Expertise justification?

[GMforPowergamers]

I'm having a bit of trouble following your english. Let me paraphrase you, and you let me know if I've gotten it right:

you want to hear something funny...sometimes when I type even I can't read what I ment...

You claim that the central debate in this thread is "Are the expertise feats required at paragon and epic tiers of play?"

close enough

 

[Nail]

<chuckle>

Yeah. Me too, sometimes.

 

[Nail]

"Are the expertise feats required at paragon and epic tiers of play?"
To answer this, we're going to have to come to an understanding about what "required" (or "playable" or "fun" or whatever) means. And I have a sneaking suspicion that we'll not be able to agree on this, as much depends on prefered play style.

For my part, I'd say "required" means that "the game isn't very fun". It does NOT mean (to me) that "the game simply doesn't work". I think it's self-evident that the game does work. It's only a question of hitting the right balance-point, and hitting less than 55% of the time is (IMO) "not right".

So: "Do PCs hit at least 55% of the time at paragon and epic tiers?"

....and the answer is: "Nope, unless you allow the Expertise line of feats."

 

[KarinsDad]

"Are the expertise feats required at paragon and epic tiers of play?"
To answer this, we're going to have to come to an understanding about what "required" (or "playable" or "fun" or whatever) means. And I have a sneaking suspicion that we'll not be able to agree on this, as much depends on prefered play style.

For my part, I'd say "required" means that "the game isn't very fun". It does NOT mean (to me) that "the game simply doesn't work". I think it's self-evident that the game does work. It's only a question of hitting the right balance-point, and hitting less than 55% of the time is (IMO) "not right".

So: "Do PCs hit at least 55% of the time at paragon and epic tiers?"

....and the answer is: "Nope, unless you allow the Expertise line of feats."

Agreed. The Epic game works. It's not as much fun without the bonuses (regardless of whether it is a DM handed out math bug fix, or a DM allowing the feats). But it works.

since the crux of the argument is weather or not you need to have these or not to be able to play at effective levels, and I have been told time and again how grindy and unplayble this game gets, but noone has answerf this...

and I am still waiting for the un playble encounter...

Nail said it better here.

It's not that it is unplayable.

It's not that is is required.


It's just not as much fun when encounters are grindy. If one group of PCs all have +3 to hit at Epic levels and another group of PCs do not, the exact same encounter will (on average) take several rounds longer with the group that does not have +3 to hit.

It's about balance and fun.

Can it be played? Yup.

Will the encounter last longer than similar difficulty heroic encounters? Yup, but for the lesser chance to hit and for the increased number of relative monster hit points.

Are longer encounters more fun than shorter ones? Not for me and not generally for anyone I play with.


And, the same applies to the defensive side of the coin. When PCs do not have the NAD feats or a DM supplied NAD fix house rule, they will be affected by conditions more often and will take damage more often which in turn will extend the duration of the encounter.

 

[Bayuer]

@GMforPowergamers

What will happen if there isn't a Warlord in my party? What if we have cleric on WIS and CHA instead Are you saying that we need some powers that give us to hit bonuses or the game will be not fun-good-playable? Shouldn't the game be balanced for such a simple things like average to hit chances? All options should be just options, not reasonable choices options should make your character above average, not on average level when you take them.

You understand that many of powers that gives bonuses to hit are for basic or melee attacks only? (there are few that give better options, but as I said, only few powers can do that and still they are very limited)

All the players that use attacks vs. NADs have hard time. They can't take benefits of combat advantage and many powers that give to hit bonuses.

When you designing encounter, you make many of them hard for players, so to achive this you use higher level monsters. Now when you saw math (here you can see mine - Wizards Community - View Single Post - Another math crunch and how fix 4E) the to hit chance will be lower than on given level (from 35% it will drop to 15% if you will use n+4 monster). And again, what with characters that hit vs. NADs? They don't have many options to achive to hit bonuses.

For example. Orcus have AC 48. With basic +31 to hit that doesne looks so good. FOR 51 REF 46 WILL 49. To hit on that level is around 29. Of course there will be some (but still few) powers that will make numbers better, but who are we kidding, it's still not good enoungh to say, that it's ok.

 

[DrSpunj]

Just curious; what do the numbers look like if you do a +1 at 5th, +2 at 15th, and +3 at 25th?

Sorry I didn't see this earlier today, OG, busy day at work.

I must be using slightly different assumptions about what magic item enhancement bonuses PCs will have at what levels compared to the original poster, but I get averages by tier of (assuming level 1 starts with a 60% chance to hit):

+1 at 5/15/25:
Heroic: 60%
Paragon: 57%
Epic: 55%

+1 at Paragon/Epic:
Heroic: 57%
Paragon: 54%
Epic: 52%

Default game rules, no expertise feats:
Heroic: 57%
Paragon: 49%
Epic: 42%

I think that's probably it. I didn't adjust what Goodfellow put in his sheet and he picks up a +1 item at 2nd level, then +2 at 6th, +3 at 11th, etc. I think previously in this thread there was discussion that while it's possible a single party member might have a +2 item as early as level 2 according to the DMG parcel system, it's not a given the "average" party member (which would be 3 out of the assumed party of 5) would likely have a +2 weapon until 7th. Or am I remembering that wrong? Please correct me if so because I really don't want to reread this whole thread!

Regardless, to keep my numbers consistent and to answer Old Gumphrey's question, if we continue with the magic item distribution Goodfellow used and go with 5/15/25 giving +1/+2/+3 I get:

+1 at 5/15/25:
Heroic: 61.5%
Paragon: 59%
Epic: 57%

If you are giving out an eventual +2 to hit, that means to-hit scales by 2 worse than monster defenses over 29 levels. At the moment, the average FRW defenses scales by 5 worse than monster to-hit over 29 levels (see the math/assumptions, here). So if you give a +1 to each FRW at level 5/15/25, the average FRW defenses will scale by -2, the same as to-hit with your change and the same as AC scales in the default system.

Thanks for the thread link. I had read part of that awhile ago but decided to focus on the attack bonus & Expertise feats first. Now I don't have to go looking for the thread (though I hoped it was still on the first page of the 4e HR forum, I don't get over there much ).

 

[GMforPowergamers]

@GMforPowergamers

What will happen if there isn't a Warlord in my party?

the you eaither have a diffrent leader (other bonuses...or you are argueing the leaders are not balanced with each other???)

What if we have cleric on WIS and CHA instead Are you saying that we need some powers that give us to hit bonuses or the game will be not fun-good-playable?

no, but the fights will take longer, lucky for you your cleric is better at healing then that warlod, meaning you can stay int he fight longer.

Shouldn't the game be balanced for such a simple things like average to hit chances? All options should be just options, not reasonable choices options should make your character above average, not on average level when you take them.

that is a great idea, but it is not entirely how the system was designed (please lets not get derailed again) It assumes you have 3 magic items per party member (Neck, armor, weap/imp), and a leader. If you would like to discuse that please fork the thread...

You understand that many of powers that gives bonuses to hit are for basic or melee attacks only? (there are few that give better options, but as I said, only few powers can do that and still they are very limited)

You do realise that more then half of the classes are melee only right...in fact that is a complaint I hear regularly...

All the players that use attacks vs. NADs have hard time. They can't take benefits of combat advantage and many powers that give to hit bonuses.

but they also (normaly inless a rouge) get powers that target multi, so they can 'shop around' for a weakspot...

When you designing encounter, you make many of them hard for players, so to achive this you use higher level monsters. Now when you saw math (here you can see mine - Wizards Community - View Single Post - Another math crunch and how fix 4E) the to hit chance will be lower than on given level (from 35% it will drop to 15% if you will use n+4 monster). And again, what with characters that hit vs. NADs? They don't have many options to achive to hit bonuses.

yes if you design harder encounters it becomes harder encounter...maybe I just don't get the problem...

For example. Orcus have AC 48. With basic +31 to hit that doesne looks so good. FOR 51 REF 46 WILL 49. To hit on that level is around 29. Of course there will be some (but still few) powers that will make numbers better, but who are we kidding, it's still not good enoungh to say, that it's ok.

avrage fighter 16 att stat +1 weapon talent, and +6 weapon...
+7 str +15 level, +6 magic, +1 talent, +3 prof...+32 Vs AC 48 needs a 16 to hit the god killing abomanation...

avrage rouge same but Vs Ref 46, Will 49, and AC 48 needs 14, 17, and 16...

that is no feats, no powers, no paragon paths, no epic destiny, no Combat Advantage, and still hitBLE

so now we come back to what is fair for "Hardest encounter you will ever face?"... should the PCs at level 30 see orcus as no more of a threat to them (God killing primordal demon lord of undead) then the Orc was 27 levels ago???

needs a 16 to hit... what is a good analogy...

well fighter and/or rouge level 1 w/ 16 att stat
+3 stat, +3 prof, +1 class...+7 on a 16 they hit AC 23...Hobgoblin commander Level 5 (normal) Soldier. MM I pg 140.

so is orcus supose to be more or less thretning then that hobgoblin???

Don't forget at level 1 you have 1 daily, and 1 encounter...so you quicky fall back on at wills...orcus on the other hand at level 30 (Where you stand back up if killed 60+% of the time) you could have infinite encounter, or any number of other ungodly things...

by the way Orcus plays right into my hand, since I know more then 1 group that beat him...with no expertise...

 

[Jhaelen]

"Are the expertise feats required at paragon and epic tiers of play?"
To answer this, we're going to have to come to an understanding about what "required" (or "playable" or "fun" or whatever) means.
[...]
So: "Do PCs hit at least 55% of the time at paragon and epic tiers?"

I'm glad you rephrased the question in this way.
Because if people agree that the answer to the second question will also be the answer the first question, I don't have to be worried about the expertise feats.

Because I don't think pcs SHOULD hit 55% of the time at paragon and epic tiers (out of the box).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

@GMforPowergamers

What will happen if there isn't a Warlord in my party? What if we have cleric on WIS and CHA instead Are you saying that we need some powers that give us to hit bonuses or the game will be not fun-good-playable? Shouldn't the game be balanced for such a simple things like average to hit chances? All options should be just options, not reasonable choices options should make your character above average, not on average level when you take them.

You understand that many of powers that gives bonuses to hit are for basic or melee attacks only? (there are few that give better options, but as I said, only few powers can do that and still they are very limited)

All the players that use attacks vs. NADs have hard time. They can't take benefits of combat advantage and many powers that give to hit bonuses.

When you designing encounter, you make many of them hard for players, so to achive this you use higher level monsters. Now when you saw math (here you can see mine - Wizards Community - View Single Post - Another math crunch and how fix 4E) the to hit chance will be lower than on given level (from 35% it will drop to 15% if you will use n+4 monster). And again, what with characters that hit vs. NADs? They don't have many options to achive to hit bonuses.

For example. Orcus have AC 48. With basic +31 to hit that doesne looks so good. FOR 51 REF 46 WILL 49. To hit on that level is around 29. Of course there will be some (but still few) powers that will make numbers better, but who are we kidding, it's still not good enoungh to say, that it's ok.

The math should work really good with a balanced party. this means a controller, two striker, one defender and one leader... which will result in bonuses for party and penalties for your enemies will eventually make combats balanced.

If your party is differently balanced, you may have more need for to hit and defense bonuses.

The fact is: you have to make a basic assumption. Perhaps wotc playtesters found many good combinations and played better than average parties and they made higher level play a bit harder than what t should be. Maybe some last minute nerfs affected higer level play more drastically than expected.

Result: the average party (usually consisting of more strikers or defenders than expected) hits too good at the beginning levels and because of lacking synergies they fall behind later.

My usual reaction would be: lower monster levels to fit the parties needs...

But wotc chose to add feats which don´t fix math right away, but for those insisting to play unbalanced partys (unbalanced, not imba). Which is generally a good thing.

For balanced parties it can be a bit too good.

But remember expertise on a whole is more relevant for parties who have a lower hit chance... (chance to shorten the combat increases the longer the combat lasts) so if all party members take it, the less offensive party will profit more from it.

If you are still not convinced, use following houserule

Convert expertise to a power bonus. So this will help a: leaderless parties, can all take it and profit. In a party with a leader the leader can take it to hit with powers that grant better bonuses.

If you don´t like a feat which gives a power bonus, convert expertise to:

feat: expertise.
gain weapon expertise power. Chose a weapon type/impelement.

minor action, at will, close burst 10
you examine your enemies how to make best use of your weapon against their defenses.
effect: get a power +1 power bonus to hit against all enemies with a weapon of the chosen weapon type/implement within burst, that you can see. This bonus increaes to +2 at level 15 and to +3 at level 25.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

And, the same applies to the defensive side of the coin. When PCs do not have the NAD feats or a DM supplied NAD fix house rule, they will be affected by conditions more often and will take damage more often which in turn will extend the duration of the encounter.

here I agree: The two +1 bonuses every few levels are no increase in skill. it decides which defense you allow to fall behind.

Also, because the attack stat is so obviously important, you will not not increase it. Defenses should really scale a bit better. If monsters are harder to hit, players should also become harder to hit. Because of conditions. But Monsters should then do more damage!