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

[Aulirophile]

Uh, your anecdotal experience and pointing out PCs get more powers as they level proves diddly. And the fact that you don't even understand the argument (by your own admission) but disagree with it is just sad. How can you possibly competently disagree with something you don't understand?

You got options here:

Anecdotal Experience Argument: Unless someone else in this thread played 4e for slightly more then 10 hours a day on average for a year, you have nothing to stand on here. Not the best decision of my life but I'll be damned if anyone in this thread can claim more anecdotal experience then I can, so if you want to drag the argument down to that level as if it has some significance: I win.

Math: You can clearly see that PCs do not maintain a 55% hit rate vs even level, which is the stated minimum and every bonus (including mundane things like CA) is on top of that. In addition to. So you cannot count that and even then, nothing besides Expertise, no party composition, no leader buffs, nothing else in the entire game fixes this. So yes, the math is proveable, and yes it does so in a vacuum, and no, that doesn't matter, because it is supposed to work regardless of party composition and only does so with Expertise.

Developer Statements: 55% vs even level is the minimum and we made a mistake, Expertise is explicitly the fix for this self-admitted mistake.

What exactly does it take when the developers said they had a minimum hit% they wanted based on extensive playtesting, the math clearly shows the minimum isn't maintained, the developers said that it was a mistake based on a change (which if they would tell us wtf it was would hopefully settle this debate even in the minds of the most obdurate) and released Expertise as a "fix", their words, and the "fix" neatly closes the gap?

Expertise makes the game work as intended. Period. In previous editions Feats like that were considered taxes. So Expertise is a Feat Tax. It is quite possible to do without it (I played for a long time before it was even released) but it is a horrible experience at Epic. I played multiple Epic characters without Expertise vs MM1 Monsters. It was arduous at best.

Also, if you really want to mathematically prove that Expertise isn't needed, you need to calculate encounter length for every single party composition with and without it, from 1-30. Just doing a handful should drive the point home: Doesn't work.

 

[mneme]

GM, that's not a disproof; that's an anecdote. And it's an anecdote involving the most accurate classes in the game, plus a warlord who's not bothering to make attacks most of the time.

There have been long, long threads with lots of math -and- examples showing that the high level math was broken; that sure, you could game around it, but it was still a serious problem.

Why don't you resurrect (or just read) one of those rather than trying to start the same tired argument, yet again?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

You could just compare MM3 monsters with MM1 monsters, average lifetime and damage over that lifetime and then look how much you have to delevel a monster that it poses the same threat:

So if your MM3 monsters in Epic may pose the same thret level as a MM1 monster 3 levels higher, it would have an equal result as expertise to make the game fun.
Of course, maybe expertise, a feat tax (i guess anybody should pay between level 1 and 8), AND MM3 monsters make the game even more fun and make the math work more smoothly and as intended by the designers who obviously made some mistake...

(+1 for telling us what they changed that attack vs defense and skill vs defense don´t work well (actually the skill vs xx+level and skill vs defense both don´t work at all... so we need a more or less seemingly arbitrary table to maintain the right chances...)

 

[Herschel]

GM, that's not a disproof; that's an anecdote. And it's an anecdote involving the most accurate classes in the game, plus a warlord who's not bothering to make attacks most of the time.

There have been long, long threads with lots of math -and- examples showing that the high level math was broken; that sure, you could game around it, but it was still a serious problem.

Why don't you resurrect (or just read) one of those rather than trying to start the same tired argument, yet again?

The problem is the math presented in the threads is in a vacuum. Generally, that's a problem with CharOp threads and characters also. The game wasn't designed around the solo character. When you add up all the anecdotes it becomes pretty clear the game does work fine without them, just under more narrow constraints.

With the feats things work slightly differently and they do open up a whole lot of options. Many things run a bit smoother and if your main goal is shortest combat possible with the least amount of character interaction, they help a lot.

This isn't limited to Expertise feats either. Skill feats open a whole lot of cross-role goodies too, for example. If a couple of characters train in heal, all else being equal, you can play leaderless. Play without a defender? It's tough but a Warlord has options of a lot of interrupts where he gets a defensive boost as the new target of the attack and gets to attack back, for example.

Things work a smoother with an actual defender and a leader, IMO a LOT, but there are options to make things plausible without them.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I can disprove part of this arguement... the math part...


the argument goes something like this (I admit i do not belive it so i may mess it up a bit) at level 1 PCs have +x to hit and monsters have Y def, at level 30 the PCs have +x+26 and monsters have Y+30 so the PCs lose 4 pt as they level (5 if there epic destiny does not increase a stat).

But, that's really as far as it goes, and you can't 'disprove' it, it's a fact. You can (and did) point out why it might not be a very important fact, but you didn't 'disprove' it. Because you said 'disprove,' though, you've got people ignoring the point you did make..

And, that's too bad, because it is a valid point. With the number of choices - both build and in-play - high level characters get, the fact they loose three points of hitting power 'all other things held equal' is drowned out by all the other things that aren't held equal. It's a flaw in the game, but one that may not even be noticed because of all the choices players are making that affect the same thing.

Given the very basic and automatic nature of the problem, then, a good solution would also have to be very basic and automatic. The solution given, Expertise, though just adds another choice to the plethora of choices already obscuring the issue. The issue doesn't go away, because some players are just going to miss Expertise or not choose it because it's bland or whatever. All Expertise does is increase the possible gulf between a tightly-optimized-for-AB character and a 'normal' one.

 

[Argyle King]

Uh, your anecdotal experience and pointing out PCs get more powers as they level proves diddly. And the fact that you don't even understand the argument (by your own admission) but disagree with it is just sad. How can you possibly competently disagree with something you don't understand?

You got options here:

Anecdotal Experience Argument: Unless someone else in this thread played 4e for slightly more then 10 hours a day on average for a year, you have nothing to stand on here. Not the best decision of my life but I'll be damned if anyone in this thread can claim more anecdotal experience then I can, so if you want to drag the argument down to that level as if it has some significance: I win.

Math: You can clearly see that PCs do not maintain a 55% hit rate vs even level, which is the stated minimum and every bonus (including mundane things like CA) is on top of that. In addition to. So you cannot count that and even then, nothing besides Expertise, no party composition, no leader buffs, nothing else in the entire game fixes this. So yes, the math is proveable, and yes it does so in a vacuum, and no, that doesn't matter, because it is supposed to work regardless of party composition and only does so with Expertise.

Developer Statements: 55% vs even level is the minimum and we made a mistake, Expertise is explicitly the fix for this self-admitted mistake.

What exactly does it take when the developers said they had a minimum hit% they wanted based on extensive playtesting, the math clearly shows the minimum isn't maintained, the developers said that it was a mistake based on a change (which if they would tell us wtf it was would hopefully settle this debate even in the minds of the most obdurate) and released Expertise as a "fix", their words, and the "fix" neatly closes the gap?

Expertise makes the game work as intended. Period. In previous editions Feats like that were considered taxes. So Expertise is a Feat Tax. It is quite possible to do without it (I played for a long time before it was even released) but it is a horrible experience at Epic. I played multiple Epic characters without Expertise vs MM1 Monsters. It was arduous at best.

Also, if you really want to mathematically prove that Expertise isn't needed, you need to calculate encounter length for every single party composition with and without it, from 1-30. Just doing a handful should drive the point home: Doesn't work.

I'd honestly say that -when 4E first came out- I probably did -on average- play D&D for more than 10 hours per day. I would also say Expertise was not needed; if I can find the old thread over on the WoTC boards, I did the math to prove it. At higher levels, players should have a better grasp on teamwork and tactics which allow them to generate better hit chances. Examples include flanking, aid another, various Warlord buffs, and various debuffs which other classes have... sometimes, against tougher opponents, you need more than one of those.

However, even with not needing the feats, I still always take them simply because it's stupid for me not to. They're so much better than the other feat options that there's really no comparison. It's hard to argue against being able to reliably hit with my current character even when rolling single digits.

I've gone from stomping the monsters to stomping them even worse... honestly, most of the time I have to hold back with my character because it leads to the DM getting frustrated if I don't. I don't in any way consider myself an optimizer either; there are just some choices which are so obviously better than others that I'd have to be brain damaged to not take them... Expertise falls into that category. (The Warlord Power Guileful Switch* is another)

(* has there ever been errata to that power?)

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

(The Warlord Power Guileful Switch* is another)

(* has there ever been errata to that power?)

Yes, apparently;

Revision (7/30/2009)
Requirement: You must use this power during your turn before you take any other actions.

 

[Aulirophile]

Can't count any other bonuses, they are always in addition to the minimum. So... null. Minimum is supposed to be maintained regardless of tactics or party composition. You can't prove it isn't needed when the system designers say it is for the system to work as intended. The moment you bring up "Warlord bonuses" you've actually proved you don't even understand all the facts behind the issue. And that is all you've proved.

Also, did you play at Epic? Because characters who started with the minimum, at epic, go down to 35% chance to hit vs even level if they don't happen to have class bonuses. Elites: 25%. Add four levels for an E+4, 5%. Solo.. oops, another defense boost. You can literally get to the point where an E+4 solo requires a 20 to hit, not crit, and even with CA you crit on a 20... but miss on a 19. Not that this situation was terribly threatening with MM1 monsters, you just whacked the thing till it died anyway, but it wasn't intended to be possible at all.

The minimum exists for a good reason. Expertise is the only way of maintaining the minimum (nearly, anyway, every ED should have a stat boost, a reroll mechanic, or a flat +1 to attacks, or something powerful enough to compensate for not having it, but I digress).

And yes Guileful Switch was errata'd, you can now only use it as the first action on your turn, so no more double-turning.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

But, that's really as far as it goes, and you can't 'disprove' it, it's a fact. You can (and did) point out why it might not be a very important fact, but you didn't 'disprove' it. Because you said 'disprove,' though, you've got people ignoring the point you did make..

And, that's too bad, because it is a valid point.

first thank you... second my problem is i am not good at argueing my point even when my point is right... I could loose an arguement that the earth is round if the other guy is better with words... that doesn;t make me wrong or him right.

second what I am trying to disprove is the quastion the math asks not the answer it gives...

if you ask what is 2x2 and someone says 4... but I say that the real way to get the size of the cube is 2x2x2... then you can;t say back "well prove 2x2 isn't 4"


maybe I may not say it right...but if people really want to argue... look at my version as well...


these arguments remind me of my first girl friend... who use to tell me I never did what she wanted, so I would name things we did that she wanted...then she said those dont count...
in the end I realized if nothing I do counts then of cource i do nothing..

Also, did you play at Epic? Because characters who started with the minimum, at epic, go down to 35% chance to hit vs even level if they don't happen to have class bonuses. Elites: 25%. Add four levels for an E+4, 5%. Solo.. oops, another defense boost. You can literally get to the point where an E+4 solo requires a 20 to hit, not crit, and even with CA you crit on a 20... but miss on a 19. Not that this situation was terribly threatening with MM1 monsters, you just whacked the thing till it died anyway, but it wasn't intended to be possible at all.

I did play at epic... up to level 27 once and 23 a fey times... and one game at 30 as a one shot. and with or without expertise is fine...

again if you don;t count all the extra options and bonuses, then you are doing 2x2 to get a cube...instead of 2x2x2

 

[Tony Vargas]

Minimum is supposed to be maintained regardless of tactics or party composition. You can't prove it isn't needed when the system designers say it is for the system to work as intended.
...The minimum exists for a good reason. Expertise is the only way of maintaining the minimum.

It doesn't maintain the minimum, though, does it. Because it's optional, not automatic. An automatic 'tier bonus' would fix the math.

OTOH, if it's so good/obvious that it everyone takes it, sure, it 'maintains the minimum' - but it's also a feat tax.