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

[Aulirophile]

+4 more than at level 1...

+8 to strenght over the course of 30 levels... (if not counting epic destiny). Again helping your reading comprehension:
"rightous brand exactly giving +4 more to hit at epic..."

My mistake, missed the modifier. ^.^ It still wouldn't solve the overall accuracy problem of the group though (especially not round to round, because the Cleric wouldn't use RB every round).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

My mistake, missed the modifier. ^.^ It still wouldn't solve the overall accuracy problem of the group though (especially not round to round, because the Cleric wouldn't use RB every round).

Exactly: and this is where the fixes were needed, IF you want to stay ahead of equal level monsters (on the offensive)... which most surely IS intended now by the designers...

Also note, that defensive abilities, especially high level surgeless healing was also nerfed and damage increased... it is clear, that WotC wants the game to be a bit more deadly and faster than originally intended... and certainly faster than it WAS in actual play.

 

[Eridanis]

Cut the personal sniping and keep to the topic, or there will be vacations handed out. Thank you.

 

[pemerton]

I find it extremely hard to believe that the WotC designers were incapable of counting to 29 (to borrow UngeheuerLich's phrase).

It would also seem strange to drop stat bonus items without noticing the effect that this would have on the maths.

It seems more likely to me that the game, as played after release, turned out different in various ways from what had been understood/intended by the designers (eg Paragon Path action point bonuses turned out to play differently, or leaders were played differently, or the game was seen as playing too slowly, or . . .).

 

[kaomera]

I find it extremely hard to believe that the WotC designers were incapable of counting to 29 (to borrow UngeheuerLich's phrase).

It would also seem strange to drop stat bonus items without noticing the effect that this would have on the maths.

It seems more likely to me that the game, as played after release, turned out different in various ways from what had been understood/intended by the designers (eg Paragon Path action point bonuses turned out to play differently, or leaders were played differently, or the game was seen as playing too slowly, or . . .).

One of the things I was most liking about the 4e design ideas I was seeing before launch was the removal of item bonuses as a central part of "the math". It seemed to me at the time that they got added back in, possibly at the last moment, when things weren't adding up otherwise. But I think that the real issue was a combination of trying to deal with bonuses at every level and a potentially unlimited number of different bonus types. If you cut levels where attack / defense bonus is going to see significant change down to 15 or 20 or limit the system to a finite number of bonus types I would think it would be easier to balance.

 

[KarinsDad]

I find it extremely hard to believe that the WotC designers were incapable of counting to 29 (to borrow UngeheuerLich's phrase).

It would also seem strange to drop stat bonus items without noticing the effect that this would have on the maths.

It seems more likely to me that the game, as played after release, turned out different in various ways from what had been understood/intended by the designers (eg Paragon Path action point bonuses turned out to play differently, or leaders were played differently, or the game was seen as playing too slowly, or . . .).

If it were just one area of weakness like the ridiculous lowest NAD, then I might agree with you.

But, it was four areas of the game that they "fixed", three areas of which are extremely critical to the balance of the game system:

1) Heavy Armor masterwork armor bonuses.
2) To hit bonuses.
3) Defenses.
4) Monster damage and hit points.

A well designed mathematical model with graphs would have easily pointed out these flaws pre-release. The community started pointing out these flaws less than 3 months after the game came out.

The fact is that they came up with math rules for some aspects of the game system, but dropped them for other aspects and relied on limited playtesting instead.

It is obvious that they would have to tweak the game as designed due to some elements playing out differently than they expected, but a solid mathematical model from day one would have resulted in a solid framework for which to make those tweaks as opposed to a moving target based on feat selection.

 

[Aulirophile]

I find it extremely hard to believe that the WotC designers were incapable of counting to 29 (to borrow UngeheuerLich's phrase).

It would also seem strange to drop stat bonus items without noticing the effect that this would have on the maths.

It seems more likely to me that the game, as played after release, turned out different in various ways from what had been understood/intended by the designers (eg Paragon Path action point bonuses turned out to play differently, or leaders were played differently, or the game was seen as playing too slowly, or . . .).

Again, we don't need to guess. They outright said they changed scaling in some way right before release (though not how) and that it is directly responsible for the issue. They made a mistake, said so, and (from their perspective) "fixed" it.

Your faith in the devs perfection is nice, but it doesn't stand up to their own statements, or their track record in general. What edition of D&D had no mechanical errors, exactly?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Again, we don't need to guess. They outright said they changed scaling in some way right before release (though not how) and that it is directly responsible for the issue. They made a mistake, said so, and (from their perspective) "fixed" it.

Your faith in the devs perfection is nice, but it doesn't stand up to their own statements, or their track record in general. What edition of D&D had no mechanical errors, exactly?

You are missing the point... noone disagrees with you here...

so lets sum it up again:

mistake? yes!

changed scaling at a bad point in development? yes!

Designers believing the newer scaling works better than the old?

Here we have to assume, that the designers honestly believed, the new scaling worked better than the old. Otherwise they would not have changed it.

I guess, they thought, the "gap" would have been bridged by some means or at least somehow compensated (my guess, misevaluation of leader and synegy effects as I explained above)...

 

[Aulirophile]

Since they called it a mistake it seems nonsensical to believe they thought it was better, in the end. You believe they changed something and thought it'd be OK. I believe they changed something and didn't realize the impact it'd have (because, lets face it, it their track record isn't good in that area).

Neither interpretation changes the outcome: Expertise feats are a math fix, and ought to be baked into the game math.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Since they called it a mistake it seems nonsensical to believe they thought it was better, in the end. You believe they changed something and thought it'd be OK. I believe they changed something and didn't realize the impact it'd have (because, lets face it, it their track record isn't good in that area).

Neither interpretation changes the outcome: Expertise feats are a math fix, and ought to be baked into the game math.

yes