So, about Expertise...

[deleteme123456]

There's a defense discussion going on the house rules forum, but the math gap can actually end up more like 4 to 8 for defenses unless you take things like the new +4 to a defense feat or +2 to all defenses.

So, decide if you're keeping such feats before figuring out how much you're adding to them, but there's room to add 3 to 6 to defenses likely.

Me and the other DM in my group are just discussing giving Paragon Defenses and Epic Defenses for free. They'll stay feat bonuses because we don't want to fight the character builder, so the only other things really worth taking will be the Epic +4 ones, but I'm OK with a character having to take one or two of those to shore up a weak area that hasn't advanced by stats.

 

[grickherder]

It's been shown (in this thread even) that the +1 to hit does more damage than taking a damage feat. On top of that other power effects will trigger and of course minions make hitting far more important even before you calculate damage.

You're quite correct, because average damage is the result of the percentage hit rate multiplied by the average damage roll result. Increasing the bonus to hit has a larger net effect on the average damage overall in almost all cases (perhaps all cases?).

If someone wants to maximize their damage, they should probably stick to +3 weapons and choose all feats that give bonuses to hit before they take any damage related feats.

However, those who might fit in the category of prioritizing damage might actual be the type who enjoy the psychological effect of rolling a higher damage die. And people also take +2 weapons over +3 weapons for a variety of other reasons. It's cool to roll a d12 for damage, even if the +3 weapon that rolls a d10 would increase your average damage overall.

 

[grickherder]

So, I'm giving everyone +1 to-hit at 5th, +2 at 15th, and +3 at 25th. No Expertise feats exist.

This is the best solution to the boring but effective feats vs interesting feats conundrum. If I find that actual play proves it to be a problem, I'll likely adopt a similar solution.

 

[grickherder]

Another thing to consider when assessing this feat is where you spend most of your playing time. Heroic tier? Paragon? Epic? If you're the type of group that runs full campaigns and will go through all 30 levels, then Expertise is a very different feat than those who will likely only run a game to level 13 or so.

I consider the sweet spot of 4e to be the entire heroic tier and about two thirds or so of the paragon tier. I like higher level play only when the PCs developed there or if the players took a serious amount of time learning their characters before play. Being unfamiliar with a character that's over level 20 is a recipe for combats that last forever.

That said, being somewhat heroic-tier centric, I like expertise just fine. It allows someone who'd like to hit as if they started with 20 in their primary attack stat without having to choose an array that has an 18 in it (that's 16 of the 22 availabl points). Similarly, for those who really like MAD classes and builds, they can go with a 16 and hit as if it was an 18. And if someone loves hitting, they can start with an attack bonus as if they had 22 in a stat. The price? 16 out of 22 of their attribute points and one of their precious 6 (or 7) heroic tier feats.

 

[Regicide]

However, those who might fit in the category of prioritizing damage might actual be the type who enjoy the psychological effect of rolling a higher damage die. And people also take +2 weapons over +3 weapons for a variety of other reasons. It's cool to roll a d12 for damage, even if the +3 weapon that rolls a d10 would increase your average damage overall.

The game system shouldn't assist mathematically challenged people in making bad decisions. It's bad design. Particularly for one that goes out of it's way to give "helpful" character creation advice.

 

[CapnZapp]

So. What I want to know as a DM is: are the following assumptions reasonable or not?

(Obviously, now I'm assuming the feats aren't automatically available)

Attack: there is "space" for a bonus up to +3 (at Epic)
Fort/Ref/Will: there is "space" for a bonus up to +6 (at Epic)
AC: ? (that is, do you need anything else than masterwork?)

If this is about right, it's great to know.

I certainly think feats aren't the most exciting solution. By handing out these bonuses in other ways, these feat slots can be kept open for more flexibility overall.

I guess the lesson learned is that there really can't be a feat giving out an unconditional bonus to the crucial stats (attack & defense). Such a feat can't ever be "optional" regardless of whether the math shows there is "space" or not.

I mean sure, if you hit only on a 19 then these bonuses are very welcome. But even if you already hit on a 6, you still gain the exact same benefit.

The fact that hitting on a 3 isn't "necessary" to enjoy the game doesn't prevent the increase in to hit to be equally good statistically speaking. Power-gamers understand this. They take the feat even though it actually decreases excitement and tension.

Thus I conclude bonuses to attacks and defenses really shouldn't be made available as feats - because the underlying assumption that they are "optional" is simply wrong! A +1 to your vital statistics is simply nearly always better than any other benefit, simply because it will always be in play!

Corollary: Bonuses to attacks/defenses can be given out as feats, but to be interesting, to be truly optional, they must be situational. That is, their bonuses can't apply all the time.

Okay?

Zapp

PS. I too dislike how Expertise widens the gap between your main method of attacking and any secondary ones.

If you give out the bonus for free to all attacks, and then allow the feat for any kind of attack except your best, then you'd have an interesting feat! (It would then help to shore up any second weapon of yours, or perhaps help you use a magical attack even though you're primarily a martial combatant)

 

[Otterscrubber]

If every character takes this as a feat, it basically becomes a core character ability and every PC loses a feat. If that is the case, then this implementation is a mistake. There should be no feats that every PC takes. In fact, if there is a feat that more than 50% of the PCs are taking, I think there is a problem that needs to be addressed. I certainly see these feats (really the same 1 feat masked as 2 feats) as exceeding the 50% mark very quickly. I'll retrain my characters to gain them as soon as I can.

I'd love to hear designers comment on why the feat was made, what they think of everyone assuming it is a must have feat, and what builds might find this feat to be a suboptimal choice.

Ya I have to agree with this especially as I live in this fantasy world (pun intended) where they balanced epic level fights before the PHB2 came out, which means this will make high level encounters easier than they should be. I have a hard time seeing someone not taking this feat, unless they play a totally support based style of play.

 

[tiornys]

So. What I want to know as a DM is: are the following assumptions reasonable or not?

(Obviously, now I'm assuming the feats aren't automatically available)

Attack: there is "space" for a bonus up to +3 (at Epic)

Actually, +4. PC attack bonuses increase by +25, monster defenses by 29. (Some Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies can up PC attack bonuses by 1 more each, but that's theoretically balanecd by the rest of the Path/Destiny).

Fort/Ref/Will: there is "space" for a bonus up to +6 (at Epic)

Assuming no feats, and no items except Neck, monster attack bonuses increase by 29 while PC F/R/W increases by 21-25, depending on the number of stat pumps to a relevant stat. That leaves space for up to 8 points of bonus to a non-pumped defense, and 4 to a fully pumped one. PHB feats exist that ameliorate 2 points of this gap. Balancing these out fully is kind of tricky, since anything that brings the non-pumped defense up to par puts the pumped defenses above par.

AC: ? (that is, do you need anything else than masterwork?)

Masterwork exists to close this gap. Strange that they caught it with AC but not attacks or F/R/W.

Corollary: Bonuses to attacks/defenses can be given out as feats, but to be interesting, to be truly optional, they must be situational. That is, their bonuses can't apply all the time.

Full agreement here.

If you give out the bonus for free to all attacks, and then allow the feat for any kind of attack except your best, then you'd have an interesting feat! (It would then help to shore up any second weapon of yours, or perhaps help you use a magical attack even though you're primarily a martial combatant)

Sounds like a solid idea for a house rule! Let us know if you come up with a good way of translating it into rules-text.

t~

 

[grickherder]

That is a good analysis to compare it to Weapon Proficiency (some superior weapon). In my opinion, though, superior weapons are also slightly broken. ;}

I thought so too until I took a look at the mathematical difference between a superior weapon and the equivalent non-superior weapon of the same type.

Battleaxe vs. War axe: You get a d12 damage die. So that's an extra point of damage per [w] on average.

Flail vs Triple headed flail: You get a +1 to hit.

Warhammer vs Craghammer: You get brutal 2, effectively giving you d8+2 rather than d10. Average damage of 6.5 rather than 5.5. An average of +1 damage per [W].

Great Ave vs. Execution Axe: You gain Brutal 2. d12 brutal 2 is mathematically identical to d10+2. The average damage of a d12 is 6.5. The average damage of d10+2 is 7.5. So it nets you an extra point of damage on average per [W] of the attack. Both are high crit.

Greatsword vs Fullblade: You gain high crit and d12 damage. On non critical hits, the d12 has an average damage of 6.5. The d10, 5.5. So once again, you've got a +1 per [w], this time with a maximum that's higher by 2 (10 vs 12 possible points of damage). Add in the high crit and in this case, you're getting a decent bang for your buck for the superior weapon feat-- average of 1 more point of damage, 2 more possible points of damage and high crit.

Longspear vs Greatspear: You gain +1 hit.

Maul vs Mordenkrad: You gain Brutal 1. That means you have the mathematical equivilant of 2d5+2 rather than 2d6. So that's 8 damage on average rather than 7. +1 damage per [W] just like the Execution Axe.

Double weapons generally get you an increase in damage die for your off hand weapon only, as well as the AC boost. So a two weapon ranger gains a bonus AC point, but nothing really changes as far as the damage die goes (the ranger can already use full size weapons in the off hand). For the tempest fighter who doesn't multiclass, you gain the AC and your offhand goes from a d6 to a d8 or a d10. That's an average of 1 or 2 extra points of damage per [w], but only on the off hand.

For a lot of these, you might be better off taking weapon focus and getting +1 to damage per tier. Unless you make a lot of 2[W] and greater attacks. Then +1 per [W] is better.

At the heroic tier, these are all good options, not quite on par with expertise. But they don't scale at level 15. From levels 1-14, going from a long spear to a great spear or from a broad sword to a bastard sword or from a flail to a triple flail are pretty much the same as Expertise as long as you don't switch weapons. If you switch weapons within a single weapon group, expertise is better.

 

[grickherder]

The game system shouldn't assist mathematically challenged people in making bad decisions. It's bad design. Particularly for one that goes out of it's way to give "helpful" character creation advice.

I sort of agree. Though I must admit that even though I know the math, I may take a feat to go from a d10 damage to a d12 even though it nets me less than a +1 to hit. Rolling those twelvesiders is fun.

Another good example is going from the maul to the modernkrad (which gives you brutal 1). Statistically it just gives you an average of +1 damage per [W] of the attack, arguably not as good as +1 to hit. But when you roll damage dice and it comes up 1,1 once every 36 strikes or so, it's going to feel so good to pick those up and roll them again.

Is it the most mathematically optimized way to increase your average damage per round? Nope. Hitting more does that. But rerolling 1s is fun. And picking up those bigger dice for damage is fun too. Should players be able to choose that even if their average DPR doesn't go up as much as if they chose a lower damage die but +1 to hit? I think so. I suppose a perfectly designed game would give you the same average DPR regardless of your weapon and feat choices, but I'm not sure I'd want to trade away the relavency of my choices for the sake of balance, even if I'm making sub optimal choices in order to reroll those 1s.