Is the math off?

[keterys]

Honestly, I suspect the hoopla is less about the +/-4 and more about the method of fixing it (ie, putting in feats you're expected to take). It wasn't much of a subject for discussion before PH2 introduced Expertise, Robust Defenses, and Epic FRW. It came up, certainly, but not a ton.

 

[fanboy2000]

All I have is anecdotal evidence, but I've never had a problem with the math. I mostly DM and the hits and misses feel fine to me. My monsters seem to hit with about the frequency I would expect. And they seem to get hit with the frequency I would expect.

For example, yesterday I ran two combats for my party of 7 9th level PCs. The first was a gargantuan level 8 solo brute I madd in the monster builder called Barkskin + 13 giant ant minions. I don't have all the numbers on me, but his fort def was very high and his will was low. If I just went by XP budget guidelines, the encounter was about right, but I intentionally designed it to be a little easier by making the sole monster a level 8 and rounding out the encounter with minions. It lasted four rounds and I got in some good hits with fun attacks. Always good.

The second encounter was a fairly straightforward encounter made-up of monsters and npcs around the party's level. It was also a good mix of brutes, soldiers, and controllers. Again, lots of hits of misses on both sides. No one felt ineffective, and I didn't feel my monsters were either pushovers or two powerful.

I suspect this is the result of several things: 1) bias confirmation on my part, 2) variable monster defenses (i.e., some defenses were lower than others), and 3) teamwork bonuses.

Your milage may vary.

 

[Nifft]

I play, and have a good time.

And if they hadn't made the change for expertise and epic FRW feats, I'd cheerfully shrug and assume that the math was close enough or intended. But the feats either screw up the math, or do a bad job of fixing it, and _either_ possibility is annoying.

I don't see that the annoyance is really coming up that often during the game, but it's a perfectly decent thing to chat about on messageboards when I can't actually be playing. Because I don't want WotC to ever do anything like Expertise ever again. Errata, or don't.

I gotta agree with this.

Before Expertise and the defense-patching feats were published, I was fairly vocal about how more utility powers, better magic item powers, and increased Leader bonuses were intended to bridge the 3-point gap between early Heroic and late Epic.

Then, WotC jumps in and hands everyone a +3 to attack (but also a -1 Feat penalty to feat choices). Clearly, they didn't intend for that 3-point gap to exist... or if they previously did, someone decided they now don't.

So yeah. I used to argue that there was no problem, but now that WotC has provided a bad solution -- one that harms the game more than the "problem" did in the first place -- I'm not happy about either the "problem" or the solution.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Crothian]

So yeah. I used to argue that there was no problem, but now that WotC has provided a bad solution -- one that harms the game more than the "problem" did in the first place -- I'm not happy about either the "problem" or the solution.

How does it harm the game?

 

[Dice4Hire]

How does it harm the game?

I would like to second the question. I also do not see how it harms the game.

 

[Nifft]

How does it harm the game?

One of the explicit design goals of 4e was to remove the disproportionate rewards of System Mastery.

Expertise is 100% pure System Mastery in a can. If you don't take it, you're worse at your job than someone who does take it.

There should be very few such black-and-white choices in the game, and none hidden deep in a big list (like the list of feats).

Cheers, -- N

 

[Crothian]

One of the explicit design goals of 4e was to remove the disproportionate rewards of System Mastery.

Expertise is 100% pure System Mastery in a can. If you don't take it, you're worse at your job than someone who does take it.

There should be very few such black-and-white choices in the game, and none hidden deep in a big list (like the list of feats).

It depends what someone's job is though. If it is just getting the biggest bonuses on attack rules then sure. But the game for me is much more then that.

After reading so many threads on "the math" I've reached the conclusion it is all about play styles. For some people and the way the play the numbers are not as important and so PCs don't miss and are not effected by not using these feats. But for other gamers the numbers are of utmost importance and then these feats become the must haves that some people describe them as.

 

[Nifft]

It depends what someone's job is though. If it is just getting the biggest bonuses on attack rules then sure. But the game for me is much more then that.

In 4e, all jobs involve hitting. Even pacifists have to hit.

This is a strength of 4e: it allows one to measure any PC against any other much more easily.

Cheers, -- N

 

[AllisterH]

Actually, post divine power, isn't it possible to play a pacifist cleric?

 

[Nifft]

Actually, post divine power, isn't it possible to play a pacifist cleric?

Yep, and it's a load of fun -- one of my new favorite characters is one.

And he rolls to hit.
Every. Single. Round.

Cheers, -- N