A question to those that give the expertise feat for free

[CovertOps]

I have a question: are expertise feat really necessary? There are a few thread about high level play and the common complain seems to be that high level 4E play is a cakewalk, that people kill solos with a yawn and so on.... so, are expertise feat really necessary????

I can't answer for you if it's necessary for everyone, but for my table I have no plan to change as a 15% hit reduction at epic is just going to slow down already slow combats at my table. I expect that increased damage will keep my epic encounters dangerous enough that the only thing I'll be reducing is combat length. I almost had a TPK last game with a n+1 encounter at Paragon level and I am very happy with the result. A daily or two is not a bad idea in every encounter which keeps my players from dumping every daily they have in one fight.

 

[kaomera]

I have a question: are expertise feat really necessary? There are a few thread about high level play and the common complain seems to be that high level 4E play is a cakewalk, that people kill solos with a yawn and so on.... so, are expertise feat really necessary????

IMO no they are not necessary. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that publishing them was a bit of a mistake, because it makes them seem necessary (since, IMO, they where a reaction to the outcry over the math being "wrong"). However:

1) Players will tend to want them to be available, and will definitely take them if they are. Not having to explain in detail multiple times why you aren't allowing them makes it worthwhile to allow them, and sidestepping the "tax" makes handing them out for free also worthwhile.

2) Increasing hit probability is, IMO, usually worthwhile in and of itself. The core system (without Expertise) seems to be based on something around a 50% hit rate, theoretically sliding lower at higher levels, but IME you more often see it actually increasing. Some characters can regularly boost this up to about 60-70%. IMO ~70% hit rate is optimal, it keeps things moving without completely trivializing the chance of missing. If a roll of an 11 or better isn't a hit, then the fight is going to become boring very quickly, and likewise (although not as immediately) if a 3 or less hits.

 

[firesnakearies]

So, I just did some digging in the Compendium, and some math. I've concluded that the expertise feats are unnecessary, and that the whole "oh noes the math makes it impossible to hit at high level!" idea is a bunch of jive.

My level 24 Dwarf Warden who is currently playing through E2 Kingdom of the Ghouls has a +29 to hit versus AC or a +30 versus Fortitude with his at-wills. He has two points less Strength than a character could have at his level, and is using a hammer, which is a +2 proficiency weapon instead of a +3. He does have the expertise feat. Still though, if he was a Fighter of a Strength race using a sword, he'd have +3 more to hit than he does.

Oh, and he could have a +6 weapon now instead of a +5, if I wanted, so that'd be +4 more to hit.

The above numbers are "all the time", totally unbuffed, no power bonuses, no combat advantage or anything else added in.

I went through all 89 creatures in the Compendium of 24th level. Minions, elites, solos, of all roles and from all sources. I figured out what I'd need to hit each of them.

Of those 89 24th-level enemies, there were...

1 creature that I could hit on a natural 2.
6 creatures that I could hit on a natural 3.
9 creatures that I could hit on a natural 4.
10 creatures that I could hit on a natural 5.
17 creatures that I could hit on a natural 6.
21 creatures that I could hit on a natural 7.
12 creatures that I could hit on a natural 8.
9 creatures that I could hit on a natural 9.
Only 3 creatures that I'd need to roll a natural 10 to hit.
And a mere one creature (a solo soldier from MM1, mind you) that I'd need to roll a natural 11 to hit.

Average roll I'd need on the die, no buffs or combat advantage involved, is...

6.4!

64 out of 89 creatures of my level, I hit on a natural 7 or less. Without combat advantage. Without bonuses of any kind applied. Without max Strength, or a class attack bonus, or an accurate weapon type.

If my character was an "optimized hitter", that would be 2.4 on average. With combat advantage (which I might add I have very, very often at this level), I'd be hitting nearly anything my level on a natural 2 or higher.

So, take my 6.4 average needed hit roll, and subtract that expertise feat. Oh no, how will I hit anything now? I need to roll an average of 8.4! Even fighting things two levels higher than me, I've still got a great chance to hit at an average of 10.4, with no expertise. This is at epic level, folks.


(Furthermore, we're absolutely stomping all over everything with virtually no sense of challenge at all. We completely dominated Death's Reach, it was ridiculous. So frankly, I think the game might have been a bit better if we hadn't had the expertise feats, and would have missed a few more times. It still would have been a cakewalk.)


I think the expertise feats are fine. I think that house-ruling to give players bonuses to hit is also fine. More hitting is good, no player's going to argue with that. I'm a generous sort of DM, myself, so I'd be inclined to offer such a benefit to my players, for the sake of fun and letting people feel cool more often.

But necessary? A "feat tax" that must be paid in order to make the game work?

No. That's just not true. Don't believe the hype.

 

[Samir]

I think the expertise feats are fine. I think that house-ruling to give players bonuses to hit is also fine. More hitting is good, no player's going to argue with that. I'm a generous sort of DM, myself, so I'd be inclined to offer such a benefit to my players, for the sake of fun and letting people feel cool more often.

But necessary? A "feat tax" that must be paid in order to make the game work?

No. That's just not true. Don't believe the hype.

It seems your calculations are based off your +30 vs. Fortitude. This assumption doesn't work as a benchmark: at-will weapon attacks vs. NADs are very rare. The only reason you have it is because of a specific Warden Paragon Path.

So, let's take your +29 vs. AC. Per the MM averages, the average AC of a 24th level monster is 38. This lines up with the DMG guidelines for creating monsters (AC = level + 14). The 24th level monsters you listed all have AC between 35 and 41, with the vast majority falling right around 38. To hit a 24th-level Skirmisher (AC 38) you'd need an 9, or an 11 without expertise. To hit a 24th-level Soldier (AC 40) you'd need an 11, or a 13 without expertise. That's a 50% chance to hit the Skirmisher or a 40% chance to hit the Soldier without expertise.

Your average melee Striker starting with an 18 in their primary stat (post-racial) is going to have a 25 in that stat by 24th level (+7 mod), use a +2 weapon with a +5 enhancement, and get +12 from one-half level. That's +26. You have to roll a 12 to hit a 24th-level Skirmisher without expertise, or a 14 to hit a 24th-level Soldier.

That's right, if you start with an 18 in your primary stat and use a +2 weapon--54 of the 77 weapons are +2 proficiency, and non-dex classes don't qualify for sword feats--you have a whopping 45% chance to hit that Skirmisher or a 35% chance to land a blow on that Soldier.

Unfortunately, this time, the hype is right.

[EDIT] can't add.

 

[kaomera]

Yes, but...

Your base-line, single character numbers aren't actually "typical" because that's not how characters actually function in the game. You have to find a way to count the contributions of other party members, maneuvering / terrain, power effects (both innate and magic items), etc...

firesnakearies probably took that Paragon Path at least in part because of that nice bump to his accuracy. There's a lot of ways to increase accuracy by 24th level, both consistent (Expertise, the Earth Shaker level 16 feature, etc.) and temporary (flanking, buffs and/or debuffs from a Leader or Controller, etc.). The problem lies in the fact that you need them. Characters that aren't getting these buffs (because of the way they are built, the nature of the encounter, tactics, party composition, whatever...) aren't going to hit consistently, and the game is going to head towards either grind or TPK... OTOH, stack too many of these (as well as damage, conditions, etc.) and the game becomes a cakewalk pretty fast.

And that's just in terms of the PCs hitting monsters. I've seen high-level parties (even paragon) that just can't easily be hurt in any significant way. The idea is that you have to give up one thing for another, and that characters would be built for some sort of "middle ground"... But specialization leads to optimization, more often than not.

Overall 4e is a pretty robust game, but especially at higher levels the "swing" of difficulty can get a bit broad. The designers seem (IMO) to have tried to reign this in with the math, making certain bonuses more and more important at higher levels, but it wasn't completely successful, because the situation is too fluid. What works for one group isn't going to work for another.

I'd almost suggest that their ought to be some sort of a "dungeon master" who can assess the situation and make the appropriate changes on an individual-game level, to keep things running smoothly...

 

[Infiniti2000]

What? People don't use the monster builder? KD, you don't know what you're missing!

 

[KarinsDad]

What? People don't use the monster builder? KD, you don't know what you're missing!

Missing how exactly?

There are thousands of monsters available on the Compendium a mere click away. I don't really need to customize monsters.

I've also gone into Monster Builder to build specific monsters and found it lacking. Where are the template tools? They might be there, but I haven't found them. Course, I only go into it every few months to see if it has gotten better, so I haven't been in it for a while.

But, what is so great about the Monster Builder?

 

[firesnakearies]

The problem lies in the fact that you need them.

I think that this is really the crux of the whole argument, and the biggest issue I have with it. This perception, this idea that there's a problem here. That's what I disagree with.

I think the fact that you "need" to use the various methods of increasing accuracy (either through character build, teamwork, tactics in combat, or buffs and debuffs) is in fact a great thing, not a problem.

To me, saying that we shouldn't "need" to use those various (and by epic tier, very plentiful) means of boosting accuracy in order to be effective is a little bit like saying, "I want to play chess, against reasonably skilled players, and have a fair chance of winning. Oh, but I only want to use my knights and bishops. I don't like the other pieces, so I don't want to have to use them to win. So if chess forces me to use all of my pieces in order to do well, then that's a problem with the game design."

The arguments I see over and over for why the math is "broken" and these accuracy feats are needed, or adjustments to PC attack bonuses or monster defenses are needed, pretty much amount to, "We want to build our characters ineffectively, AND use poor tactics, AND not help each other as a team, but still hit often and win quickly. So, fix the math so we can, k?"

That "+26 to hit AC" guy, I don't really accept him as the "average striker" at 24th level. He seems almost deliberately weak to me. A stock Human Fighter built using nothing but the original Player's Handbook can have an "all the time" +32 versus AC at level 24. Nothing but the PHB! No expertise, no weird items or paragon paths or feats from any other books. (Yes, that's the maximal accuracy character, so it's reasonable to assume that most characters won't have quite that big of a bonus, but still, it's a far cry from +26.)

Then, at epic tier especially, there are the tons and tons of ways to get combat advantage, to grant each other (or oneself) big bonuses to attack (even for the entire encounter), to debuff the enemies' defenses a lot, and so on. Even that "+26 vs. AC" guy should very often be able to take advantage of these things, making it significantly easier to hit.

The only time a problem would arise is if you've got players who not only won't build their characters to be accurate, but ALSO won't use the huge variety of buffs/debuffs and tactical modifiers available to temporarily boost their accuracy.

A 24th level character who is seriously rolling only +26 versus AC 40 on a regular basis is playing poorly, and his team is playing poorly. Shouldn't someone playing poorly be having a bit of a tougher time? Isn't having a harder time hitting a reasonable consequence of not playing well? Shouldn't we be expecting people, by 24th level, to be bringing their gameplay to a bit higher caliber than that? And if not, and they're missing a lot, making things harder . . . well, don't you think that's a reasonable design?

If you want to play chess and only use your knights and bishops, go ahead. Have fun! But don't claim that chess is broken and unreasonably difficult, at that point.

The problem with adjusting the math in order to balance the game for mediocre characters and mediocre tactics is this...

What happens then when people DO play well? When you just give everyone a blanket +3 to hit and lower the defenses of the tough monsters by -2, so that now, the math for the "average" character who is taking advantage of NO available situational/tactical/teamwork bonuses works out to let him hit more often . . . then the people who ARE "using all of their pieces" are basically just going to auto-hit everything, and the game becomes stupidly, trivially easy.

Take "+32 guy" from above, and now give him expertise (free or otherwise), and combat advantage, and even a modest average +2 extra bonus from all of the buffs and debuffs that will be applied by a skilled, smart group working together as a team at epic levels, and now he's hitting that AC 40 soldier on a natural 2.

The game is already easy as written, even without "fixing" the math to allow people to play stupidly and still auto-win everything. Again, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with doing it. It's not a "bad" thing to do, making the game easier or less tactically demanding. I'm sure that it increases the fun for many players.

But I'm absolutely still disputing the claim that its "necessary" in any sort of mathematical sense, or that the game's design is "broken" without such changes. I'm rejecting the idea that the guy actually rolling +26 versus AC 40 at level 24 is really just an "average player" who is playing reasonably well, and thus getting screwed by the game math. I don't believe that's how real players at that level actually play very often, or if they do, then their problem isn't the "system", it's their own poor grasp of it (or deliberate choice to make things hard on themselves).

I'm not saying it's wrong to change chess. I'm just saying that "chess is broken and needs to be fixed, because whenever I play using only my knights, I lose" is a ridiculous, nonsense argument. And the same goes for D&D.

 

[KarinsDad]

That "+26 to hit AC" guy, I don't really accept him as the "average striker" at 24th level. He seems almost deliberately weak to me. A stock Human Fighter built using nothing but the original Player's Handbook can have an "all the time" +32 versus AC at level 24. Nothing but the PHB! No expertise, no weird items or paragon paths or feats from any other books. (Yes, that's the maximal accuracy character, so it's reasonable to assume that most characters won't have quite that big of a bonus, but still, it's a far cry from +26.)

Fighter 1: +5 20 Str, +3 Weapon Proficiency, +1 Weapon Talent = +9
Fighter 24: +9 29 Str, +3 Weapon Proficiency, +1 Weapon Talent, +12 level, +1 Kensai, +5 magic weapon = +31

I guess you are giving him a +6 magic weapon for a total of +32. Course, that means that he will only gain +4 (+1 ability score, +3 level) from level 24 to 30 while the monsters gain +6.

Minmaxing this guy the best you could gives him a decent +32. The monsters gained 23 to AC over those 24 levels, he gained +23 to hit. He gained 12 for level, 4 for ability scores, and 6 for magic weapons.

You had to a) give him a specific Paragaon Path, b) give him his +6 magic weapon a little early, and in order to make him as good as you did, you had to c) make him a Fighter (+1 Weapon Talent), and d) give him a 20 starting stat (which most PCs do not have).

Yes, so if you pick a good level for comparison and pick the absolute best weapons and Paragon Paths, the Fighter will be better. Let's check a more typical Fighter build. Fighter has 18 Str, +3 weapon proficiency, and +1 weapon focus at level one. We'll pick levels 2, 7, 12, 17, 22, and 27 for magic weapon increases.

1 +8 0
2 +10 +1 +1 magic weapon
3 +10 0
4 +11 0
5 +11 -1
6 +12 -1
7 +13 -1 +2 magic weapon
8 +15 0 +1 ability score
9 +15 -1
10 +16 -1
11 +16 -2
12 +18 -1 +3 magic weapon
13 +18 -2
14 +20 -1 +1 ability score
15 +20 -2
16 +21 -2
17 +22 -2 +4 magic weapon
18 +23 -2
19 +23 -3
20 +24 -3
21 +26 -2 +2 ability score (ability score increase plus epic class feature)
22 +28 -1 +5 magic weapon
23 +28 -2
24 +29 -2
25 +29 -3
26 +30 -3
27 +31 -3 +6 magic weapon
28 +32 -3 +1 ability score
29 +32 -4
30 +33 -4

As can be seen when one doesn't just focus on a single level with super bumps in it, the math looks totally different. Compared to the +1 AC per level monsters, the Fighter starts dropping behind. Mid-heroic drops one, mid-paragon drops one, and mid-epic drops one.

So sure, if you bump level 24 up by 3 (+1 Kensai, +1 Str, +1 6th level magic weapon), then it looks a lot better.

But what happens if a Fighter uses a +2 weapon? What happens if a Fighter doesn't take Weapon Talent?

The math has to take into account all of this, not just super optimized to hit builds that you can make at nearly optimal levels.

 

[Infiniti2000]

off-topic a little

Missing how exactly?

There are thousands of monsters available on the Compendium a mere click away. I don't really need to customize monsters.

I've also gone into Monster Builder to build specific monsters and found it lacking. Where are the template tools? They might be there, but I haven't found them. Course, I only go into it every few months to see if it has gotten better, so I haven't been in it for a while.

But, what is so great about the Monster Builder?

Well, obviously everyone use case might differ. If you never customize monsters and have on-line access at your table, then the compendium is fine. I, however, do not have on-line access at the table and frequently (at least one baddie each and every week) customize monsters. I wouldn't have considered doing it that often without the monster builder, though.

Sure, there are some features lacking (when aren't there things lacking for ANY product for someone?), but overall it's awesome. Why it was never available for 3.X I have no idea, but it would've saved me countless hours of work and lots of time bitching about spending 16 hours statting up a baddie only to have him fail a save and die in the first round.

Regardless, in the "pen" area to the right, you can sort by monster powers. You can then drag/drop them into the custom monster to the left. Hand-edit them should you desire and you can raise/lower the level easily, and change the roles, etc. It's awesome. The biggest downside to this is sometimes trying to find the perfect power. The base copy isn't hard (for example, I made some dwarven lumberjacks using the standard dwarf as a base), but sometimes a search for a particular type of power is tough if your term doesn't match. Not all powers are named well enough, in other words.

But, that's really a minor convenience because there are so many choices that will match your terms anyway that you'll almost always have an excellent starting point.

I then copy/paste the monster RTF into Word. Do any last second changes if necessary (rarely). Then print it out when I'm done compiling baddies for the session. I try to keep all monsters to a single page for an encounter. so far that's working for me, but I wouldn't expect to ever go over 2 pages anyway and that's good for my table size.

Edit: If you're interested e-mail or pm me an e-mail address and I'll send you a Word file example of what I do. My e-mail is my user name at gmail.com.