Feat Taxes, or, It's That Time of the Week Again

[MrMyth]

Math > your anecdotal experience, sorry. I've played epic games without Expertise. The built-in system assumptions don't hold up without Expertise. And that was with MM1 monsters, I shudder to think what it'd be like now. But that is also anecdotal, so moving along...

1.) We know the intentions and assumptions behind the scaling. This is not a debateable point, we know exactly what the intentions were and why.
2.) We know that those aren't met without Expertise.
3.) Expertise is a patch to make the system work as intended.

None of that is debatable. Period.

For 4e to work as intended you need Expertise. That is an objective fact and not subject to debate.

Sorry, but no, debate is still entirely possible.

Look, you've covered some of the math earlier. A level 1 PC's expected accuracy as compared to a level 30 PC drops by about 3-4 points.

This is the result of, over those levels, an enemy's defenses increasing by 29. For a PC, they increase by 15 via level, by about 4 via ability score boosts, by 6 via magic enhancement, resulting in that 4 point gap.

However, this doesn't account for the fact that a level 1 PC has no magic items to call upon, and has 1 Encounter Power, 1 Daily Power, and 0 Utility Powers.

By level 30, they will have 4 Encounter Powers, 4 Daily Powers, 7 Utility Powers, 3-4 Paragon Path Features, and 3-4 Epic Destiny features.

Note only do they have more powers, but the capabilities of those powers has significantly increased.

Between the potential for those path and destiny features and item qualities to give bonuses to hit, as well as the increased ease of being able to coordinate and obtain combat advantage, as well as the greater presence of temporary buffs (and debuffs for enemies), the average group will have enough resources to more than make up for those few points of difference in their basic numbers, while the optimized group will likely be well ahead of where they started.

Now, the usual counter to this is that enemies have also gained greater capabilities. But, in general, on a much smaller scale. We are more likely to see enemies inflicting more vicious conditions and doing more damage - we are less likely to see enemies using powers that give themselves enormous bonuses to attack or defense, or inflicting similar penalties on the PCs. And while an Epic enemy may have a few more powers compared to a Heroic enemy, it isn't nearly the multiplication of options that a PC has undergone.

Now, does that conclusively prove that Expertise was never needed? Of course not. Like I said - my opinion.

But, similarly, everyone who claims that 'the math' definitely proves the need for Expertise? Also just opinion. Yes, you can objectively look at the math alone. But doing so in isolation reveals exactly nothing about the game as a whole. You can't ignore the different context of an Epic PC vs a Heroic PC. Indeed, given so many options out there, it is practically impossible to measure that context at all, which means neither of us can prove our side of the argument to be absolute... which is all I'm really trying to argue.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm not casually dismissing anyone. I am dismissing people who have not done the math, know the intended point of the math, or know the history and therefore feel qualified to have an opinion. They aren't. I treat them like they aren't. If they happen to feel insulted that is their problem, dismissing the opinions of the uninformed is a privilege of the informed in any given area of knowledge.

Meh. The math wasn't hard. That the 4e treadmill didn't quite add up at higher levels was obvious from the beginning. That the scaling bonuses of leaders along with many powers, items, and and even the odd back-from-the-dead feature of higher levels might well eclipse the problem was also pretty obvious.

Yeah, the developers have come out and admitted they'd tried to get the tradmill to work a little more precisely than they delivered, and, yes, Expertise is in large part a feat tax to patch that problem instead of a legit fix for it. FWTW.

I think you may be mistaking people who have moved past the simple, obvious math issue for people who don't understand it. I doubt anyone doesn't understand it at this point. It's there, it's glaring, it's been expounded upon in detail.

 

[Aulirophile]

No, funny thing about facts, they aren't subject to debate. It is kind of weird you can't see that, but /shrug. I get you have an opinion... but your opinion isn't in way relevant when I'm dealing with objective information. It is subjective. Reasonable people can disagree about subjective things. Reasonable people cannot disagree about objective things if they are equally well informed.

Reasonable people can therefore disagree about the best method of fixing the explicit mistake in the system math (according to the people who made the system, ffs). Reasonable people cannot disagree that the mistake exists. Because it does.

So. Expertise is fix for the math. According to the people who made the game (question: Do you ever go over to Parker Brothers and argue with them about the rules for Monopoly and tell them how you think it ought to be? Just curious). Not an opinion.

The disconnect for you is quite evident. You can't separate your opinion from the objective material.

Also you really don't seem to understand how extensive the math in question is. We're only dealing with statistical averages so no, it can't be proved absolutely... but it can be proved beyond reasonable statistical significance. You're welcome to calculate the baseline DPR and DPE for every given class role (been done) compare it monster HP and defenses (been done) and from that work out exactly how many rounds each E+y takes on average, and what the standard deviations are (been done). Then you can take that, work backwards, and arrive at a certain hit% that PCs must have to achieve that number of rounds. And, again, it doesn't matter if you get less then a certain number of rounds, or a higher amount of DPR/DPE, it only matters that you don't get more rounds or less DPR/DPE(at least not more in a statistically significant way). Because that is the designed intention.

You'll find the minimum accuracy needed is 55%. You will also find, as you progress into Paragon, that those "increased options" which mostly just do more damage, account for a bump in monster HP. I mean, the math isn't perfect, there are corner cases, and strange scenarios, and you'll of course be doing this multiple times to account for changes in Monster math to try and equalize the curve, but again, the system was only designed to maintain a specific statistical average.

You will also notice it doesn't quite work out without Expertise.

Have I mentioned that WotC actually hired professional statisticians early in development? There is a reason this works out so well in the standard cases. The fact that they screwed it up later is kind of irrelevant (though they obviously did, see the skill systems extensive revisions).

 

[Aulirophile]

Meh. The math wasn't hard. That the 4e treadmill didn't quite add up at higher levels was obvious from the beginning. That the scaling bonuses of leaders along with many powers, items, and and even the odd back-from-the-dead feature of higher levels might well eclipse the problem was also pretty obvious.

Yeah, the developers have come out and admitted they'd tried to get the tradmill to work a little more precisely than they delivered, and, yes, Expertise is in large part a feat tax to patch that problem instead of a legit fix for it. FWTW.

I think you may be mistaking people who have moved past the simple, obvious math issue for people who don't understand it. I doubt anyone doesn't understand it at this point. It's there, it's glaring, it's been expounded upon in detail.

No, I'm pretty sure most people have not spent any time at all doing the actual math. The hit% is a result of extensive stats work to ensure a certain average number of rounds for E+y. The disparity is just pointing out that this built-in conclusion fails to hold because one of baseline assumptions does not continue to be true, has diddly to do with the actual math that proves the baseline assumption is necessary for the system to work as intended (and it is).

You are, of course, welcome to go do the actual math if you want me to stop saying you haven't done the math. If you're good at statistics shouldn't take terribly long.

 

[Tony Vargas]

No, I'm pretty sure most people have not spent any time at all doing the actual math. The hit% is a result of extensive stats work to ensure a certain average number of rounds for E+y.

It doesn't take much time. You can glance at what PCs get, compare it to the monsters +1-everything-per-level, and it's there staring at you. I can see how you might miss it if you don't take a moment to think about it, but there's no need for a detailed analysis. If you can add, you can see the problem.

Whether it's a big problem, and whether Expertise was a /good/ fix for it, is debateable, and more exhaustive analysis might have some role in that debate - but it actual play experience also comes into it, as do differences in play style, and, ultimately, it comes down to judgments and opinions.

Personally, I find Expertise to be a feat tax and a poor fix (it plugs one of the holes, but inelegantly).

 

[MrMyth]

No, funny thing about facts, they aren't subject to debate. It is kind of weird you can't see that, but /shrug. I get you have an opinion... but your opinion isn't in way relevant when I'm dealing with objective information. It is subjective. Reasonable people can disagree about subjective things. Reasonable people cannot disagree about objective things if they are equally well informed.

That the base math is different at higher levels is an objective things. That the number of powers is different at higher levels is an objective things.

What the combination of these two elements says about the effective power level of the PCs at either level is not an objective fact, and reasonable people can have entirely different interpretations of how those two elements interact.

According to the people who made the game (question: Do you ever go over to Parker Brothers and argue with them about the rules for Monopoly and tell them how you think it ought to be? Just curious).

Well, no, but I'm not especially invested in Monopoly. But I'll tell you what I did do! See, also early in 4E, there was a big commotion about how the Skill DCs were too high for Skill Challenges (primarily due to those DCs also being used for Skill Stunts, and the presence of a footnote that increased the DC table specifically for skills.)

WotC responded with a new table that both lowered the DCs and removed the footnote. And I felt the DCs were now too low. And when they put out a series of columns on Skill Challenges, I typically pointed out whenever they adjusted for this, as those articles tended to use higher DCs than the standard - and the designers continued to insist that, no, the lower DCs were what they wanted the standard to be.

Until, you know, they fixed them. And started using DCs pretty much spot on with what I and others already used.

So... yeah, I tend to trust game designers more than random folks off the street, but that doesn't make them infallible.

The disconnect for you is quite evident. You can't separate your opinion from the objective material.

I think it might be the other way around. Or, rather, than you cannot disconnect the objective information you have (the math) from the conclusion you are drawing (the system is flawed).

My point of contension is that you cannot isolate those two elements and ignore all other elements of the game, and that by doing so, you are coming to a faulty conclusion.

Also you really don't seem to understand how extensive the math in question is. We're only dealing with statistical averages so no, it can't be proved absolutely... but it can be proved beyond reasonable statistical significance. You're welcome to calculate the baseline DPR and DPE for every given class role (been done) compare it monster HP and defenses (been done) and from that work out exactly how many rounds each E+y takes on average, and what the standard deviations are (been done).

Problem is, that math isn't extensive enough. It is a bunch of math done without accounting for pretty much any power choices, items, feats, paragon paths, etc, that PCs are taking advantage of. No one has run the math for every combination of options, nor are we capable of determing what the most commonly chosen options among all groups might be.

Trying to pretend this is clearcut, and handwaving that most powers just 'add some damage' that is accounted for in increased monster hp... sorry, I don't agree.

 

[Aulirophile]

Thankfully you don't have to agree for me to be right. Again, you're welcome to go and do the math for the baseline assumptions, which as I continually have to point out to you, is an upper bound. There is no designed limit in the other direction so it doesn't matter if options increase PC power over the baseline (though, in fact, every such upper bound has been changed barring two, so clearly one exists even though we aren't aware of it, but it is in the realm of one-rounding solos by yourself for the most part if the changes are any indication) as far as the system is concerned. Your counter-argument is null. The math is perfectly extensive enough (more then, actually) to account for the designer's intent.

Also if Skill DC's were a mistake, and you accept that because Devs said so, why don't you accept that the scaling was a mistake, when the Devs said so? Hypocrite much? Because the objective conclusion of one aspect of the system was one you agreed with was fixed, that was a mistake, but this other aspect of the system you don't agree with wasn't? When we have the same objective basis for both: The devs said it was a mistake. Fantastic logic there sport.

You are demonstrably incapable of separating fact from your biased opinion.

And the system is flawed isn't my conclusion from the facts, it is a fact period, because the people who built the system said so. Fact: System flawed. The math is the conclusion of why. You have it backwards.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Problem is, that math isn't extensive enough. It is a bunch of math done without accounting for pretty much any power choices, items, feats, paragon paths, etc, that PCs are taking advantage of. No one has run the math for every combination of options, nor are we capable of determing what the most commonly chosen options among all groups might be.

It doesn't need to be. If a PC takes every possible primary-stat boost and attack buff from 1st level on, he'll be a point or three behind on AB relative to monster AC at the highest level. He'll go from generally hitting on something like a 9 or 10 at 1st to hitting on something like a 12 or 13 right before he retires. If you add Expertise to the game, and everyone takes it, that discontinuity is neatly ironed out, and everyone has one less feat choice.

If you use some other fix that's universal - like an automatic 'tier bonus' - that'd also take care of it.

If you add Expertise and not everyone takes it, you have a greater potential disparity between characters - less game balance, another 'reward for system mastery.'

If you don't do anything to 'fix the math,' you have this oddity that PCs don't hit quite as well at Paragon and Epic as they did at lower level. They have more powers to choose from, more options, feats, items and bigger scaling buffs from leaders and a lot of other things (and the mosnters have more and nastier powers, too), but none of those /neatly/ makes up for the disparity. All those factors could easily provide enough 'noise' and variability that the 'math problem' is masked, and thus, in a practical sense, not a problem.

But, it's still there.

 

[Herschel]

/
All those factors could easily provide enough 'noise' and variability that the 'math problem' is masked, and thus, in a practical sense, not a problem.

But, it's still there.

But the point is that in a practical sense is the only sense that matters. This isn't banking or medical data, the math can be a bit wonky and variable, that doesn't mean it's broken or doesn't work well enough. Heck, attack rolls are made with a random number generator. It's nice to have a way to "even it out" for gamers/groups who can't/won't use the other "modification" powers but doesn't make it mandatory or even necessary.

 

[MrGrenadine]

And I play with 18 different Pargaon level characters in three different games ranging from Level 11 to 17 and you know how many players have an Expertise feat? 3. Add in the Six I DM for? It becomes 5.

Wow, that seems highly unusual. Honestly--why do you think that is? The style of game? Are the DMs dissuading folks from taking it? Are the players getting together and deciding not to take it?

Because at level 21, average monster AC is what? 35 or so? And NADs a few points lower? So a lvl 21 meleer with a +3 weapon, +2 proficiency, +10 half level, and STR at 25 will be +22 to hit AC, meaning he or she only hits on a 13 or better, much less than half the time. One feat knocks down that chance to hit to 10 or better, which is a huge difference, especially for my Cleric, for instance, who HAS to hit to buff and heal and do other Cleric-y things.

If a DM isn't allowing inherent bonuses, damn right I take Expertise. Every time.