Expertise justification?

[brehobit]

So, here's what I'd say to your DM: player attack rates and defenses (except AC) scale at a lower rate than monster attack rates and defenses. The expertise feats and the epic defense feats look like they're meant to bring the scaling back to 1 for 1. If you think that's good for the game, lose the feats, and just apply +1 to attacks and non-AC defenses at level 5, +2 at level 15, and +3 at level 25. If you don't think the game needs the scaling fixed, just lose the feats.

Exactly.

 

[Nail]

Can you do the math here & now?

You bet. (Although it looks as if 2 other posters have done it as well.) I'll just look at Heroic tier, since that's all I expect to see for the rest of this year of gaming.

Assumptions:

• Monster AC = 14 + level (note: this is for skirmishers, lots of monsters have better AC)
• PC Attack stat at 1st level is 18 (after racials).
• PC boosts Attack stat: 20@8th.
• +2 Proficiency weapon
• Magic weapon: +1@ 2nd, +2@6th, +3@11th

With the above assumed, here are the Chance to Hit percentages:
1st lvl => 60%
2nd lvl => 65%
3rd lvl => 60%
4th lvl => 60%
5th lvl => 55%
6th lvl => 60%
7th lvl => 55%
8th lvl => 60%
9th lvl => 55%
10th lvl => 55%

As you see, the hole is small (5%)....which is exactly the value of the Expertise feat (+1). It gets gradually larger in Paragon and Epic; and not uncoincidentally, the feats scales to fil those larger holes.

 

[webrunner]

If you have a good build, you don't really need expertise as much.. you're hitting fine anyway, and if you're happy with it, that's fine.

But if you have a kind of an odd build, one that doesn't have 20 in it's hit stat, then expertise is there to make up the difference.

Of course, min-maxing means you do both, but for 'average' scenarios it's not really required.

Plus, if you have a build that's not all that concerned with hitting with a lot of die rolls, like a warlord build who uses commander's strike and heals more than anything, or an avenger who already barely ever misses, or a fighter who's concerned more with marks then hitting, then you also don't need the feat as much

 

[Nail]

Heroic
Assumed PC attack vs average monster AC at level 1:

4+2+0+0+0=6 vs. 15=14+1

Chance to hit = 55%

I believe you are off by 5% here. Remember the equation to use is:

{21 - Monster AC + player Atk bonus} * 5% = chance to hit

 

[Nail]

It's a bit subjective, especially with the way that treasure packets are handed out.

I hope this is clear to everyone. As I said in a post above, much depends on how treasure is handed out, and when everyone gets their +2 weapon (or +3 , or whatever).

For my part, I think it's reasonable to assume that *everyone* has the requisite "+" by the minimum magic item level. That is, +2 by level 6, +3 by level 11, etc. (And +1 by level 2). I'm also _very_ clear that YMMV on this.

But unlike Nail, I do not think the players really notice this until mid-paragon levels.

Hmmm. I'm not sure that's what I said. In any case, I've noticed that *some* of my fellow players are starting to notice "not hitting as often" as other PCs. Since it's just me observing, and my sample size is limited, it's entirely possible that my observation is incorrect.

I'm pretty confident that the "math holds up" well enough in herioc tier. That's not my point; I'm not claiming 4e has an Epic Fail in heroic tier. I'm saying that there is a hole, and this feat fills it. The feat should be allowed in our game, IMO....and subject to revocation if we become unhappy with it or find a better solution.

 

[KarinsDad]

Hmmm. I'm not sure that's what I said. In any case, I've noticed that *some* of my fellow players are starting to notice "not hitting as often" as other PCs. Since it's just me observing, and my sample size is limited, it's entirely possible that my observation is incorrect.

I'm pretty confident that the "math holds up" well enough in herioc tier. That's not my point; I'm not claiming 4e has an Epic Fail in heroic tier. I'm saying that there is a hole, and this feat fills it. The feat should be allowed in our game, IMO....and subject to revocation if we become unhappy with it or find a better solution.

Sorry if I misunderstood you.

I definitely think the feat fixes the overall trend when (as per my chart and assumptions above) 16 levels out of the first 22 levels hit on an 8, 3 levels out of 22 levels hit on a 7, and 3 levels out of 22 levels hit on a 9. Above level 22, the average is closer to a 9, but I don't see that as a significant hole either (just like I do not really see a significant hole at level 5 with the core rules).

 

[ForbidenMaster]

I believe you are off by 5% here. Remember the equation to use is:

{21 - Monster AC + player Atk bonus} * 5% = chance to hit

Youre right. For some reason I was thinking the need to excede, not the need to match. You need a 9 or better, not a 10, therefor you need better than an 8, which means 8*.05*100=40% chance to fail and a 60% chance to succede.

So essentially raise the chance to hit on all of my posts by 5%. Thanks Nail.

 

[DrSpunj]

For my part, I think it's reasonable to assume that *everyone* has the requisite "+" by the minimum magic item level. That is, +2 by level 6, +3 by level 11, etc. (And +1 by level 2). I'm also _very_ clear that YMMV on this.

Except anyone following the DMG's treasure parcels system isn't beholden to that type of schedule. For all 5 PCs to have a +1 weapon (cuz we're talking about attack bonus, right?) "by level 2" then all 4 magic items handed out at 1st level, of item levels 2-5, have to be weapons. So should that 5th player just sit out during combat twiddling his thumbs until he gets his +1 weapon with the first treasure trove at 2nd level because he's not as effective without that extra 5% bonus?

And if your response to that is no, of course not, why are we discussing a 5% bonus throughout the Heroic Tier as a "hole that needs to be filled"?

You effectively seem to be saying that weapons should be the first treasure handed out to all PCs getting +2 items until everyone has one, then armor, then neck slots? So PCs only get the other magic item slots filled after the big three are obtained at each item tier level from +1 to +6, like clockwork? Seems...predictable.

I guess I'm just not convinced that we need to ride things that rigidly, with treasure or with other bonuses. My hope with 4e: that the math is robust enough to not require

• a 20 in your primary stat at level 1
• a +3 proficiency weapon
• a +1 magic weapon "by 2nd level", +2 "at 6th", etc.
• Combat Advantage all the time
• avoiding higher than PC level soldiers with their higher defenses
• avoiding mobs 1-4 levels higher (even though the DMG recommends it for tougher encounters) because it drops a PC's chances of hitting too much

and certainly not requiring two or three of those or the math falls apart and the game becomes unfun for all.

Now, I'm very interested in learning if my hope in 4e is well or mis-placed in this regard, and I'm not convinced either way yet. I expect some play time at levels 5-10 will help in that regard.

Now, if someone is already enjoying at least a couple of the first 4 options there (which your PC is, right?), and as the DM I'm not regularly using higher level mobs or soldiers (which I'm not after reading through the grindspace thread months ago) which means the mob role & less than party level mobs tip the balance more in the party's favor for successful hits, then I have a hard time seeing that there's a "hole in the math" as you put it even with the numbers you and others have put forth (thanks for all that, btw!).

Maybe that's because I'm comfortable with a PC's chance to hit being in the 50-60% range without anything in that list applying because I know with a few of them valid for any given PC in any combat in any given round that their chance to hit rises to 65% or better (especially with some teamwork helping with CA, powers, TacLord AP bonuses, stunt bonuses, etc.) and hitting 2 out of every 3 times on average seems like a good balance to me. Obviously YMMV, Nail and it sounds like it does. Would you find the game more fun if it was regularly 75%? Or 80%?

What does everyone think the average chance of a PC successfully attacking? Wasn't there a thread on this very topic awhile back....

The feat should be allowed in our game, IMO....and subject to revocation if we become unhappy with it or find a better solution.

Alright, hole and math aside again for a moment, please clarify what exactly you're asking for. Do you want access to the feat and we'll see who takes it? Or that everyone get one expertise feat for free? Or that we give everyone a flat +1 to all attacks for free (climbing appropriately as written in Paragon & Epic tiers assuming we ever make it there!) and ban the feats as unnecessary?

If it's either of the former you're okay taxing a Paladin twice until they get a Holy Avenger? Or that Caz'n the Dragonborn's breath weapon attack doesn't enjoy the same benefit? Or Shield Push?

And for the record, the problem I have with tentatively allowing feats or something else in a game like this is revoking it rarely goes well. Some people will really like it, others won't care, either way when trying to get rid of a player bonus it can easily be interpreted as the DM or another player unhappy with it as being arbitrary and "ruining my fun". Taking something away from the game is easy to do, but it rarely makes everyone around the table happy, IME, and that's counterproductive to our goals of having a good time!

 

[blargney the second]

DMSpunj, I'm confused. Don't you find that 4e combats take too long?

Expertise will speed up fights. Pure and simple.
-blarg

 

[DrSpunj]

DrSpunj, I'm confused. Don't you find that 4e combats take too long?

Expertise will speed up fights. Pure and simple.

It could help in that regard, and I'm thinking of that, too. While I don't want combat to be a grind, I also don't want it to be unfun and unchallenging. Part of my concerns are if we accept Expertise as written that:
A) the gap between those in my group who know the rules very well, like Nail and take the feat, and those that don't (& don't take it) will widen, as someone discussed earlier, which will lead to unfunness for some
B) That if everyone takes it and it's not a "hole that needs fixing" then to keep things fun & challenging I'm going to have to compensate on the monster side somehow since the party *is* going to be doing more reliable damage and therefore the threat of mobs is effectively less. I could do that by increasing their level which would then increase their AC, but then we'd be back where we are without Expertise. Or I can increase their damage output as KarinsDad has discussed doing in the Paragon & Epic tiers which keeps the threat level higher during hopefully a shorter combat, but doing that for every monster out there seems cumbersome if I don't have to.

Now, if I have to I'll do it, because I want the sessions to be fun for my players and then it's fun for me! And maybe that's what needs to happen at Paragon & Epic tiers to keep the grind at bay. Honestly since I have little hope of experiencing those tiers anytime soon I'm hoping either WotC or the EN World community will fix it that problem for me before I get there!

To be fair much of our slowness is that we have a larger number of players (7 if everyone shows) which means a larger number of mobs if I'm not using higher level mobs, and a few of our players are not all that familiar with the rules or their PCs (one even to a degree that she was routinely missing and not having much fun but after 5 sessions or so we finally discovered that's because she left out her Ability Modifier on all her attacks! And she's one of our Strikers!).

So, while our combats do take longer than I'd like, equating to usually only 2 battles in a 4 hour biweekly session, we're having fun. Hence my reluctance to tip the balance any more than is really necessary; I don't like rocking good boats!