Defenses and To Hits for Your Party ~ Averages

[Destil]

All My mid-paragon Genasi Swordmage (for example) is always feat starved and hits pretty accurately.

Shielding? That's one of two builds in the entire game where hitting things isn't really a big deal (shielding swordmage and hosipliter paladin). So yeah, I can see skipping them in those two cases. They're extreme outliers, though, and I still want to know what other feats are actually more worthwhile after 10th/15th.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'd hazard a guess I have more epic play experience then you do (by an order of magnitude), having played 21-30 on two Bards, a Druid, a Cleric, a Warden, a Wizard, a Fighter, a Paladin, an Invoker, a Ranger, a Rogue, and two Sorcerer's. It does break the intended math, no question about that. Whether that is "useless theorycraft" or not isn't relevant, except insofar as, hey, the people who develop the game agree the feat is mandatory to the point where they give it out free (people who also have more epic play experience then you I would hazard to guess).

So, is the statement that PCs lose 1/2/3 per tier to hit factually correct? Yep. Is this a scaling issue with 4e's math? Yep. Was 4e intended to be so tightly balanced that +2/-2 was a big difference? Yep. Is -3 therefore a big difference? Yep. Is that broken relative to the design intentions? Yep. Does Expertise fix this? Yep. Is Expertise a scaling fix? Yep. Does something need to be broken to fixed? Yep.

No, I'm good, I'll stand over here with math and the developers of the game.

Hazard whatever guesses you want if it makes you feel better dude. I really don't care. What I've seen with my own eyeballs is 1000 times more convincing to me than anything anyone will ever post on the net . Having played both with and without it what I see is all it does is reduce the need for good tactics a tiny bit. Calling pre-Expertise epic tier play "broken" (at least for the reasons at issue here) is ludicrous. Now, since it exists, I use it in my game and it doesn't CAUSE any problems, so why wouldn't everyone use it? Whether or not you give it away is a matter of taste. Seriously, run some epic encounters without it and see, the difference is laughably trivial.

Also if you have an issue with NAD math being auto-hit you have an issue with expertise. You can't have an issue with one and not the other because they are out of whack for the exact same scaling reason (monsters get +1 to attack per level, PCs get 1/2 level+Enhance to defenses). The fact that you can even say you have an issue with one but not the other is an indication you fundamentally don't understand the math being discussed.

Sorry, but this isn't a good argument. Just because there is (rough) symmetry between defense math and offense math is totally irrelevant. It is perfectly reasonable for me to assert that the "NAD hole" is an issue and is utterly divorced from scaling attack bonuses, since those are compared to the MONSTERS attacks. You see it is 2 independent halves of the game. Try a thought experiment, imagine that the math for monster attacks and PC defenses was a totally different system from that of PC attacks and monster defenses. You can see that the one has nothing to do with the other. Just because they DO use basically the same mechanics may serve to obscure this fact in people's minds, but in reality they're completely independent of each other.

 

[Aulirophile]

Um, no, they aren't different. They have the exact same cause, mathematically, because they use the same assumptions and the same system. They both stem from the exact same scaling issue. Hell, the only reason AC doesn't have the NAD problem is Masterwork armor's AC bonus (and even that needed some fixes, which came out in AV). A quick look at the math behind the combat system is all you need to prove that.

The difference is not trivial, the difference is significant mathematically (something you've proven is not your strong suit). Make your point without being insulting. Snarky little asides like this do nothing for your argument, and break our rules. Don't make them, please. ~ Piratecat Your "experience" and anecdotal evidence does not stack up against math or the clear evidence that the developers consider it a mandatory feat based on the fact that they give it out for free in their home games.

Again, it isn't a matter of "easy" or "hard" (which is something a good DM can control trivially) it is a matter of "Does the system scale as intended?" The answer is it doesn't. Expertise makes it scale as intended. When a system doesn't work the way you meant it to (in this case PCs hitting on a certain number on the die) and then you fix it (in this case by releasing the expertise feats), that means the system was broken. I'm obviously not using "broken" in the "hey, the game is unplayable!" way, I'm using it in the sense that the game's math isn't what the creators and developers of the game intended for it to be.

 

[Herschel]

Shielding? That's one of two builds in the entire game where hitting things isn't really a big deal (shielding swordmage and hosipliter paladin). So yeah, I can see skipping them in those two cases. They're extreme outliers, though, and I still want to know what other feats are actually more worthwhile after 10th/15th.

Assault.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Lazy Warlord too.

 

[MrMyth]

Expertise wasn't a "fix" it was a way for flavor choices to be viable, for instance, a Dwarf Fighter with a 16 Strength and +2 Weapon can still be perfectly viable without "buying" an 18 Strength or a character to flavor for extra accuracy vs. raw damage.

Ok, here's my question:

Did you feel that a Dwarf Fighter with a 16 Str and +2 proficiency weapon was 'behind' the Fighter with 18 Str and a +3 proficiency weapon?

If so, why do you think the Dwarf Fighter with 16 Str, a +2 proficiency weapon, and Expertise... isn't still behind the Fighter with 18 Str, a +3 proficiency weapon, and Expertise?

Worse than that, how do you feel about the Dwarf with 16 Str, a +2 weapon, and no Expertise compared to the Fighter with 20 Str, a +3 weapon, and Expertise? Suddenly, the dwarf is swinging at -4 compared to the other guy.

That's my real issue with this - it adds yet another way for an optimized character to be ahead of a non-optimized character. Previously, by Level 30, a non-optimized character might be at -3 or -4 compared to an optimized character. Expertise basically doubles that difference.

And yeah, extreme cases might widen the differences ever further, but I'm just looking at regular stuff - one guy has higher starting stats, a longsword instead of a warhammer, and takes an epic destiny that boosts his Strength. Those few extra points of accuracy certainly exist, but aren't the end of the world. But add in Expertise, and the difference becomes really noticeable.

At level 30 - honestly, by level 11 - not taking Expertise is taking a huge hit to power. And no feat should be that necessary. Sure, you can play without it, but when it is worlds better than all your other options, something is clearly wrong.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Now, I'd say actually that PC DEFENSES at high levels were not in as good a shape. If anything could be described as broken it was epic level defense numbers. I'd be more inclined to consider the newer defense boosting feats to be 'fixes' than any flavor of expertise. Even now with better feat support it is quite common to see epic characters with a NAD so low it can't be missed by equal level monsters. Condition shedding is common enough that it isn't crippling, but it can get a bit frustrating for a player to know that monster X will hit every single round.

Yes, this is painfully true IME. I ran an aspect of Demogorgon against a 30th level party, and it was almost pointless to roll its attacks. I was just looking for 1s, 2s and maybe 3s to miss. And that badboy doesn't just deal damage, he dominates!

Unfortunately, only half the problem is fixed by Improved Defenses. The other half of the problem is the 4th and 8th level stat boosts themselves. The fact that you can only boost two stats at those levels ensures that at least one defense will lag behind by another 3 points by 30th level. I fixed this in my own campaign, but unfortunately most DMs don't understand the math or are too stingy to fix the problem.

 

[Destil]

Assault.

So, what six feats are all better than +2 to all your attacks, especially the ones that trigger teleports to get away from your aegis target and your punishment attacks from triggering aegis?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yes, this is painfully true IME. I ran an aspect of Demogorgon against a 30th level party, and it was almost pointless to roll its attacks. I was just looking for 1s, 2s and maybe 3s to miss. And that badboy doesn't just deal damage, he dominates!

Unfortunately, only half the problem is fixed by Improved Defenses. The other half of the problem is the 4th and 8th level stat boosts themselves. The fact that you can only boost two stats at those levels ensures that at least one defense will lag behind by another 3 points by 30th level. I fixed this in my own campaign, but unfortunately most DMs don't understand the math or are too stingy to fix the problem.

Something like a +1 to one defense at each tier would just about do it. Most PCs will still have a single weak defense, but at least it will be high enough that it CAN be missed and if the player wants to put a feat into it they can shore it up pretty well. There may still be some builds like the INT/DEX war wizard build that double on a single NAD, but it isn't easy to fix all possible cases.

 

[Aulirophile]

Something like a +1 to one defense at each tier would just about do it. Most PCs will still have a single weak defense, but at least it will be high enough that it CAN be missed and if the player wants to put a feat into it they can shore it up pretty well. There may still be some builds like the INT/DEX war wizard build that double on a single NAD, but it isn't easy to fix all possible cases.

Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible