Is the math off?

[kaomera]

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.

Personally I do not see adding feats as the same as assuming that all characters will take them. These feats suggest more to me that WotC saw some potential merit in complaints about The Math and wanted to offer something for those players / DMs who thought it needed fixing. IMO it's easier for players who don't see a problem with the math to ignore the feats than it is for those who do to take them if they weren't printed... But that does run afoul of pretty much any assumption of reasonable levels of optimization.

Having said that I do see the problems that Nifft, keterys, and others have with the feats as-is, and I wish that there had been a sidebar included, explaining the presence of these feats and offering either banning them or making them bonus feats as suggestions. Alternately something like this could be an article on DDI, but I think if some significant number of players are going to have an issue with them it's much better to put that info in print. Overall, however, I'd like to see a lot more "behind the scenes" info on the design process, but I'm not sure if enough of WotC's customer base do to make this feasible.

 

[Crothian]

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

Like I said its all about play styles. Some games will see it this way but not all of them do. Some PCs jobs can deal with skills and other areas the exist outside of combat.

 

[Nifft]

Like I said its all about play styles. Some games will see it this way but not all of them do. Some PCs jobs can deal with skills and other areas the exist outside of combat.

Another explicit design goal of 4e was "silos": the idea that being competent in one area would never be at the expense of another area, that even someone "optimized" for skill-monkey stuff would feel good about participating in combat, and vice versa.

If you're saying that, with these feats in the game, you can specialize for "areas th[at] exist outside of combat" at the expense of combat competency, then they are bad for 4e.

There's nothing wrong with being better at one thing than another. There's something terribly wrong, however, with being only suited for one kind of challenge. At least, that's one thing 4e was supposed to fix.

Cheers, -- N

 

[rjdafoe]

What game are you playing? Most of the time it's nowhere near that big. You might get that to one attack, maybe even to all attacks for a round, but not for the whole party for the whole encounter.

I am not talking about the entire party. A cleric, can do that every round, at will (as long as they hit).

Again, the game is not played in a vacuum. Almost every round, in my games, there is a bonus or penalty that is applied somewhere, and it is more than +2 at 1st level.

That are also such things as other defenses in game as well. Not many creatures have all their defenses higher than a normal party can hit well.

Your also not accounting for powers (at will even) that leaders can take away points from their defenses, every roound if required (as long as they hit)

 

[rjdafoe]

I'd like to agree with this! What leader power gives the WHOLE PARTY (including the leader) a +2 or better (everyone apperently assumes every attack gets CA forever) to hit for every encounter a day, regardless of specific circumstance (IE: even on a miss).

Which one gives the same to the non-ac defenses?

And does each leader have powers that do that? Or is a rather specific type of party based min-maxing with exact classes necessary to fix the math without the math fix feats?

Where did I say the whole party? Where in the disuccssion, besides the +2 from the leader after it was pointed out, is it discussed about teamwork?

Did we also forget that an Ancient Red Dragon has a Reflex score of 5 less than their AC and a Will score of 6 less?

How about the Tarrasque has a Reflex of only 38 and a Will of only 32?

In my view, these feats are not needed at all. The bad design decision was for people at WotC to listen to the math arguments, and add these into the game.

 

[Hussar]

Again - uninformed opinion here.

Could it be possible that the feat was added in for groups that don't want to have so many magic items? It appears that magic items are one of the ways to bridge this gap in offense vs defense. With this feat in place, you could simply ignore magical pluses on weapons and have a lighter magic item campaign.

IIRC, wasn't one of the ways to play an almost magic less campaign to simply bolt on the expected bonuses to the PC's depending on their level?

Could this be a feat for those who want less but not no magic?

 

[Dice4Hire]

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

That is simply not true. The pacifist cleric has powers that do not require hit rolls.

 

[Nifft]

That is simply not true. The pacifist cleric has powers that do not require hit rolls.

True, there are a few. But most do require an attack roll, and all At-Will powers require one.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Nifft]

Could it be possible that the feat was added in for groups that don't want to have so many magic items?

Nope. The rules guidelines for low-magic (and no-magic) games are right in the PHB. That's one of the things that sold me on 4e in the first place: the system was codified to such an extent, they could tell you exactly what magic item bonuses were vital to game balance and which were frosting.

Cheers, -- N

 

[kaomera]

they could tell you exactly what magic item bonuses were vital to game balance and which were frosting.

Isn't game-balance subjective, though? IME it sure seems to be: there are players and groups that prefer much more (or less) of a challenge than others do.