"Math glitch" -- explanation or pointer?

[KarinsDad]

I previously thought that Epic-tier handled this growing gap between PC attack and critter defenses through the increasing bonuses granted by Leaders and utility powers.

For example: a 1st level strength-based Cleric's at-will grants one ally a +4 bonus to attack. Same Cleric, at 30th level, could to be granting a +9 bonus with the same power. So the fact that all 30th level PC attacks were at -3 relative to 1st level target number could have been compensated by the difference between +4 and +9.

However, such scaling attack bonuses may have been the exception, not the rule: new Leaders seem to give more static attack bonuses.

The Expertise line of feats is an admission that my thinking wasn't what WotC was working towards at all.

And the fact that the +9 to hit typically doesn't occur until the Cleric runs out of most Encounter attack powers, and when the Cleric uses that power, he has a 40% chance to hit in order to give out the +45%. That will only help 2 rounds out of 5.

And the fact that many Epic monsters have buffs and/or debuffs, just like PCs do.

 

[KarinsDad]

IMO: masterwork is a math fix. Without MW armors (or an equivalent scaling bonus that only applies to heavy-armor wearers) you have to either dump having ability bonuses add to the AC of light-armor wearers, or dump scaling ability scores.

Masterwork armor is not a math fix. It's the original math.

The masterwork changes in AV and PHBII were math fixes for certain levels of magical heavy armor, but masterwork itself was part of the original equations and not fixes.

 

[keterys]

Well, there's two aspects to masterwork here.

1) Masterwork AC bonuses give heavy armor more to keep up with ability score boosts. This was in the PHB, albeit done more elegantly later on.
2) Masterwork random bonuses like bonuses to Fort, Reflex, Will... these might be part of the attempt to address falling FRWs. Dunno.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Honestly, all the 'hyperspecialize on one weapon' stuff is really a bad idea, especially when it's eating up so many feats. A character could easily have superior weapon proficiency, weapon focus, weapon expertise, weapon mastery, weapon-specific special paragon thing... and other than that last feat, none of it's really interesting or healthy. Just a lot of feats spent to make problems for handing out treasure, screw up balance when not allowed your primary weapon, penalize those who can't specialize in a weapon, etc.

Yeah and it works as intendet.

If you chose to hyperspecialize, you have to accept your limited choices. As expertise is no feat tax, but a bonus with certain weapons, i don´t feel obliged to give my players the matching weapons all the time. ^^

I believe for a polearm fighter, weapon expertise or weapon proficiency greatspear might be options. But he must accept to put more roleplaying effort into getting his new polearm.
I also believe planning a character from lvl 1 to lvl 20 is a bad idea. I have yet to see a player who began at lvl 1 to follow his would be build

 

[KarinsDad]

2) Masterwork random bonuses like bonuses to Fort, Reflex, Will... these might be part of the attempt to address falling FRWs. Dunno.

I at first thought so as well, but if so, they are mostly boosting the best NAD anyway. Especially considering the timeframe for when AV was published.

Cloth and chainmail armor bonus to Will. PCs in cloth and chainmail typically already have the best Will defenses.

Leather armor bonus to Reflex. PCs in leather typically already have the best Reflex defenses.

The Hide armor boost to Fort is kind of a middle of the road. Melee Rangers and Barbarians and a few others already have good Forts, but many other classes that eventually get Hide might not. Ditto for Scale armor.

There are a few exceptions to this now that more recent books have come out, but this mostly holds true.


All in all, this didn't seem like the best way to put in any math fixes to NADs.

 

[keterys]

Yeah and it works as intendet.

You think it's intended that casters who can't use a weapon as an implement are worse off than those who can? Or that most of a character's heroic tier feats may be prechosen for them?

If you chose to hyperspecialize, you have to accept your limited choices. As expertise is no feat tax, but a bonus with certain weapons, i don´t feel obliged to give my players the matching weapons all the time. ^^

And they just get transfer enchantment. Or make their own. Or give what they find in the party to those who can use it first, then work things from there. Or you're intentionally denying them treasure to make up for inadequacies in the feat system, which is also not a good thing.

I believe for a polearm fighter, weapon expertise or weapon proficiency greatspear might be options. But he must accept to put more roleplaying effort into getting his new polearm.

Why? How is it any different to use a greatspear over a glaive? More, why are you tying mechanical gains to roleplaying effort? And if he chose glaive (not superior) and picked Heavy Blade Opportunity, would he need the same effort?

I also believe planning a character from lvl 1 to lvl 20 is a bad idea. I have yet to see a player who began at lvl 1 to follow his would be build

Yeah, I believe in retraining something every level on general principle myself. Find the powers and feats I enjoy the most that way.

 

[kaomera]

Are people seeing this problem in play?

I've seen a problem as low as 4th level. It's easy to argue that it's not the same problem, because there are many ways to work around it, but if a player isn't stacking all of the bonuses available to them, you can quickly reach a situation where there is a significant disparity within the party. Part of the issue is that "in play" issues are rarely about overall averages, but about spikes. One encounter or session where the character just can't hit is no fun.

The Expertise line of feats is an admission that my thinking wasn't what WotC was working towards at all.

Or maybe they've changed what they are working towards? I think the Expertise feats, in specific, where most likely a result of feedback from the players. And I think the reason they where issued as feats instead of a global change is because some groups where having problems with the math, and others where not. There is no single comprehensive model of player expectations in regards to D&D: if there was (and assuming that WotC had found it), then there would be no need for Pathfinder, and no-one playing classic editions of the game.

 

[Nifft]

Or maybe they've changed what they are working towards? I think the Expertise feats, in specific, where most likely a result of feedback from the players. And I think the reason they where issued as feats instead of a global change is because some groups where having problems with the math, and others where not.

... yet both groups, those who had no trouble hitting and those who do have trouble hitting, now have equal access to Expertise feats.

Since the former are probably better powergamers or better tacticians, they're also more likely to recognize the mechanical superiority of the Expertise feats.

So ... the feat solution is most likely to be used by those who didn't need it, and most likely to be ignored by those who need it most.

I really hope you're wrong, because if you're right, WotC designers did a very dumb thing.

Cheers, -- N

 

[keterys]

Now there's an interesting spin... change expertise to a power bonus so it doesn't stack with many of the ways to catch up.

Penalties to defense still work, of course.

 

[Bayuer]

Not this again. Did everyone forget that WotC employes admited in interview that this feats are "temporary solution" to math problems? They just put it into game to see reaction of fans and now they are thinking about new way o fixing math (sic!)!

Here, listen and stop asking this question over and over again:
The Tome Show » Blog Archive » The Tome Ep 106: 4e One Year Later