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

[Fifth Element]

Ironically, no. The Defender gets the least percentage benefit from Toughness at level 1, since they have the highest base HP. Your typical non-Warden is gaining less than 20% from Toughness (Wardens even less).

This is the problem with this type of purely mathematical analysis: it does not factor in the utility that a defender receives from those hit points, relative to a controller.

A wizard's hit points are just not as important to him as a fighter's are to the fighter. So while the fighter might receive less of a benefit, as a percentage of his total hit points, the utility he receives from those additional hit points is much greater than the wizard's, since the fighter expects to need those hit points to soak all the hits he's going to be taking as a defender. More hit points and a higher surge value are valuable to those characters expected to get attacked a lot.

How much greater? I don't think that can be accurately calculated.

 

[tiornys]

Certainly. I'm not trying to say that Toughness isn't a good feat, because it is. I absolutely agree that it's one of the stronger feats available at lower levels. My point is simply that it does not approach the power level of epic tier Expertise, nor does it outclass other feats the way Expertise does. Therefore, it is not ridiculously overpowered, nor is it a "must have" in the sense that some people use that term in relation to Expertise.

t~

 

[FireLance]

Warning: OT quip ahead.

[SBLOCK=Secret comment. You not tiornys, you no read.]

desires a dream of destiny but despairs of death and destruction

Just noticed the status line above, and I wanted to ask:

Don't you delight in delirium, Daniel? The possibilities are endless. [/SBLOCK]

 

[tiornys]

[sblock=Off Topic]

Warning: OT quip ahead.

Just noticed the status line above, and I wanted to ask:

Don't you delight in delirium, Daniel? The possibilities are endless.

Shhh! You'll give away the gag when I get around to updating my status!

I noticed the oversight a day after I made that my tagline, but decided to roll with it and eventually update to something like "has become delirious" or "delights in his delirium" or mix my sources and go really obscure with "enjoys watching euphoric fireflies".[/sblock]

 

[FireLance]

[sblock=Off Topic]Shhh![/sblock]

Done!

 

[GMforPowergamers]

on the wotc board someone asked for help with the 'math problem' and I of cource defended the no hole theory.. but then I proposed the following and I want to know if you guys think it would be fair...

now at level 1 you have +x to hit. and monster s have Y AC were X is between +5 (16 stat and +2 prof) and +9 (+1 class, +3 prof, 20 stat) and Y is between 13-17


over 29 levels the PCs gain 8-10 stat bumps and 15 half level, and 6 magic and 1 or 0 class bonus
so +25-27 depending on paragon path and epic destiny


Monsters get +29 over those levels.


So over 30 levels the basic math loses 2-4 pts depending on build pre expertise. (My feeling is there are other things that build in that gap but not important now)


In theory lets say player A is: X (pc + to hit) was +9 (lets say a fighter) and the bumps for levels is +27 (lets say kensi and demi god)

and

Player B is X (PC+ to hit) was +5 (lets say warlord with an axe) and the bumps arethe +25 (really could be way too many options)


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...



If you really want to be fair and balanced try this... every 5 levels ask what the PCs have for attack Vs AC and Attack Vs FOrt, and Att vs Ref and Att vs Will... then do the avrage (add togather divied by number of players) then give anyone under that avrage a +1...

 

[Aulirophile]

Your numbers are still wrong. I'll ask the same question: you self-admitted you didn't understand the math, how can you competently claim there is no problem if you can't do the math?

Nothing else fixes the problem. You fall behind by 4. There is nothing else in the whole game that even comes close to making up for that and the developers admitted this was a mistake. We don't need to speculate, it isn't a theory. We know there is a scaling issue that isn't intended.

Sigh.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Your numbers are still wrong. I'll ask the same question: you self-admitted you didn't understand the math, how can you competently claim there is no problem if you can't do the math?

1, what did I do wrong this time?
2, even with out the math being right, there are other things...and I really belive that the math is only a theory work, and that as much as theory had it's place (and belive it or not I am thankful there are people that do that math theory stuff) at the end of the day what happens in play matter more. IF the math and theory says A but on the other hand 2 million years of playing proves B then B is right even if we do not know why...

((((Last night on mythbusters they handled a neuton physics quastion that in theory should be something...and all the numbers say it is so...but it did not work that way it was busted (blow your own sail)... that show alone has on many diffrent epasodes show just becuse everyone belives X does not make X true)

Nothing else fixes the problem. You fall behind by 4. .

so as per my above examples...

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...

with a 6 point diffrence between PC A and B how can both be 4pts behind? heck with a +36 to hit and a 42 AC if I give a +4 more then I only miss on a 1...how is that fair??

There is nothing else in the whole game that even comes close to making up for that and the developers admitted this was a mistake. We don't need to speculate, it isn't a theory. We know there is a scaling issue that isn't intended.

Sigh.

now you are just makeing things up... Mike mearls stated that was not true here on enworld...diffrent devs have diffrent opions on it (being human that happens) but as a whole they have NEVER said that...

It is theory craft becuse IN GAME pre PHB2 atleast 100 games played epic...

I can tell you I layed epic 2 times pre pHB2

We had MORE players saying epic was easy then hard and almost none saying it was impossable.

I am sick and tired of being dismissed...it is insulting in the worst way...and this time even not the point so lets try this again...

If you really want to be fair and balanced try this... every 5 levels ask what the PCs have for attack Vs AC and Attack Vs FOrt, and Att vs Ref and Att vs Will... then do the avrage (add togather divied by number of players) then give anyone under that avrage a +1...

 

[Herschel]

on the wotc board someone asked for help with the 'math problem' and I of cource defended the no hole theory.. but then I proposed the following and I want to know if you guys think it would be fair...

For those who believe there's a huge math problem, it doesn't address that directly. It addresses party attack bonus disparity.

 

[Aulirophile]

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. 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.

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.

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.

PC B is wrong, mathematically, from what the designers said was intended.

And, again, if you want to bring this down to an anecdotal experience argument: I win.

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. 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.