun.

 

[Nifft]

What about another option, one that seems, in my view, more likely:

WotC seems to have been making efforts to change some of the critisims of 4E - for good or bad. The PHB2 classes seem, on average better and more have a more complex build than the PHB1 classes. Some PHB2 powers and feats seem to be more powerful than PHB1 feats and powers.

This could be a change in direction just as easily as admitting there is a real problem. One thing that is never considered, is that the "problem" is intentional - or at least intentionally left that way, as it was never a big problem in real gaming, just calculations. Remember, besides toting the math - which I only remember them saying they fixed, or smoothed problems over vs 3E - I don't think they ever said it was a math "utopia", or even claimed that it was perfect, just leveled out better.

My feeling is that in general, PHB2 has more powerful components that PHB1 and that PHB3 will be the same towards PHB2.

To me, that is not fixing the game, that is power creep - which every game I have ever played has had. It is the nature of the beast. It is what players want - at least most.

PHB2 classes are all "A"-shaped rather than "V"-shaped, and I'm sure that was intentional, and I'm sure it was indeed based on player feedback.

You'll have to sell me on Power Creep. The Invoker is a fine example: it has kick-ass At-Will powers for a controller, but lackluster Daily powers -- the opposite of a Wizard, and not necessarily superior to a Wizard.

Another fine example: the Barbarian. It's fun as hell to play, but it's out-damaged by a (boring) Ranger.

Yet another example: the Avenger. Low damage, but high DPR thanks to seldom missing. Has been widely criticized for damage being too low.

Sell me on Power Creep. So far I'm just seeing less swingy classes, not stronger ones.

Cheers, -- N

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Barring some oddities from the DM (always throwing lower level critters) _and_ being something like an Avenger, they're failing to understand how valuable +3 to hit is. Unfortunately, that's one of the traps of making the fix +3 - and one of the things that WotC said they'd be taking out of the system (the reliance on system mastery)

so it is impossable for two people to sit at the table and be happy with there characters hit rate, and not be avengers or have expertise...

here are 4 PHB1 only melee characters:

hafling Rouge level 26 (all except 1 at will attack a nad...) dagger master/ deadly trickster +13 (level) +8 (dex) +6 (magic dagger) +2 (95%+ CA) +3 (prof) +1 (rouge talent)= +33 vs Nads...

Dragon born Fighter level 26 Kensi Demi god +13 (level) +9 (str) +6 (magic sword) +2 (flanking with above CA) +3 (prof) +1 (fighter talent) +1 (kensi)= +35 Vs AC

Dwarven Paliden level 26 Hospitol Demi god +13 (level) +7 (str or cha) +6 (Magic axe) +2 (come on everyone gets CA for this) +2 (prof)= +30 Vs AC

Elf Ranger Level 26 Storm warden Eternal Seeker +13 (level) +8 (str or Dex) +5 (magic scimitar x2, and magic bow) +2 (can't leave him out of CA) +2 (prof)= +30 Vs AC

Now then lets look at a level 30 soldier...a hard fight to be sure
AC=46 NADs= 42

so the paliden is in the worst shape... he needs 16's to hit and only his dailyies have miss effects

the Ranger is up next he needs 16's as well BUT he does auto damage, and even twin strike does guarantee of 2xdex mod (16 damage) when he misses...he also has multi attack rolls... his elven accuracy helps too.

The fighter needs 11's to hit (op attacks are easier thanks to wis) so he is at 50/50 and is doing well

the Rogue is blowing everyone out of the water...he has an 18+ crit range and is hitting on 9+...and thanks to arcane trickster he has 3 rerolls per day...

Now if they had a 5th player (a leader) they would all be perfectly viable not only without expertise, but with out ___ Power books, or any other add ons.

Once we're talking about their 14th feat, they're almost assuredly mistaken, but it is possible that with enough homeruled stuff they might have 14 better options. For example, a feat that gave +4 to hit instead. Or one that let their attacks autohit.

Martial/Divine/Arcane mastery, _____ Mastery (blank is weapon you weild), Blind fight, Epic recovery (especilay for a dwarf), that is just quickly looking at an epic fighter sheet infront of me...

Crit on 19+, recover powers when you take your action point, remove fighting blind peneltiies, gain a third wind... all of those are great uses of any epic feat.

Of course not. It's a boring feat. It is unfortunate that some people will look at their level 25+ character and make the mistake of thinking +3 to attack is no big deal and they can take Linguist a third time instead.

I guess it depends on weather or not you often run into langauge barriers...