Does Expertise "Feat Tax" even matter?

[kaomera]

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

IMO "for no apparent reason" does not equate to "because it's broken".

I suspect they did know and intended Expertise to exist from the very beginning.

I don't buy that. If WotC had intended for Expertise to exist from the beginning, it would have been in the original PHB. If WotC believed that the pre-Expertise math was broken, Expertise would be errata instead of a feat. The only reason for the Expertise feats, again IMO, is that WotC intended Expertise to be a feat, with all that entails.

re: Sure Strike: IMO Sure Strike exists because getting +2 attack is awesome in 4e. I know when I first saw it I couldn't understand how you could take any other at-will (for about five minutes before I realized that there was basically nothing you could actually do with that +2). Unfortunately, Sure Strike is not, itself, awesome. I'm not recommending anyone run out and take Sure Strike. If you had a way to add an effect to Sure strike (no, I don't have an example, I don't think there is one that justifies the damage loss, maybe HBO if you can make enough of the Fighter class features, but probably not even then), it might be good for that limited use. I'm not suggesting that WotC never makes mistakes, I just think that the evidence that Expertise / the math is a mistake / error is thin to non-existent. I could be wrong, but I haven't seen any compelling evidence to that effect, yet.

I see some people stating that the math does not scale exactly between PCs and monsters, and that the introduction of the Expertise and other feats (which, if taken, narrow the gap) is proof that the original math does not work. Am I reading that wrong? I've also seen, pre-PHBII, some players complaining that the math does not scale exactly between PCs and monsters, and others complaining that high-level fights take too long (some from actual play). I view that as a possible, logical reason to introduce a feat that would help to allay both issues. Again, I feel that if WotC had meant for Expertise to be a global bump, they would have made it a global bump, and if they thought +1/+2/+3 attack (etc.) in place of a different feat would hurt the game, they would not have printed the feat at all. And I also saw, pre-PHBII, some players reporting on Epic-level play. Some of them reported finding "grind" to be an issue at those levels, but I didn't see anyone reporting a game-breaking problem with the numbers. None of that seemed to start until the publication of the Expertise (etc.) feats.

I do see the argument that Expertise is the "best in feats", and I agree that it's annoying to see it on every sheet. I think it's totally valid and useful to bring that up, and for individual DMs to apply house-rules to address the issue, if they feel it will impact their game. I don't think WotC should or should need to respond, although maybe it would be nice to see a "working as intended" (or alternately "oops, no, that wasn't what we meant to happen", if that's the case). Expertise may even be too powerful, I just don't see that as a clear fact. There are simply too many other factors at stake regarding hitting, let alone overall DPR. I don't think you can balance the math as finely as some people seem to want it balanced without removing so many variables / options that you just don't have a game anymore.

 

[rjdafoe]

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.

I agree they knew. I disagree that Expertise was planned. I think they decided in play that it did not matter, or they where happy with the design the way it was.

But we will never know for sure.

I think it was "fixed" based on some people wanting something to be done.

 

[MrMyth]

Oh, and if you really believe that the intention was to make higher level fights more difficult across the board than lower level fights, congratulations! You've defended the monster defense progression by arguing that the challenge rating system is broken. And that expertise is broken.

I don't think this is remotely an accurate representation of the opposing viewpoint, Cadfan.

I think what people are saying - and, at least, what my own view is - is that at higher levels, the raw numbers go up in difficulty to compensate for PCs gaining power in other ways. They have considerably more options and abilities than they did early on. Now, the counter-argument is that the monsters get more powerful abilities as well - but both sides get more powerful abilities, and only the PCs really get more of them.

Enemies still have a pretty concise list of what they can do in combat. The PCs, on the other hand, have 4 times as many Encounter and Daily powers as at level 1. They have over half-a-dozen utility powers, they have countless magic item abilities, as well as paragon path and epic destiny features - not to mention a large list of feats. They can go through numerous fights without resorting to At-Wills, and can pick and choose which powers to start off each fight with. They can put those powers together in extremely powerful combos, they can acquire significant bonuses through those powers, and can shut down enemies and recover from harm with incredible effectiveness.

A combat at level 30 that had them needing the same exact numbers to hit as at level 1 - but having all their expanded options and capability - would be easier than that 1st level combat. That is why the math isn't inherently broken - it simply compensates for non-numerical power gain.

Now, whether it compensates appropriately? That's hard to say, and can't really be directly measured. I think both sides have solid arguments for whether it is appropriate or not enough. But saying there is 'no apparent reason' for the shift in numbers is just not a statement I can agree with. You might not feel it is enough of a reason, but a reason is clearly there.

I don't think Expertise was ever intended. I think the designers approached things with a philosophy similar to what I described here - that higher-level options made up for some loss in numerical power... and then panicked, like with Skill Challenges, when people complained about it. And they came out with Expertise as a quick fix, despite the very concept of the feats blatantly shattering core principles of 4E.

 

[catsclaw227]

I don't think this is remotely an accurate representation of the opposing viewpoint, Cadfan.

I think what people are saying - and, at least, what my own view is - is that at higher levels, the raw numbers go up in difficulty to compensate for PCs gaining power in other ways. They have considerably more options and abilities than they did early on. Now, the counter-argument is that the monsters get more powerful abilities as well - but both sides get more powerful abilities, and only the PCs really get more of them.

Enemies still have a pretty concise list of what they can do in combat. The PCs, on the other hand, have 4 times as many Encounter and Daily powers as at level 1. They have over half-a-dozen utility powers, they have countless magic item abilities, as well as paragon path and epic destiny features - not to mention a large list of feats. They can go through numerous fights without resorting to At-Wills, and can pick and choose which powers to start off each fight with. They can put those powers together in extremely powerful combos, they can acquire significant bonuses through those powers, and can shut down enemies and recover from harm with incredible effectiveness.

A combat at level 30 that had them needing the same exact numbers to hit as at level 1 - but having all their expanded options and capability - would be easier than that 1st level combat. That is why the math isn't inherently broken - it simply compensates for non-numerical power gain.

Well said. This is my view of the way the original progression went as well. I am of the group that believes it was fine the way it was.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Someone may have already brought this up, but Expertise is not the only tax you have to pay to stay [almost] on par -- there's the NAD boosters and Armor Spec too.

 

[rjdafoe]

I don't think Expertise was ever intended. I think the designers approached things with a philosophy similar to what I described here - that higher-level options made up for some loss in numerical power... and then panicked, like with Skill Challenges, when people complained about it. And they came out with Expertise as a quick fix, despite the very concept of the feats blatantly shattering core principles of 4E.

I am not going to quote the entire thing, but thank you for this. It is exactly how I view it, although way better explained than I have done.

 

[Cadfan]

MrMyth-

1. I wasn't trying to represent the entire opposing viewpoint, just the one to which I was directly responding, which argued that increased defenses should be seen as increased tactical challenge.

2. Believe it or not, I am familiar with the "everything was fine until you guys screwed it up by complaining" theory of the Expertise feats. I just think its implausible.

In all seriousness, if WotC had a reasoned, considered view that the game didn't need Expertise, and then when people questioned that view responded not by explaining their reasoning in a design & development column or something but rather by releasing an incredibly overpowered feat as a sop to a popular opinion with which they didn't even agree, then... well, if I believed that, I'd have to take back every good thing I've ever said about WotC or about 4th Edition.

I'd have to believe that the designers were utterly incompetent hacks who should never, ever be allowed near game design again, lest they continue their crimes.

Fortunately, I don't believe that.

 

[MrMyth]

2. Believe it or not, I am familiar with the "everything was fine until you guys screwed it up by complaining" theory of the Expertise feats. I just think its implausible.

The people who complained didn't screw it up - as I said, it is a legitimate issue with solid arguments on both. The WotC designers were the ones who screwed up, by choosing to implement a terrible fix in response to the complaints.

I don't see how this is an implausible scenario, or how one bad design call here invalidates other good design elsewhere in the edition. I don't think it is unreasonable that WotC designers may have initially sketched out a series of progressions that put PCs relatively on par with monsters from levels 1-30, noted that the numbers drop slightly by epic but that this will often be compensated for by feats, extra powers, items, etc.

And then, when things released, got presented by a lot of complaints, math, arguments, etc, that either made them reevaluate their position, or got one key figure to insist on a fix, or something similar. And went ahead with a poorly-thought out fix. And once Expertise was out, they couldn't do anything about it since any action to address its flaws would be seen as yet another reverse, even further undermining their credibility - the same issue that cropped up with Skill Challenges, in my mind.

I don't think the game is ruined for either of these being bad calls, nor do I think it means the WotC designers are performing criminal behavior in this. I think the recent launch of significant errata shows they are willing to take a more measured approach to fixing things, and one I'm a fan of. I think the Expertise feats are a bad call, but at least one incredibly easy to toss out in a home game, rather than any actual meddling with core mechanics.

I don't like the decisions they made. I'm not even absolutely convinced this is the way things played out, but it certainly seems plausible to me, and I'm somewhat taken aback that you aren't even willing to consider it might be possible.

 

[keterys]

I could easily see a situation like this (all of this fictional supposition):

Earlier in 4e development, you get a +1 to attack bonus at 11th and 21st level implicitly, and there is a feat that gives +1 attack with a particular weapon/implement.

Someone says 'People are too effective at high level. Make it harder for them to hit'. Those 3 +1s are cut.

The game is out for a bit and several people go 'Umm, this makes the game grindy. Yes, they're too effective, but better that than boring.' 'We can just start making more badass monsters. That'll help solve the too powerful.' 'But, we can't just errata the +1 per tier back in the game. That'd be, uhh, bad, for some reason.' 'Let's just put the feat back, but put in the bonus that we used to give along with it' 'Great, toss it in PH2 so most people get it.'

Doesn't make it awesome, but it's a progression I can understand.

 

[rjdafoe]

MrMyth-

1. I wasn't trying to represent the entire opposing viewpoint, just the one to which I was directly responding, which argued that increased defenses should be seen as increased tactical challenge.

What my point was, that it is not as bad as everyone makes it out to be. For 1 year, everyone here played without this feat. I did not even feel it in the (limited) amount I played at Epic, there was just too many other things to negate it that it did not matter, but I have felt it get easier with these feats in. IMO too easy.

Of course, my group probably plays differently than your group.

Without that feat, we routinely had +25 to +30 to hit, without combat advantage or a leader bonus, depending on ability scores, feats, and powers used. Sure, sometimes one of the defenses need a high number to hit. I think it was designed that way deliberately. All of our characters in my group, vary their powers so as to target at least 1 other defense.

It is not hard to hit a defense of 32 to 38 when you have +26 to hit right off the bat, without combat advantage or leader bonus. Our group routinely needs anywhere from 9 to 12 to hit the weakest defense of an opponent. Sometimes as low as a 6, othertimes when attacking their strongest defense a 15 - just like previous versions of the game.

The trick in 4E is to find that weak defense or 2. Sometimes, some characters cannot target one of them, so they get as much help as possible to be able to hit the harder defense, including the assist to get +2, if it is warrented. Sometimes, it is beneficial for the fight to forgo your attack to help a party member have a much better chance to get off a power.