So, about Expertise...

[Regicide]

What build is that?

Swordmaster DPR: 21st - 168.35 - Burst: Infinite - Wizards Community

 

[grickherder]

You're making an argument that the system is broken because you don't want to play characters with close to the suggested build numbers.

If you're wondering why I haven't been responding in depth to your posts, here's a perfect example. I'm not making that argument. This notion you have in your head that I "don't want to play characters with close to the suggested build numbers" is false.

You accuse me of intellectual dishonesty but then you turn around and try to tell me what I'm saying when I'm not. Try not intentionally misrepresenting what people say some time. Another hint you need apparently.

 

[Drudenfusz]

I see there was a change needed, that characters at high Level can still hit the enemies, but the expertise feats looks like a solution that invents a new problem. For me 4E is about choices, but this feat is no choice, everybody has to take it. Why has WotC not invented Masterwork weapons and implements (which can do the same bonus without robbing choices)? For my campaigns that will be the way I will use (every +2 Enhancement Bonus there will be a +1 to hit).

 

[Smeelbo]

I will play Expertise as written, and see what happens.

Are you honestly suggesting that an errata that applies to nearly every monster (except for those level 1 through 4 basically) is really cleaner? Would new monsters have the errata built or would it use the old math and just have the DM always cut the defenses in all situations.

Yes, that is exactly what some are suggesting:

Proposed Monster Manual Errata:
Tier Gap Penalty: For monsters between levels 5 and 14, reduce all their defenses by 1. This penalty increases to -2 for levels 15-24, and -3 for monsters 25th level or higher.
​

That's it: two sentences, easily remembered, easily applied on the fly, problem solved. Without essentially requiring all characters to take a feat, or for some builds, multiple feats.

An errata to give the PCs a boost to their attack at each level ending in 5 would be another example that would be a lot easier. It's easier to change a character sheet than a monster stat block.

As you say, probably a better choice, although not identical in consequence.

This is so less of an issue in 4th edition than it is in previous editions. In 4e you design encounters for the group.

You may be right. It may be the case that the 1/2 level bonuses to attacks, defenses, and checks is just enough to keep almost all characters in play, as long as they don't make totally stupid choices. After all, a major design goal of 4E is that it be accessable and playable by a broad variety of players, many of whom will not have a solid grasp of probabilities and their consequences.

Please note, I am not saying that some people on this board do not grasp probabilities, but that 4E, in order to accomodate a broader audience, wants to be robust enough to withstand a variety of decision making styles. I can't say whether they've succeeded or not. This argument over Expertise illuminates this question.

3.x definitely had some problems where one character could be so amazing and another so terrible that you couldn't challenge one withou killing the others. With the advent of roles and the inability for a party to function as a bunch of individuals who don't work together, 4e has pretty much solved this problem.

This difference between 4E and 3.X is day and night, and one reason I have been converted to the 4E gospel. However, I don't think it's clear yet that 4E is really as robust as Hasbro claims, and as new powers and combinations enter the game, it will become increasingly untrue.

I can give you lots of examples where I definitely won't be taking expertise at level 1. My assessment of expertise is that I can see myself taking it with most builds by level 15 or level 25. As I've said before, something I take more than half way through a characters advancement cycle is hardly the best thing ever.

Most of my character concepts appear to require 2-3 capability feats, then they want feats that improve what their capabilities do. Since attacking is what most characters do, I see taking Expertise around 6th level. That may be a problem, if it's the first general combat improvement feat that almost everyone takes.

With a 16, a player can take steps to increase their accuracy, like taking a weapon with bonus to proficiency.

I sure hope you're correct, because I am a big fan of flexibility over focus. Many of my initial character concepts involve 16 stats, and I feel that if D&D 4E can't stand 16s, the game is flawed.

Feats aren't really that scarce, but they are scarce enough for people to complain about feat taxes.

I wish I could have a feat every level. I can never have enough feats.

More to the point though. If a player is playing a sub-optimal character because of concept/flavor reasons, they are probably going to be frustrated by being ineffective against monsters, but are unlikely to be frustrated that their suboptimal character is suboptimal compared to an optimized character. If they were actually that upset ... they'd likely be trying to do things to optimize their character and close the gap, etc ... in which case there wouldn't be a problem.

This is why every character I design has two engines: combat and roleplay (mostly skills). I optimize the combat engine well enough to support the roleplay engine, and the result is a balanced, playable character. My combat engine will always select Expertise as soon as practical.

A flat bonus to your At-Will spam attacks, however, isn't something this Feat really needed to do, IMO.

On the contrary, as level rises, combats last more rounds, and at-wills become a larger portion of your damage output. This is a big reason powers that activate on a critical hit become more attractive as level rises.

Like someone wrote on WoTC forums. Make Masterwork Weapons and add them +x to hit (+1 on magic weapn +2, +2 on magic weapon +4, and +3 on magic weapon +6 or so).

Another intriguing option, but probably too much hassle, if, like armor, there are a variety of such materials.

This really bothers me. I'm a business owner so I understand the economic realities but power creep as a sales tool destroys the game. It's really awful if PHB1 classes are made obsolete by future releases. The ability to retrain feats and powers could also be a slightly underhanded way of tempting players to buy splat books and "power up" their existing pc's.

While it bothers me too, I see absolutely no way around it. Even if some of the developers refuse to admit it to themselves, power creep as marketing will continue, unless management takes a strong stand against it, and I deem that unlikely under Hasbro.

I think 4E will eventually follow the Magic Type II model, where older material automatically "ages" out of the system as new material is introduced. That way, the number of character options remains roughly constant, and more importantly, the number of combinations will remain constant. Old power-creep powers and combinations will leave the system, new ones will be introduced, all the while allowing Hasbro to constantly sell new material without breaking the game. It works for Magic, and it will probably work for 4E.

The verbiage "must have" is simply too ambiguous for this forum in this circumstance because it leaves too much room for interpretation.

Exactly. Some strong optimizers argue that Expertise will be almost always taken at 1st level, and if true, I think we'd all agree it's broken. Others, like me, believe it will be almost always be taken around 6th level, and think it may be broken. Still others conclude that Expertise will be effectively mandatory at 16th level, but disagree on how bad this is.

The more intellectually honest question is something like this: if I'm trying to optimize my pc for combat how many feats could I justify taking before this.

I believe the answer is three, including capability feats, such as Quick Draw and Multiclassing, which your character concept may require to work mechanically.

There's a problem with a feat that is better or equal than others in 100% of the possible situations AND it's easier to take (no prereqs) AND it stacks. You can't make any valid argument to support taking nimble blade before this and nimble blade has a pre req and 2 conditions to gain it's benefit. Precise hunter? combat reflexes?

Exactly.

Anyone who compares Weapon Expertise to Nimble Blade can see that balance is out of whack...and Nimble Blade is (or was) considered a 5-star feat for rogues.

Yes, exactly what is the counter argument to that? If there is none, then Expertise is too good.

If we're going to play "imagine this scenario", let me offer a counterexample.

The group of players are going through a published module, and having a difficult time with it. Then, the PHB 2 comes out, and most of the group uses the retraining rules to take Weapon Expertise or Implement Expertise. With this new option, they have an easier time, and feel more useful. Great, right?
However, in the process, one character drops a Skill Training feat, even though it was appropriate for his character. The swordmage still misses too often with his implement powers, because he could only swap out one feat with retraining. The dragonborn misses too often with his Dragon Breath, and has no way of correcting this deficit. Finally, one player feels that retraining is silly, and therefore won't take the feat for his character until a new feat slot becomes available.

In short, while the group is better off from this new feat, there is a disproportionate hardship from taking that feat depending on the character (and the player). Some are sacrificing character conception, some have to pay more for the same value, some have marginalized abilities because there is no balancing feat for them, and one is marginalized because he won't rewrite his character to add in the feat. Suddenly, some people aren't feeling like they're contributing their fair share to the group, through no fault of their own. How is this situation better than simply fixing the core problem, which is the scaling issue?

This is a very good counter-example.

Everything is more homogeneous in 4e so far because we haven't had the power creep and broken combos that inevitably surface once 20 splat books are released. Don't be surprised if this changes. Bloodmage combos already had to be errata'd for instance. You're deceiving yourself that this isn't still a problem.

Which is why, probably 2-3 years from now, older material will start "aging" out of 4E, like older blocks "age" out of Magic.

My proposal for an alternative to expertise is an errata to the encounter design section of the DMG so that it discourages high defense monsters, solo soldier encounters and monsters of 7 levels higher than the party, effectively making it easier for the PCs to hit without the need for spending a feat on it.

That's certainly a clear alternative. I am not sure how viable it is, I don't have enough experience DMing 4E to judge for myself.

it just supports the idea that WotC really didn't understand the implementation of their own game fully when they wrote the final print and released the books.

I'll second that. In my experience, the players of a game devote far more resources to understanding the mechanics of a game and their consequences than the publishers do. Further, non-mechanical considerations, such as deadlines, budgets, and marketing, tend to dominate decision making, as you would expect in a business. Quality is almost never Job #1.

Power gamers are actually the best play testers since they are vastly more likely to search out broken combo's, undercosted, overcosted, etc. This works for CCG players as well.

Hasbro's best work is with CCGs, and they have and will continue to bring that experience to bear upon 4E.

My supposition is that the game was designed to have a 16 ability score in the primary stat (before racial mods).

That this was their intention was immediately clear to me upon my very first reading of the PHB, when I read Generating Ability Scores, Method 1: Standard Array. Currently, my favorite starting array is 16, 16, 12, 12, 10, 8, and I sure hope 16s are playable.

My conclusion about Expertise is that I am going to play it as written, and see what happens. Both of my active characters will take Expertise when they hit 6th level.

Smeelbo

 

[gribble]

Hmmm, somone said something upthread which got me thinking. I think I might see where WotC are going with this.

If we look at the common ability score distributions together with the perceived problems in higher level play, generally they fall into 2 camps: the specialists (18+ in primary ability with weak scores elsewhere), and the generalists (all ability scores "balanced").

The specialists are able to reliably hit higher level opponents, but have a weakness in NADs. The generalists have acceptable NADs, but usually miss high level opponents a lot more.

Looking at the new feats, it seems that expertise is intended to be taken by generalists to "fix" the missing problem, and the new improved defense feats are intended to be taken by specialists to "fix" the low NADs problem.

Unfortunately, the implementation is flawed, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, there's nothing to stop specialists taking expertise or generalists from taking the NAD boosting feats, so it doesn't really fix the problem (or creates a new problem in that optimised characters will be too powerful for the opponents they're supposed to be facing). Secondly, the feats alone are just "too good", compared to other options available. I can't see any character (which isn't intentionally or unwittingly gimping themselves) not taking expertise by 15th level, and also think most characters will find a feat slot for the epic NAD booster (given that a lot of characters already take one of the paragon single NAD boosting feats, it'd be a no-brainer to retrain that for the new and improved epic one). That aside, they all but invalidate a lot of other feats (Combat Reflexes, Nimble Blade, etc), which IMO is terrible design.

Put me in the MW weapons/implements camp. I think that would have been a much better "fix" for any perceived problems.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I don't know any daily that is simply wasted if you miss.

From the PHB:
Astral Whirlwind, Astral Weapon 20
Split The Tree, Ranger 1
Frenzied Skirmish, Ranger 5
Blade Cascade, Ranger 15
Wrath of Acamar, Warlock 19
Prismatic Beams, Wizard 15
Prismatic Spray, Wizard 25

-Hyp.

 

[Fedifensor]

The hilarious thing is that my advocacy for using monsters with lower defenses is effectively the same thing as giving the players a flat bonus. My emphasis on encounter design as the solution is the same as giving a flat bonus because the net effect is the same as far as percentage-to-hit goes.

There are 9 months of publications that you'd have to go back and fix under your solution. All the published modules, LFR modules, issues of Dungeon...your solution is simply not practical. Giving a +1 per tier bonus fixes the issue without that complication.

 

[KarinsDad]

I think the problem being addressed is not really a significant problem.


42 42 37 40 28 Elite Brute Atropal
42 44 38 36 28 Elite Brute Earthrage Battlebriar
42 46 40 40 28 Solo Artillery Ancient Blue Dragon
44 45 42 42 28 Soldier Efreet Karadjin
42 38 41 38 28 Lurker Sorrowsworn Deathlord

43 48 40 45 29 Elite Brute Godforged Colossus
45 45 43 41 29 Solo Controller Runescribed Dracolich

Level 28 PC with +6 melee weapon, 16 starting stat bumped every time, 28th level = 14 + 6 + 7 + 3 = +30

For the most part, this PC needs a 12 (45%) against a same 28th level creature. Sure, the Dracolich at one level higher is 30%, but that is not game breaking considering that the PC has no synergy bonuses yet.

This is without Demigod, this is without an 18 or 20 starting stat, this is without any Prestige class bonus, this is without any other bonuses such as Leadership bonuses, combat advantage, having high level henchmen or NPCs do Aid Another, specialized feats such as Back to the Wall, Charging, ways to re-roll attacks, etc.

The non-weapon PC typically has multiple defenses to choose from. The lowest average defense (~39) also averages a 45% chance to hit (at +27) for the same level creatures. It might take several rounds to figure out a weaker defense, but Epic level fights tend to last longer anyway.

And most of these creatures are Elites or Solos. They are supposed to be harder to hit. Solos especially are behind the action economy 8-ball.

Going to the higher level creatures:

48 48 43 42 30 Solo Soldier Ancient Red Dragon
43 49 38 32 30 Solo Brute Tarrasque

48 51 46 49 33 Solo Brute Orcus

Orcus here is the only one without weaknesses. The others can be hit. Maybe not well vs. one defense, but against other defenses. I don't think that one god-like monster in the MM should be the indicator that Epic level is broken.


I think the problem that the feat is trying to fix is somewhat illusory. Epic PCs should have so many different resources and options that they can make up for 40% range chances to hit.

I also think that DMs can be lured into the concept of throwing monsters 2+ levels higher at the PCs at lower levels and then suddenly realizing that as the range gets narrower at the top, the game changes a bit and requires not so many encounters that are levels tougher than the PCs. DMs might also throw a few lesser foes in with solos more often at lower levels. This probably should not be done at the highest levels. These type of DM habits sound more like the real culprit here.


And, I suspect there are very few players that do not bump their main stat up every time. Maybe their secondary stat might not get bumped to create a more balanced PC, but the balance of the game does require pushing the main stat. There are defense feats to handle the weaker defenses.


Expertise will probably be disallowed in our game.

 

[tiornys]

Put me in the MW weapons/implements camp. I think that would have been a much better "fix" for any perceived problems.

The MW implementation is much better than the Feat implementation, but it's still flawed in a couple of ways when compared to the flat background bonus or reduced monster defenses fixes. The major flaw is that several powers, notably a couple of racial abilities and elemental themed Paragon path powers, don't use weapons or implements. These powers become weaker in a MW world. Less relevantly, many characters have a primary weapon/implement, and a backup weapon/implement for specialized useage. These backups are typically +(X-1) when compared with the primaries, but under the MW system, there will be stages where the backups are effectively +(X-2) because they fall across the MW tier break. I don't like either of these effects, so I'll be going with the flat background fix.

KarinsDad: that's a pretty solid argument against the concept that the math needs fixing, and banning the feat outright is certainly better than allowing it as printed. I'm inclined to think that the system runs better when the background math stays static, an opinion informed by recent experiences in our game, where we just reached level 14 so the math slippage is around -2, but it's worth noting the opposing viewpoint. Do you (or does anyone) have actual experience playing in Epic tier? It'd be nice to have some anecdotal evidence as to how apparent the math discrepency is.

t~

 

[AngryPurpleCyclops]

Yes, that is exactly what some are suggesting:

Proposed Monster Manual Errata:
Tier Gap Penalty: For monsters between levels 5 and 14, reduce all their defenses by 1. This penalty increases to -2 for levels 15-24, and -3 for monsters 25th level or higher.
​

That's it: two sentences, easily remembered, easily applied on the fly, problem solved. Without essentially requiring all characters to take a feat, or for some builds, multiple feats.

That's a lot more complicated than +1 per tier. No calculations, just add it when you make the level. The MW system is flawed for a lot of reasons. We're already putting a lot of pressure on the magic item system to "keep pace" and make sure everyone is getting +X at certain stages but there are going to be lots of exceptions on magic items. The +1 per tier corrects more uniformly and doesn't punish powers without the implement/weapon keywords.

On the contrary, as level rises, combats last more rounds, and at-wills become a larger portion of your damage output. This is a big reason powers that activate on a critical hit become more attractive as level rises.

I'm not sure this is correct. By level 9 a pc has 3 dailies and 4 encounters, not including magic items. This means the PC can reliably fire 5 rounds in nearly every encounter with a more powerful effect. At level 2, you can fire something other than an at will only once per encounter unless you burn your daily. I would say that much more damage comes from encounters and dailies the higher level you get (though at level 21 there is a shift on the graph due to at-wills getting pumped.)

While it bothers me too, I see absolutely no way around it. Even if some of the developers refuse to admit it to themselves, power creep as marketing will continue, unless management takes a strong stand against it, and I deem that unlikely under Hasbro.

I'm sadly forced to agree. I'll just refuse to buy more material at some point (as soon as i see that the original material is becoming obsolete) and cap the campaign there. I like having 20 classes to choose from it makes party builds so much more varied, but only if all 20 classes are viable.

I think 4E will eventually follow the Magic Type II model, where older material automatically "ages" out of the system as new material is introduced.

I think type two was created to level the playing field between the old school players who had the power 9 and those that didn't. The upside was that they could keep moving type II forward to new material so the market was never saturate and people always needed new cards. This kept tournament play economically viable for new players (allowing an expanded market) as they could join at any point and not have to worry about catching up with collections that were massively deeper than theirs.

Others, like me, believe it will be almost always be taken around 6th level, and think it may be broken.

Yup.

That this was their intention was immediately clear to me upon my very first reading of the PHB, when I read Generating Ability Scores, Method 1: Standard Array. Currently, my favorite starting array is 16, 16, 12, 12, 10, 8, and I sure hope 16s are playable.

16's are probably the most common primary stat, then coupled with a race that enhances primary stat for a cheap 18. I prefer, 16, 14, 13, 13, 12, 8, but it's similar and depends on where your second +2 winds up.

I think the problem being addressed is not really a significant problem.

pretty good point, the 10% slide is not totally broken but this fails to address that N+7 monsters are part of the game. when you're 21st level you'll potentially be swinging at 41-44AC with only a +5 weapon, +6 stat, +10 level, +3 prof. +24 vs 42 AC is not promising. Suddenly that +2 is a lot more important.

The red dragon could be on the table for 26th level pc's

The reality of the math is not seen by anecdotally picking a level for the monsters and a level for the pc's. The reality is to read the rules for monster generation. +1 to each defense per level. expressed as X+level pg 184 of the dmg It's right there in black and white. More monsters will come down the road. They will be roughly based upon this model. If you're not getting +1 ATT per level from stats, magic, levels, you're falling behind plain and simple. Since monster hit points are getting larger proportionally as well, hitting 15% less often might add up to a lot more rounds of combat and certainly greater chance of TPK (as well as grindspace issues)

I think the problem that the feat is trying to fix is somewhat illusory. Epic PCs should have so many different resources and options that they can make up for 40% range chances to hit.

A lot of the resources and options they have are already being factored in. More options for what kind of attack and more damage from those attacks, sure, but the attacks still need to hit. yes against the bbeg you need to work to get penalties on him or gain flanking (by definition the solos are suffering from limited actions per turn compared to mobs and more injured by debilitating effects)

I also think that DMs can be lured into the concept of throwing monsters 2+ levels higher at the PCs at lower levels and then suddenly realizing that as the range gets narrower at the top, the game changes a bit and requires not so many encounters that are levels tougher than the PCs. DMs might also throw a few lesser foes in with solos more often at lower levels. This probably should not be done at the highest levels. These type of DM habits sound more like the real culprit here.

This is trying to sweep the math problem under the rug and blame encounter design in it's stead. DnD is a very very stale game if every encounter is X number of level N monsters where X is the party size and N is the party level. One of this designs most elegant features is the encounter design methodology. The ranges of levels both for overall encounter and individual threats coupled with the exp budget is a masterful piece of work. Anyone who has ever designed a game or worked on balancing games, can see the genius in the system. It gives the widest possible range for DM's to be creative and unique with while still preserving balance. This allows for encounters with a lot of texture/flavor/granularity.

Expertise will probably be disallowed in our game.

The designers have basically admitted that there's a gap in their math. The players have known this for a while, you're free to ban anything you like in your game but suggesting the problem isn't real is plainly false.