"Math glitch" -- explanation or pointer?

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I always kinda assumed it was not a "math glitch" and that Weapon Expertise and additional MW items were always planned, possibly as a way to motivate people buying later supplements.

Of course, this assumption violates my normal operating procedure - assume ignorance before "malevolence"*, so I am not sure it's really that way. Another possibility is that they noticed the gap (it's hard to miss if you're analyzing the game design) and it was left in (or put in) to compensate for other benefits at higher levels. More damaging powers, more powers overall, better synergy effects, additional abilities gained from paragon paths and so on.

Either way, I am not particular fond of the expertise feats as a solution. Even if the party would work just fine without the feats (and they did - we started one game at 15th level and didn't have access to the expertise until the 18th level or so), the benefit is just too big to pass up, and this makes the whole feat feel like a necessity. The masterwork armor fix on the other hand I think is just fine. It doesn't cost an "advancement slot", so to speak, so it doesn't actually cost anything.

*) might be a little strong word for it

 

[DracoSuave]

Combat advantage is available and quite achievable in heroic tier already. It doesn't stack.

Combat advantage stacks with -everything.- It just doesn't stack with Combat advantage. You're silly.

It may be somewhat more common in epic tier, but it's not a full +2 difference, rather a fraction of a +1.

It's been +2 to hit every game I've ever played in. It's like saying a power that gives your allies +2 to hit isn't actually +2 because it isn't an at-will or something; That's somewhat silly.

It's not just PC's that get nastier; monsters' aura's and special abilities do to. And the action economy means that those nasty dailies and whatnot PC's have at epic still have a high opportunity cost in their displacing other not-much-weaker lower-level powers. Losing +4 to hit over the course of the game isn't balanced.

It's +3, not +4, and yes, Combat Advantage is a -lot- easier to attain at higher levels, when you've got 6 utility powers, and a plethora of daily and encounter powers, of which -most- have some way of getting combat advantage. It's a -lot- easier at the higher levels. And monster's abilities might seem to get nastier, but monsters don't seem to be getting tougher, in fact, their ability to damage and threaten a party goes -down- not -up-.

Claiming that "teamwork" benefits compensate for it isn't particularly convincing; which teamwork benefits would this be?

Given that the system -was- working fine before PHB2, and people's -experience- pointed towards there being little problem in this regard, perhaps you should ask them how they did it.

But they -did do it.- And -that- is all that is necessary to prove it is possible.

 

[keterys]

Combat advantage stacks with -everything.- It just doesn't stack with Combat advantage. You're silly.

They're explicitly talking about it not stacking with itself, and that it's already easily achievable at heroic tier. So even though it's more easily achievable in epic tier, it's still not a gain of more than +1 on average.

So calling them silly is, perhaps, shortsighted.

It's +3, not +4, and yes, Combat Advantage is a -lot- easier to attain at higher levels, when you've got 6 utility powers, and a plethora of daily and encounter powers, of which -most- have some way of getting combat advantage. It's a -lot- easier at the higher levels. And monster's abilities might seem to get nastier, but monsters don't seem to be getting tougher, in fact, their ability to damage and threaten a party goes -down- not -up-.

Actually not inherently true. There are outliers at all levels of play. A lot of how much damage you take later depends on how much resistance you acquire and how well you can cope with certain things - like how much everything gets controlled, rather than just damage output.

Given that the system -was- working fine before PHB2, and people's -experience- pointed towards there being little problem in this regard, perhaps you should ask them how they did it.

You actually haven't proven it was working fine before PHB2. There was certainly the perception of problems before PHB2.

But they -did do it.- And -that- is all that is necessary to prove it is possible.

There are people who play with everything having half hit points and encounter powers recharging every round like monsters. There were people in 3e who played with save or dies where you needed 20s to succeed (on either side). There are people whose average die rolls over their time of play at high level is a few points off from the average. There are apparently people who played FATAL.

Possible does not remotely prove anything. It's anecdotal evidence.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

But what other kind of evidence would there be Keterys? The "there's a math bug" crowd can pretty well say "look, you lose 3 points of to-hit over 30 levels!" and its a fairly quantifiable statement. The opposite point might hypothetically be demonstrated, but only by some sort of massive sampling effort of actual combats since we simply cannot point to an equation and demonstrate it.

Still, I think its a fairly convincing argument. There are MANY ways in which a party's capabilities increase in non-quantifiable or hard to quantify ways. Not only do buffs and debuffs improve to some extent (and how much is that, its not the quantity of them that matters but how often they actually come up at the table). Players at 30th level have 4 daily powers at their disposal, not to mention 3 ED features which usually amount to a huge power increase. More than that characters gain an enormous amount of flexibility in how they approach challenges. Sure the challenges are harder, but an epic character is much more likely to take them on on his terms, favorable ones obviously, or foil the enemy.

Beyond that it is also pretty apparent that the bulk of level 26+ encounters are going to contain a lot of equal or even lower level monsters. There are a total of SEVEN level 30+ monsters in the game, all Solo. There are total of under 2 dozen level 26+ monsters in the 2 MMs, all but one of which is a solo and the last one (Godforged Colossus) is an elite. In most games there simply isn't the quantity of monsters available to build out a suite of encounter containing all higher level monsters. Standard monsters virtually don't exist at all in upper epic. Even in the lower half of epic they're pretty scarce. Ergo a lot of encounters are going to consist of a lot of equal or under level monsters.

I have to fall into the camp with DS. Sure you can find someone bitching online about ANYTHING if you look around, but to say that there was some sort of general problem with epic level play pre-PHB2 is hard to support. Some groups have trouble at level 1, but is that sufficient to make a case that level 1 is broken? I don't think so. The game is simply more interesting if the nature of threats and the balance of offense and defense changes somewhat over the course of play. If anything 4e is actually a bit TOO consistent IMHO.

Really these discussions kind of amuse me anyway because the game could be exactly the same as it is and they'd vanish entirely if only WotC had just not printed levels on the monsters (well, we wouldn't have encounter budgets, but oh well). Discounting the worthless CR system of 3.x 4e is actually the first time there HAS been any notion of an actual monster power level. There was no such concept at all in 2e and before, none whatsoever. Monsters had hit dice, which sort of roughly approximated to a level and generally appeared on random encounter charts of some level or other (DM dependent). If 4e didn't publish a level for each monster then who would be saying you did or didn't gain what vs Orcus that you did or didn't have vs an Orc Berzerker when you were level 1?

Its not that I don't get the argument about the Expertise feats. Sure, its annoying that they published some feats that are out of line with the power level of the other feats. I don't think it was a great idea. What annoys me is that they did it to shut up a bunch of people that were only whining in the first place because WotC stuck a level number on the monsters to begin with!!!! They only did that to make the game more convenient to play. Maybe they should have known better than to give the number crunchers so much ammo! lol.

I do appreciate the analysis of the game and I don't honestly have any problem with number crunching, but it seems to be getting a bit out of control these days. There is an "envelope" of play in 4e where the numbers work. The levels of specific monsters that fit within that envelope may be a bit different at epic vs heroic, but remember that monster level is not a very important number. Its purely a number for the DM to use behind the scenes.

 

[DracoSuave]

Agreed. Also the idea is that a lot of groups have had to ramp the level of encounters up to make things challenging.

That indicates to me that the problem isn't that epic levels are three points behind... maybe the problem is that heroic levels are three points -ahead-.

Something to think about.

 

[Garthanos]

Beyond that it is also pretty apparent that the bulk of level 26+ encounters are going to contain a lot of equal or even lower level monsters. There are a total of SEVEN level 30+ monsters in the game, all Solo. There are total of under 2 dozen level 26+ monsters in the 2 MMs, all but one of which is a solo and the last one (Godforged Colossus) is an elite. In most games there simply isn't the quantity of monsters available to build out a suite of encounter containing all higher level monsters. Standard monsters virtually don't exist at all in upper epic. Even in the lower half of epic they're pretty scarce. Ergo a lot of encounters are going to consist of a lot of equal or under level monsters.

Yup ...I think it makes sense that the top end be sparser in the game world too (ecology!?) . Then people go.. but but but the DMG doesnt recommend a change in the encounter profiles as they progress in to higher levels, sigh.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The most funny thing is: CR did work. At least more or less. You had to adjust to your party and such, but it was a measure of difficulty which worked against PHB only players.

The main problem was the different power levels of PC´s vs certain type of monsters:
e.g.: Cleric and rogue vs undead

 

[keterys]

The most funny thing is: CR did work. At least more or less. You had to adjust to your party and such, but it was a measure of difficulty which worked against PHB only players.

The main problem was the different power levels of PC´s vs certain type of monsters:
e.g.: Cleric and rogue vs undead

CR had serious problems, even with core books. Monster advancement and templates (for monsters, not players) could do all sorts of stupidness and many powers outright negated supposed threats.

At any rate, it's entirely possible that heroic is indeed 3 ahead of where it should be. In which case, the math is glitched there, instead of epic. And even if the math isn't glitched, the feats are, which in turn means the _new_ math is glitched. It's pretty much a lose-lose.

One big consideration is that from 11 to 30 you gain some utlity powers (4, I believe) and a _single_ daily attack power. From 9 to 30, a single encounter and daily attack. Etc. So a casual assumption about having a lot more encounter and daily attacks as you progress from that level to epic isn't entirely representative. They have addressed that somewhat in later books, with things like action points restoring encounter powers, power salves, power jewels, etc.

At any rate, I really don't care which way the math is correct, I just object to Expertise's implementation. At first I assumed that powers bridged the gap, but I've looked into it a few times and with a couple of exceptions (like a ranger stance to add Wis to hit, I think) the best powers are actually at low level. There are actually less powers that give big penalties to defenses and bonuses to attack once you leave heroic, last time I went looking.

So if that's your argument - great, prove it. Saying that people played successfully at epic before the PH2 isn't a particularly meaningful argument. People play a lot of stuff that has problems. Doesn't make the problems a system feature. Just that people enjoy playing with their friends, so it only matters when the problems are a _really big deal_. And even then people will tend to just figure out some other solution.

Like sending lower level stuff against the party.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

It's +3, not +4

It's +4, not +3.

Given that the system -was- working fine before PHB2, and people's -experience- pointed towards there being little problem in this regard, perhaps you should ask them how they did it.

But they -did do it.- And -that- is all that is necessary to prove it is possible.

Have you done it? If so, how? If not, your anecdotal argument isn't very convincing.

I'm not saying I'm a veteran of epic levels, but I have played a few scenarios and the PC hit/dodge rate are very noticeable and it sucks. Look everyone, even if all those little paragon and epic extras miraculously balance out the hit/dodge problem, it still sucks to play D&D: the Miss, Miss, Got a Lucky Hit! rendition. Even if the leader occasionally hits with an encounter-lasting-whole-party-+4-to-hit-and-defenses daily buff at the beginning of a fight, and that encounter feels like heroic adventuring again, the other encounters are still boring slugfests. I don't care if I can reroll attacks every turn and rise from the dead every encounter, I'd rather just have a decent chance to hit and dodge stuff in the first place! And I'm certain that others feel the same way.

Yup ...I think it makes sense that the top end be sparser in the game world too (ecology!?) . Then people go.. but but but the DMG doesnt recommend a change in the encounter profiles as they progress in to higher levels, sigh.

You keep coming back to this idea, so I'll say it again: these kind of logistics have no place in D&D, nor have they ever had. PCs manage to find appropriately leveled foes, regardless of ecologies and logistics. Why, because they're heroes blessed by fate and luck. And because they're the lucky pawns of these things called 'players' who expect to be challenged at a roughly unchanging level. Take your pick.

The fact that there are less printed high level monsters isn't any kind of subtle innuendo from the designers; it's not some kind of clue that they have no regard for the level-based structure that game is built on. No. It simply means that the monster writers haven't gotten around to writing a lot of high level monsters yet. It's as simple as that.

 

[Scholar & Brutalman]

I think that when WotC sees a balance problem it tends to nerf with errata but improve with new content. Thus Rain of Steel gets a published errata, but the Wizard at-will - which the designers acknowledge don't have enough control - aren't changed; Wizards just publishes new at-wills and let players use retraining.

I don't think this is much of a problem when they're replacing one item from a category (power or feat) with a strictly better one from the same category that does a similar thing. It's when they tried to fix the math problem by effectively reducing the number of feats each PC gets that it became so annoying.