Is the math off?

[Jhaelen]

I'm a bit surprised it's 'only' about 60% thinking the math is off. Judging by the discussions, I've seen, I would have thought it to be a higher percentage. Must be this vocal majority thing

For the record: I think the math is fine as it is and Dice4Hire already said it all.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

If you only fight monsters of the same relative levels, that might be a point. But you do not. If you would, even if the individual PC was allowed a 1-5 point difference - the to-hit numbers for him would still not change.

Aside from that, there are a lot of situational modifiers that can change to-hit modifiers, too - powers, positioning, monster role.

 

[TerraDave]

We know the "math" as published was off.

Skill DCs have been errated
Solos and elites (and other high level monsters?) have been stealth errated
Expertise feats

Which makes me wonder, is the math right now?

 

[Dausuul]

If you only fight monsters of the same relative levels, that might be a point. But you do not. If you would, even if the individual PC was allowed a 1-5 point difference - the to-hit numbers for him would still not change.

Aside from that, there are a lot of situational modifiers that can change to-hit modifiers, too - powers, positioning, monster role.

Yup. And don't forget that monsters have 4 defenses, and they're typically different.

In any case, if the game relies on +1 or -1 to hit for its variety, it's not doing very well at promoting variety. In my view, choosing between Linguist and Skill Training offers far more character variety than choosing between Weapon Expertise and Paragon Defenses.

 

[Derren]

We know the "math" as published was off.

Skill DCs have been errated
Solos and elites (and other high level monsters?) have been stealth errated
Expertise feats

Which makes me wonder, is the math right now?

Don't forget Minions.

 

[kenmarable]

If you only fight monsters of the same relative levels, that might be a point. But you do not. If you would, even if the individual PC was allowed a 1-5 point difference - the to-hit numbers for him would still not change.

Aside from that, there are a lot of situational modifiers that can change to-hit modifiers, too - powers, positioning, monster role.

Exactly. I was mainly "me too-ing" that "perfect symmetry" isn't a great ideal. "Close enough symmetry", to me, seems to be the best because it makes all of those choices matter - choices both in character creation and in combat. All of which break "perfect symmetry". Now how close is "close enough" probably varies by group, and in my limited experience so far, it does feel close enough for us.

 

[Dausuul]

Exactly. I was mainly "me too-ing" that "perfect symmetry" isn't a great ideal. "Close enough symmetry", to me, seems to be the best because it makes all of those choices matter - choices both in character creation and in combat. All of which break "perfect symmetry". Now how close is "close enough" probably varies by group, and in my limited experience so far, it does feel close enough for us.

I would be perfectly happy to eliminate all variation in PC attack bonuses, with the exception of level. Let everyone's bonus with all attacks equal C + character level for some constant value C; no weapon proficiency bonus, no stat modifier, no enhancement bonus, no feat bonus.

(Before people jump all over how this would break X and Y and Z, I am aware that this could not be done in a vacuum and would require some tweaks to the rest of the system.)

I don't find it adds anything to the game to have so many factors going into calculating a simple integer value. All it does is make the designers' job harder and confuse the heck out of new players. I'd prefer to have character customization focus on qualitative rather than quantitative choices - decisions like "Would I rather speak three extra languages or be good at stealth?" as opposed to "Would I rather get +1 to hit or get my damage die upgraded to 1d10?"

Linguist is mechanically a crap feat, but it adds noticeable flavor to a character. (What languages do you speak? Where did you learn them? Are you a scholar versed in ancient tongues, or a traveler who's friends with the elves, drinking buddies with the dwarves, and wary business acquaintances with the goblins?) Weapon Expertise is mechanically an awesome feat, but I have never, ever seen a character made more interesting by getting +1 to hit.

But inevitably, edition after edition, the Linguist-type options lose out to the Expertise-type options because the latter are more predictably useful. There may be about one adventure in ten where you get to use your language skills (if the party wizard doesn't simply cast comprehend language), maybe one in four or five if your DM works at it. But in a typical 4E game you'll get to swing your sword 10-20 times just about every session. So let's assume everybody took the boring Expertise-type feats already, and then give them an assortment of interesting Linguist-type feats to choose from.

 

[keterys]

Either the math was off before, and the feats were a poor fix.
Or the math was okay before, and the feats made the new math off.

And even if that was group dependent before, that still applies because both groups got them.

Ie, if the feats help a non-optimized group be okay... then the optimized group is now too good, and that non-optimized group still has problems if they have characters who use both implements and weapons (or, worse, some abilities that are neither, like a Scion of Arkhosia), and many groups likely have a mix, so you'll have the person with the belt of +fort and the hide armor of +fort and the robust defenses and the epic fort who is nigh unhittable in the same group with the guy who has none of it who is nigh unmissable.

And even if they'd always planned on the feats, they're the wrong balance for feats and distract people from actually interesting feats so even if the system math isn't off, the balance of interesting feats is off.

Bah. Humbug.

 

[Ourph]

Weapon Expertise is mechanically an awesome feat, but I have never, ever seen a character made more interesting by getting +1 to hit.

This.

IMO "the math is off" is a perfectly valid opinion that's based on certain assumptions that not all 4e players share (me included). There are discrepancies between certain character types and choices. Whether it was intentional or not, I don't think it's a bad thing, at least not to the point where it makes the game unenjoyable. I think adding in flavorless attack bonus feats to "fix" a problem that may or may not exist is a huge mistake. It directly contradicts some of the design philosophy that got me excited about 4e in the first place. To me, the "solution" is doing more harm than good.

 

[Herschel]

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?

This. Thank you, sir.