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

[keterys]

Probably useful to have a "control" group, that isn't mucking about with any of that easier to hit stuff (so, avoid Expertise, avoid powers that swing things by stat modifier. They're pretty rare unless you actually hunt them down)

 

[tiornys]

Probably useful to have a "control" group, that isn't mucking about with any of that easier to hit stuff (so, avoid Expertise, avoid powers that swing things by stat modifier. They're pretty rare unless you actually hunt them down)

Sorry, that is the control. If you add the bonuses from Expertise at the levels where they're needed to keep hit rate relatively constant (not the levels they're currently available), they have no effect on levels 1 or 3 (+1 isn't needed until level 7 or so), and the +2 at 20 cuts 3 rounds off, makes the 21st level comparison unworkable (my assumptions have overcome the natural deficit at that point, primarily because encounter powers REALLY aren't 3 times as powerful as 2[W] baseline attacks), and +3 at 28 drops the length down to a reasonable 4.4 rounds, although again, actual combat will be significantly longer since you aren't getting 11[W] out of your average encounter power.

t~

 

[eamon]

Keep in mind that this is with an overgenerous estimate on encounter and daily power level, which has more impact at higher levels because those levels have higher dependence on encounter and daily powers (admittedly, I'm ignoring PC synergy and cooperation at all levels, but then I'm also ignoring monster control effects and the fact that those get stronger at higher levels). Therefore, we can conclude that a practical example of the situation is likely to be worse than this model. That is, for a group that does do the minimum combat optimization recommended by the PHB, but nothing more, combats will become more than twice as long as the PCs reach high paragon and epic tier.

Another relevant factor is that PC's are expected to deal with the occasional "hard" combat. In fact, all WotC modules include these, particularly at climactic points. And if you run the numbers for these, things get even more skewed.

 

[Grabuto138]

21 years ago I got a C in geometry. That is the extent of my math mastery.

I'd like an opinion from the experts, though. It seems to me that these marginal differences we are discussing end up being trivial considering how easily a DM can adjust an encounter. Or, to look at it another way, a poorly made encounter can make the added bonuses from the Expertise feat irrelevant.

What impact does adding or subtracting a single minion have? Or an additional level-equivalent monster?

It seems to me that the differences we are talking about are trivial compared to the power that a good DM has (intentionally) or a bad DM has (unintentionally). And a good DM will always win the arms race regardless of the feat choices because he or she will simply adjust the encounters to keep them challenging. A bad DM will always also wins the arms race (but in the bad DM's case probably literarly) by throwing encounters that have no bearing on the math we are discussing.

I am not trying to derail or dismiss the thread. But I am not sure it is the hill worth dying on either.

 

[tiornys]

21 years ago I got a C in geometry. That is the extent of my math mastery.

I'd like an opinion from the experts, though. It seems to me that these marginal differences we are discussing end up being trivial considering how easily a DM can adjust an encounter. Or, to look at it another way, a poorly made encounter can make the added bonuses from the Expertise feat irrelevant.

Well, for starters, to say that a DM can adjust for something is to tacitly admit that there is a problem in need of adjusting. Consequently, I rarely accept "the DM can fix it" as a good solution for a game design or development issue.

Moving to the example at hand, if all of the scaling were consistent, then it'd be relatively easy to simply adjust monster levels up or down as needed. Unfortunately, player AC scales about the same as monster stats, but differently than player NADs or player hit rates in the absence of the feat "taxes" we are discussing. Which means you have this weird situation where monsters with attacks against AC don't have an appropriate level point, ever. Either it's too hard for the players to hit the monster, or it's too hard for the monster to hit the players. This can still be fixed by the DM, but the easiest way to do so is to grant free Expertise and free Improved Defenses and move on with on-level opponents as a standard.

But let's say the DM doesn't like that solution, and is willing to do a bit more work. Then the potential arises for the other problem created by the feat "taxes" existing as feats: namely, when people already optimizing for combat have them, and people running at system baseline do not. This makes it much more difficult for the DM to present a reasonable array of challenges for the party. It's easily possible for an enemy that one character hits normally to be one that another character either rarely hits or rarely misses. In the absence (or ubiquity) of Expertise, it's much more difficult to achieve this level of discrepancy. Ideally, you'd like everyone's hit rate to be within 10-15% of each other (i.e., 2-3 points on the die, with attacks against AC an extra 2 higher than attacks against other defenses). When the difference reaches 30%, it is very noticeable in play, and that kind of difference generally detracts from player enjoyment. Expertise is singlehandedly the entire ideal gap and half of what might be considered the start of problematic gaps*.

This kind of analysis is where you get statements like: "either the feats are necessary and shouldn't be feats, or they're overpowered and shouldn't exist". Because they're demonstrably overpowered, and it's not hard to show how that power level has the potential to create problems. If they're necessary, then the power level is justified, but their existence as an optional game element is questionable. If they aren't necessary, then the power level isn't justified, and their mere existence is questionable.

Add in various designer comments, both on record and merely reported, and it's easy to see why many have come to the conclusion that the designers consider them necessary, and have therefore opted for some kind of houserule fix like giving the feats for free (which is what all designers we know about do in their home games).

t~

[sblock=*problematic gaps]At a 30% gap, you're talking about 6 points on the d20, or a third of the available space. The same third, I might add, occupied by the suggested level range of creatures the party should encounter: level -2 to level +4. Given the system baseline of hitting an even level opponent on a 10, that means you should be somewhere between hitting on an 8 to hitting on a 14. If your characters have a 6 point hit gap, then there is exactly 1 level of monster that gives both characters a challenge that lies in that range. Go a level up, and one character needs a 15. A level down, the other hits on a 7. This has the effect of constraining the monsters a DM can use. He has one level band to present a reasonable challenge to both characters. He can present higher level monsters to one character, but has to make sure that it's an appropriate monster for that character to deal with; he can present lower level monsters to the other character, but should avoid making them things that the higher power character would want to deal with. Surmountable? Yes (it takes a 9 point gap to get into scenarios where you really can't challenge both characters simultaneously--but I might add that without Expertise, 6 is the max you reasonably get, and Expertise boosts that to 9). More trouble than you encounter when the baseline math is consistent? Absolutely.[/sblock]

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Your spoiler tag thing is well reasoned. And it also explains, why monster math adjustments fullfills the same purpose to make the math work more smoothly:

While +3 to hit at epic brings players back into the expected middle of the monster range, increased damage adjusted the "viable monster range".

So you can now use "level -5" to "level +1" monsters instead of "level -2" to "level +4"

So in the end, without expertise and MM3 math, the game would have also worked. A combination of both however expands the good range to maybe level -5 to level +4 and as such mayb be the best experience!

 

[keterys]

Decreasing monster level does compensate for decreased hit chance on the part of players, but at the cost of decreased hit chance on the part of monsters. If you're 22nd level with an AC 42 defender, the monsters are already looking for ~15 to hit without decreasing their chance further.

Much like it's not so simple to compare play experience using pre-MM3 damage values, or with clerics that could astral seal for 40 hp healed, or various anti-damage techniques that actually completely negated monster damage.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Well, for starters, to say that a DM can adjust for something is to tacitly admit that there is a problem in need of adjusting. Consequently, I rarely accept "the DM can fix it" as a good solution for a game design or development issue.

I have one problem with this... they system even with free expertise STILL requares the DM pay attantion and adjust...


I have a friend who loves DMing...but we hate when he does becuse he puts no effort into this...

some quick examples:

we were playing a swordmage, a warden, a warlock, a ranger and a shaman... the first item he put in the game (by the way we were level 2 before we got it) was a +2 staff of warwizard... we all got mad we could not use it...he said he did not know no one used staves... the second item he promissed would be more helpful... it was a magic instrument...and he said he thought our shaman coukd use bard instruments... the third was a magic weapon that eh enchant could only go on axes... the swordmage use rapier, the warden a big hammer, the ranger a bow...and the warlock wanted a pact dagger so bad. At level 3 we disenchanted everything we had and made a pact dagger for him... and a rust monster destroyed it int he first encounter he had it... that encounter gave us the treasure of a +2 staff of warwizard becue he really wanted someone to use it...

we played a 3 person game with a warlock, a wizard and a tempest fighter... after the first encounter we had nothing but solo encounters...that game lasted 2 sessions before we got sicj of it

I will skip the iron golem incadent, and the green dragon misunderstanding and talk about level 6...our tpk... we had just had a really bad day. We were extendied resting and 2 of us had no surges...I was the only one with an offencive daily left (I think it is called comeback strike but it was not much good i had no surges to spend) and he had us ambushed in our sleep...then after the tpk said "I forgot you were spent"

other end of the spectrum same DM

a fighter puts up raing of steel (I think that is the aura 1 1w stance... then an encounter with only minons (over 30 minis on the field) charged the fighter with the first group...then the second then the 3rd...we had1round and the fighter killed all of them. then the DM complained how useless minnons are

Dm put us over a lava pit fighting 4 elites...was supose to be a hard fight he wanted us to run... then the wizard thunder waved (yes an at will) 3 of them into the lava (killing or atleast taking out of the fight) 2 of them then the rouge and fighter did the same to the last 2 (Tide of iron, and postioning strike)
the DM thre his hands up and quit the game... by the way we had been useing such tactics from day 1

3e example:

I had an arcane trickster with force darts (reserve feat that gave d4s of force damage) that I sneak attack with,,, after a few times not haveing the ability to SA I picked up a spell that let me crit undead and SA (i think it was called grave strike)... for over a month every game at least 1 time he would put undead in, then complain I could sneak attack them...like it suprised him every time.. when at level 12 he brought in a golem and I had the same type of spells for constructs that I reaserched at the same time I atleast could see him forgeting..

now I as a DM may be lightyears better then him (you know I am a little slght bit above avrage) I know that a group with 2 controlers is good vs minons bad vs solos. I know a group with a fighter as defender and slayer as striker both with swords has WAY more accuracy then a group with a hammer weilding battlemind as defender and an Axe thaneborn barbarian striker group is... or that a solo with resisst psy 10, and special def agianst daze makes a psion telpath cry...

or, and this one is right out of my tuesday night game... when you have a multi attacking ranger, an avenger that never misses, a tac lord, a ardent paliden with a 3w encounter and 4 w daily and who has bonus dmage instead of lay on hands, and 2 other guys... then dropping 2 level+1 solos and 4 level-4 elites and an endless respawning group of minons is not a problem... even though the rules say it should be... becuse my dragon family (mom dad and kids) with waves of kobolds was an epic 9 round fight... in witch I got the best line in years... both mom and dad used bloodied breath in the same turn (due to postions that ment the paliden got hit by both...one was a crit) "How dare you turn me into a minon"

or the time I did it out and had a hobgoblin lv 2 solo in my level 6 game leading a group of orcs that were levels 6-8... a level 2 should be a push over...but I knew 3 of my 5 players had slightly lower ACs, and he could get bonus from one of the orcs...so he was a threat...and a decent bag o hp... in other 6 level groups he would have been a joke.

or even the fact that my current game I am planing (way ahead group still in heroic teir) my big bad guy for 30th level as a level 36 elite soldier (leader) with a 55 AC... I am pretty sure that is a death sentice to most 30th level characters...but I am setting mine up to handle it.


see DMs have all the controle...and need to learn to adjust.







now having said all that I will admit if the system dosn't get the basics right then mucking in these things never get done becuse you need to start some where... this is why I always suggest 1st time dms run as close to raw as possible...then learn how to muck up this stuff.... but I am luky I was learning with my players...if a brand new DM sat down tonight with us playing the powergamers would eat him for a small snack

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Much like it's not so simple to compare play experience using pre-MM3 damage values, or with clerics that could astral seal for 40 hp healed, or various anti-damage techniques that actually completely negated monster damage.

ok, I have to tell you my story of 2 defenders..

same dm diffrent games... I had a battlerage fighter dwarf maxed out on getting temp hps...I even had a cool item that let me start each encounter with temps... I once went blow for blow with an elite (pre mm3) that could nto hurt me becuae of my temps...in less he crit and the one time he did I second winded as a minor on my turn... it got tot eh point were matt (dm) said...ok superman I ignore you and shot batman... or to put it another way after round 2 of just about any given fight he would ignore my mark... finaly other players beged me to switch to a better defender...becuse mine was a striker most of the time

other player min maxed his AC as a swordmage, at one point it was 9 higher then the rest of us, and he had a ressit damage intrupt magic item...so he was a juggernut. then matt tried the same trick (Ignore the mark) and found most monsters could not get past his sheilding with out a crit... well my battlerager had been a bad defender for it...the swordmage was getting better and better.

just becuse a tactic works on one doesn;t mean it works on the other...and as you said playexperance with techniques that actually completely negated monster damage well trump accuracy



and here is a related link http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?p=5045381#post5045381 posts 13 and 14 are my current sig

 

[keterys]

Yep, I've seen a battlerager who could solo a module because the monsters didn't do enough damage and his temp stacked, so he had temp hp equal to his total hp after the first combat and chose not to rest.

I've seen a shaman's spirit companion block off a monster for an entire combat, because it couldn't roll higher than its "I ignore this" level of damage.

And I've seen an elite negated because a wizard / shielding swordmage was impossible to get into melee and his shield negated the elite's entire damage.

The game is _really_ different nowadays.