Does Expertise "Feat Tax" even matter?

[rjdafoe]

All monsters, by a slow progression from 0 points out of range to 3 points out of range, based on level. I thought we covered that.

The problem with picking just one monster as some sort of exemplar is that high defense monsters are an ok thing. Its like if I said that the prices at my local grocery store were too high compared to other stores, and you demanded to know which single product, exactly, was unreasonably expensive.

I guess I am not going to get it? All I want is an example of a monster. I get you have said all monsters.

 

[rjdafoe]

This argument will always go on forever, because both sides are the exact opposite. One half sees a game about rolling dice, adding modifiers, and working with a team to get higher numbers, and says "Oh hey, math." The other side sees a game about rolling dice, adding modifiers, and working with a team to get higher numbers, and says "Auuuuugh, not math! Quick, ignore its existence as much as possible!"

That is not my position at all.

I think Expertise is not required to be viable, others disagree.

So no, I don't think it really is anywhere near the probem people are making it out to be, while playing the game.

For instance:
Level 28 Sorrowsworn DeathLord
AC:42 Fort: 38 Ref:41 Will: 38

Does expertise help you hit? Of course. That is what it is for. But you can easily play the game without it and it is far from required, unless you think you should be hitting more than 50 % of the time on every defense.

So yes, I think the "problem" is blown way out of proportion.

IMO, part of playing 4e is figuring out how to effectively combat the opponent. Part of that is targeting every defense for it's weak spot.

 

[keterys]

If anyone is inflating it beyond a difference of up to 4 to attack vs. monster defenses, then they are wrong. That said, a delta of 4 is a notable amount on a d20 and acting as if it were not is as meaningless as someone who acts as if the lack of Expertise somehow means they need 19s to hit. (As an aside, the difference for PC defenses can actually end up being closer to 7 for abilities that do not get stat bumps, but this discussion is about Expertise)

So, yes, there is an increasing gap between attacks and defenses, wrt to PCs and monsters, as you get higher and higher level. This gap does not appear to be on purpose, based on WotC's statements and actions. Expertise is one approach to bridging this gap.

This gap is hardly insurmountable and you may do nothing, take the feat(s), or house rule, as suits your group. Neither is it a design feature or revelation. It is a design problem, but not one that is going to wreck your game. That doesn't make it unworthy of fixing, nor does it make WotC's fix unflawed.

Hopefully that covered the relevant details.

 

[kaomera]

And, yet, that number semi-randomly fluctuating by small dips over the course of 30 levels to end up slightly off mark is... fun? exciting?

I think it's probably more fun for most players to have a number of different modifiers that don't add up to exactly what the monsters get, than to just add +level and be done with it. I think the "mark" you're aiming to hit is one of several different design goals that WotC set out at the start of the 4e design process. Then they did the actual design and they had to make some actual decisions about how the system would end up actually working. They ended up deciding to go with +level for monsters and +1/2 level, +ability, +enhancement, +etc. for PCs. They could have chosen to go with +1/2 level for monsters and not add any level-dependent bonus at all to PCs, but they didn't. They could have massaged the numbers so that the PC bonuses would simply go up by +1 each level, but they didn't. I don't see any real evidence that either choice was incorrect. High-level monsters outperforming high-level PCs in several specific ways seems perfectly reasonable to me. I can think of a number of things that would break the game much more, that 4e doesn't really do a whole lot to stop. Now, I'll admit that making the math "tighter" (? - not sure that's the correct term) makes it easier to avoid those problems, but I don't think that WotC somehow missed the fact that the numbers where not exactly even, and I think that if it hadn't have worked in playtest they would have changed it. Further feedback indicated that enough players wanted it changed to produce the Expertise feats. Maybe WotC will eventually feel that enough players want the Expertise feats changed that they will do that, but as of now I have to assume that they either don't or just haven't gotten around to it.

 

[kaomera]

This gap is hardly insurmountable and you may do nothing, take the feat(s), or house rule, as suits your group. Neither is it a design feature or revelation. It is a design problem, but not one that is going to wreck your game. That doesn't make it unworthy of fixing, nor does it make WotC's fix unflawed.

I guess I just still don't see why it has to be a design flaw. If it was negligible, then why bother? And what about other factors? I mean, monster and PC attacks don't have the same effects, for one thing most monsters don't do much special on a critical. Even Sure Strike becomes effective if you have the ability to cause an effect on a hit that is worth significantly more than the damage lost...

You seem to want PC scores to more closely match those of monsters, right? I don't see the reasoning behind this, as monsters and PCs aren't playing by the same rules in 4e.

 

[Cadfan]

Its worth noting, just for the record, that even in the most feverish dreams of the critics in this thread no one is envisioning a game where you hit on exactly the same number at every level versus an equal level foe. There's a natural fluctuation up and down as you gain and use new items, powers, ability score bonuses, and so forth.

The problem is more about the curve generally trending downwards for no apparent reason.

Also, I really, really don't believe that WotC intended the game to function just fine as originally written without Expertise, knowing that monsters grew progressively harder to hit, and then changed their mind after player feedback and patched things with Expertise. I suspect they did know and intended Expertise to exist from the very beginning.

Its just too blatant for them not to have noticed it. Someone had to have actually sat down and designed the growth curve players, and for monsters. And whoever designed each part had to be aware of the other, because they only matter in each other's context. And being aware of these things and addressing them was explicitly part of the marketing of 4e.

WotC had to know.

 

[Cadfan]

Even Sure Strike becomes effective if you have the ability to cause an effect on a hit that is worth significantly more than the damage lost...

How? Weapon property? Because Sure Strike doesn't have an effect on a hit other than damage.

If Sure Strike were a feat (sacrifice ability score to damage, gain +2 to hit), it would be an awesome feat. Especially for leaders and controllers. But its not, its a power.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Can you give me an example of a monster that all their defenses are out of a reasonable range?

first we need to know what that reasonable range is...

This argument will always go on forever, because both sides are the exact opposite. One half sees a game about rolling dice, adding modifiers, and working with a team to get higher numbers, and says "Oh hey, math." The other side sees a game about rolling dice, adding modifiers, and working with a team to get higher numbers, and says "Auuuuugh, not math! Quick, ignore its existence as much as possible!"

yes becuse those of use argueing all go "Auuuuugh, not math"

I on the other hand disproved your math many times... you just ignore it... lets try again shall we...

Its worth noting, just for the record, that even in the most feverish dreams of the critics in this thread no one is envisioning a game where you hit on exactly the same number at every level versus an equal level foe.

so then what is the problem??? again look abck to my examples...the rogue was hitting on a 9


here it is again...

here are 4 PHB1 only melee characters:

hafling Rouge level 26 (all except 1 at will attack a nad...) dagger master/ deadly trickster +13 (level) +8 (dex) +6 (magic dagger) +2 (95%+ CA) +3 (prof) +1 (rouge talent)= +33 vs Nads...

Dragon born Fighter level 26 Kensi Demi god +13 (level) +9 (str) +6 (magic sword) +2 (flanking with above CA) +3 (prof) +1 (fighter talent) +1 (kensi)= +35 Vs AC

Dwarven Paliden level 26 Hospitol Demi god +13 (level) +7 (str or cha) +6 (Magic axe) +2 (come on everyone gets CA for this) +2 (prof)= +30 Vs AC

Elf Ranger Level 26 Storm warden Eternal Seeker +13 (level) +8 (str or Dex) +5 (magic scimitar x2, and magic bow) +2 (can't leave him out of CA) +2 (prof)= +30 Vs AC

Now then lets look at a level 30 soldier...a hard fight to be sure
AC=46 NADs= 42

so the paliden is in the worst shape... he needs 16's to hit and only his dailyies have miss effects

the Ranger is up next he needs 16's as well BUT he does auto damage, and even twin strike does guarantee of 2xdex mod (16 damage) when he misses...he also has multi attack rolls... his elven accuracy helps too.

The fighter needs 11's to hit (op attacks are easier thanks to wis) so he is at 50/50 and is doing well

the Rogue is blowing everyone out of the water...he has an 18+ crit range and is hitting on 9+...and thanks to arcane trickster he has 3 rerolls per day...

Now if they had a 5th player (a leader) they would all be perfectly viable not only without expertise, but with out ___ Power books, or any other add ons.

 

[kenmarable]

WotC had to know.

My personal guess is that they thought other factors would compensate - possibly better mastery of your own PC or greater party synergy. Maybe it's not just getting bigger bonuses, but being better able to get the situational bonuses more often.

Or maybe they knew and planned on Expertise once they were comfortable with it, or even just vague planning for future power creep.

*shrug* Either way, it's guesses at WotC motivation and internal development.

This gap is hardly insurmountable and you may do nothing, take the feat(s), or house rule, as suits your group. Neither is it a design feature or revelation. It is a design problem, but not one that is going to wreck your game. That doesn't make it unworthy of fixing, nor does it make WotC's fix unflawed.

Gotta figure out this "XP button" because that is a very reasonable summary. Thank you!

 

[Dice4Hire]

I agree with the above. I think WOTC assumed 4E was a party game and that situational modifiers would make up for the discrepancy. And that scales nicely, too, assuming hte secondary score htat generateds that extra bonus goes up +1 per tier. So not every ability iscpore increase, but about 2/3 of them, which is reasonable.

I just wish expertise were three feats, not just one. Then the benefit and cost would be mroe equal.