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

[MrMyth]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.)

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.

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]

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.