WotC's hesitation on tackling the feat tax.

[Nemesis Destiny]

For what it's worth, it's interesting to note that there is another fix that would have solved this issue. It's the concept of stat-boosing items granting an inherent bonus to your prime attack stat, like those from previous editions.

At each tier, items would become available that grant +2 inherent bonuses to a stat. If these become assumed, suddenly the bonuses you get from your feat taxes become unnecessary.

Rumour has it that these were something that got dropped at some point in the playtesting cycle, but too late to readjust the math. Or maybe they decided that these were unnecessary. Who knows.

In any case, it is easy enough to put them back in, if you like. It would work well for those games where you want to ban expertise, but still want to have the math "add up" or whatever. It would be particularly helpful in groups with mixed levels of optimization, since everyone would get one, presumably as a personal reward for doing backstory quests.

I'm heavily considering playtesting this as a "fix" next time.

 

[Grydan]

For what it's worth, it's interesting to note that there is another fix that would have solved this issue. It's the concept of stat-boosing items granting an inherent bonus to your prime attack stat, like those from previous editions.

At each tier, items would become available that grant +2 inherent bonuses to a stat. If these become assumed, suddenly the bonuses you get from your feat taxes become unnecessary.

Rumour has it that these were something that got dropped at some point in the playtesting cycle, but too late to readjust the math. Or maybe they decided that these were unnecessary. Who knows.

In any case, it is easy enough to put them back in, if you like. It would work well for those games where you want to ban expertise, but still want to have the math "add up" or whatever. It would be particularly helpful in groups with mixed levels of optimization, since everyone would get one, presumably as a personal reward for doing backstory quests.

I'm heavily considering playtesting this as a "fix" next time.

I'm not sure that would actually fix anything.

If the items become assumed, then why are they items, and not just a built in ability bonus?

Why make them ability bonuses, which impact attack, defence, damage, hp, surges, skills and feat prerequisites, when the problem (if one accepts there is a problem) is only with attacks and defences? Why not just direct bonuses to attack and defence?

Also, adding in such items without removing access to expertise & defence boosting feats would actually make those feats better. Instead of using them to catch up to the curve, optimizers would use them to get ahead of it.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I'm not sure that would actually fix anything.

If the items become assumed, then why are they items, and not just a built in ability bonus?

Maybe that's why these never made it to the final game? I don't have the answers, just a rumour.

Why make them ability bonuses, which impact attack, defence, damage, hp, surges, and feat prerequisites, when the problem (if one accepts there is a problem) is only with attacks and defences? Why not just direct bonuses to attack and defence?

*shrug* It only affects hp and surges if Con happens to be your attack stat, or your DM is feeling particularly generous. Feat prerequisites would have been (and still are) easy to change if you were to implement these.

Also, adding in such items without removing access to expertise & defence boosting feats would actually make those feats better. Instead of using them to catch up to the curve, optimizers would use them to get ahead of it.

That is why I said "it would work well if you want to ban expertise..."

I know how it would interact with the rest of the rules. If you use this "fix" you don't use expertise. Simple.

Besides, if these rumoured items existed, they did so long before expertise was ever a part of the game, and so it was not an issue. Re-introducing them now, obviously, you would have to exclude some things. Running two compatible fixes at the same time would be ridiculous and not at all what I was suggesting. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

The idea still works in games of mixed optimization, even with those feats. The idea is that the DM could drop these items for the players who were struggling more, and who would not take an expertise feat. There are lots of players like this. To prevent abuse, DMs could simply disallow players with these items taking the expertise feats. Heavy handed, but fair.

And flavour-wise, the items need not even take up a slot - they could work like the old stat/level-boost books from 2nd edition; read em once, get the bonuses, and they disappear.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

For what it's worth, it's interesting to note that there is another fix that would have solved this issue. It's the concept of stat-boosing items granting an inherent bonus to your prime attack stat, like those from previous editions.

At each tier, items would become available that grant +2 inherent bonuses to a stat. If these become assumed, suddenly the bonuses you get from your feat taxes become unnecessary.

Rumour has it that these were something that got dropped at some point in the playtesting cycle, but too late to readjust the math. Or maybe they decided that these were unnecessary. Who knows.

In any case, it is easy enough to put them back in, if you like. It would work well for those games where you want to ban expertise, but still want to have the math "add up" or whatever. It would be particularly helpful in groups with mixed levels of optimization, since everyone would get one, presumably as a personal reward for doing backstory quests.

I'm heavily considering playtesting this as a "fix" next time.

Yeah, that's an interesting idea. Ban expertise and go with these fixers. You could use things like the new chain shirt in MME to deal with defenses, and sprinkle in a few +1/2/3 to this or that NAD items too, then get rid of at least some of the defense feats. They could still exist, maybe with a tweak or two, their other benefits are interesting but not overwhelming.

@KD YES, there are some wonderful powers out there, but there were always wonderful powers out there. Some of the ones that were doing the heavy lifting back in the day have been nerfed somewhat, but the options are not as much more impressive now than they were 2 years ago. Some classes have gotten better, a few have kind of languished (sorcerers come to mind). Still, you were awesome at 16th level before and still are now.

AND remember, your 16th level PCs had BETTER be good. Here's an interesting tough encounter for you 4 Elder Blizzard Dragons, in the middle of a snowstorm. Yes, you will NEED that Cloak of Courage! That's only a level 19 encounter. It should be tough but of course you will handle it, and trust me there is going to be plenty of surges going off, lol.

Nobody said E-martial characters aren't EASIER TO PLAY, some of them (some aren't, like the knight, which at level 16 is going to have trouble being effective). Consider the above encounter where the enemy is going to be sliding PCs all over the place like no tomorrow. The knight isn't going to be doing a lot. You'd be FAR better off with a grappling fighter for instance. A slayer with a nice bow will be doing OK, but wow are those Chill Rebukes going to hurt the melee guys.

3 years of playing hasn't shown me that PCs have ramped up, it has just shown me that I can now whop on them right back. Even an at-level encounter I can guarantee I'm going to be burning your surges. Maybe you don't have a nasty enough DM, lol

 

[Grydan]

That is why I said "it would work well if you want to ban expertise..."

My apologies, I missed that when I read your post.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

My apologies, I missed that when I read your post.

No worries, friend.

 

[Pentius]

For what it's worth, it's interesting to note that there is another fix that would have solved this issue. It's the concept of stat-boosing items granting an inherent bonus to your prime attack stat, like those from previous editions.

At each tier, items would become available that grant +2 inherent bonuses to a stat. If these become assumed, suddenly the bonuses you get from your feat taxes become unnecessary.

Rumour has it that these were something that got dropped at some point in the playtesting cycle, but too late to readjust the math. Or maybe they decided that these were unnecessary. Who knows.

In any case, it is easy enough to put them back in, if you like. It would work well for those games where you want to ban expertise, but still want to have the math "add up" or whatever. It would be particularly helpful in groups with mixed levels of optimization, since everyone would get one, presumably as a personal reward for doing backstory quests.

I'm heavily considering playtesting this as a "fix" next time.

Mathwise, it works, though you have to increase treasure parcels a bit to get them. The main reason I wouldn't use it is that it increases PC reliance on magic items even more. One thing the designers were trying to prune down was the "Christmas Tree" effect, which I agree with.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Mathwise, it works, though you have to increase treasure parcels a bit to get them. The main reason I wouldn't use it is that it increases PC reliance on magic items even more. One thing the designers were trying to prune down was the "Christmas Tree" effect, which I agree with.

I agree with that philosophy as well, but if you make these like the old "read and they disappear" books, or boons, then it matters less. It just becomes part of the character, integrated and inseparable with no extra book-keeping required.

 

[KarinsDad]

I think most of the math holes come from those that cant play unless fully optimized.

I think the math disagrees with this statement.

Say that I take a 30th level implement user. +4 for 18 starting stat, +15 for levels, +4 for ability score gains, and +6 for magic. Although starting out with a solid 18 and bumping ability score every level, this PC is not optimized significantly.

This PC at level 30, shy of other abilities, is +29 to hit against same level foes with NAD defenses of 42. He needs a 13 to hit same level foes and a 17 to hit foes 4 levels highers. Sometimes a little more (until he figures out the lowest NAD of the monster), sometimes a little less.

His chances of hitting are generally 40% or less. This tends to be the low end for optimization for PCs with regard to chance to hit.

Now, take a melee PC that grabs every +1 he can find. +5 for 20 starting stat, +15 for levels, +4 for ability score gains, +1 for weapon talent, +1 for Paragon Path, +1 to +3 for charging (class dependent), +1 for ability score at Epic Destiny, +3 for Expertise, and +6 for magic.

+37 to +39 without a single buff against same level foe AC of 44. He needs a 5 through 7 to hit. 80% or 70% or less before any buffs.

This PC does nearly twice the damage of the non-optimized PC (with equal damage per hit) because he hits nearly twice as often. This means that a given foe will fall in just over half of the time.

The implement PC that is not really optimized hits about 2 rounds in 5 against easy same level foes. With 30th level monsters having 200 to 340 hit points, it would take this PC (~30 damage) about 7 to 11 hits or 17 to 27 rounds (22 rounds on average) to take out his foe by himself (assuming that he is not a Striker).

How do I get 30 damage? For an At Will, it is (basically) 2D6 plus Ability Score (+8) plus Magic (+6) or 21 points for implement users. Assuming that the PC has both other ways to boost damage and has Encounter and Daily powers, he might average 30.

Even if he averages more damage, it doesn't matter. 30=22 rounds, 40=17 rounds, 50=14 rounds. There's no way that a non-striking 30th level PC can boost his average damage to 50 without some serious optimization.

But the player's problem isn't the average damage on a successful hit. It's that he rarely hits. He is totally dependent on buffs to get to a decent chance of hitting every round. And forget about taking out a foe that's 4 levels higher. That would take a really long time.

On the other hand, a 30th level implement user without the math fix defenses is losing NAD defense as fast as he is losing to hit. A 30th level foe averages 38 points of damage. A 30th level implement user might have about 140 to 170 hit points. It only takes 4 to 5 hits for the same level monster to take him out hitting a decent NAD, but the monster has a 60% or better chance to hit. He can take the PC out in 6 to 9 rounds. Hitting the PC's low NAD will often result in a 95% chance to hit and he takes the PC out in 4 to 5 rounds.

Granted, there are a lot of variables such as various defenses, special abilities, buffs, heals, etc. But when one is comparing taking out a PC straight up in 6 to 9 rounds versus the PC taking 22 rounds to take out a same level monster, even with the vast plethora of other abilities, the monsters have a major mathematical edge.


Non-optimized PCs without to hits and defenses that get them back competitively with the monsters are looking at the math holes in the face. It's not about being a min/maxer, it's about getting back close to parity.

Sure, the good NADs fall by 4 points in 29 levels, but the bad NADS fall by 8 points in 29 levels where the monster needed to roll a 7 to hit the bad NAD in the first place. Every bad NAD hit at 30th level has a 95% chance to hit unless the PC has some serious powers to stop that.

On top of that, it gets boring to only hit one round in every three, and it gets frustrating to get hit nearly every round.

 

[keterys]

Instead of adding more to stats, inherent or otherwise, I think the whole system would work a lot better if you never added to ability scores at all.

There's a _pile_ of abilities that end up positively stupid at paragon-epic because they're based on a stat. Even at low levels, it can get a bit much. A d20 only has so much random, and it's pretty easy to force things off the die.