A question to those that give the expertise feat for free

[Talysian]

Here is one problem you are putting soldiers as baseline.. which they are not Skirmishers should be the baseline.. Soldiers should be hard to hit, it's what they do. my reasoning is if you have a roughly 50% chance to hit anything but soldier's you are probably doing ok, unless you are fighting nothing but soldiers or creatures of higher level. Then your gm/dm needs to learn how to build encounters.

 

[Mengu]

Here is one problem you are putting soldiers as baseline.. which they are not Skirmishers should be the baseline.. Soldiers should be hard to hit, it's what they do. my reasoning is if you have a roughly 50% chance to hit anything but soldier's you are probably doing ok, unless you are fighting nothing but soldiers or creatures of higher level. Then your gm/dm needs to learn how to build encounters.

This 50% gets thrown around a lot. I don't believe it is the case.

Even per the player's strategy guide, you're expected to hit standard monsters of your level on an 8+ (your expected attack bonus is 6+level, monster defenses are 14+level). That's a 65% chance. Some characters fall short of that, some exceed it, but that's the ball park.

 

[kaomera]

Because no matter how many effects are thrown out, the PCs still have to do a ton of damage at higher levels to take out foes.

I appreciate that you're playing at 16th level and I'm not, and I'm not trying to say that there isn't an issue here. You aren't the first poster I've seen who's experienced problems with PC damage output, among other things. But what I am saying is that I'm also seeing posts decrying how easy 4e is for the players, how it just gets easier and easier at higher levels, and how it's difficult to keep Solos up long enough for them to actually do anything...

Hence my suggestion would be for each DM to fix their own games, and maybe not worry so much about the math in general.

Personally: I think that the game I'm running may be headed down the road you're describing, possibly worse since I wouldn't describe most of the PCs as very optimized at all. I think I can deal with it, but at some point I may have to put some of the players on the spot for, basically, undermining some of the design assumptions of 4e. Not that I'm saying that they're bad players, but 4e may just not cater to their tastes. In the game where I'm playing, OTOH, the DM is having to jack up encounters to challenge us at 2nd level. That extra damage we need at higher levels? We're already putting that out (and same goes for hit bonuses). And I trust the DM to scale back his monster upgrades as we advance in levels, if that becomes necessary.

 

[Samir]

Here is one problem you are putting soldiers as baseline.. which they are not Skirmishers should be the baseline.. Soldiers should be hard to hit, it's what they do. my reasoning is if you have a roughly 50% chance to hit anything but soldier's you are probably doing ok, unless you are fighting nothing but soldiers or creatures of higher level. Then your gm/dm needs to learn how to build encounters.

As Mengu said, the target number (according to Wizards of the Coast) is 65%.

Characters are much more varied than monsters, since
their accuracy and defenses depend greatly on their choice
of class, race, feats, and equipment. That said, the game
expects character accuracy and defenses to average slightly
above that of monsters, as shown in the table here. An aver-
age character facing an average monster can expect to hit
on roughly 60 to 65 percent of his or her attacks, but that
monster should hit only about half the time.

Hitting 65% of the time requires a +30 vs. AC at 24th level. Your average character (18 starting ability score, +2 prof. weapon) is going to be 4 away without expertise.

 

[RangerWickett]

Well, then what are some typical buff powers that show up at 24th level to provide that missing +4? How commonly do PCs get boosts to their to-hit from their own powers or their allies'?

 

[Jhaelen]

Well, then what are some typical buff powers that show up at 24th level to provide that missing +4? How commonly do PCs get boosts to their to-hit from their own powers or their allies'?

I'm thinking of the bard right now. IIRC, they get lots of powers that use their secondary stat modifier as an attack bonus, so they should definitely grant at least a +4 bonus at level 24. Other leader classes should be similar.

 

[KarinsDad]

I'm thinking of the bard right now. IIRC, they get lots of powers that use their secondary stat modifier as an attack bonus, so they should definitely grant at least a +4 bonus at level 24. Other leader classes should be similar.

That's probably going to change though. Several powers have been watered down so that it is a set bonus. For example, Righteous Brand.

As a general rule, adding a +stat bonus to hit is a bad design idea, especially if a class has many different powers that can do this. And it is triply worse for those "lasts until the end of the encounter" type powers. At level 24, it's not that difficult to have a +6 in a secondary stat. The game just breaks down at that point.

The bonus should rarely be above a +2 since it is so darn easy to get Combat Advantage a significant portion of the time at Paragon and Epic levels.

 

[kaomera]

That's probably going to change though. Several powers have been watered down so that it is a set bonus. For example, Righteous Brand.

As a general rule, adding a +stat bonus to hit is a bad design idea, especially if a class has many different powers that can do this. And it is triply worse for those "lasts until the end of the encounter" type powers. At level 24, it's not that difficult to have a +6 in a secondary stat. The game just breaks down at that point.

The bonus should rarely be above a +2 since it is so darn easy to get Combat Advantage a significant portion of the time at Paragon and Epic levels.

Righteous Brand got nerfed because it's a level 1 at-will. Also, from what has been said about the Essentials line and the errata in general, we've probably seen the most major errata that we're going to for 4e. Not that they can't or won't still change stuff, but I don't expect many major changes (at least in the near future)...

+stat bonuses are not that uncommon by Epic tier, but they still aren't at-will / every round bonuses (most are dailies, from what I've seen). +2 is easy to get on most or all of your allies and/or for multiple rounds. It seems like it should be easy enough to get a +4 total bonus before combat advantage at that level, especially considering that we have occasionally done it at 2nd level, at least on a single character for a single round (or even a single attack).

I don't think that any +6 (or higher) bonus is going to break the game. In fact I'd say that the PCs need the ability to get those big bonuses now and again, to be competitive. There are some powers and bonuses that I could get for my character or for the party that I skip because they seem "cheesy"; I'm probably never going to have the Iron Armbands on any of my character sheets. But if I notice that the game is getting grindy, and it seems like maybe more melee damage would help that, then I'll give them a look...

 

[KarinsDad]

I don't think that any +6 (or higher) bonus is going to break the game.

+6 or higher for one single attack is fine.

+6 or higher for multiple attacks for a single turn is extremely questionable.

+6 or higher for all attacks until the end of the encounter is broken.

The problem is the limitation of the D20 die itself.

When PCs are often already in the 60+% chance to hit, +6 or higher just puts them at a 95% chance to hit. Sorry, but the game should not allow for 95% chance to hit for the rest of the encounter type powers.

 

[kaomera]

+6 or higher for one single attack is fine.

+6 or higher for multiple attacks for a single turn is extremely questionable.

I disagree. I think high bonuses on a "nova round" or for the entire party are an assumed part of 4e. Without them you can't take the monsters down in a reasonable amount of time, and you get grind. Yes, the "downside" of this is that not every encounter is really challenging in and of itself. These bonuses come from dailies, and you most likely have to stack several of them to get up to +6 or better. Deciding where and when to use your resources is a big part of 4e.

+6 or higher for all attacks until the end of the encounter is broken.

Again, I think that depends on where you're getting these bonuses from. And honestly I don't know where you're getting those bonuses from, on an EoE basis. Most EoE attack bonuses that I've seen (even at Epic) cap at about +2, and they're mostly power bonuses. +2 more from CA, +1 from Onslaught Arrows if you have a ranged weapon user... OK, so yeah, you can do it with a daily, coming up with an extra +1 shouldn't be that hard.

So at level 24, by your math you have an optimized base attack bonus of ~29, +6 = +35, vs. an average 38 AC on a level 24 monster? Is that right? This assumes that a Leader in the party uses a daily with an EoE attack bonus - you maybe have 2 of those all day. And it assumes that you've got combat advantage, which yes you should probably be getting more often than not. And it assumes that you can rack up another net +2 in bonuses, and that you aren't taking any penalties (or losing your attack due to stun / daze / immobilize / push + knock prone / etc.). And it assumes that you aren't fighting a higher-level monster, or a Solo / Elite with higher defenses...

I think that 4e expect a certain level of optimization, maybe even a certain level of "cheese" (at least from some points of view). It seems to me that at least some of the people who I see complaining about grind are also complaining about certain powers / items / etc. being too powerful. As I said before playing 4e is about using your resources effectively. The only reason I find the Iron Armbands off-putting is that they don't actually seem to use up resources in a meaningful way. Same for the Onslaught Arrows: at 25 gp apiece their cost isn't even worth accounting for at epic levels compared to the cost of normal arrows, and that +1 item bonus to attack is still pretty sweet, unless you're getting an item bonus from somewhere else. There are going to be instances where you'd rather have elemental ammo of some type, but there's no real reason not to bring both...

But the majority of bonuses, and all of the more significant ones, come from resources that do matter. The level 27 Onslaught Arrow is pretty pointless, because even if you're making due with a +4 or +5 bow by that point, it's not worth a 260,000% price increase. Even at Epic levels you only have 4 class daily attack powers, and only 2 of them will ever actually be Epic level. You need to hit your targets, you need to hit them consistently despite all the auras, conditions, etc. that Epic level baddies can put out, and you need to deal a significant amount of damage.

Even at low levels I'm finding that encounters that aren't significantly overpowered can turn into a cakewalk. Sometimes it's a matter of timing and maneuvering, good play and/or luck. That's fine - it happens and it certainly swings both ways. At some point the party is going to learn about the monsters' push when it knocks the Leader off of a ledge and out of healing range, and then things are going to get really interesting... Other times the players just dump a ton of hell on the monsters round one. And that's fine too, they don't have those resources later if things go wrong for them...

I'm finding that, unless you really do end up with one encounter per "day" (and the players know it up front), the average encounter can be pretty average, and if the PCs hit a patch of good luck it's liable to end up a cake-walk. I don't expect PCs to drop unconscious every fight, nor will I ever lament not killing any PCs in the course of a campaign. But every 3 or 4 encounters or so something is going to just go wrong, and things are going to get really, really hectic. The thing I think I want, if anything, is something to make gaining milestones or otherwise taking a few more risks more rewarding for the players...