So, about Expertise...

[Smeelbo]

Does the teir gap actually even exist?

I've several times gotten the impression that WotC designs and tests for normal games, rather than "I am trying to break the game" games.

Maybe they just don't have enough people of the right temperament, or they're too goodhearted (gullible)

There are several disincentives against playtesting.

• Good playtesting requires adherence to a design methodology.
• This in turn requires skilled and disciplined management.
• Once a lax development culture is in place, it is in the participants' self interest to maintain the status quo.
• Broken powers and combinations have a measurable positive effect on revenue.
• Decades of subpar software development practices have lowered end user/customer expectations to the point where failure to meet design criteria is normal.
• Because of these lowered expectations, improved quality does not yield increased revenue.

So most developers, whether pen and paper or software do the minimal possible testing, as having better processes increases up front costs, and has a negative impact on revenues.

Unless the number of broken combinations rises above a certain threshold, it is better to errata after the revenue has been booked, than to catch that combination in advance.

"The fix is in the mail."

Back to the original subject, after DMing the PHB2 WW Game Day Adventure, I am less convinced that the supposed tier gap really exists, even prior to Expertise. The main argument against the gap is that as player level rises, tactics are expected to make up the apparent attack deficit.

The counter argument is that tactics or synergies are first, roughly constant over level, so effectively the same tactics are available at heroic as at epic, and second, comparable tactics and synergies are available to the monsters, and third, to the extent that more tactics and synergies become available as level rises, they become equally available to both monsters and players.

I don't think this is really so.

Clearly, higher level characters have more powers, and therefore potentially more tactics and synergies available to them. The number of abilities a character can expect to have available by level is approximately:

Level/Abilities (including racial, class, and items)
1/8
6/15
11/26
16/33
21/38
26/42
30/48

Which is a considerable number of powers for the player to choose from.

In constrast, monsters have vastly smaller numbers of available powers, roughly 2-3 powers per tier, at most. Further, while parties are extremely diverse, with no duplicate members and few identical abililities, there are almost always fewer distinct monster types in an encounter than player characters, and parties mostly do not face groups of monsters that greatly outnumber them.

So on a given round, the players might have approximately between 10 to 50 options per character, or between 10^5th and 3x10^8th permutations of options, while the monsters have more like between 10 and 3x10^3 permuations of options.

It is this power of permutations wherein the great power of the player character arises. Some of those permutations yield very great advantage, and the players have orders of magnitude more options than the monsters.

Indeed, I can safely predict that what will break 4E in the not-so-long-run will be ability of players to apply powerful combinations faster than the publisher's ability to errata. The awful gap that arose in 3.X may take somewhat longer to raise its ugly head in 4E, and it may be possible to beat it down longer, but as long as new material is published, the permutive hydra will grow new heads faster than exponentially.

Consider the cheesy goodness that is the character optimization forum. They will continue to discover nastier cheese that becomes harder and harder to fix. The power of the group is in the combination of its powers, and not so much to be found in the individual powers themselves.

But you still have to hit!

Aid another.

Expertise seems more and more to me like a weak fix to a problem that never existed in the first place.

Smeelbo

 

[KarinsDad]

But you still have to hit!

Aid another.

Expertise seems more and more to me like a weak fix to a problem that never existed in the first place.

Your post here is similar to what I might have written a month ago (even with regard to the software industry). Even looking at the math, I was convinced (like you are) that synergy bonuses and additional number of powers made up the difference.

But after running a mock up 22nd level hard encounter where the BBEG needed a 4 to hit most of the time and the PCs needed a 16 or 17 to hit, I no longer believe that.

The PCs will still survive. The extra number of powers will allow the PCs to survive. For a standard encounter, the difference is that instead of 8 rounds at 60% chance to hit, it becomes 12 rounds at 40% chance to hit. Throw in some synergies and bump that up to 50% chance to hit, ok. 10 rounds (if the +2 synergies last the entire encounter).

For a hard encounter, the difference is that instead of 12 rounds at 40% chance to hit, it becomes 24 rounds at 20% chance to hit.

No doubt about it. The players will have more options. The issue is that those options do not last the entire encounter and some of those options do not occur as frequently.

Take something as simple as Lance of Faith.

At low level, if the Cleric hits 50% of the time, Lance of Faith helps one round in two when used.

At high level, if the Cleric hits 35% of the time, Lance of Faith only helps one round in three when used, not one in two.

In order to even stay even with the Lance of Faith synergy bonus over the lifetime of an encounter, someone else has to give the Cleric a different +3 synergy bonus over the lifetime of the encounter.

It's actually the equivalent of a synergy death spiral. Because the chance to hit is less, the chance to gain certain types of synergies is less.


It's great that the dynamic synergy bonuses (i.e. ones based on an ability score modifier) increase. +6 to hit for the next attack at high level instead of +3 to hit at low level. The problem is, the odds of giving that bonus are less and the actual gain is the same.

Fighter has 60% chance to hit at low level. Warlord gives him +3. His chance goes to 75%.

Fighter has 45% chance to hit at high level. Warlord gives him +6. His chance goes to 75%.

If the Warlock's power does not require an attack roll, there is no difference. If it does require an attack roll, the Fighter's chances go down.

 

[keterys]

There are a few things - like TacLord and paragon path AP multi attack novas - that make it difficult to see the full picture.

I actually think it's a bug more with any ability that provides an ability bonus to hit (lead the attack, taclord AP use, etc) or penalty to defense, or otherwise provides a swing in accuracy of more than about 2.

 

[chaotix42]

There are a TON of bugs, then! The PHB2 is just loaded with various ways to get bonuses to hit. That half-orc epic feat that gives +4 to hit when you crit till the end of your next turn made me tingle.

 

[KarinsDad]

There are a TON of bugs, then! The PHB2 is just loaded with various ways to get bonuses to hit. That half-orc epic feat that gives +4 to hit when you crit till the end of your next turn made me tingle.

Many of these are very specialized and do not occur every round of an encounter. If they do, then a DM will have to review them carefully for his game.

 

[Drudenfusz]

I think the Expertise feats are the worst bug-fix I have ever seen. It ruins player choices (cause other bonuses on attack rolls from feats are weaker), it makes the Warden weaker (cause this class has Powers which are neither Weapon or Implement, like all his level 29 dailies), it makes classes with Weapon and Implement Powers (cause they have to take both feats), it makes spontaneous changes of weapon (find one in an Adventure) a bad choice (cause you fight not as good any more).

 

[Regicide]

But after running a mock up 22nd level hard encounter where the BBEG needed a 4 to hit most of the time and the PCs needed a 16 or 17 to hit, I no longer believe that.

Sounds like a bad test. 44 AC (pit fiend) is the highest I've found for level 26s in the MM, every other one is lower, most much lower and the level 25s lower still.
At 22 you'll have 11 (lvl) + 7 (stat) + 3 (prof) + 5 (magic) + 2 (CA) = +28, or a 16 to hit WITHOUT... feats, racials, bonuses from power and any benefits of the other party members (aside from flanking). A party should have an easy time getting those to-hits under a 10 and thats on the absolute hardest fight 4 levels above them.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Why I do not see the problem...Well to put it blunt no one who doesn't do the math sees it in play (and by no one I mean not a noticeable %, you would think here, WotC and RPGnet would be full of “My epic character can’t hit” threads) because as powers and items scale PCs have more options. You see at level 30 you have 3 magic item uses +1 per milestone (2 more then 1st level) you also have 16 more feats specializing you, a bunch of magic items, more powers that have better effects (other then damage that also scales) and you have more healing.

The numbers only take +x to hit Vs Y Ac into account, the wizard powers that do things on miss and hit the whole dang board are not calculated, or the cool PP powers that do things like auto damage, or bonus to hit, or free movement. Heck fighters have auto damage stances as early as 5th level, there are too many X factors for the math to take into account.

If you really get from level 1-level 25 and then feel like you have somehow gotten worse for having leveled, then please show us your examples.

Now having said that I have seen a small number of characters that can’t hit well (or atleast feel that is the case) all the way at level 1, and stay feeling that way the whole campaign. I will give 3 examples:

A warlord and the DM made us roll for stats, he got 1 15 and 1 13. Other then that they were all 11 or less. He dropped the 15 in Int, and the 13 in Str, and is a genesi He uses an Axe ( a +2 prof) and at first level had +4 to hit. We are now 9th level and he has +10 (+1 weapon). He insistes his 10th level feat will be expertise.

Same player older character. Ranger default array half elf. He started with a 16 dex, a 14 str and a 13 wisdom. He was the Archer who could fall back on two weapons. Because he has a habit of rolling low he chose careful attack and nimble strike. His dilatants was Piercing strike. He had 2 short swords, a throwing Axe, and a long bow. His enchantments were always low (Like he still had a +2 something long bow at 20th level). If we were still playing that game he would take this feat

Different Player Cleric. Human. Wanted to walk the line so he started (after race mod) with a 16 Str and a 16 Wis and 14 charisma. This character is in LFR, so his items are more level appropriate then the other two, but he feels he needs an edge.

I will now give 3 counter examples:

Same player as the first two. Eladrin war wizard, he specializes in large AOE. He has multi implements each with different cool powers. He started with a 20 Int, and his 11th level feat is already set to be second imp master. ( we are now at level 6). He never feels he has prolems hitting, and infact he has both a +2 wand and a +2 orb already. He has too many feats he wants, he will probably never even look at expertise.

Same player as the 3rd one up top, same game as the one right above here. Level 6 Drow Rouge. Artful Dodger. He uses daggers, and he often explains that he has at least 3 different ways to call combat advantage each round, he very often is quieted as “I need a 4 or better to hit”

My warlord. I started with a 16 Str, and have a long sword. I have not hit every attack, although I have never found him to have major issues. I ran him from level 2 to level 27. This was befor PHB2 was previewed, and I had no issue hitting, or feeling useful. The only time I remember prolems was with elite or solo soldiers of our level +3 or more

 

[KarinsDad]

Sounds like a bad test. 44 AC (pit fiend) is the highest I've found for level 26s in the MM, every other one is lower, most much lower and the level 25s lower still.
At 22 you'll have 11 (lvl) + 7 (stat) + 3 (prof) + 5 (magic) + 2 (CA) = +28, or a 16 to hit WITHOUT... feats, racials, bonuses from power and any benefits of the other party members (aside from flanking). A party should have an easy time getting those to-hits under a 10 and thats on the absolute hardest fight 4 levels above them.

It was a fine test. It was a hard encounter test.

CA does not apply. It is not guaranteed, especially at higher levels.

11 (lvl) + 7 (stat) + 3 (prof) + 5 (magic) = +26

Also, not all 22nd level PCs have a +5 magic weapon or implement. When playing the game, some PCs might have a +4 item at level 22. And, not all weapons are +3 proficiency. So the to hit range for PCs is +24 to +26.

So here we have a situation that is considered a typical hard encounter with PCs needing an 18, 19, or 20 to hit without other situational bonuses.

The ACs in the MM for level 26 opponents are: AC 41, 44, 43, 42, 42, 42, 40, 40

This is an average of ~42 with a to hit range of +24 to +26. The required number on the die ranges from 16 to 18 (15 to 17 for a Fighter).


And this is at level 22. The problem is worse at level 30.


To illustrate your "a party should have an easy time getting those to-hits under a 10" claim, you would have to state exactly which bonuses that you are talking about. "Under 10" is 7 to 9 below 16 to 18. And the bonuses that are available should be available most rounds of combat. Sure, some paragon paths have a +1 to hit. But there are few other bonuses that really last an entire encounter. As an example, if a Cleric has a 20% chance to hit with Lance of Faith and does not hit, the +2 is not available that round. The +2 bonus is worth considerably less than a +0.4 bonus equivalent because it only works 1 round in 5 and LoF would not even be used every round.

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

The worst thing about this feat is that it penalizes players who aren't into math. Our boy Noob McRoleplay, who doesn't understand why attack bonus is important so he plays an eladrin starlock with a 15 in both Con and Ch, might skip this feat because it's boring. But his fellow player Minmax McMunchkin, who is a halfling rogue with Dex 20 and rogue weapon talent (daggers) and who basically sneak attacks constantly, is going to snatch up this feat very early on. This makes the power-gap between the two characters even worse. This is the epitome of imbalance.

Fortunately this particular feat is not the end of the world (there are numerous ways to easily fix this imbalance) but it represents to me the sort of broken rule that I was hoping 4e would be moving away from.

-- 77IM

How about restricting the feat to characters that have less than 17 in their primary attribute (in heroic, maybe less than 20 in paragon and less than 22 in epic)?

That way, we can give this feat to the odd build with MAD so that they are not left behind?