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

[Argyle King]

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.

I don't optimize, that was part of my point. I'm nowhere near as proficient with the system as anyone on the Char Op boards would be; even less so now that D&D is no longer my primary game. Even in the group I play with, I'd say I am the least proficient at optimization. Yet, I can still realize that certain choices -as presented- are rather obviously better than others.

As for the monsters... it really hasn't made much difference. Yes, they hit harder, but part of the new design also has them with lower defenses. If they're dead, they can't hit back. While they have continued to get better, so too have the powers and options presented to the players.

 

[Aulirophile]

I'm a regular CharOp poster. >.>

Anyway. Dead is the best condition, but E+1 encounters with MM3/MV are reasonably threatening even to optimized parties. E+3 can actually result in TPKs of optimized characters (CharOp runs several weekly games via MapTools, some for LFR and some home groups. The switch to MM3/MV monsters made a noticeable difference in encounter difficulty even for CharOp groups, running heavily optimized characters).

It really does make a difference. If you feel like you've never been threatened then that might be a DM failure, designing encounters is not after all the easiest thing in the world.

 

[keterys]

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

If expertise is an option, then they both have it. If you're arguing that it's not necessary, you should either exclude it as an option or not.

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...

And _then_ if instead of using level 1 monsters with +29, you replaced the monsters with actually level 30 monsters... this isn't really a logical string of replacements, and the weirdest part is that doesn't really matter for the argument at hand.

It doesn't even matter if expertise should have been made in the first place, cause we've already got it. If it were just a +1, non-scaling, then it could be just another feat that some have and some don't. If it were a bonus feat that everyone got, it would be slightly strange but mean that it's a system math fix that requires a choice about what you use. Instead, we have a set of even-more-overpowered-since-Essentials feats that every character should take at one point or another. And, with the upgrades, often sooner rather than later. Before Essentials I often saw people wait til 8th or higher level, sometimes even as late as 15th. Post-Essentials most have it by 2nd.

On the other hand, there is less griping about their existence in general. Lot of people would have at least considered spending a feat for Light Blade Expertise or Bow Expertise, and certainly Staff Expertise, even without the expertise hit bonus.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

If expertise is an option, then they both have it. If you're arguing that it's not necessary, you should either exclude it as an option or not.

or anyone weaither they are an accurate class or not can choose to become more accurate...

And _then_ if instead of using level 1 monsters with +29, you replaced the monsters with actually level 30 monsters... this isn't really a logical string of replacements, and the weirdest part is that doesn't really matter for the argument at hand.

replaceing the monsters would defeat the arguement entirely becuse you nees other things then too...like the rest of your attack powers... see all i did was show the vacume YOU guys make th arguememnt...

if All you get was +26 and all they got was +29 then the 3 pt diffrence would be a big deal... but there attacks scale at one rate, ours another... there number of powers scale diffrent too...and there hit points dont scale like pc eaither... a 30 level monster is not a 1st level monster with +29...but neaither is a pc at 30 level a 1st level one with +26 that is the core of my argument...

can you understand any of my arguement or what?

It doesn't even matter if expertise should have been made in the first place, cause we've already got it. If it were just a +1, non-scaling, then it could be just another feat that some have and some don't. If it were a bonus feat that everyone got, it would be slightly strange but mean that it's a system math fix that requires a choice about what you use. Instead, we have a set of even-more-overpowered-since-Essentials feats that every character should take at one point or another.

I do belive expertise feats would be better with some modfications...I think it and weapon focus should both work like the essential ones a flat bonus of +x and a rider based on weapon (althought I think axe expertise should xhange)
the only thing I would do diffrent other then that is skip the 11th level bump... if I was a deasigner at wotc it would be +1 to hit, increase to +2 at 21st.

And, with the upgrades, often sooner rather than later. Before Essentials I often saw people wait til 8th or higher level, sometimes even as late as 15th. Post-Essentials most have it by 2nd.

I see it the same as ever... optimizers take it by level 4...non optimizers eaither take it or dont depending on what else they want. I have seen many post esential characters (especialy slayers and scouts who both get +1 to hit anyway) skip expertise

On the other hand, there is less griping about their existence in general. Lot of people would have at least considered spending a feat for Light Blade Expertise or Bow Expertise, and certainly Staff Expertise, even without the expertise hit bonus

the funny part is my new character was setting up for light blade expertise and totaly pissed off the optimizer becuse of how 'dumb' I am... I have a resourceful warlord who took prof in kurkri and now is getting ready to take LBE... and all he does is moan how it is dumb of me not to fight with a kopesh or longsword.... some people are never happy...

 

[keterys]

see all i did was show the vacume YOU guys make th arguememnt...

I haven't made an argument about the level gain / hit progression (not lately, anyways).

I did make a point about the feats themselves, that was actually entirely neutral to that debate.

I also pointed out the flaws in your own math and arguments... I might not have, but I'd rather have headed things off before mistakes spawn pages of their own arguments.

can you understand any of my arguement or what?

Of course. I just think they're deeply flawed.

You're perfectly fine with characters being +2 to +4 hit apart from each other, through difference in system mastery or willful disregard for it. That's perfectly fine, but it doesn't necessarily lead to a better system. If the expertise feats were +10 to hit, you could still make that same argument, but the feats themselves would be even more ludicrous. And if people without the feats actually needed a "20" to hit without them then the system would be despairingly broken.

Thankfully, the game doesn't go to level 100, so we can dodge that entire problem.

I have seen many post esential characters (especialy slayers and scouts who both get +1 to hit anyway) skip expertise

Depends a bit on what weapons folks wield, but +1 push/slide, or damage with combat advantage or charging, or immunity to opportunity attacks and a little better reach, all seem to cement things even for the non-optimizers. Staff Expertise in particular seems to show up nice and early. Master at Arms for swapping ranged and such has been pretty popular too.

I've only seen one character not take one by 11th level since Essentials... and that's because he's a bard so can't pick a single feat. Kicking up to +2 at 11th, on top of the extra benefit, seems to really throw things askew.

the funny part is my new character was setting up for light blade expertise and totaly pissed off the optimizer becuse of how 'dumb' I am... I have a resourceful warlord who took prof in kurkri and now is getting ready to take LBE... and all he does is moan how it is dumb of me not to fight with a kopesh or longsword.... some people are never happy...

Well, it is a feat (weapon proficiency) to use a weapon that's worse than a military weapon (-1 attack, -.5 damage), that makes you less likely to hit (and for warlords, hitting is the critical part more than damage so you trigger the benefits). If you were using a dagger, at least you could throw it too, but not so much on a kukri. If you were using a rapier, he wouldn't complain about the light blade expertise. If a dagger or short sword, he might still complain, but at least you wouldn't really be giving up much (a feat, downgrading attack bonus, possibly gaining a thrown option).

It's basically the same argument as before - you _can_ intentionally make decisions that make your character less effective, such as not taking expertise once you're in the +2 to +3 range, but it's disingenuous to make arguments about it on messageboards as if that's a valid system decision. Any more than you'd suggest to a new player that they take a 10 Str as a fighter, cause hitting's not terribly important as long as they have a high Con. There are ways to make that work, but you better be really explicit about how or you're misleading someone who doesn't know better.

If anything, it's actually a serious system flaw how big of a gap that exists between optimizers and not at the moment. (And one that was reported to WotC as part of the "What works, what fails" questions they asked)

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I haven't made an argument about the level gain / hit progression (not lately, anyways).

I did make a point about the feats themselves, that was actually entirely neutral to that debate.

I also pointed out the flaws in your own math and arguments... I might not have, but I'd rather have headed things off before mistakes spawn pages of their own arguments.

sorry... sometimes I group people when I should not...again thank you for pointing out the math error...

You're perfectly fine with characters being +2 to +4 hit apart from each other, through difference in system mastery or willful disregard for it. That's perfectly fine, but it doesn't necessarily lead to a better system.

I will go back to my mutants and mastermind argument... when everyone at level ten has +10 to hit and +10 to AC and +10 to damage... no matter what the flavor added it all starts to blur togather (atleast in my mind)

slight diffrences make the game feel more fun... I have +8 to hit, he has +12, I do 2d12+7 he does 2d6+9... my AC is 21 his is 18 I have 30 hp he has 31...

as ong as we all can add to the game and be viable a range is good...

(((((now what that range is can be argued... I have in the past said 3 pts is perfect 5 is good 8 is not bad 10 is getting worrysome... 11+ is bad) But the only times I have ever seen a 9+ is when the top end guy needs to roll a 1 to miss.)))))

If the expertise feats were +10 to hit, you could still make that same argument, but the feats themselves would be even more ludicrous. And if people without the feats actually needed a "20" to hit without them then the system would be despairingly broken.

um... I would go with no one is say +10 is ok... infact I have even posted n the errat board I would rather see expertise nerfed by 1... +1 incease to +2 at 21st

so we are in the same basic thoughs... we just have differing thresholds

Depends a bit on what weapons folks wield, but +1 push/slide, or damage with combat advantage or charging, or immunity to opportunity attacks and a little better reach, all seem to cement things even for the non-optimizers. Staff Expertise in particular seems to show up nice and early. Master at Arms for swapping ranged and such has been pretty popular too.

I have still scean slayers without it...

Well, it is a feat (weapon proficiency) to use a weapon that's worse than a military weapon (-1 attack, -.5 damage), that makes you less likely to hit (and for warlords, hitting is the critical part more than damage so you trigger the benefits). If you were using a dagger, at least you could throw it too, but not so much on a kukri. If you were using a rapier, he wouldn't complain about the light blade expertise. If a dagger or short sword, he might still complain, but at least you wouldn't really be giving up much (a feat, downgrading attack bonus, possibly gaining a thrown option).

my warlord wants to fight with 2 kurkri... I also plan on multi classing into rouge someday... I still am useing my powers I still hit most of the time...

It's basically the same argument as before - you _can_ intentionally make decisions that make your character less effective, such as not taking expertise once you're in the +2 to +3 range, but it's disingenuous to make arguments about it on messageboards as if that's a valid system decision.

my vaild system decisions are what I (or in some cases others) want to play. it is a game...I am not makeing my character less effective, I am making him diffrent. We had a time when the most effective chose was the right one... and some of us are still there....it gets boreing.

I have seen a player play almost the same character 3 times in a row becuse X Y and Z feats are 'must have' and Z X and Y powers are the 'best of the level' and YX and Z items are the 'best you can buy' and we only made it to level 9...

that is not how I choose to play, this warlord will have diffrent feats and powers and items then the last one I played

Any more than you'd suggest to a new player that they take a 10 Str as a fighter, cause hitting's not terribly important as long as they have a high Con. There are ways to make that work, but you better be really explicit about how or you're misleading someone who doesn't know better.

I always tell new players to take a 16 or higher in there prime stat...and that if you see one of us doing other wise we have some way to balance it... (I know we did have a 13 str spear fighter with a good dex and wis and other things upping attacks... expertise was his 1st feat... I wish I could remember the whole build now)

If anything, it's actually a serious system flaw how big of a gap that exists between optimizers and not at the moment. (And one that was reported to WotC as part of the "What works, what fails" questions they asked)

ok so lets take weapon users...

I start with a 16 stat, have a +2 prof, and no epic destiny benfirts to attack or attribute

you start with a 20 stat, have a +3 prof epic sestiny +2 stat, and a class +1 to hit

+5 diffrence to hit

with you having expertise it is up to +8 at epic +7 at paragon and +6 at heroic

(((((now what that range is can be argued... I have in the past said 3 pts is perfect 5 is good 8 is not bad 10 is getting worrysome... 11+ is bad) But the only times I have ever seen a 9+ is when the top end guy needs to roll a 1 to miss.)))))

so I see this as fine...I would if I could I would take the paragon +1 away from expertise... but I can't

 

[keterys]

I am not makeing my character less effective, I am making him diffrent.

With expertise instead of (some other feat), you can make that argument, because the other feat might truly be more effective, but the kukri argument doesn't work.

Let's say you're choosing between using a rapier and a kukri.

Rapier: +3 Proficiency, 1d8 damage
Kukrui: costs a feat, +2 Proficiency, 1d6 brutal 1 damage

So, the rapier is 1 less feat, 1 more attack, and .5 more damage. That's factually less effective. If you want to compare using an off-hand weapon to using a light shield, sure, there's an argument to be made there, but pure raw weapon comparison, system mastery says it's a mistake.

Me, I'd rather the game didn't actually work that way, but there you go.

ok so lets take weapon users...

I start with a 16 stat, have a +2 prof, and no epic destiny benfirts to attack or attribute

you start with a 20 stat, have a +3 prof epic sestiny +2 stat, and a class +1 to hit

+5 diffrence to hit

with you having expertise it is up to +8 at epic +7 at paragon and +6 at heroic

Sure, for comparison let's say we're both strikers and do 1d12 damage base (greataxe vs. fullblade, say) with a d8 extra damage kicker for striker goodness, bumping every die every tier for encounter powers and scaling, weapons going to +3 at 11 and +5 at 21st)

"You":
1st - 1d12+1d8+3 at +5 vs AC 15 (14 avg damage at 55% hit chance, 7.7dpr)
11th - 2d12+2d8+7 at +14 vs. AC 25 (29 avg damage at 50% hit chance, 14.5dpr)
21st - 3d12+3d8+11 at +23 vs. AC 35 (44 avg damage at 45% hit chance, 19.8dpr)
(3,4,6 stat / 0, 3, 5 enh / 0 feat / 0 class / 2 prof)

"Me":
1st - 1d12+1d8+5 at +10 vs AC 15 (14 avg, 80% hit chance, 11.2dpr)
11th - 2d12+2d8+9 at +20 vs AC 25 (29 avg, 80% hit chance, 23.2dpr)
21st - 3d12+3d8+13 at +31 vs AC 35 (44 avg, 85% hit chance, 37.4dpr)
(5, 6, 9 stat / 0, 3, 5 enh / 1, 2, 3 feat / 1 class / 3 prof)

Which results in about a 50% difference early on, widening to almost 100% difference later on.

And that's before adding in other damage bonuses, like feat or item. Every damage bonus you add stretches the gap just a bit more. The real craziness starts when you assume the optimizer also starts picking up extra attacks, while the non-optimizer doesn't... but that's separate from expertise. The basic flaw that "2 type As do the job of 3 type Bs" isn't really a game benefit. Choosing a 16 vs 18 vs 20 is a real choice - you can use those points somewhere else, you can get particular racial benefits, etc. Choosing a +2 vs +3 proficiency is usually a real choice - damage vs accuracy.

Choosing expertise vs not... rapidly becomes a trap choice. Hence, why we get threads like this, and why some of the WotC developers give out expertise for free in their home games, and others added extra benefits to the feats to ensure that people would take them without as much complaint.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Let's say you're choosing between using a rapier and a kukri.

Rapier: +3 Proficiency, 1d8 damage
Kukrui: costs a feat, +2 Proficiency, 1d6 brutal 1 damage

So, the rapier is 1 less feat, 1 more attack, and .5 more damage. That's factually less effective. If you want to compare using an off-hand weapon to using a light shield, sure, there's an argument to be made there, but pure raw weapon comparison, system mastery says it's a mistake.

I want to and do fight with 2 kurkri... And I sill contribute to the game... Heck most seasons people like my character the most.

 

[keterys]

I want to and do fight with 2 kurkri... And I sill contribute to the game...

Of course you do. As noted, it's just 1 less feat, 1 less to hit, and .5 less damage per W. That's probably only 10% worse than another option and most people won't even notice that difference unless they really pay attention to math.

Similarly, a barbarian might choose to use a morningstar instead of a greatsword. It's factually less effective (-1 attack for no other trade) but that doesn't make it utterly ineffective. Or a quarterstaff, for another -1 damage.

Or a ranger might use a sling instead of a longbow for 2 less damage per W, and half the range.

Escalate to a fullblade or greatbow comparison and more people might start noticing the difference, but eh. That's just how it goes.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Of course you do. As noted, it's just 1 less feat, 1 less to hit, and .5 less damage per W. That's probably only 10% worse than another option and most people won't even notice that difference unless they really pay attention to math.

Similarly, a barbarian might choose to use a morningstar instead of a greatsword. It's factually less effective (-1 attack for no other trade) but that doesn't make it utterly ineffective. Or a quarterstaff, for another -1 damage.

Or a ranger might use a sling instead of a longbow for 2 less damage per W, and half the range.

Escalate to a fullblade or greatbow comparison and more people might start noticing the difference, but eh. That's just how it goes.

If you admit they are nearly noticeable then we agree


Buy our local math dude hates it... To the point where if he has a bad luck streak he rants about how he mathematical is a better character even if the two in ops did more in a fight