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

[MrGrenadine]

...other options (which include prompting players to be a little more thoughtful when combating tougher foes,) I believe, would have been far more satisfying to fix some of the issues.

Real quick though, let's assume you really did need a 20 to hit, and, out of curiosity, see what happens if we are allowed to factor in party resources. Flanking brings that 20 to an 18; aid another can be used to get to 16; I'd be flabbergasted if somebody in the party didn't have something to at least give a +2 bonus to get to 14, and I'd also be highly surprised if the creature didn't have one defense which was a point or two lower than the others... let's say 13 to be generous to the monster. Keep in mind, this is 4 levels higher than the party. Oh, and lest we forget that one of the new design changes was the remove some of the defense boosts to solos...

I'm all for better tactics, but I'm not sure being thoughtful during combat is as elegant and useful a fix as a simple and consistent +1/2/3.

In your example, knocking the 'to hit' target down from 20 is never going to be as simple as flanking to get to 18, and aiding another to get to 16, etc. All of those buffs are conditional, need a hit to take effect, last only one round, and can easily be disrupted by tactics on the opposing side.

For instance, in your example, Character #1 moves to flank and has to hit with a 20, and then the Character #2 moves to flank and can hit on an 18. Then Character #3 aids the one character who hasn't yet attacked--Character #4--so he needs an 18. Assuming Character #4 has a power that gives a +2 to hit to another character, hits with his power, and chooses the first of the flanking attackers, then next round Character #1 will be able to hit with a 16...unless of course, on its turn, the monster shifted out of the flank, and/or hit one of the flankers with a power that caused a status effect that disrupted the flanking or simply made a character lose its attack that round, etc.

So, 'yes' to better tactics, and 'yes' to teamwork, but good tactics + teamwork are conditional and not reliable and characters are not always in perfect synergy, so they =/= fixed math.

And then consider the issue of resource management as well. A character could try to hit a high defense with an Encounter or Daily, and miss more often than not and lose that power for the rest of the encounter, or longer. Or, in my Cleric's case, he could use an At Will to do 1W damage and give a character +2 to an attack vs the same target (until EoNT), but if thats the case, why does my character even have Encounter and Daily attack powers? If they're tough to hit with, and using them makes it tougher for everyone else to hit, too, I may as well just spam my measly 1W At Will the whole battle, which would be the opposite of fun.

All that being said, if taking one feat gets me closer to hitting more than half the time, I'll take it--especially with a leader, who is of no use to a party if he can't hit.

 

[TheUltramark]

you gotta talk to me like im a child sometimes, i swear

complaint #1 - players don't hit often enough
complaint #2 - monsters don't do enough damage

someone explain to me in easy to understand, acronym free english why this isn't a wash ?????

 

[MrGrenadine]

you gotta talk to me like im a child sometimes, i swear

complaint #1 - players don't hit often enough
complaint #2 - monsters don't do enough damage

someone explain to me in easy to understand, acronym free english why this isn't a wash ?????

Grind.

 

[drothgery]

you gotta talk to me like im a child sometimes, i swear

complaint #1 - players don't hit often enough
complaint #2 - monsters don't do enough damage

someone explain to me in easy to understand, acronym free english why this isn't a wash ?????

If the PCs are missing a lot, and the monsters are doing very little damage, then you end up with very long combats. And while a one and a half hour combat encounter vs. the BBEG and its associates is usually cool, spending over an hour on the fight to clear out dungeon room 12 is not.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

you gotta talk to me like im a child sometimes, i swear

complaint #1 - players don't hit often enough
complaint #2 - monsters don't do enough damage

someone explain to me in easy to understand, acronym free english why this isn't a wash ?????

Because very, very, very long combats are boring.

If players do not hit enough, then the monsters don't fall down dead quickly.

If the monsters aren't doing enough damage, then the players don't fall down dead quickly.

Ergo, no one falls down dead quickly.

Ergo, combat lasts for a long time.

 

[Argyle King]

I'm all for better tactics, but I'm not sure being thoughtful during combat is as elegant and useful a fix as a simple and consistent +1/2/3.

In your example, knocking the 'to hit' target down from 20 is never going to be as simple as flanking to get to 18, and aiding another to get to 16, etc. All of those buffs are conditional, need a hit to take effect, last only one round, and can easily be disrupted by tactics on the opposing side.

For instance, in your example, Character #1 moves to flank and has to hit with a 20, and then the Character #2 moves to flank and can hit on an 18. Then Character #3 aids the one character who hasn't yet attacked--Character #4--so he needs an 18. Assuming Character #4 has a power that gives a +2 to hit to another character, hits with his power, and chooses the first of the flanking attackers, then next round Character #1 will be able to hit with a 16...unless of course, on its turn, the monster shifted out of the flank, and/or hit one of the flankers with a power that caused a status effect that disrupted the flanking or simply made a character lose its attack that round, etc.

So, 'yes' to better tactics, and 'yes' to teamwork, but good tactics + teamwork are conditional and not reliable and characters are not always in perfect synergy, so they =/= fixed math.

And then consider the issue of resource management as well. A character could try to hit a high defense with an Encounter or Daily, and miss more often than not and lose that power for the rest of the encounter, or longer. Or, in my Cleric's case, he could use an At Will to do 1W damage and give a character +2 to an attack vs the same target (until EoNT), but if thats the case, why does my character even have Encounter and Daily attack powers? If they're tough to hit with, and using them makes it tougher for everyone else to hit, too, I may as well just spam my measly 1W At Will the whole battle, which would be the opposite of fun.

All that being said, if taking one feat gets me closer to hitting more than half the time, I'll take it--especially with a leader, who is of no use to a party if he can't hit.

Like I said in that previous post, those were not very good bonuses at all I was assuming, and again a solo 4 levels higher.

Let's also look at things such as ye olde Sure Strike from PHB1. Currently, it is viewed as a terrible at-will power. However, in the needing a 20 example, it becomes a lot more useful; it has a purpose instead of being a 'red choice' as it now is. I'd like to believe the designers didn't create powers of that nature with the intention to be trick choices; I'd like to believe they were added to the game for a reason - having an easier time hitting being the reason.

Again, I'll also say that example was using a very tough foe and also giving the PCs crap bonus - which has the net result of meaning that a horribly built collection of PCs against a solo several levels higher can hit, but will have a difficult time ending the fight quickly.

Also, those characters would not move and do nothing. The first character could move *and* use a buff which gives the next person a bonus... meaning he's granting flanking and the buff. Alternatively, he could flank *and* use aid another on the same turn. That's one character granting +4 to his allies without even using a power.

I'm not saying to not choose Expertise. Whether or not I feel Expertise was necessarily needed, the fact is that there's no reason to ever not take Expertise feats. My main point with saying anything else was just to express that I reliably hit before Expertise already; now, with it, I have characters (one I played tonight actually - Eladrin Barbarian McFighter) who are able to hit on low single digit rolls.

I'm also not saying that I feel 4th Edition math was perfect right out of the gate. I wholly agree there were some flaws to the design. I'm just not convinced that feats were needed to fix the problems. I'm even less convinced that Expertise was the way to go.

 

[Argyle King]

You disagree with an objective fact stated by the game designers. Um. K. /shrug. That makes this a reasonable discussion, starting out with facts and then trying to substitute your opinion.

You can disagree with the designers if you like... but you can't say the system is working as intended without Expertise. Because it doesn't.

.

I'm saying if that was the intention, then I've found yet another element behind 4E design which I don't see eye to eye with.

I'm also saying that I feel there were much better ways to fix the end result -even if it wasn't their intention to have it turn out the way it did- which would have been far better.

I'm thirdly saying that before Expertise, I already often didn't take the threat of most monsters seriously. Now, with Expertise, I feel the power level discrepency when comparing monsters to PCs has grown more extreme.

I do see the appeal of being able self-gimp your character with low scores in your primary attack stat and making up the difference with a feat. It allows more freedom to place higher numbers into other stats. However, I'm not really sure why a 4E PC would do so. The game itself tells you that it expects you to place importance on certain stats.

All of this is really moot point though because -no matter our different views- we still both agree that there is indeed a feat tax.

 

[keterys]

basic level break down...

A couple of these numbers look off...

level 21
26 stat +5 weapon
+28 to hit AC 34-38 needs an 6-10
+28 to hit NAD 31-35 needs 3-7

10+8+5+3=+26

Level 28
28 stat +6 weapon
+37 to hit AC 41-45 needs a 4-8
+37 vs NADs

14+9+6+3=+32

If it matters, monster NADs are basically -2 from AC, not 3.

see if you built in those +1/2/3 how way too easy it

You were off by +2 and +5 so, does that change your conclusion at all? Also... as noted, rogues are hyper-accurate by design. Hammer-wielding clerics and wardens wouldn't want to be painted with quite the same brush.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

A couple of these numbers look off...


-bunch o math-



You were off by +2 and +5 so, does that change your conclusion at all? Also... as noted, rogues are hyper-accurate by design. Hammer-wielding clerics and wardens wouldn't want to be painted with quite the same brush.

ok first that is why I use the character builder... my math is off all the time...

second...the warden useing a hammer has the option to take expertise if they feel they need more accuracy... so does the rouge...


my conclusion is that when you are 4pts behind the monster you have other things to make up for it.


if tonight we drew up 5 1st level characters.... lets say a Warden, invoker, warlord, warlock, and assassin... and ran them vs 5 level 1 monsters... then 2 level 1 elites and 4 level 1 minnons, then a level 2 solo...

then we take those same 12 monsters... and gave them all +29 to hit and defences, then gave the PCs +25 to hit and defenses... then ran the fights again... That would be Really tough.... that would look alot like your arguement...


BUT... what if we then took the pcs and took away 6 pts to def and attack, in it's place let them each tak any neck item, weapon or implment, and armor they want in the game... then let them swap that 1st level encounter power they have for any 25th or lower level encounter power... then swap there 1 Daily for any 1 20 or lower level daily... then choose any 3 feats from phb 1.... then pick any 1 2nd or 6th level utlitiy power i bet that would be as easy or maybe even easier then the 1st time throught...

 

[Aulirophile]

Let's also look at things such as ye olde Sure Strike from PHB1. Currently, it is viewed as a terrible at-will power. However, in the needing a 20 example, it becomes a lot more useful;

No it doesn't, Twin Strike still has a higher accuracy and a higher DPR even when you need to roll a 20. It is terrible.

The PCs were getting the minimum bonus the system expects. Problem: the system was designed with them having a 15% higher bonus. Fix: Expertise. If you find you hit all the time because you optimized, fine, there is no system maximum (99% accuracy is more then achievable if you really want it).

Also if you don't think Monsters are threatening you probably haven't upgraded to MM3/MV monsters. The monster side of the equation was flawed for, entirely differently, reasons. Those have been fixed. No reason not to fix the PC side.