D&D 4E What I want from 4E DnD in 3 simple steps.

[Herschel]

I guess Robert J. Schwalb (one of the key contributors to 4E right now) should be considered all of these things:

Math Feats: These feats correct the game’s underlying, shoring up the gaps created when monster defenses and accuracy (which is determined by level) outstrip PC defenses and accuracy (which is determined by half-level). Expertise feats and defenses feats are must-take feats. If every character has to have these feats, why require them at all? Why not build them into the game directly?

First off: He's a contributor. He wasn't one of the game's designers. It's on his personal site, it's not from WotC or any official source. It's no more germain than Claudio or Ari posting opinion on the game design (and I like their stuff) or anyone else, for that matter.

Secondly, it's an opinion piece and thought exercise and speaks about characters in a vacuum. Again, teamwork, leaders, tactics, etc. are more influential and more powerful that the standard expertise feats. It's also VERY myopic in its scope, take this section:

"As a DM, I find it annoying when my monsters can only hit on an 18+, but if the options are available to players, it behooves them to insulate their characters from attacks so who can blame them. Consider the 6th level laser cleric from the PH. An optimized cleric (say a dwarf) should have a 21 Wisdom by this level granting a +5 bonus. Add half the level for another +3. Add +1 from class and the character has a 19 Will. Now add in the neck slot item, which ought to be another +2 to bring us up to 21. Then add Superior Will and we’re at 23. A typical level 6 monster that can attack will has a +9 bonus, so it’s only going to hit the character on a 14 or better."

First: He makes a hyperbolic statement, then goes on to prove his statement was (way) off.

Second: He specifically mentions optimising by buying a post-racial 20 in your primary stat. That's generally a: not overall optimal and carries a large opportunity cost, and b: again myopic. Sure, the Will defense rocks, and daze & stun can be somewhat (again inaccurate hyperbole on his part) mitigated but at a cost to Fortitude, Reflex, HP/surges, possibly AC (though the dwarf will likely be in heavy armor anyway), skill checks, riders, other feat prerequisites, etc.

Third: He mentions optimising characters, something a lot of gamers don't really do, have not needed to do and still survived to tell the tale.

Then his final line sums up again that it's his opinion:
"Ah. Well this is all mental masturbation isn’t it? So rather than talk circles around myself, what do you think about feats? Are they integral to the play experience? Or do you find yourself choosing the same sorts of feats over and over again?"


So again, there is no "proof" to your assertion.

 

[P1NBACK]

So you do think he's a "interweb geek", "selfish, tactically-inept player", and "button masher who just wants 'moar damage'..."

Awesome. Thanks for clarifying that.

 

[Herschel]

No, I think he's just a guy writing an opinion blog that caters to a certain mindset.

It's like the difference between columnists and journalists at a newspaper. Too many people don't understand the difference and some times the writers themselves try to blur the lines of perception.

In other words, were it a newspaper, his "blog" would be an op-ed submission, not a news story.

 

[P1NBACK]

No, I think he's just a guy writing an opinion blog that caters to a certain mindset.

Totally! I get it now.

He's catering to that geeky, selfish, inept, button-mashing mindset.

I dig it. Good call.

 

[Herschel]

In part, yes. The game space should cater to multiple playstyles in order to reach its largest market. That means players who are tactically-challenged, tactically OCD, selfless, selfish, optimisers, casual, "old school", "newbie", flavor junky, munchkin, etc. When writing an opinion piece, the way to get people talking about it is to take a one-sided approach (because, it's an opinion which is one-sided by definition). That's a basic writing "style".

Taking that opinion as fact is the mistake.

 

[Fifth Element]

Designing the game such that some options are clearly superior (or, conversely, such that characters who don't take those options are clearly suboptimal) is a bad idea.

I think the point is that "suboptimal" is a matter of perspective. Having a slightly lower chance to hit is not by itself suboptimal. There's a number of variables involved (ability modifier, proficiency bonus, other bonuses to hit) just for the attack roll, so assuming that a character without an expertise feat is necessarily suboptimal is not correct as I see it.

 

[kaomera]

This is flat out WRONG. Expertise feats are in no way mandatory unless you're too emotionally fragile to have a character that isn't "optimal". It's been proven time and again the game works fine without them but they are a nice option if you start a weapon user with a 16 strength and +2 proficiency weapon, for example. They're nice feats, but can easily be bumped in favor of flavor and the game keeps right on ticking.

In practice I've found this not to be entirely true - I wish it was and I have argued (and will continue to argue) that the "math fix" was not actually absolutely needed (but the customers that WotC was responding to felt it was, so that's kind of a moot point), that expertise feats etc. did not actually address the actual problem at hand, and that the mathematical disparity across 30 levels of play could just as easily be of some benefit as it could be a flaw. However, in a very real practical sense in the games that I have actually experienced, it's not an issue of if a given character will take an expertise feat and at least one defense-boosting feat (and there are a few others that are nearly in the same category) but when, unless you specifically and deliberately avoid them just for the sake of avoiding them. And I really don't think that last option is any better than taking them.

I would note that this discovery has led me to decide not to implement any kind of "bonus expertise" house-rules in the future. Players are going to take the feats anyway, and they're going to take them because they want them more than anything else. Giving them their "second choice" (or 5th or 6th choice, really) doesn't really improve things, IMO. If a player really wants a feat at 1st level for their character concept, IME, they're going to take it and put off expertise, etc. for a level or two. and IMO it's not going to hurt anything.

 

[Tony Vargas]

This is flat out WRONG. Expertise feats are in no way mandatory ... They're nice feats, but can easily be bumped in favor of flavor and the game keeps right on ticking.
...
The game has been proven to work just fine without them.

I had to trim a lot of mean from two fairly short posts to get the point I wanted to reply to. ;|

There's two distinct points here. One is that the game doesn't /need/ any 'math fix' feats to work. I'm in complete agreement with you on this point. The greater number and breadth of powers high level characters have, and the impact of leaders at higher level easily make up for the lack of a few points of attack bonus. Similarly, the general toughness and back-from-the-dead options of Epic Level characters (and, again, their leaders) make them well able to deal with getting hit a bit more often vs one or two non-AC defenses. Leaving the math 'error' in actuall shakes up the otherwise monotonous 4e treadmill just a bit, making Epic actually feel just slightly different than Herioc (an oft voiced complaint is lack of difference in feel between tiers - maybe if the few differences that did exist weren't being ironed away, that'd be less noticeable?)

The other point is that players don't /have/ to take a feat, just because it has easy or no pre-requisites, and grants them power substantially greater than any other feat. While it's technically true - a player can flex his role-not-roll play egotism and deny his character the best option available out of sheer stubborness - such feats do not represent a balanced choice. While it is true that a 16 stat +2 weapon character would just be brought up to par by Expertise, there's nothing forcing the feat to be aproached with that much restraint, and the 18 stat +3 weapon characters will also likely have it. Heck, if someone is not prioritising attack with stat & weapon choices, it's entirely possible he won't think to do so with feats, either, leaving him 3 points of Attack bonus behind his allies - a quite noticeable difference. In 4e, just about everyone has to roll to hit some time, so it's almost always a priority to hit consistently. It's not like 2e where spells rarely required an attack roll, or 3e, where they might have a very easy 'touch' attack roll. Everyone's in the same boat. (OK, maybe not the the most extreme of the odd leader builds that give away their standard actions to let allies attack.)

 

[delericho]

I think the point is that "suboptimal" is a matter of perspective. Having a slightly lower chance to hit is not by itself suboptimal.

It depends on the trade-off. A slightly lower bonus to hit can be mitigated by a big to damage on a hit, or a significant amount of damage being dealt even on a miss. It is possible that other feat choices are just as good in this regard.

However, if the Character Optimisation boards are fairly unanimous that a character must take a particular feat, this is generally a pretty good (but not absolute) indication that characters without such a feat are suboptimal.

There's a number of variables involved (ability modifier, proficiency bonus, other bonuses to hit) just for the attack roll, so assuming that a character without an expertise feat is necessarily suboptimal is not correct as I see it.

Actually, it is. If a character falls short on any one of those factors (ability modifier, proficiency bonus, other bonuses to hit, expertise feat), then his bonus to the attack roll is going to be less than it otherwise would be - which is suboptimal by definition.

 

[Fifth Element]

It depends on the trade-off. A slightly lower bonus to hit can be mitigated by a big to damage on a hit, or a significant amount of damage being dealt even on a miss. It is possible that other feat choices are just as good in this regard.

But the game has characters with a stat of 16 and a +2 proficiency weapon on the same field as characters with a stat of 18, a +3 proficiency weapon and maybe another +1 from a class feature. If both of these characters can be effective then by no means is an additional +1 bonus a requirement to have an effective character.

If the 16-stat character needs the feat to "keep up", then the 18-stat character doesn't need it at all, since he's still ahead of the other character.

However, if the Character Optimisation boards are fairly unanimous that a character must take a particular feat, this is generally a pretty good (but not absolute) indication that characters without such a feat are suboptimal.

Again, that depends on your definition of suboptimal, and also doesn't consider the effect of being "suboptimal". Technically, a character operating at 99% of maximum numerical effectiveness is "suboptimal", because he's not at 100%. But 1% doesn't matter. 5% probably doesn't matter, unless you're really paying attention.

Actually, it is. If a character falls short on any one of those factors (ability modifier, proficiency bonus, other bonuses to hit, expertise feat), then his bonus to the attack roll is going to be less than it otherwise would be - which is suboptimal by definition.

A suboptimal maximum attack bonus? Sure, that's pretty narrowly defined. But does a character have to have the best possible attack bonus to be "optimal" in an overall sense? Can the resources invested in other things not make up the difference? A character cannot possibly be optimal in all mathematical measures, since you have limited resources to invest in creating a character.

Besides that, the CharOp assumption that the math is all that matters does not aaply to a rather large proportion of 4E players. I'm DMing a group at 17th level at the moment, and not a single character has an expertise feat. They do just fine in combat and have a great time otherwise.