WotC's hesitation on tackling the feat tax.

[KarinsDad]

At this point, I'm not sure there is any easy way to remove the expertise feats from the game (though I have been having success in my current campaign doing just that). But everything I've seen still tells me that they were put in place to fix a perceived problem that was not actually the issue they thought it was, and they've instead ended up unbalancing the math more than balancing it.

I don't see it that way. I look at the vast plethora of hit points that monsters have at higher levels and see that players need every bonus that they can get to both "to hit" and "damage" in order to whittle down a monster.

The core math should just be balanced first, then riders and other abilities taken into account. Remember, the PCs have a lot more Encounter and Daily powers and abilities at Epic, but so do the monsters.

With the new damage equations, a first level monster does an average of 9 points (level+8) of damage against PCs with 20 to 30 hit points.

That means 2 to 4 successful hits and a PC is down.

29 levels later, most PCs have 4* 29 to 7 * 29 more hit points. Monsters do 38 points of damage (again, level+8). That means that monsters take out PCs in 4 to 6 hits. It takes one additional successful hit per tier for the monsters to take out the PCs at 30th than they did at 1st.

However, this assumes that the monster's chance to hit is identical which it isn't. It's actually better at higher levels, at least for NADs. And it assumes that damage is the only thing that matters which it isn't. Epic level monsters have a lot more riders than 1st level monsters.

Now when we go into the reverse direction, we see a similar thing. Monsters gain 6 to 10 hit points per level depending on role. If it takes 3 successful attacks by a non-striker PC at first level doing 9 points of damage to take out a foe with 27 hit points, it would take 90 points of damage per attack for that same PC to take out a 270 hit point 30th level foe in 3 hits at level 30.

PCs do not acquire 80 extra points of damage in 29 levels. That's gaining just under 3 points of extra damage per level and that doesn't happen. Non-striker PCs might gain about 30 extra points of damage over 29 levels (if that for some classes). So instead of killing the foe in 3 successful hits, it takes 7 (or more) successful hits.

Sure, there are buffs and such in the game system that allow for a better chance to hit, but with the core rules dropping 20% from the to hit, it's really tough to increase the hit chance enough and the damage enough for the PC to take the foe out in 3 hits still if one doesn't include Expertise.

So, the basic damage math of PCs at the higher levels is about a third to a half of what it is at first level, even assuming that the PCs can gain back the -4 to hit. They then need strong damage buffs as well.


The higher level grind issue has not gone away. It's just been mitigated a bit by Expertise and by the fact that increased monster damage means that the DM can throw weaker monsters at the PCs and still challenge them the same as before.

As encounters get longer and longer round-wise because of grind as PCs level up, the monsters have more rounds to throw on more riders (the damage is mostly irrelevant because there are more rounds, but the monsters need more rounds to do the same relative damage, i.e. they are doing a lower percentage of the PCs total hit points per successful hit, 30% to 50% at level one, 15% to 25% at level 30). And this (and the increased number of ways to self heal) is why leaders are needed less for healing as levels go higher, but might be needed more to hand out free saving throws or buffs to saves.

PCs, on the other hand, also require more rounds to take out the monsters as they level up. So, this is only mitigated by the PCs doing more dpr and that means having more strikers in the group. The PCs do not acquire enough extra hit points of damage per level with powers, so they need to do it with strikers (or with controllers that can hit a lot of enemies with a single attack).

The effect is gradual. But even in our mid-Paragon campaign (and having a lot of strikers in our group), we have dropped from 4 encounters per 5 hour session at low heroic down to 2 encounters per session at mid-Paragon. The monster total hit point math is what it is and no number of extra powers are going to change that unless the PCs do a ton more extra damage to permanently take out foes. An extra die of damage for an Encounter power or two extra dice for a Daily don't make up for the sheer number of extra monster hit points.

 

[keterys]

As encounters get longer and longer round-wise because of grind as PCs level up, the monsters have more rounds to throw on more riders

Anecdotal data... that is not my personal experience. Combats actually shorten by a round or two.

For example, at level 22 and 23 it's exceptional for fights to take longer than three rounds.

 

[keterys]

Also, my level 23 fighter in LFR does something like 60 damage at-will... 2d12 + (8 Str + 7 Wis (Son of Mercy) + 7 Wis (Marked Fury) + 7 Wis (Slashing Storm) + 4 Item + 5 Dragonshard (Radiant) + 5 Enhancement + 3 Feat, sometimes +6 Power). And he generally does two attacks, one way or another (3 encounter powers, 2 are double attacks though not all of that applies every attack, one is a burst 4). ~100 damage is a pretty normal round vs monsters with ~220 hp, and compares well enough to the 10 damage vs monsters with 26 hp I ran into at level 1.

Running L23, I got crit for 160 last weekend, and the warlord tends to wield the thief for around 80 damage. It all sure adds up something fierce.

Course, another group I'm running for does more like 100 crit and 50 normal. Solid 50% damage difference between the two groups, and boy is it notable.

 

[MrMyth]

I don't see it that way. I look at the vast plethora of hit points that monsters have at higher levels and see that players need every bonus that they can get to both "to hit" and "damage" in order to whittle down a monster.

The core math should just be balanced first, then riders and other abilities taken into account. Remember, the PCs have a lot more Encounter and Daily powers and abilities at Epic, but so do the monsters.

I wish I had time to really run the numbers here, but one thing I do want to point out: At higher levels, monsters do end up with more powers (and more potent powers), just as players do. But, generally, not to the same degree.

Only the most unique solos tend to have anything close to the arsenal a PC brings to bear. Even at epic, monsters might have a few At-Wills, perhaps 2 encounters/recharge powers, 1 or 2 utilities, and no dailies. They do scale, but in this department, PCs scale much, much better.

On the other point, the monster hp issue is a relevant one. But it is also isn't what Expertise addresses. The goal for Expertise is to keep 'to hit' bonus in-line - instead, PCs end up hitting much more often, since they combine Expertise with many other options gained over the levels.

Your argument here is that PCs hitting more often was actually the goal all along, since they need to keep up with monster hp. I'd say, instead, that the proper answer would be to ditch the Expertise feats entirely, and instead focus on monster hp if that is the real issue.

Which, honestly, I'm not sure it is. Not based on the capabilities I've seen from high-level PCs. (And I know that statement merits more backing up, but unfortunately I have to run, so I'll leave it at that for now.)

 

[Tony Vargas]

The variety of hit bonuses (especially from leaders like a Battle Captain, Battlelord of Kord, Warchanter, or Battle Engineer, or certain very specific psionic builds) can easily negate the gap... but also means that groups without those are at a major disadvantage compared to those who do.

I'm not sure about PH2+ leaders (who came out with/after the Expertise fix), but the PH1 leaders could mostly give out pretty substantial attack bonuses - the one clear exception, the Devoted Cleric, was such a strong secondary controller that he'd likely have a comparable, if less direct, impact at higher level.

Of course, the Devoted 'Templar's secondary control was nerfed like crazy, so I guess, with Expertise assumed, it wasn't needed (or became broken) at high level...

 

[keterys]

About half the leaders can pull it off, and about half can't.

And even of those who can, they mostly do it for a single round - leading to a crazy nova round, and suboptimal standard rounds.

It's all pretty messy.

 

[KarinsDad]

Anecdotal data... that is not my personal experience. Combats actually shorten by a round or two.

Agreed. Anecdotal. It really depends on what options are allowed, how optimized the PCs are, how good the DM is at challenging his players, and how tactical the players are. I play with a group of players who don't always focus fire. So, some encounters sometimes stretch out longer and the group uses up more resources.

Also, my level 23 fighter in LFR does something like 60 damage at-will... 2d12 + (8 Str + 7 Wis (Son of Mercy) + 7 Wis (Marked Fury) + 7 Wis (Slashing Storm) + 4 Item + 5 Dragonshard (Radiant) + 5 Enhancement + 3 Feat, sometimes +6 Power). And he generally does two attacks, one way or another (3 encounter powers, 2 are double attacks though not all of that applies every attack, one is a burst 4). ~100 damage is a pretty normal round vs monsters with ~220 hp, and compares well enough to the 10 damage vs monsters with 26 hp I ran into at level 1.

Yeah, I was actually thinking implement user when I wrote that.

Melee PCs have a lot of damage boost options, especially feats and items.

Marked Fury??? I'm not sure how that applies. Maybe you're thinking of something else.

Slashing Storm is conditional. DMs should use movement powers by Epic to avoid this type of thing. In fact, DMs should have the intelligent Epic level foes avoid defenders whenever possible by Epic. Attack strikers first, leaders second (first if detected), controllers third, defenders fourth.

Son of Mercy can be avoided with the proper monster abilities (teleport, fly, etc., most DMs should go out of their way to avoid mark damage working all of the time and the vulnerable foe should attack a different PC).

Those 3 are 21 or one third of your PC's points of damage, so yeah, if the DM allows them to constantly occur, then yes, your PC can do this a lot. Personally, I think that defenders should quite often be immobilized or locked down other ways by the time they get to Epic (your PC should be slid away from his foes on occasion, etc.) so that NPCs can focus on more squishy PCs.

Epic riders should really challenge PCs. One of blinded, stunned, immobilized, restrained, or weakened should show up most encounters, just to challenge players. Without those, the players mostly control the battlefield and the encounters are less challenging and faster to go through (abet still a lot of hit points to slog through). The PCs have schticks that they use every encounter, monsters should do the same (with the exception of healing which should be rare for monsters). Slugging it out with PCs where the monsters don't have cool riders results in the party winning without breaking a sweat.

But you have to admit that with throwing in 3 * Wis damage into most every attack, your PC is optimized quite a bit more than the average Fighter. A lot of Fighters would be doing <40 (no paragon path damage boost, no super high wisdom applied multiple times, no dragonshard).

Yes, it's possible to get up into those levels of damage, but it takes very specific builds to do so. Builds that very knowledgeable players such as yourself can manage, but many other more casual players cannot achieve without someone showing them how. And, a lot of it depends on which items DMs hand out.

In fact, there are campaigns out there that do not allow all possible gaming sources and your PC wouldn't be possible. So yes, you managed it, but many other players would be doing a lot less damage with their PCs and hence, the grind is still there for many tables. And the grind is based on the basic core of the design whereas your more heavily optimized PC is based on you being vastly better at putting together a PC than most.

Course, another group I'm running for does more like 100 crit and 50 normal. Solid 50% damage difference between the two groups, and boy is it notable.

This. I know of quite a few players whose PCs are more average. And those games tend to be a bit more grindy with longer encounters as the PCs gain levels because without the PC design tricks, those PCs are only increasing damage by one per level more or less.