"Math glitch" -- explanation or pointer?

[eamon]

Using multiple implements and/or weapons is hard to pull off and usually sub-optimal as is simply due to class features/powers, weapon focus and/or other weapon/implement specific feats, and the expense of magic implements and weapons. Expertise pushes things even further in that direction, where each character is strongly pushed towards specialization. This also impacts the usability of otherwise fun attacks such as the minotaur's gore and the dragonborn's breath weapon. Anything outside of the extremely narrow focus that expertise and the rest of the feats provide quickly becomes laughable sub-optimal.

It's especially frustrating to want to design an interesting, flavorful PC with feats that support that flavor, and then to discover that there are a few feats that are hugely more powerful than the norm for all characters. The expertise feats are overpowered at level 1, and there's just no question of taking them at high epic levels.

So, the problem isn't just that they force (boring) specialization and make things difficult for otherwise fine multi-weapon or implement builds, it's that the feats are an absolutely non-optional choice if you intend to make a character balanced with other characters that do take the feat. It doesn't matter what the intent was here; the result matters, and that's that it introduces a non-optional, inflexible balance fix via the feat system.

So yeah, it's just a poorly implemented math fix. I'd be absolutely thrilled if WotC were to errata these feats into non-existance and simply hand out the appropriate bonuses to everyone for all attacks and defenses in question. The "weak" NAD each character posseses is an unfortunate flaw - but I don't think that forcing each character to have a small weak spot is particularly problematic. Different characters will have different weak spots, and it's certainly not nearly as problematic as the current situation, and could indeed be remedied by a feat.

 

[CapnZapp]

The honest solution would be to say "every characted gets an untyped +1 bonus to hit at levels 5, 15 and 25" (I too will use this rule instead of the clumsy and rushed feat tax) AND makes that available as free errata.

The truly commendable solution would of course be to keep the elegant PHB system, and tweak all the monsters of all the Monster Manuals (lowering their attacks and defenses). That really is the only long-term elegant solution.

 

[Stalker0]

The truly commendable solution would of course be to keep the elegant PHB system, and tweak all the monsters of all the Monster Manuals (lowering their attacks and defenses). That really is the only long-term elegant solution.

I would much rather have my party make a one time change to their character sheet than for me to buy an erratted book or adjust monsters each time I run them.

A one time change on the character sheet is a more elegant solution to me.

To reiterate my point on the expertise feat, I don't think the +1 version is that bad. Its stronger than weapon focus, but not so strong that I don't consider other feats before it. Its certainly not the most overpowered feat in the game.

However, the issue is that it scales. At +3, it is the most powerful feat I can think of, there's simply no better feat. At +2 its probably on the highest scales of feat power, and I would be pressed not to take it.

 

[KarinsDad]

I would much rather have my party make a one time change to their character sheet than for me to buy an erratted book or adjust monsters each time I run them.

A one time change on the character sheet is a more elegant solution to me.

Actually, the most elegant solution is to decrease the level of encounters. No PCs or monsters have to be adjusted:

Level -1 to Level+4 range for Heroic
Level -2 to Level+3 range for Paragon
Level -3 to Level+2 range for Epic

Problem solved.

 

[Stalker0]

Actually, the most elegant solution is to decrease the level of encounters. No PCs or monsters have to be adjusted:

Level -1 to Level+4 range for Heroic
Level -2 to Level+3 range for Paragon
Level -3 to Level+2 range for Epic

Problem solved.

That also adjusts the hitpoints of the monsters and the damage they deal...its a more significant change than just to hit and defense numbers.

 

[Nifft]

The honest solution would be to say "every characted gets an untyped +1 bonus to hit at levels 5, 15 and 25" (I too will use this rule instead of the clumsy and rushed feat tax) AND makes that available as free errata.

The truly commendable solution would of course be to keep the elegant PHB system, and tweak all the monsters of all the Monster Manuals (lowering their attacks and defenses). That really is the only long-term elegant solution.

That's exactly what I do. Ban the feats, fix the monsters.

I would much rather have my party make a one time change to their character sheet than for me to buy an erratted book or adjust monsters each time I run them.

A one time change on the character sheet is a more elegant solution to me.

Depends how many character sheets you go through, and how many characters you make. If it happened once, I might be tempted to agree with you, but everyone in my group has played at least four different PCs.

Also: I personally don't care about monster books. I care about the Compendium. They can update that, and the monster builder.

Cheers, -- N

 

[KarinsDad]

That also adjusts the hitpoints of the monsters and the damage they deal...its a more significant change than just to hit and defense numbers.

Yes, but it still works and it works well.

And, it is super easy to fine tune. Epic monsters now a bit too easy, increase a few of the future encounters up by one level. Done. Not enough, increase them a bit more.


There is this (really bad) assumption that WotC balanced monster to hits, monster damage, monster hit points, monster defenses, and monster abilities.

This assumption is just as bad as the one that assumes the same for the PCs. They obviously got into the ballpark, but they didn't quite hit the mark.


Another advantage of this solution is that some people complain that high level encounters take too long in some cases. The grind factor. If the monsters have slightly lower defenses and slightly lower attacks and slightly fewer hit points, then by definition the higher level encounters will be slightly quicker (and use less resources, allowing for longer days) as well.

My player's PCs are only level 7 and encounters sometimes grind. It's definitely worse at real high level (or at least the few encounters I was in).


This is definitely the win win solution to the problem without special house rules that may or may not be easy to implement in Character Builder (assuming one uses Character Builder). Note: this still requires the house rule ban to not allow Expertise feats and not to allow the PHBII NAD feats (or to restrict the NAD feat rules in some way). The idea is to not use any of the most recent WotC math corrections (except the heavy armor masterwork fix in AV and PHBII) and to play the game as is when the PHB first came out.


The only thing this doesn't do is allow the super high level Epic PCs to fight Orcus or even more powerful foes in the same way as they could with the math fixes.

DMs want to throw Orcus at the group. The DM still can, he just has to have the group not be resource depleted when he does that and the PCs probably should be level 30 and not 28. He might also want to give them other advantages (such as NPC allies, special artifacts, whatever seems appropriate to the campaign).

Plus, how often do most players get to level 28+ anyway.

All in all, this is the cleanest and easiest and most elegant solution.


And note: this solution is not really that much different than what DMs have been doing for decades, adjusting the encounters for the PCs in the game. It's just a real simple way of doing that.

 

[DracoSuave]

The fallacy in assuming everything needs an automatic math fix is that the numbers at the outliers are broken and unplayable in the first place.

The math 'bug' group assumes that because the math doesn't even flow and equal +30 at the end of the day, that therefore, there is a problem with the design of D&D and that everything is broken and it must be fixed.


But if there -is- no problem to begin with, it's irresponsible to just hand out random +1 to hit +1 to AC to attack a -perceived- issue.

Now, if there were a rash of threads that say 'CANNOT HIT AT EPIC BAAAWWWWWW' complete with real player experience then I could see a stronger argument for doing so.

Do those threads exist? I have not seen them.

So, perhaps there is no 'bug' if the math doesn't equal out to +30 at the end of the day. For there to be a 'bug' there must be a problem. No problem, why fix?

 

[AngryMojo]

Now, if there were a rash of threads that say 'CANNOT HIT AT EPIC BAAAWWWWWW' complete with real player experience then I could see a stronger argument for doing so.

This is the main reason why I question the validity of the "feat tax" argument. I have experience with upper level 4th edition. The only time I've seen players truly having difficulty hitting an enemy was when an upper-paragon group went off against an elder red dragon. The fight was still a nail-biter thanks to the environmental effect (Very hot temperature, save at the beginning of each round or lose a surge). Yes, it was tricky for them to hit, but I think that was more a function of fighting a soldier of higher level than just having higher level characters. In my experiences, the upper level characters have more abilities at their disposal and, more imporantly, more experience as players, and are able to come up with solutions better than new players. It looks like a glitch on paper, but it's not a glitch I've ever seen play out.

 

[keterys]

Perfectly valid theory... until you consider feats they added: Expertise and the FRW boosters.

So arguing to remove them entirely makes sense. It also is fine to replace them.

Allowing them to continue to exist has no intellectual merit except that it's easy (works with CB, frex) and less likely to annoy players than removing them entirely.