Expertise justification?

[Nail]

This is a misunderstanding and I'll inform the rest of the group to clarify on our website.

I'm glad to hear it. The night you surprised us with the "Monsters will Coup de Grace" policy, it seemed that you meant "from now on". I'm very happy to hear that's not true. I have misgivings about it for *any* monster group, but.... c'est la guerre.

.... with absolutely no one in any real danger of actually dying.

Ha! Now I *know* yer pulling my leg.

I wish we had some way to keep track of all our rolls for combats ...

Me too. It'd help dispel this myth that switching dice helps.

 

[DrSpunj]

... with absolutely no one in any real danger of actually dying.

Ha! Now I *know* yer pulling my leg.

Sorry that something's got your leg, but *I* am not.

Now, I don't want to kill PCs frequently, but I do want PC death to be a real possibility in the middle of Hard encounters and sometimes even Standard encounters where the party has very poor tactics.

However, PC death in 4th edition from what I've seen in our current campaign and the 8th level Dungeon Delve we did a few weeks ago (so admittedly limited to Heroic Tier) is NOT even likely in very Hard combats with poor party tactics and skewed die rolling like we had last night!

Maybe it's the fact that our party has 7 PCs. Maybe it's because we have 2 Leaders. Maybe it's because I'm doing something wrong with the combat challenges I'm putting together. Maybe it's because the party's tactics are always awesomely superb (but I don't think so!) But not one PC in our games over 14 sessions now has come close to dying.

Let me define that very clearly again:

• A PC has missed two death saves and therefore on their next turn could die (though our Swordmage in last night's big battle did miss one out of 2 or 3 rolls, the first time I can remember any PC having to make a death save in the last 6 sessions or so)
• While dying the PC taken enough damage to fall into the bottom half of their negative bloodied HP total so that they are reasonably within one Coup de Grace attack of dying or will die because of ongoing damage that will kill them at the beginning of their next turn

Most 4e Heroic Tier combats last 7-8 rounds, with Hard encounters likely another 2-3 as a rough guess. With a 55% or better chance at making a death save that means a PC likely has to go without any healing of any kind for around 5-6 rounds before failing 3 death saves. That's very unlikely to happen even without all the ways the party has to heal in most combats.

Looking at dying by reaching negative bloodied HP and we have a critical hit we can factor in for the CDG attempt. Last night that would've been 11 dmg from either the Defenders or Sentries. Checking our party's squishes we have Bloodied values of:

• Tiefling Warlock: Total of 44 hp so bloodied would be 22. That means we're looking at 2 CDG attempts to kill her.
• Elven Ranger: Total of 41 hp so 20 here, still 2 CDGs to kill her.
• Human Wizard: Calculated wrong, should be 45 with his Toughness feat so bloodied would be 22; again 2 CDGs necessary to kill him.

Of course the non-squishy PCs are taking most of the attacks & damage and CDGing them to death is even tougher to do.

Also keep in mind that the DM has likely already used all the cool, higher damaging Encounter and Recharging powers early in the combat and therefore they're not available typically in mid-to-late combat when a PC is dying. Just like the players, in the later rounds my bad guys are usually just utilizing their basic attacks unless I get lucky with a recharge roll.

Admittedly the party wasn't up against Lurkers or Brutes last night which would likely have a higher CDG damage output, but a quick perusal shows some of them doing 14-18 dmg on a critical, so it'd still probably take 2 CDGs to kill a PC.

To summarize, 4e in the Heroic Tier doesn't appear to be very deadly. That's not required to have fun, as I think last night's battle showed, but it's something that I feel is missing from our game as a middle ground between the standard "we'll be just fine, give us about 5 minutes" and a TPK.

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

You avoided the questions. What is the definition of a sub-optimal PC, and who decides that (since you rotate DMs), and how do the other players feel about that?

Dunno... consensus?

He did "kinda" answer the question. His answer is: "We've not actually done it yet, this is all hypothetical."

Thanks Nail, you got it!

Also, if a PC has problems hitting, one has to look at the reason. If you hand Expertise out to that PC at Paragon or higher level, maybe he will hit a lot at that point and the other PCs will appear to have consistent problems hitting.

What are the bonuses of the PC that has the problem and the other PCs? If they are about the same, do you penalize the other players because this player is unlucky?

The point: How do you justify one player getting access to a feat, but not another player? Even among long-time close friends, this is a serious question.

You are right guys... We still need to think this through...

So, back to square one and the feat remains banned (even if no one in my group wants it)

 

[Robert_Goodfellow]

There is a debate... really?

When you look at the math it's a simple question of how soon can I buy it, not a matter of if I should. I'd also say that you DM is being a true butt-head if he is trying to ban it.

The power creep hasn't taken a hold yet (outside of Forgotten Realms), so I wouldn't fear that yet.

It seems to me that this feat was indeed a stealth errata.

As a player and DM I looked at the chances to hit and was very very very annoyed at how low the chance for success is. They already lowered the DC of more skill/ability checks when realizing that the DCs were WAY too high. I still don't think that the hit % is acceptable even with the presence of Weapon/Impliment Expertise.

WotC's feeling is that a min-maxed character will be super cool at a 60% chance to hit. I completely disagree with this mentality, but that is a personal opinion and not necessarily a sign of bad game design.

In theory the game will be mostly played between 5th and 25th level. As such, if the numbers of the game are balanced for those levels then I consider the system a success. But in fact the game becomes less balanced with every level you gain.

They have established +Hit as the most expensive of all the modifications in the game. I would argue to a ridiculous degree, but that's for another thread.

I think it's irresponsible of your DM to be affraid of his characters success rate. That's a sign of an innability to balance encounters well. I want my players to win, but I don't want to give it to them.

I love the feeling of seeing my players walk out of a fight they were certain they were going to loose, but some how made it through tooth and nail. I especially love this feeling if I know that I did not pull any punches or give them any hand outs. They won the fight out of tenacity, creativity, good character design and teamwork.

I think that as the game stands it is not possible to make an actually balanced character due to the break down of the basic math of the game. The only way that I think this can be truely fixed is to adjust the numbers on the monster's defenses and attacks. This is way too much work for most DMs though and so I suggest just giving your players a free Weapon/Implement Expertise.

That's what I do as a DM. I'm still debating of if I should give it out at 1st level or 6th.

 

[Lauberfen]

so when is this going to end??

is there any way to convince eaither side the other is right?

is this becomeing just the new 'edtion war' a fight noone can win

I have no interest in an entrenched conflict as you are describing it.

My recent posts have just been about the mathematical claim that expertise is relatively more useful for underpowered characters, and thus levels the playing field. This is simply false, as it in fact widens the power gap between optimised and non-optimised- don't be confused by the number of posts to the contrary, they are almost all from the same poster!

As for the bigger issues, I accept that it's minor until 15th level. However it is still clearly too good as a feat, because of the multiple conditional +1 to hit feats which it supersedes.

I maintain that even at heroic tier it represents a feat tax, and this will become very clear from 15th level. I think this is the proving point- if 90% of characters have it at 15th level, the case for it being overpowered, a feat tax and a poor maths fix are proved.

That's always been my view, and I'm not terribly interested in arguing over those points. However if people insist on making untrue claims about the maths, or foolish comparisons to other incredibly situational feats then I may well challenge them.

 

[Intense_Interest]

I maintain that even at heroic tier it represents a feat tax, and this will become very clear from 15th level. I think this is the proving point- if 90% of characters have it at 15th level, the case for it being overpowered, a feat tax and a poor maths fix are proved.

That's always been my view, and I'm not terribly interested in arguing over those points. However if people insist on making untrue claims about the maths, or foolish comparisons to other incredibly situational feats then I may well challenge them.

Once more into the breech, old friend.

We again use the phrase "feat tax" without defining it. What is the meaning other than a post-hoc declamation? That because 99% of some arbitrary cohort of players (15th level, people you know, play in a group that values hitting monsters) use the feat, it is a Tax to play for those players?

You use the phrase "feat tax" because you think the application is boring, not because of what it actually does. We don't call "18 Attack Stat" an Attribute Tax, or having at least a +1 weapon by level 5 an Item Tax, or having a Taclord with to-hit bonus powers a "Group Composition Tax"- not because these factors are (within the cohort of players that optimize characters) used in 99% of groups- but because we find purchasing a feat that does nothing but make you smile when you roll an 8 lame.

Further, what about those players that take a different feat because it would work on all aspects of their character? The split Cleric, Dragonborn mouth-breather, or whatever odd multiclasser you care to name. Do they still pay a "feat tax" because they choose a feat that also increases their to-hit bonus in a different and limited way? Because within that cohort of players, you can imagine that 90% of them also have a to-hit boosting feat of some sort as well.

Doesn't this mean that to-hit feats as a group are "feat taxes", because players want to purchase a feat that lets them hit more often? Do players that spend a Superior Weapon profiency to wield a Greatspear instead of a Long Spear spending a Feat Tax for Spear Users? Are strange race/class combinations that use suggested feats to "match up" to other combinations paying a "feat tax" to play them?

People spend feats to do stuff- that is what you do with them. Expertise is a Great feat, but it isn't the only one nor is it going to be the only one. Just because you can't flip out and do cool stuff with it other than smile when you roll an 8 doesn't mean you're paying a Feat Tax to play the game.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I have no interest in an entrenched conflict as you are describing it.

My recent posts have just been about the mathematical claim that expertise is relatively more useful for underpowered characters, and thus levels the playing field. This is simply false, as it in fact widens the power gap between optimised and non-optimised- don't be confused by the number of posts to the contrary, they are almost all from the same poster!

[...]

That's always been my view, and I'm not terribly interested in arguing over those points. However if people insist on making untrue claims about the maths, or foolish comparisons to other incredibly situational feats then I may well challenge them.

Yes, Laubefen, you are right when you are playing hit the bag of HP.

However you are wrong when:

a) playing solo vs a single high AC monster (reducing the time to kill the monster by half in best (worst) case: needing a 20 to hit vs needing a 19 or 20 to hit... it will be a grind neverless, but its only half as long...)

b) when your non Damage riders are better than the hyperoptimized ones
e.g.: 5% better chance to get a +4 to hit and damage for your teammates is better than a 5% increased chance to get a +2 to hit and damage for your mates...
noticeable about every 20th turn...

c) when you already hit 95% of the time...

p.s.: i never said it levels the playing field if all chars take it... see above

and constantly claiming i speak nonsense or that i am a fool is a bit rude... especially when I told you that you are right in your special case...

edit: there are no underpowered chars with 22 point buy method, but differently balanced... if you like to compare apples to oranges... go on...

As for the bigger issues, I accept that it's minor until 15th level. However it is still clearly too good as a feat, because of the multiple conditional +1 to hit feats which it supersedes.

here we more or less agree... superseeding other feats... especially nimble blade is sad

 

[KarinsDad]

I think that as the game stands it is not possible to make an actually balanced character due to the break down of the basic math of the game. The only way that I think this can be truely fixed is to adjust the numbers on the monster's defenses and attacks.

The easy alternative is to use lower level monsters at Paragon and Epic levels and not allow Expertise.

-1 level at Paragon, -2 levels at Epic

What this does is without changing a single game element like PC numbers or monster numbers is:

1) Increases the PC's chances to hit by 2.
2) Increases the PC's defenses by 2.
3) Decreases the number of monster hit points (which is a grind issue for higher levels)

Also, one could increase the numbers of monsters if this adjustment seems too easy. For example, instead of 5 n monsters at Paragon, make it 6 n-1 monsters. Instead of 5 n monsters at Epic, make it 7 n-2.

This is a surprisingly easy adjustment to make which handles a significant portion of the math issues.

 

[KarinsDad]

We again use the phrase "feat tax" without defining it. What is the meaning other than a post-hoc declamation? That because 99% of some arbitrary cohort of players (15th level, people you know, play in a group that values hitting monsters) use the feat, it is a Tax to play for those players?

You use the phrase "feat tax" because you think the application is boring, not because of what it actually does.

I don't know about other people, but I call it a feat tax because that is what it is.

There are SO many feats now and so many different directions to go that ever feat is precious. When the game system is mathematically flawed such that a given feat is required to create a balanced playable PC at high levels, not only will everyone take that feat just to maintain the status quo, but everyone will lose a feat that they could have taken if the game system was NOT mathematically horked this way.

Hence, it is a feat tax one way or the other.

Either you pay the tax, or your PC pays by missing a lot.

The PHB II NAD feats are also a feat tax because their purpose is the same: to fix the stupid math bugs of high level.

Double taxation.


And for those people who do not believe that the math bugs exist, I cannot help you. A +3 to hit in a D20 game system is huge. A +4 to defense in a D20 game system is huge. Look at the vast majority of modifiers in the entire game system. Most are +1 or +2, dropped from the +2 and +4 of earlier editions. Such large adds HAVE to be due to a math bug (and of course, a simple spreadsheet verifies this).

 

[GMforPowergamers]

When you look at the math it's a simple question of how soon can I buy it, not a matter of if I should. I'd also say that you DM is being a true butt-head if he is trying to ban it.

I have no interest in an entrenched conflict as you are describing it.

wow you have a funny waya to show it...if you realy had no intrert in entenched conflict you would not entrench (In this case admit you are voiceing an opionion, and one others disagree with, so it is no way a fact...)

As for the bigger issues, I accept that it's minor until 15th level. However it is still clearly too good as a feat, because of the multiple conditional +1 to hit feats which it supersedes.

see you missed that whole opionon thing again... but I will meet you half way, I think it should only scale at 21st, so +1 until 21st then +2...

the case for it being overpowered, a feat tax and a poor maths fix are proved.

proved so well that people mount a debate against it...when you say you have proven something you should prove it beyond a resnable doubt...

That's always been my view, and I'm not terribly interested in arguing over those points. However if people insist on making untrue claims about the maths, or foolish comparisons to other incredibly situational feats then I may well challenge them.

so you ARE intrested in entrneched warfare...becuse you are looking for a fight...

Once more into the breech, old friend.

We again use the phrase "feat tax" without defining it.

funny how often that happens

People spend feats to do stuff- that is what you do with them. Expertise is a Great feat, but it isn't the only one nor is it going to be the only one. Just because you can't flip out and do cool stuff with it other than smile when you roll an 8 doesn't mean you're paying a Feat Tax to play the game.

I don't know about other people, but I call it a feat tax because that is what it is.

There are SO many feats now and so many different directions to go that ever feat is precious. When the game system is mathematically flawed such that a given feat is required to create a balanced playable PC at high levels, not only will everyone take that feat just to maintain the status quo, but everyone will lose a feat that they could have taken if the game system was NOT mathematically horked this way.

so the game completly failed for 8+ months where no one could hit at epic levels, and we had post after post that didn't know why there characters where epic fail, then this feat came and ...well it went the other way, 90% of posters where fine, the only ones that thought anything was worng was in theory in the math, not in the game...so yea excuse me well I don't belive the problem exsits, becuse the 'fix' is what made people think there was a problem...

Hence, it is a feat tax one way or the other.

Either you pay the tax, or your PC pays by missing a lot.

or you are happy with your attack and hit rates, and chose something else...or you feel something else is more important to your character...

The PHB II NAD feats are also a feat tax because their purpose is the same: to fix the stupid math bugs of high level.

Double taxation.

that is dumb...it has been excepted for 20+ years that every character has weaknesses in there defence. now they still do. However they give options to up your weaknesses...and it is a tax becuse why? ph I know becuse you think all characters should have good defences across the board.

And for those people who do not believe that the math bugs exist, I cannot help you. A +3 to hit in a D20 game system is huge. A +4 to defense in a D20 game system is huge. Look at the vast majority of modifiers in the entire game system. Most are +1 or +2, dropped from the +2 and +4 of earlier editions. Such large adds HAVE to be due to a math bug (and of course, a simple spreadsheet verifies this).

your spreadsheet only takes what you want into account, not everything else. It is HUGE to gain a new class, It is HUGE to be able to cast rituels (giving you new options)...alot of feats are HUGE...