Is the math off?

[keterys]

and if only 8 or 9 take it???

Then we're in the Twilight Zone? I don't have access to all the characters currently playing 25+ level, but I can say that at least 95% of the ones I have seen have had it.

and if 10 take that +6, and 3 take a multi class feat, and 4 takes one that is just for there class and 1 takes linguastics, and one takes a NAD upper, and the last takes Improved intative... then what does that mean?

That you didn't answer the question I posed? We're talking about people who have 14 feat options and a feat that is more effective than any other feat option in the game.

so you agree with me???

I agree that Expertise is bad.
I have insufficient data on whether there's a problem with the attack/defense math at epic levels. Among other things, it helps that I tend to make my own monsters and can choose appropriate levels. It's also muddied because every character I've ever seen at 12th or higher has Expertise.

no a feat you can choose is not part of the assumed math just becuse you said so...

Faulty premise.
* If WotC is assuming that people are taking Expertise, then it's part of the assumed math. Since they made it +3, they're either assuming people are taking it by level 25. Or they're vastly out of touch with their players.
* You can choose to put ability bumps in your primary ability score. Or not. But they're still part of the assumed math.
* You can choose to get/give a magic weapon/implement of a level-appropriate plus, and use it. But they're still part of the assumed math.
* You can choose to start with an 8 in your primary ability score. Or an 18. Or use all kinds of multiclass/eternal seeker powers that use other ability scores. But they're still part of the assumed math.

People making logical choices are part of the assumed math.

in fact I voted the math was fine becuse you can choose how you want to play...aka if you want the feat and I don't...we can still both play right now and be happy...

Sure. And in 3e someone could choose to have an AC 20 higher than someone else in their party, and they could both be happy. Happiness and math are not part of the same equation.

You've got 3 realistic options:
1) You think the math is fine without Expertise
2) You think the math is fine with Expertise
3) You think Expertise has no bearing on the math

The first implies that the math is now screwed up, because they added Expertise.
The second implies that the math is now screwed up in a much more localized fashion, depending on whether a character has both Implement and Weapon powers, or any powers that use neither.
The third implies a mistake of one kind or another.

no that would be MS word...

It does it for me. Maybe it's a community supporter thing. Or firefox.

or I just have a hard time spelling and writing (well typeing) my thoughts... on the other hand I have a golden tounge and the 'gift of gab' if we ever meet I do much better in person.

Yeah, I'm worse at the spoken word myself. Funny how that works out

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

People making logical choices are part of the assumed math.

Yeah, it's one of the key points of the math, actually. If someone starts with a 16 and doesn't put any of their stat points into their prime stat, by the time they are 30, they won't be able to hit anything.

As far as I can tell, the "assumptions" in the math are as follows:

-Your highest stat is your prime stat and your second highest stat is your secondary stat

-You put a point into your prime stat every chance you get and a point into your secondary stat almost every time you get

-You get a weapon with a better enhancement bonus approximately the level you become equal to the new enhancement bonus

-You take Expertise

Sure. And in 3e someone could choose to have an AC 20 higher than someone else in their party, and they could both be happy. Happiness and math are not part of the same equation.

Well, they are...sort of. Certain people will not be happy if there is that big of a difference between their character and another(like me). Other people will be.

The math is important for that first category of people. The kind of person that says "But I really liked the idea of playing a stealthy Rogue, but I didn't think it would mean hitting 30% less often than X class. The fact that I get to play a stealthy Rogue doesn't make up for the fact that I suck at combat."

But, sure, you'll get those people who sit down at a game and say "I don't care if I only hit on a 20, combat doesn't interest me. My character is supposed to be bad at fighting, if he doesn't hit it only increases my enjoyment of the game since I'm roleplaying him properly." Those people won't care about the math at all. They are also more likely to be the people who really liked 3e and are sticking with it since 4e doesn't let them build the characters they wanted.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Then we're in the Twilight Zone? I don't have access to all the characters currently playing 25+ level, but I can say that at least 95% of the ones I have seen have had it.

it was funny that we all group with people who are atleast somewhat like minded (like I said most of us don't belive in ALWAYS taking the feat, one player does, and me and one or two others normaly take it as soon as we run ut of 'cool' feats to take)

Faulty premise.
* If WotC is assuming that people are taking Expertise, then it's part of the assumed math. Since they made it +3, they're either assuming people are taking it by level 25. Or they're vastly out of touch with their players.

I don't belive this... again as I said before I see the math as balanced with a 16 start, +1 every chance, and a magic item within atleast 2 of your level...anything else is bonus.

Sure. And in 3e someone could choose to have an AC 20 higher than someone else in their party, and they could both be happy. Happiness and math are not part of the same equation.

qft...and for the record that no longer works (as far as I have seen anyway) optimized and non optimiized (but not shoot your self in the foot 8 prime stat) have a range of about 15 at most...at first level it is about 5, and at 11th it is about 10...

You've got 3 realistic options:
1) You think the math is fine without Expertise
2) You think the math is fine with Expertise
3) You think Expertise has no bearing on the math

I belive that the math was fine before expertise, and that it only does a slight bit of damage at epic... then again way back when phb2 came out I wanted, and I still do want it to be a paragon feat +1, and it autoupgrade to +2 at 21st...

It does it for me. Maybe it's a community supporter thing. Or firefox.

I use IE and it doesn't...

Yeah, I'm worse at the spoken word myself. Funny how that works out

yea, trust me I am full of crazy things like that...

 

[catsclaw227]

Has anyone considered the possiblilty that WoTC felt like the progression of feat aquisition was too fast and they realized that they could fix the quirk in the scaling math with regards to to-hits and also fix their pesky "too-many-feats" problem?

 

[Akaiku]

It does it for me. Maybe it's a community supporter thing. Or firefox.

It's firefox. Rather handy feature, huh?

 

[fanboy2000]

I've shown a Racial power example in this thread already.

Here's where things get strange for me, I can accept that the math might be off if all that means is that a 5th level PC has an easier time hitting a 5th level monster, all other things scaling appropriately. I can also accept that Wizard's publishes very powerful feats and powers. I'm not sure that they're existence is intertwined. At worst, all the racial power you cited is power creep. Not exactly a new phenomena.

It's my opinion that some options are too good to reasonably pass up.

That is not my opinion. I think that some options are powerful, maybe even overpowered, but that's not the same as saying it's unreasonable to pass up the option.

Sure, that would make it even more obvious how poorly the feat was designed.

Exactly. So it surprises me that Expertise comes-up in all these "math threads" when, clearly, the feat is powerful regardless of what the underlying math is.

Then we're in the Twilight Zone? I don't have access to all the characters currently playing 25+ level, but I can say that at least 95% of the ones I have seen have had it.

While that may be true, that evidence is anecdotal. That said, I'm very interested in what feats most people playing 4e take.

P.S. Is it just me or doesn't enworld put a red underline under words that are misspelled? It seems odd to have so many in one line, as if one weren't taking sufficient time to weigh and consider one's words or were excessively agitated.

I believe this is actually web browser specific. For example, Safari has spell check in all boxes in all text entry boxes. Near as I can tell IE does not.

 

[keterys]

it was funny that we all group with people who are atleast somewhat like minded (like I said most of us don't belive in ALWAYS taking the feat, one player does, and me and one or two others normaly take it as soon as we run ut of 'cool' feats to take)

Just so we're clear, how many 25th+ level characters are we talking about?

I don't belive this... again as I said before I see the math as balanced with a 16 start, +1 every chance, and a magic item within atleast 2 of your level...anything else is bonus.

And yet, it's part of the math of the system now. Whether you (or I) like it to be there or not.

qft...and for the record that no longer works (as far as I have seen anyway) optimized and non optimiized (but not shoot your self in the foot 8 prime stat) have a range of about 15 at most...at first level it is about 5, and at 11th it is about 10...

Yep, the variance is far tighter. Which is a good thing.

I belive that the math was fine before expertise, and that it only does a slight bit of damage at epic...

Then the math is, indeed, off. We might disagree on the extent of the damage, but we are agreed that it's damage.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

I use IE and it doesn't...

It shows . . .

 

[Nifft]

Exactly. So it surprises me that Expertise comes-up in all these "math threads" when, clearly, the feat is powerful regardless of what the underlying math is.

Well, Expertise is what the last few posts have been about, but the whole argument goes like this:

1. WotC: Hey guys! We did a ton of work to make sure 4e plays just like the sweet spot of 3e, all the way from level 1 through level 30! We did a lot of math! We even hired some math dudes who can model combat outcomes using reverse binomial distributions!

2. Fans: Hooray!

3. WotC: *publishes PHB1 and MM1*

4. Fans: Hoor-- wait a second! The math is somewhat wonky! This guy ran the numbers on monster defenses, and this other guy ran the math for expected loot, and when you put the numbers side by side, they don't match! It's 15% easier to hit level-appropriate foes at 1st than it is at 30th!

5. Fans (a): Maybe that's because your PCs have more options at high level, and more magic item uses, and your Leaders give higher bonuses and this is okay because blah blah blah ...

6. Fans (b): No way, monsters inflict more & harsher conditions, and monsters have a VERY easy time hitting your lowest defense (which you will have because you can only raise two stats) and this is bad because blah blah blah...

7. WotC: Oh hey guys, buy this new book! *publishes PHB2*

8. Fans (a) and (b): Well I'll be damned. They were wrong about having the math all worked out, and their fix is lame.

9. Fans (c): So my dual-wielding sword/dagger Paladin/Warlock has to take Expertise four times? That sucks.

10. Fans (a) and (b): Shut up, Fans (c). Everyone else hates Paladins.

11. WotC: Hey guys, in PHB3 there's a better Expertise! We put it in for the Monk, because otherwise he'd have to take Expertise twice!

12. Fans (c): ... like my Paladin, you mean?

13. WotC: Shut up, Fans (c). We hate Paladins too. *publishes Divine Power* Wait, actually we love Paladins.

- - -

The important part there is 8. Pretty much everyone who was aware of the mathematical disconnect -- be they group (a) or group (b) -- agrees that the fix is poor.

To get people to understand that the fix is poor, I spend a lot of time convincing them that the problem exists in the first place. The Expertise line of feats are evidence that even WotC sees the problem, and they are a bad fix for reasons I've already gone into. The new racial powers are more evidence of WotC's awareness.

Once we accept that the problem in 4e's math is real, we can discuss fixes -- and we can intelligently discuss why the Expertise feats are a good or bad idea. (IMHO they're bad, but you knew that already.)

Cheers, -- N

 

[keterys]

That is not my opinion. I think that some options are powerful, maybe even overpowered, but that's not the same as saying it's unreasonable to pass up the option.

But it is unreasonable to assume that someone _won't_ take it. There are always outliers. Some people intentionally sabotage their characters. Some people focus so completely on certain shticks that they overlook core competencies. Some people don't pick up anything that's not in a book they own, and don't buy lots of books. Etc.

Exactly. So it surprises me that Expertise comes-up in all these "math threads" when, clearly, the feat is powerful regardless of what the underlying math is.

Expertise is the _cause_ of most of these threads. How can it be surprising that it comes up?

While that may be true, that evidence is anecdotal.

Hence my disclaimer I did actually check a couple sites to see if there were any compilations of characters in play, but pretty much struck out.