Alternatives to the feat-tax solution to to-hit and F/R/W defenses

[CapnZapp]

Okay, so there are several threads discussing how Wizards added feats like Weapon Expertise and Epic Fortitude to the game in PHB2. Lots of discussions if this was needed and if it was a good implementation. But not too much practical discussion on alternatives.

I hope this thread does not become yet another such thread. Instead, I will simply assume 1) you agree something needs to be done but 2) adding "must-have" feats is not the right way to do this (i.e. any feats need to be toned down sufficiently that not taking them becomes a real option)

I would like this thread to be a concise collection of the various proposals that you might have come up with.

Let me start by discussing one such idea I found in another thread:

Karinsdad's house rule, which I think is very clever, was to give +1 to hit and to FRW defenses at levels 5/15/25, and to also change it so that at levels 4,8,14,18,24,28, characters get +1 to three ability scores, not two ability scores.

<snip>

Then you can ban the PH II Expertise feats and most of the PH II FRW increasing feats as well, since they're not needed for the game to scale appropriately.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4t...nses-aka-phb2-defenses-feats.html#post4740115
(Apologies, KarinsDad: I couldn't find your original post)

This does look attractive. However, I have one concern: allowing players to increase three stats instead of two removes much of the nice anguish you feel when you must sacrifice one of your Non-Aattack Defenses. Handing out three stat increases allows some players to cover all three Fort/Ref/Will defenses, without actually ensuring that this benefits all characters. That is, this hoses those character builds where it makes sense to select perhaps Constitution as your third increase even though you're already increasing Strength as your first or second.

 

[Elric]

This does look attractive. However, I have one concern: allowing players to increase three stats instead of two removes much of the nice anguish you feel when you must sacrifice one of your Non-Aattack Defenses. Handing out three stat increases allows some players to cover all three Fort/Ref/Will defenses, without actually ensuring that this benefits all characters. That is, this hoses those character builds where it makes sense to select perhaps Constitution as your third increase even though you're already increasing Strength as your first or second.

I think this is backwards, actually. Many characters who get third +1 attribute boost at 4/8 levels will end up using it on an attribute that doesn't add to many relevant abilities, but does provide a bonus to your weak FRW. By comparison, a Paladin might take advantage of this change to become a Str/Wis/Cha booster, which enables him to take use all of his powers without losing his secondaries and Lay on Hands ability (if he skipped boosting Wisdom).

The Paladin is gaining more from this change than, say, the Brutal Scoundrel Rogue who boosts Wisdom so that his Will defense doesn't lag so much. Now, he will have a low Ref despite this rules change, but it will be because he has other benefits he finds more worthwhile- and even taking Lightning Reflexes helps make up most of the gap from not boosting Dex (and with the +1 at levels 5/15/25, his Ref defense will likely be high enough that monsters don't hit him on a 2 even with the +2 from Lightning Reflexes).

Other nice effects include: it fixes the terrible scaling for AC of a Bear Shaman or Con/Cha Warlock who doesn't use Heavy Armor; now these characters can boost Int/Dex and have low, but reasonably scaling, AC. It also makes feats easier to qualify for, which could occasionally cause problems, but in general makes it less important to plan from level 1 for all of the feats you'll eventually want to take.

Edit- If you haven't discussed this topic before, you might not have seen this calculation, so here's the basic math underlying this thread:

Over 29 levels, from a starting level 1 character (with no magic items) to level 30:
To-hit, AC, and Fort/Reflex/Will gain +21 from levels/enhancement bonuses.

Assume you split your stat boosts to two stats that add to different FRW defenses. One of these stats is your primary attack stat. If you wear light armor, one of these stats boosts AC.

AC gains +6 more: either +6 from Masterwork Heavy Armor, or +2 from MW Light Armor and +4 from increases to an ability score which adds to AC.
To-hit and your two strong FRWs gain +4 more from Primary/Secondary Attribute advancement
Your one weak FRW gains +1 from the ability score boosts at levels 11/21.

So AC gains +27, to-hit and your two strong FRWs gain +25, and your weak FRW gains +22.

Over these 29 levels, monsters gain +29 to their to-hit and to all defenses. Compared to the monsters, players lose 2 on AC, players lose 4 on to-hit and their two strong FRWs, and lose 7 on their weak FRW.

These numbers don't take into account powers, Paragon paths, Epic destinies, or feats. This is just the raw effect of levels, stat increases, and enhancement bonuses of magic items.

 

[cmbarona]

I like the +1 to attack/fort/ref/will at 5/15/25 aspect, but not the +1 to three stats. To be honest, I can see all the munchkins out there going for the "I can do everything" builds pretty quickly (Rangers, I'm looking at you ). I think it's perfectly acceptable to sacrifice one or two NADs for the sake of your build; it's a standard cost-benefit tradeoff. I'm thinking of taking out most of the NAD-boosting feats out to compensate, but I'm debating what exactly to change/leave in. Some of them, like the epic +2 individual varieties (can't remember their names or effects) seem nice. I may keep the +4s, changed to feat bonuses to make them slightly less appealing, but I doubt even that will balance them back out.

 

[Elric]

I like the +1 to attack/fort/ref/will at 5/15/25 aspect, but not the +1 to three stats. To be honest, I can see all the munchkins out there going for the "I can do everything" builds pretty quickly (Rangers, I'm looking at you ). I think it's perfectly acceptable to sacrifice one or two NADs for the sake of your build; it's a standard cost-benefit tradeoff. I'm thinking of taking out most of the NAD-boosting feats out to compensate, but I'm debating what exactly to change/leave in. Some of them, like the epic +2 individual varieties (can't remember their names or effects) seem nice. I may keep the +4s, changed to feat bonuses to make them slightly less appealing, but I doubt even that will balance them back out.

I agree with the implied criticism that +1 to three attributes favors some classes more than others. Str/Dex/Wis Rangers are one example; it would be possible to create a Ranger/Pit Fighter without spending a feat to get heavy armor, and you'd have better scaling Stealth/ranged attacks as well.

I think Barbarians are the most obvious example; as written either the designers didn't expect anyone to boost Str/Dex, or doing so is meant to come at the cost of secondary effects (let's run with the latter for now), which is why they get Barbarian Agility. If characters could boost 3 stats at 4/8 levels, then this class feature would have to be revised to some extent.

This could also spring up if a Tactical Warlord-Battle Captain qualifies Supreme Inspiration (MP) at epic; at the moment, doing so entails serious sacrifces. However, three +1s at 4/8 levels has some other benefits besides helping ensure your weak FRW scales appropriately, as I mention in my previous post.

So I'm pretty indecisive about whether I would use that part (it's definitely a bigger change than simple bonuses at levels 5/15/25). +1 to hit and FRW at levels 5/15/25, while banning the Expertise feats, Robust Defenses and Epic FRW- that seems more clear-cut.

 

[Neubert]

I guess it is a less "fancy" fix than giving out 3 ability score increases, but wouldn't the same result be achieved if players simply got a +1 to their weakest defense at levels 8, 18 and 28? This would remove the issues with the entire ability score going up.

 

[KarinsDad]

BartD had a nice solution in another thread to just decrease the levels of the monsters for each encounter. You can list this as solution #2 CapnZapp.

As an example, subtract 1 from the encounter levels at Paragon and subtract 2 from the encounter levels at Epic.

This has several advantages:

1) The monsters are -1 to hit and the PCs are +1 to hit at Paragon (-2 and +2 at Epic).
2) The monsters have fewer hit points (i.e. less grind).
3) The DM does not have to change the game mechanics. He just changes the encounters.

The disadvantages of this solution are that it does nothing for the math delta problem and for some players, it might make Epic too easy. And, I personally am going to send Tiamat, Vecna, Orcus and as many bad boys (girls) at the PCs as I can at real high levels. So, I wanted them to be able to succeed and I do not think that is viable if the PCs do not get the high level boosts.


As to my solution, I understand the concern of raising 3 ability scores. However, I don't really think that matters much anymore as it did when the PHB first came out.

As an example, Pick Mastery in the PHB has prereqs of Str 21 and Con 17.

Bow Master in the PHB II has zero ability score prereqs. It's as if the WotC janitor designed the feat.

So, a few PCs qualifying for a few feats that they could not really doesn't matter that much. And, the players do not have to plan their PC for 30 levels to the nth degree quite as much.

For me, as long as the players are having fun, that's what matters.

And my group discusses house rule changes before we implement them. So, the players know why I added +1 to a third ability score. If they decide to trick out their PC and ignore the third defense, oh well. No skin off my nose if they get hit on a 4 with an attack against their weak defense when they had the chance to avoid it.

Finally, another nice thing about using the third ability score is that I can do it in Character Builder easily.

 

[Elric]

I guess it is a less "fancy" fix than giving out 3 ability score increases, but wouldn't the same result be achieved if players simply got a +1 to their weakest defense at levels 8, 18 and 28? This would remove the issues with the entire ability score going up.

This has the advantage of being a smaller fix (in terms of the balance between characters) than adding to three ability scores. However, it would probably be less intuitive in practice, as it's a specific exception from the way even the HR fix works in general. You'd also need a different standard than +1 to weakest defense. For example, what happens if a character's lowest defense without any items is Reflex, but his lowest Defense while he's using his Heavy Shield is Will?

Before Karinsdad suggested the three ability scores fix, I had suggested periodically adding +1 to your Defense with the lowest associated ability score, which I think is the easiest way to implement this.

I dislike Masterwork Armors, because while I see the necessity for Masterwork Heavy Armors, Masterwork Light Armors seems like an unnecessary kludge. If I didn't care about changing the game's base rules in a significant way, but did care about having characters scale appropriately in a less exception-driven way, what I'd do is:

1) Characters get +1 to-hit and all defenses (including AC) at levels 5/15/25

2) At levels 4/8/14/18/24/28, add 1 to three ability scores.

3) Masterwork Light Armors don't exist. Masterwork Heavy Armors are as follows:
+1 additional bonus to AC for heavy armor with a +2 magic enhancement bonus
+2 additional bonus to AC for heavy armor with a +3 or +4 magic enhancement bonus
+3 additional bonus to AC for heavy armor with a +5 magic enhancement bonus
+4 additional bonus to AC for heavy armor with a +6 magic enhancement bonus

If you give out higher plus armor at the start of levels ending in 3/8, the current progression leads to near equality in the pace of scaling of light and heavy armors.

4) The PH II feats Weapon Expertise, Implement Expertise, Robust Defenses, Epic Fortitude, Epic Reflex, and Epic Will are banned. I'd allow Paragon Defenses (maybe changing it to an Epic feat instead of a Paragon feat) and the Unyielding Fortitude line of Epic PH II feats.

This causes to-hit, AC, and FRWs to increase by 28 over 29 levels (assuming the PCs put the three ability bonuses to abilities that increase different FRWs). It also causes AC to rise more quickly over these levels. At the moment, the Masterwork Armor AC bonuses occur relatively late in PC careers, which means that AC is behind monster to-hit by an average of 3 for levels 21-27 (this is for heavy armor if you assume armor enhancement goes up at levels ending in 3/8; the number for light armor is similar).

While I'm at it with maximal fixes, you'd also want to increase many MM1 high level monsters' damage so they provide a more serious threat Edit: From further on in the thread, my suggestion for increasing monster damage is:

5)Monsters get +2 damage at levels 11/16/21/26, +3 damage instead for Brutes. Of course, if MM2 monsters are designed significantly differently, a one-size fits all solution won't work well here.

 

[Alisair Longreach]

My fix:

PCs receive a +2 bonus to two ability scores at 4th, 8th, 14th, 18th, 24th and 28th level as well as a +1 bonus to a third ability score. This provides the needed bonuses to attack, AC and FRW.

All Masterwork armors also have the Agile property from Adventurer's Vault. This provides both the needed bonus and let it scale with light armor AC.

The Expertise feats and Paragon Defense and Robust Defense are banned.

 

[cmbarona]

An interesting solution. Unfortunately, this does leave the Str/Con, Dex/Int, and Wis/Cha builds (for all that have, do, and will exist) out of the loop, as well as make qualifying for epic feats much easier, whether you think that's a good or bad thing. I don't have my AV with me; what's the Agile property do?

 

[77IM]

Ability-Score Items

An idea I've been toying with is magic items that increase your ability scores.


Wait! ...Before you reply that this is a terrible idea that ruined 3e and would destroy 4e, hear me out!

The "gap" that needs fixing is roughly 3 points to attacks and defenses. So if ability-increasing items followed the same enhancement progression as other enhancement items, that's a +6 to ability scores by level 25, which is an improvement of 3 points, closing the gap almost completely. (The gap is really 4 or 5 points, depending on how you count it, but I'm OK with having feats make up 1-2 points here and there.)


Here's how it could work: Every worn magic item grants an enhancement bonus appropriate to its level to one or more ability scores. (This also solves another problem that I've been noticing -- many non-neck-slot worn items kind of suck.)

Level / Bonus / Ring Bonus
1-5 / +1 / -
6-10 / +2 / -
11-15 / +3 / +1
16-20 / +4 / +2
21-25 / +5 / +3
26-30 / +6 / +4

The DM decides which ability score the enhancement bonus applies to, based on the item slot:
Head: Int, Wis, Cha
Arms: Str, Con, Wis
Hands: Str, Dex, Int
Feet: Dex, Con, Cha
Waist: Str, Dex, Con
Rings: A ring enhances all ability scores, but has an enhancement bonus two points lower than a single-ability item.

The above are only guidelines. If an item seems particularly lame (jester's shoes) it may enhance two scores instead of one. Likewise, a lame ring might enhance a single score at the normal bonus level and all other scores at the reduced ring level. Heck, a neck slot or armor that is particularly lame might grant an enhancement bonus; you could even introduce "Ability Enhancing" as a level 2-3 armor property or neck slot item. As usual, enhancement bonus doesn't stack (so if you wear two rings, really only the better one applies).


Alternative proposal: If you read the above and envision your party fighting over items ("I want the boots of striding for the speed bonus!" "But you've already got a Dexterity item, and I haven't!"), you can introduce a whole new item slot just for enhancing abilities. Call it the "Talisman" slot: It takes the form of a brooch, pin, armband, bracelet, belt-buckle, or could even be a gem in the pommel of your weapon or in the breastplate of your armor. A level 1 talisman enhances 1 ability, a level 2 talisman enhances 2 abilities, etc., according to the chart above. +5 levels increases the enhancement bonus to +2. You can't build a talisman to enhance all 6 abilities (so you will always suck at something). Granted this would make the talisman into a "must-have" item but that is really no different at all from weapons, implements, armor, and neck-slot items. However, you would need to increase treasure-per-level to ensure everyone can get one.


Anyway, just a thought. I know that ability-score items in 3e were overpowered, but with the math for 4e baked into the system and the assumption that there are already certain "must-have" items, I think something like this might work.

-- 77IM