Is the math off?

[Umbran]

Even if the feats are necessary (I am making no judgment either way) I question whether that means the math is "broken". "Broken" means "doesn't work". The feats are present - so all things that might be necessary are present. Thus, the system is not broken.

Does the system have a flaw or quirk? Do some people prefer a particular form of smooth mathematical precision? Sure. That does not equate to the game being "broken", or "needs fixing".

 

[Destil]

Also, I don't see this noted often, but magic items should scale to 35th. +7 weapons keeps the treasure piles consistent all the way to 30 and rubs out another point of the disparity at the end of Epic.

 

[Lanefan]

My only question is this: at the base design level, why does the game's math have to be so fine-tuned that the mere presence or absence of a feat or two at high levels could potentially throw the whole thing off the rails? Whether this is good design or bad is irrelevant as a result, but I wonder if there was a bit too much design put into the process - that it got a bit too fine-tuned for its own good.

And, doesn't this also defeat the whole philosophy of "there are no bad choices", if the game by its own design can't handle compounding bad or suboptimal choices at high level? Again, no right or wrong here, as in any game in any edition it still comes down to the DM to tweak the opposition to what the party can handle...well, most of the time. What's worth taking away here is that even in 4e, where it's been designed to somewhat run itself, those tweaks might still be needed depending on the long-term choices of the players when advancing their characters.

Lan-"the randomness of dice can butcher the best mathematical models"-efan

 

[Dice4Hire]

To my way of thinking way too many people

A: Do not want to miss. EVER
B: Do not want to rely on their companions to hit. EVER.

In my opinion the math works fine, but people really hate to miss, or rely on companions too much, or take advantage of all the situational modifiers.

If you look at Optimizers, they are the worst of this lot. All characters are created, fight and die in a vaccuum. In a vaccuum, especially \with 4E, yes, they look poorly, but when a priest at-will can eaisly give +4-+6 to hit an opponent, ignoring thiese situational mofdifiers is ludicrous.

The math is fine, the game works. At least IMNS(not so)HO.

 

[FireLance]

If I can ask a question related to the one I asked in the "difference between optimized and non-optimized" thread:
What is the difference between a party of PCs with the "math fix" feats and a party of PCs without the "math fix" feats anyway?

At the most basic level, I suppose one could look at how likely is the party to overcome the challenges they face in the game. However, assuming that even a party without the "math fix" feats already has a good chance of overcoming an equal-level challenge (and admittedly, I don't have any mathematical support for this assumption) then replacing some of their feats with the "math fix" feats would only lead to a marginal increase in the chances of success.

If we look at the amount of resources used to overcome the challenge, the only resources that are not renewed after a short rest (or two, in the case of action points) are healing surges, daily powers, and consumables. And in the case of healing surges, a character with the "math fix" feats that ends up being hit only once during the fight and a character without the "math fix" feats that ends up being hit twice may end up spending the same number of healing surges to recover hit points during the short rest.

If we expand the time frame further, even the number of healing surges expended and daily powers used wouldn't make much of a difference if both the parties end up taking an extended rest at the same point in an adventure regardless of how many healing surges and daily powers they have at that time (e.g. there is a logical break in the action - the party has just cleared out a dungeon, for example - or at the end of the adventure).

RangerWickett did raise a good point about the speed of combat. So, if you want your fights to end more quickly, there may be an advantage in taking the "math fix" feats.

Otherwise, do the "math fix" feats simply allow you to look better when you're winning your fights?

 

[Dausuul]

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 far as fixes go, yes, WotC made the right call; as you say, they can't go back and rewrite the PHB, so a feat-fix is a tolerably good answer. That doesn't stop me from complaining that they should have got it right in the first place. (To be fair, given that they completely rebuilt D&D from the ground up, some mistakes were to be expected. But seriously, they couldn't make the attack bonuses come out right? Making a bunch of integers add up to 30 is not rocket science.)

Funny thing... while I'm sure it would raise howls of protest across the Intarwebs, I actually want a 4.5E. It would let them fix a lot of small but irksome issues in the new rules; tidy up the math, adjust the stats on high-level monsters and minions, give the warlock some much-needed love, put all the collected skill challenge fixes in the DMG, and generally smooth out the rough spots.

Unfortunately, 3.5E pretty much killed any chance of that. Because 3.5E was such a blatant money-grab, and because it meant the "edition gap" on 4E was only 5 years instead of 8, the community is unlikely to tolerate a 4.5E even though it could be quite beneficial.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

My only question is this: at the base design level, why does the game's math have to be so fine-tuned that the mere presence or absence of a feat or two at high levels could potentially throw the whole thing off the rails? Whether this is good design or bad is irrelevant as a result, but I wonder if there was a bit too much design put into the process - that it got a bit too fine-tuned for its own good.

It's not thrown of the rails. Things just get a little "harder" if you lack 2-3 points of attack bonus. It's not like equal level foes now become impossible to beat.

The point is more that people expect a perfect symmetry in numbers, since that would indicate the math is fine-tuned. If the monsters attacks and defenses increase by 1 point per level, then the PCs attacks and defenses should also increase by 1 point per level. But that doesn't mean the game system can't live with a 3-5 point difference. But it also means you could design the game from the start to ensure this progression.

Of course, it also depends on how transparent the progression is. Feats, magic items, ability score increases, level bonus to attacks is very transparent. But it could just as well be that the progression is also fulfilled by more hidden stuff, like the overal benefit from a paragon path, the improved abilities from the parties leader, extra hit points or healing sources that allow you to last longer, compensating a few misses, better abilities to lock down a foe with conditions and terrain changes...

 

[Mr. Wilson]

Amusingly, the majority of people who bothered to vote in the poll voted that the system was broken while the majority of people who posted their feelings seem to disagree.

I think the math was broken, and WoTC patched it with feats. I disliked their fix (feat tax), and just give everyone expertise for free.

 

[kenmarable]

The point is more that people expect a perfect symmetry in numbers, since that would indicate the math is fine-tuned. If the monsters attacks and defenses increase by 1 point per level, then the PCs attacks and defenses should also increase by 1 point per level. But that doesn't mean the game system can't live with a 3-5 point difference. But it also means you could design the game from the start to ensure this progression.

Personally, I think there should definitely be some play and wiggle room in the numbers. Otherwise if the progressions between PC and foe line up perfectly, then technically the math is completely irrelevant since it perfectly cancels out. "Roll 10 or higher to hit a monster of you level. 11 or higher for a monster 1 level higher, etc."

Not only can the game live with some wiggle room, I think it is a necessary feature in order to provide variation.

 

[Stalker0]

If I helps, I will be posting my first math analysis on a mock epic level combat very soon! (probably this weekend). It will help show how epic level abilities influence the math.