Expertise Feats- Are They Really So Important?

[NeoSeraphi]

So in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=221406), there is a mathematical comparison of a character's ability to hit and defend against CR appropriate enemies (of the same class and WBL) in 4th edition. The chance stays pretty even, close to 50% over all 20 levels.

As I understand it, this was the goal of 4th edition. And yet I've seen it mentioned a few times on this board that the Expertise line of feats (which grant small bonuses to hit) are often given by DMs as bonus feats.

So, I see two possibilities here. One is that people just don't consider 50% to be enough, but they don't consider investing their feats to improve their chances to hit as being worth it, more like the system itself should give more player advantage (which is why everyone receives the same bonus).

The other possibility is that monsters that people are fighting have higher AC than a fighter in the best armor possible (which is highly likely, of course) and so the chance to hit a CR appropriate monster does not stay constantly at 50%.

Having never actually played a 4th edition game, I don't know. So I'm asking. What is the reason for granting Expertise feats as bonus feats?

[Mando Knight]

The math lags behind a bit for players in Paragon and later. In Epic, it adds up to you only having a 35% chance to hit rather than a 50% chance. That's why Expertise is considered by many a feat tax... in Epic it builds up to a +3 to attack rolls, probably the most significant single attack bonus granted by any feat in the game.

In Heroic, it's only a +1 to hit. Most characters can find a better use for a feat slot than a +1 to their attack rolls. By Epic, though, you're probably going to want to take it unless you're out of open feats because you're using a lot of other synergistic choices... though there's enough feat slots available by Epic that it had better be a really good set if you're skipping a +3 to attack rolls.

Sebastrd got his numbers wrong... average monster AC at level 30 is 44. Optimizing for to-hit (starting 20 in attacking stat, +3 proficiency weapon with +6 enchant, Demigod to gain an extra +2 in the attacking stat on top of the +6 from levels) using just stats, like he did, will cap your attack bonus at 33... giving you 50% chance to hit. And that's optimal, before finding other means of boosting your Attack (Combat Advantage, Expertise, playing a Fighter or Rogue, etc.). Meanwhile, they're hitting back with about 35 to hit AC.

[NecroRebel]

That thread you linked explicitly is comparing player attack bonuses to player defenses, which they're never actually supposed to target. Monster defenses are supposed to be equal to their level plus a bonus (which varies depending on the monster type) of around +14 for AC.

So, a level 1 PC has attack bonuses of around +8 and targets defenses of around 15. 70% chance to hit.
L5's bonuses are at +11 vs. 19. 65% chance to hit.
L10: +16 vs. 24. 65%.
L15: +19 vs. 29; 55%.
L20: +24 vs. 34; 55%.
L25: 27 vs. 39; 45%
L30: 32 vs. 44; 45%

As you can see, the chance to hit monsters steadily decreases as you level up. The expertise feats increase the chance to hit from L1-14 by 5%, L15-24 by 10%, and from L25-30 by 15%, keeping it much steadier. It's occasionally debated whether that's necessary or whether the increased number of options compensates for the decreased hit chance without expertise.



Basically, the problem is that monsters are assumed to not be built like PCs and don't have wealth by level in the sense that they do, so it's immaterial that PC attack bonuses and defenses increase at parity because PC attack bonuses and defenses don't increase at parity with the defenses and attack bonuses of things that they actually fight.

[NeoSeraphi]

That thread you linked explicitly is comparing player attack bonuses to player defenses, which they're never actually supposed to target. Monster defenses are supposed to be equal to their level plus a bonus (which varies depending on the monster type) of around +14 for AC.

So, a level 1 PC has attack bonuses of around +8 and targets defenses of around 15. 70% chance to hit.
L5's bonuses are at +11 vs. 19. 65% chance to hit.
L10: +16 vs. 24. 65%.
L15: +19 vs. 29; 55%.
L20: +24 vs. 34; 55%.
L25: 27 vs. 39; 45%
L30: 32 vs. 44; 45%

As you can see, the chance to hit monsters steadily decreases as you level up. The expertise feats increase the chance to hit from L1-14 by 5%, L15-24 by 10%, and from L25-30 by 15%, keeping it much steadier. It's occasionally debated whether that's necessary or whether the increased number of options compensates for the decreased hit chance without expertise.



Basically, the problem is that monsters are assumed to not be built like PCs and don't have wealth by level in the sense that they do, so it's immaterial that PC attack bonuses and defenses increase at parity because PC attack bonuses and defenses don't increase at parity with the defenses and attack bonuses of things that they actually fight.

But a 45% chance to hit is still good, especially with all those strong at-will powers that people have. And don't some powers themselves give you bonuses to hit? That should compensate and put you around 50% without needing the feat.


That's why Expertise is considered by many a feat tax... in Epic it builds up to a +3 to attack rolls, probably the most significant single attack bonus granted by any feat in the game.


Yes, but is missing half the time really so bad? A 15% increase in chances to hit is important, sure, but it seems like the kind of importance that spending a feat is actually worthwhile.

Edit: Sorry, what I mean to say is, in a game where everyone has an even chance to hit, the Expertise feats grant warriors and others who are willing to invest their time an actual edge. Specializing in an area to be better than others is what feats are all about, but giving the highest bonus to everyone sort of devalues that, in my opinion.

[Mando Knight]

And don't some powers themselves give you bonuses to hit? That should compensate and put you around 50% without needing the feat.

Powers with built-in bonuses to hit are actually few and far in between, and are almost always significantly weaker than those of the same level without the built-in bonus. Combat Advantage is otherwise your best chance at increasing your accuracy, and that's only +2.

He also got the defenses wrong: there is no reason for a Fighter or Paladin to wear +6 Full Plate, when they could wear +6 Tarrasque or God Plate instead. The former gives +4 more to AC as well as Resist 5 to all damage, and the latter gives +6 extra AC.

[NecroRebel]

But a 45% chance to hit is still good, especially with all those strong at-will powers that people have. And don't some powers themselves give you bonuses to hit? That should compensate and put you around 50% without needing the feat.

At-will powers aren't really that strong. While I won't deny that 45% is still pretty good compared to the 5% one might have 3.x, it's still a 55% miss chance. When you get only one attack per round, most of your abilities are limited-use, and missing with most of them does nothing at all, missing with them is kind of a bad thing because it typically means you basically didn't contribute for that round.

Also, very few powers give themselves bonuses to hit. Most that give attack bonuses are Leader powers and only work after you hit, so you attack, and if you hit your allies are more likely to strike. Those powers are typically considered to be among the best of their level as well.

I did also mention that it's debated whether it's necessary or not. The fact remains, though, that the vast majority of characters will have an expertise feat by level 8 or so if they're allowed. Often, a feat tax is defined as "a feat that everyone takes" (possibly with other qualifiers), and the expertise family fits that. As many people feel that feat taxes shouldn't exist, they just give them as a bonus when they DM.


Yes, but is missing half the time really so bad? A 15% increase in chances to hit is important, sure, but it seems like the kind of importance that spending a feat is actually worthwhile.

Feats are less valuable in 4e than in 3.x, because a PC gets more over their career and each feat is less powerful. That +15% chance to hit is easily in the top tier.


Edit: Sorry, what I mean to say is, in a game where everyone has an even chance to hit, the Expertise feats grant warriors and others who are willing to invest their time an actual edge. Specializing in an area to be better than others is what feats are all about, but giving the highest bonus to everyone sort of devalues that, in my opinion.

Thing is, there's an expertise feat for everyone, so everyone just takes them, so there isn't anyone who doesn't have the highest bonus in their area because attack bonuses are the most important stats in the game. Maxing out your attack bonuses means you contribute better than you would otherwise, so everybody does it, so everybody takes an expertise feat, so doesn't that devalue it just as much?

[NeoSeraphi]

Powers with built-in bonuses to hit are actually few and far in between, and are almost always significantly weaker than those of the same level without the built-in bonus. Combat Advantage is otherwise your best chance at increasing your accuracy, and that's only +2.


But +2 is still a +10% chance to hit, right? That's as significant an advantage as Expertise pre-Epic.

[Coidzor]

So in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=221406), there is a mathematical comparison of a character's ability to hit and defend against CR appropriate enemies (of the same class and WBL) in 4th edition. The chance stays pretty even, close to 50% over all 20 levels.

As I understand it, this was the goal of 4th edition. And yet I've seen it mentioned a few times on this board that the Expertise line of feats (which grant small bonuses to hit) are often given by DMs as bonus feats.

So, I see two possibilities here. One is that people just don't consider 50% to be enough, but they don't consider investing their feats to improve their chances to hit as being worth it, more like the system itself should give more player advantage (which is why everyone receives the same bonus).

Related to that, there's also a stance that, well, if it's really just going to be 50% chance by design, there's no reason to do anything but flip a darned coin rather than get spiffy dice to play the game with.

[MeeposFire]

This rule of three article kind of talks abut the feat taxes nd why they did it.


http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ro3/20110912

[NecroRebel]

But +2 is still a +10% chance to hit, right? That's as significant an advantage as Expertise pre-Epic.

Trouble with that standpoint is that there's nothing stopping a L1 character from getting combat advantage, too. Actually, it's somewhat easier at low levels, as it's significantly easier to shift around to flank a medium target than it is to shift around to flank a larger target, and you're more likely to fight bigger foes at higher levels.



Ultimately, the answer to your original question is "people give expertise feats as bonus feats because expertise feats are seen as a feat tax, which they want to avoid and do so by giving them out for free." Whether they're important or not isn't actually relevant, and people debate that endlessly.

My own opinion is that they are important, because higher-level monsters have so much HP that fighting them takes much longer than lower-level monsters and anything to shorten these battles, such as higher accuracy on player attacks, is important to maintain the entertainment factor of these conflicts. This seems to be close to the conventional wisdom as well.

[Mando Knight]

But +2 is still a +10% chance to hit, right? That's as significant an advantage as Expertise pre-Epic.

Yes, but they stack. That means your 45% to hit is now a consistent 60%, and reaches up to 70% when you're flanking or the enemy is somehow otherwise hindered.

[Lucy Land]

Edit: Sorry, what I mean to say is, in a game where everyone has an even chance to hit, the Expertise feats grant warriors and others who are willing to invest their time an actual edge. Specializing in an area to be better than others is what feats are all about, but giving the highest bonus to everyone sort of devalues that, in my opinion.
Imagine if there was a feat that gives you a bonus to hit equal to half your level. That's worth a feat, to a character specialized in hitting things, right? After all, 'Specializing in an area to be better than others is what feats are all about, but giving the highest bonus to everyone sort of devalues that, in my opinion.'

Anywho, why don't you play the game and find out what the big deal is?

[Hiro Protagonest]

He also got the defenses wrong: there is no reason for a Fighter or Paladin to wear +6 Full Plate, when they could wear +6 Tarrasque or God Plate instead. The former gives +4 more to AC as well as Resist 5 to all damage, and the latter gives +6 extra AC.

Unless you're playing in core.

Wait, never mind. Core has godplate armor. And warplate armor at higher paragon levels. Even if you use scale, the best core version is still +13 and a +6 from enhancement.

[MeeposFire]

Well remember that in the most recent books masterwork bonuses are given to normal warmor instead of giving it a special material name.

[WitchSlayer]

Avenger here! Haters gon' hate.

(Still took expertise at level 2)

[tcrudisi]

Venger here! Haters gon' hate.

VENGER! http://images.wikia.com/annex/images/0/0a/Dndc-venger.jpg

You shall never claim our magic weapons!

[Leolo]

It has been said before: Those calculation ignores basically everything that can gave you a bonus to the attack roll, lower the defenses of the opponents, grant you additional attacks, rerolls or something like this.

And as more you level those things do increase in strength and are getting more common. But nevertheless the expertise feats are among the top 10 feats of nearly every charakter.

And therefore everyone will take them sometimes. That's not what i would define a feat tax (if you remove them another feat will take this place), but many people use this definition.

[MeeposFire]

It has been said before: Those calculation ignores basically everything that can gave you a bonus to the attack roll, lower the defenses of the opponents, grant you additional attacks, rerolls or something like this.

And as more you level those things do increase in strength and are getting more common. But nevertheless the expertise feats are among the top 10 feats of nearly every charakter.

And therefore everyone will take them sometimes. That's not what i would define a feat tax (if you remove them another feat will take this place), but many people use this definition.

Actually most people who call it a tax say so in reference to how your accuracy goes down as you level relative to where it was. Due to the fact that WotC outright admitted that they made a mistake there and they admit they are a feat tax I don't think that is even a question anymore. Of course I would agree that some people go really overboard about it and there are ways to mitigate (to a degree) the attack bonus issue.

[Leolo]

I don't think they really have admited it being an error, but the point was more:


What is a feat tax? A feat that almost everyone will take at some point of his adventuring life if he has enough feats to spend and taken all other feats he like?

With this definition many feats are a feat tax - and worse than this if you remove a feat from the game another will take its place. Simple because the slot will be spend. If not by this feat then by another.

For example almost every character will also take an multiclass feat.

And if you base the definition of the feat tax only on calculations like those above this becomes very debatable as those values simple don't show all variables. There are so many options in the game that let you hit better that a simple comparision of AC increase and To Hit Bonus increase does not help.

There are good reasons why monster defenses should raise faster than players attack bonus.

[tcrudisi]

I don't think they really have admited it being an error

From wizards rule of 3:

"When monster defenses scale with level, characters can't afford to fall behind ... monsters' defenses are based on who they're [PC's] likely to fight, and they're seldom much easier or harder than "normal" to hit. It's a lot less OK to be nonchalant about your accuracy when every combat encounter is scaled to test your accuracy. We've done a lot to make the feat tax more tolerable in later Player's Handbooks and especially the Essentials rulebooks. ... You're not likely to see any big, universal fixes to this. We can't easily rescale the monster numbers again, because it takes a long time for those changes to percolate through the system and the player community. We could let characters have more feats, but there's wide agreement that characters are already complicated enough."

That may not be "We screwed up, we know that now", but it is as close to those words as you can get. It's an admission that it was an error.



What is a feat tax? A feat that almost everyone will take at some point of his adventuring life if he has enough feats to spend and taken all other feats he like?

With this definition many feats are a feat tax - and worse than this if you remove a feat from the game another will take its place. Simple because the slot will be spend. If not by this feat then by another.

Wizards said several times that Improved Defenses (or the Superior line of defenses) and the Expertise feats were feat taxes. They did not define what a feat tax was, unfortunately. But, we can safely say that they are feat taxes.


And if you base the definition of the feat tax only on calculations like those above this becomes very debatable as those values simple don't show all variables. There are so many options in the game that let you hit better that a simple comparision of AC increase and To Hit Bonus increase does not help.

There are good reasons why monster defenses should raise faster than players attack bonus.

The majority of powers that lower monster defenses or raise player attacks? They require you to hit. Oh, the irony. Not all of them, of course, but I'm confident in saying that a clear majority do.

Personally, I look at it like this: levels determine your power. If two creatures are the same level, they should be at the same power level. If they are both level 1, they should have the same chance to hit/miss each other as if they were both level 30. That doesn't happen without the expertise feats.

I can't see the argument for why, when my character gets more powerful, he gets weaker. Why is it that when I level up, the default assumption should be that I hit monsters at least as well as I did in the previous level. Instead, now I miss more. That doesn't make any sense!

Yes, there's combat advantage. But that's, ironically, easier to get at level 1 than at level 30. Even things like stun and daze start to become weaker and weaker as you level up (and run into more monsters with built-in ways to shake them off). So even the combat advantage bonus starts to dwindle in comparison.

That leaves buffing your allies. Since that falls almost exclusively under the pervue of the leader role, and not all leaders buff, that sounds like a sketchy argument as well. "If you have a leader who can buff, your attack bonus remains the same!" Not all parties have a leader who can buff attack bonus. Even the ones who can don't get to buff attack bonus every round.

As you level up, you get weaker. That makes no sense. The only way to stop it is with the feat taxes (defenses and expertise). So, yes, the expertise feats really are THAT important.

[Reverent-One]

Personally, I look at it like this: levels determine your power. If two creatures are the same level, they should be at the same power level. If they are both level 1, they should have the same chance to hit/miss each other as if they were both level 30. That doesn't happen without the expertise feats.

The underlined section doesn't logically follow the bolded section. If the bolded section is correct, then all that means is that two creatures at level one should have the same chance to hit/miss each other and two creatures at thirty should have the same chance to hit/miss each other, not that the chance for 2 creatures to hit/miss each other should be the same at both level one and level thirty. Also, that doesn't take into account that a defensively built creature is going to be harder to hit than a squishier one, while it can still have a similar to hit bonus. The squisher one may hit harder, but it would have a harder time hitting the defender than the defender has hitting it.


I can't see the argument for why, when my character gets more powerful, he gets weaker. Why is it that when I level up, the default assumption should be that I hit monsters at least as well as I did in the previous level. Instead, now I miss more. That doesn't make any sense!

Really though, it could instead be looked at as not that the character is getting weaker, but the challenges are getting tougher. Which is what is actually happening, since it's a result of the speed that the monsters' AC scales at.

[Coidzor]

Really though, it could instead be looked at as not that the character is getting weaker, but the challenges are getting tougher. Which is what is actually happening, since it's a result of the speed that the monsters' AC scales at.

Regardless of your semantics, it implies that the scale is busted.

[Reverent-One]

Regardless of your semantics, it implies that the scale is busted.

So what? I was responding to tcrudisi's point of how it didn't make sense, I wasn't saying that the scaling was exactly even over all 30 levels.

[DefKab]

Regardless of your semantics, it implies that the scale is busted.

It's hardly busted, and the semantics matter. Saying "I get weaker" is different than "Monsters scale faster." When you level, you DON'T get weaker. You can still hit the Lvl 1 monster just as easily, if it's not EASIER.

The question is whether it makes to not have progressive difficulty.
For instance. I can complete a Lvl 1 challenge 50% of the time, until I get good enough to beat it 60% of the time. Then I will move to a Lvl 2 challenge, where before I could beat it 40% of the time, I now can beat it at 50%.

This could represent balance. As I increase in skill, the difficulty increases in a balanced and representative manner.
Is this fair? Is this good balance?
Yes. Of course, it's entirely balanced.

But... Is it fun?
Maybe. I don't think so. I don't expect my chances of success should be flat across all power levels, or else lets all stay at Lvl1 and beat up on Goblins all day. The only thing a level system does in a balanced challenge rating is allow for variety in combat. Has nothing to do with Difficulty, as challenge rating should.

I feel that if I'm going to go up against tougher, yes, Im better than before, but I'm STILL not scaling on par. This means I can't rely solely on the mechanics of a game to succeed, I have to have better preparations, and better tactics to do the same as I could the level before. This promotes growth, and, I feel, accurately represents how a fantasy story should progress.

Odysseus wasn't powerful enough to kill the Cyclops, in mechanics terms. That doesn't mean that the Author shouldn't've included the Cyclops, it meant that Odysseus had to outsmart the Cyclops, instead of out-muscle. He won, barely, meaning that even though the Cyclops was more POWERFUL, it was balanced beyond mechanics.

And that why I feel the mechanics shouldn't be balance always. Again, it falls on the DM to judge what a 'suitable challenge' is...

[Leolo]

The majority of powers that lower monster defenses or raise player attacks? They require you to hit. Oh, the irony. Not all of them, of course, but I'm confident in saying that a clear majority do.

I wouldn't say so, because the best way to hit better is to target a weak defense. Higher level characters have better options for this.

Same is true for things like combat advantage. You will have the option for this on lvl 1, but will use it every round at lvl 30. Or things like "when you use XYZ you get a to hit bonus of...". Or things like the other feats that grant a fixed attack bonus when you attack with a type of power.

But lets assume you would really have to hit for the improvement of to hit chance.

Even in this case the calculation above is not correct, because it would only be true for one attack, and all other attacks would be still better.

A character gets (without expertise feats) the following attack improvements: +15 (Level), +4 (raise of main attribute), +6 (magic item).

That's a gap of 5 to the improvement of monster defenses. Sounds as if it would be neccessary to close this gap? Well, true. But now this character gets (just an example) a +1 to hit bonus if he attacks with fire attacks and makes all his attacks fire attacks. No problem for level 30 characters. What about another +1? Easily available with the right epic destiny. Now we have only a gap of 3. Do you want another attack bonus? Well, no problem. Our character could use a superior implement. Our gap has now reduced to 2.

That were options for a special character, other characters use different options. But the pattern is always the same: There are different ways to increase your attack chance.

You will note that those character above would already hit better at level 30 than at level 1 if he would take an expertise feat, because this would add another +3. Without any temporary benefit.

And how much is those temporary benefit? It depends on the group. Attacking the weakest defense is worth 2-3 points alone most of the time. But there are options that grant you +5 and more to a attack. The point is not that expertise feats help the player characters. That's obvious. The point is: Even without them, before there were any of them we had have character builds where the trick was: "I can not miss" in combination with a power that let you attack until you miss.

The reason why they are still always taken is that you have so much feat slots. And they are very good feats.

[Surrealistik]

Hitting the weakest defense generally constitutes a difference comparable to CA. Easy for some classes, but not all (martial classes typically have limited NAD targeters).


That's a gap of 5 to the improvement of monster defenses. Sounds as if it would be neccessary to close this gap? Well, true. But now this character gets (just an example) a +1 to hit bonus if he attacks with fire attacks and makes all his attacks fire attacks. No problem for level 30 characters. What about another +1? Easily available with the right epic destiny. Now we have only a gap of 3. Do you want another attack bonus? Well, no problem. Our character could use a superior implement. Our gap has now reduced to 2.


Only the ED bonus isn't available to chars in early heroic.

Further, while a fully optimized, specialized character will likely have a better to hit by 30 due to more options (check out the standards of 'broken' in epic), the same probably isn't true of the baseline.

Everything said and done, it's now essentially the Word of God that expertise feats are a math fix, so the debate is over and can be put to rest at this point.

[Leolo]

I think the question is: Would it be better if there where no gap?

I don't think so, because this would also mean the game gets easier at higher levels due to the better options of the player characters.

Maybe the value is too large, or not large enough. It's hard to judge.

[Surrealistik]

Whether the value is too large or not really depends on the baseline (again, don't get into epic optimization because it is flat out ridiculous), therefore the difficulty is in assessing that baseline, and the assumptions that should be made with respect to it.

I think CA can probably be achieved consistently by epic for most parties, so that would be the only thing I really count on; maybe an additional point of allowance for being able to target a weaker defense, given that most characters won't always be able to do so.

[Coidzor]

It's hardly busted, and the semantics matter. Saying "I get weaker" is different than "Monsters scale faster." When you level, you DON'T get weaker. You can still hit the Lvl 1 monster just as easily, if it's not EASIER.

It's an incomplete statement, but the meaning is "I get weaker relative to the monsters that are supposed to be a fair challenge the stronger I get." Which is correct, if the monsters scale their abilities per level in such a way as to outpace the players abilities that scale with level, that's the same thing just phrased differently.

[Leolo]

Whether the value is too large or not really depends on the baseline (again, don't get into epic optimization because it is flat out ridiculous), therefore the difficulty is in assessing that baseline, and the assumptions that should be made with respect to it.

I think CA can probably be achieved consistently by epic for most parties, so that would be the only thing I really count on; maybe an additional point of allowance for being able to target a weaker defense, given that most characters won't always be able to do so.

Yes. I would add feats that gave temporary benefits (like +4 when you use an action point and so on), fix benefits (like +1 if you attack with fire attacks), additional rerolls and leader bonus to attacks / malus to defenses.

But i think it is impossible to judge without an actually group. Within most groups i have played in the gap was about right. I just don't like if people argue this gap is an error. It is needed, or all options to increase to hit bonus or to lower defenses would have to be removed from the game.

[Coidzor]

It is needed, or all options to increase to hit bonus or to lower defenses would have to be removed from the game.

Sure, if you come at it from the perspective that players can never work to have an advantage, they can only work to try to achieve parity.

[MeeposFire]

Yea if you want to be able to have players fight against great odds and have a big challenge then they need their special abilities to gain bonuses to get an advantage and not just reach baseline. Without getting the players up to the baseline you are adding a challenge but it is not the fun tactical challenge but one of frustration due to missing more (which is certainly more annoying and the play tests and years of evidence have shown).

[Leolo]

Sure, if you come at it from the perspective that players can never work to have an advantage, they can only work to try to achieve parity.
Oh, Players do get advantage by working together. The gap just ensures that they don't get it without.

Or at least try it. Because it would be no good game design if players would answer their leader character: we don't need another attack bonus, we already hit with a 2.

The game has to calculate with all options the players use.

[Yakk]

There are a bunch of intertwined issues here.

A> Why is having a low to-hit at epic levels problematic?
B> Why is a +3 bonus to hit very powerful?
C> Why is it a feat tax?

#A: Suppose that the baseline at level 1 was 50% accuracy, and 35% at level 30. You could imagine a game where this would work fine.

Now, suppose you have a player who puts everything into accuracy, and gets +15% above baseline. And someone else who doesn't consider accuracy important, and is -15% below baseline. You could call these "high-op" and "low-op" accuracy characters.

At level 1, we have 65% vs 35% -- the high-op character hits 1.86x as often as the low-op character.

At level 30, we are 50% vs 20%, or a 2.5x as often as the low-op character.

In effect, by lowering the baseline to-hit percentage, it makes optimizing for accuracy more important.

It is far worse than this, however. Because at level 1, you could pick an accurate weapon (+5%), a higher attack stat (+5%) and a accuracy boosting feat (+5%). The low-op character could have a low attack stat (-5%) and maybe not pick the defense they are attacking very well (-10%), or one player gets combat advantage while the other does not.

At level 1, you have a class, a race, stat, 4 powers and 1 feat to choose, plus choices dictated by your race/class. By level 30, you have another 17 feats, a paragon path, an epic destiny, and additional stat-boosts.

Instead of a +15%/-15% compared to baseline, we could easily have:
1> The low-accuracy character has a +5 weapon, because "I don't consider getting the latest magic weapon important, and I like the property".
2> The low-accuracy character didn't invest every single stat-up in their attack stat (only getting a +6 to their attack stat, instead of a +8 -- horror!).
3> None of the feats, paragon paths, or epic destiny options of the low-accuracy character boosted accuracy.

16 starting stat, +6 = 22 attack stat, or +6 to hit.
+15 from half-level
+5 from weapon/implement
+2 from weapon proficiency
Total: +26 to hit (+28 vs AC)

The high-accuracy character
1> Got +1 to hit from a class feature
2> Expertise of +3
3> +3 proficiency weapon, or an accurate implement (+1)
4> 20 in starting stat, +8 from levels, +2 from epic destiny
5> +1 to hit from paragon path
6> +6 weapon or implement
Total: +37 to hit (+39 vs AC)

The character is fighting a level 35 soldier. AC is 51, NADs are 47/48/50.

Both characters get combat advantage.

Low-accuracy needs a 19 to hit the low defence of the target. 20 on everything else.

High-accuracy needs a 10 to hit AC, 8 to hit low NAD, and 11 to hit high NAD.

This isn't a question of "one character is more accurate", these characters are playing a completely different game.

At level 1, it was 20 attack stat, a +3 proficiency weapon, class feature, and expertise for +10 vs AC (+7 vs NAD) for high-accuracy, and 16 attack stat, a +2 proficiency weapon, or +5 vs AC (+3 vs NAD). While the ratio of bonuses was larger at level 1, the ratio doesn't matter.

Against a level 6 soldier (AC 22, 18-21 NADs), with Combat Advantage, high-accuracy needed a 10+ on AC, a 9-12 on NADs -- low accuracy needed a 15+ on AC, and 13-16 on NADs. The ratio of investment each character put into their accuracy remains the same -- but at level 1, the low-accuracy character missed more often (even twice as often!), while at level 30 the low-accuracy character missed 5 times more often.

I've seen this happen in play even at paragon, where someone who didn't invest in accuracy (because it didn't fit their character concept, and they where not aiming to min/max) ended up feeling useless, and rerolled a new character.

B: It is very powerful because turning 1/6 of your rounds from "nothing happens" to "I subject an opponent to a status effect I chose, plus a bunch of damage" is very strong. :) Compared to every other feat, it is head and shoulders above it -- barring magic missile "attack that neither hits nor misses, causing nearly infinite spiral of damage by bouncing it between allied summons" cheese. :)

C: It is a feat tax because it is so much better than any other option by paragon/epic, every character (that cares about actually connecting effects) ends up having it. This means that the feat no longer a way to distinguish one character from another. It "patches" the system and generates a new baseline. Feats should distinguish characters from each other, if they want to remain interesting.

[NeoSeraphi]

There are a bunch of intertwined issues here.

A> Why is having a low to-hit at epic levels problematic?
B> Why is a +3 bonus to hit very powerful?
C> Why is it a feat tax?

#A: Suppose that the baseline at level 1 was 50% accuracy, and 35% at level 30. You could imagine a game where this would work fine.

Okay, but how big is the gap between them when they're fighting a non-soldier?



B: It is very powerful because turning 1/6 of your rounds from "nothing happens" to "I subject an opponent to a status effect I chose, plus a bunch of damage" is very strong. :) Compared to every other feat, it is head and shoulders above it -- barring magic missile "attack that neither hits nor misses, causing nearly infinite spiral of damage by bouncing it between allied summons" cheese. :)


No one's arguing the importancy of accuracy here. :smallsmile:



C: It is a feat tax because it is so much better than any other option by paragon/epic, every character (that cares about actually connecting effects) ends up having it. This means that the feat no longer a way to distinguish one character from another. It "patches" the system and generates a new baseline. Feats should distinguish characters from each other, if they want to remain interesting.

I agree with this point, but at the same time it's only one feat...it automatically scales, so doesn't it not matter as much to differentiating between characters?

[Dacia Brabant]

C: It is a feat tax because it is so much better than any other option by paragon/epic, every character (that cares about actually connecting effects) ends up having it. This means that the feat no longer a way to distinguish one character from another. It "patches" the system and generates a new baseline. Feats should distinguish characters from each other, if they want to remain interesting.

Completely agreed on points A and B, but as for C, isn't this what the Essentials versions of Expertise feats are for? Some choices are better than others certainly, an extra 1 square on a push or slide is strictly better (if you have push/slide powers) than +2 AC on opportunity attacks, but if you have your heart set on using a sword you at least get something more out of it than the feat tax.

[Hidden Sanity]

Okay, but how big is the gap between them when they're fighting a non-soldier?


Exactly the same, just shifted down.

If the monster has nine less AC, then the high-acur character will only miss on a one and the low-acur character will hit on a 10.

[NeoSeraphi]

Exactly the same, just shifted down.

If the monster has nine less AC, then the high-acur character will only miss on a one and the low-acur character will hit on a 10.

Hmmm...true. So the accurate character is almost certain, while the less accurate character has a fair chance. In that situation, it's more like rewarding the character for specializing...but at the same time if soldiers can really pump their AC that high...I guess it's not very CR appropriate then. And in a game where all the classes are supposed to be balanced...hmmm...

Okay, so I can see the argument for granting the Expertise feats as bonus feats.

[Lucy Land]

Okay, so I can see the argument for granting the Expertise feats as bonus feats.
Great.

Again I'm going to ask: why don't you play the game, and then answer your own question? (Paragon and epic levels really demonstrate the difference between the haves and the have-nots.)

[Mando Knight]

but at the same time if soldiers can really pump their AC that high
The soldier isn't "pumping" its AC. That's just what its AC is at level 35.

[NeoSeraphi]

The soldier isn't "pumping" its AC. That's just what its AC is at level 35.

Sorry, that's what I meant.


Again I'm going to ask: why don't you play the game, and then answer your own question?

I've been trying to set up a game (3.5) for the past...two months now?, where I live, and it's just been awful. This relocation has completely destroyed my ability to actually play Dungeons and Dragons. Or really socialize at all. I'm stuck in the house all day because I have to share a car with my brother and he uses it to go to school every day, and go to his soccer games on the weekends, and then I work late every night.

Actually playing a game is just not on the table for me right now.

[Dacia Brabant]

Have you considered play-by-post, or by IRC/IM/Skype/etc.? That's really the only way I'd still be able to get any gaming in anymore.

[NeoSeraphi]

Have you considered play-by-post, or by IRC/IM/Skype/etc.? That's really the only way I'd still be able to get any gaming in anymore.

I have, but I'm currently in the middle of trying to get two different games off the ground. (One to playtest my homebrew, one as a 3.5 Core only game because a new member and friend of mine wants to learn to play)

[Akodo Makama]

...(I)f soldiers can really pump their AC that high...I guess it's not very CR appropriate then.

It should be noted that a level 35 soldier is outside the recommended +-4 levels in designing encounters. In other words, it's most emphatically _not_ CR appropriate. You should only run into one once in a blue moon, when you've had plenty of time to prepare.

But, the problem still exists at lower levels. A level 30 soldier would find Mr Unop hitting him on a 14 (tough) and Mr Op hitting on a 6 (easy).

It should also be noted that half the difference between these two characters is found in a single feat (+3) and a single epic destiny (+2). This could be seen as a case for simply disallowing those two features.
Without those two features, it becomes Unop on a 14(hard), Op on a 11(average). As the soldier's shtick is being tough to hit, this spread doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

This would indicate those two features are overpowered. Everybody will eventually take then (feat tax) given a chance. So either give them to everybody, or let nobody take them. I like the way the math works out for the latter more.

[Leolo]

Isn't "a character optimized on hitting will hit easy, while a character who is not optimized on it will hit hard" exactly how it should be?

The latter character might be optimized in something different. Of course there are still builds that are better than other builds. But this has not much to do with expertise feats.

[Coidzor]

Because it would be no good game design if players would answer their leader character: we don't need another attack bonus, we already hit with a 2.

...What part of the discussion indicated to you that such was even on the table?

[Leolo]

It was an reply on "Sure, if you come at it from the perspective that players can never work to have an advantage, they can only work to try to achieve parity" (that's why i have quoted it)

And explains why it would be bad if the players reach the baseline without doing anything. A game design that is based on this logic would lead to the situation that the scale within any bonus is useable and effective would get slim. As soon as the players are able and willing to do some optimization.

If you have an character who hits on a 6 his maximum usable bonus is 5. He will not hit more often with an higher bonus. What does that mean for the game? Options that grant such benefits are less valuable as less the difference between the target number and the base number is.

If you have already an attack bonus of +11 and have to hit a defense of 14 something that grants you +4 on a single attack roll is propably wasted. And is getting better if the target number would be higher or the initial attack bonus would be lower. Granting such a character another +1 makes options irrelevant. There is no reason for a leader to lower the defense of a monster by 2 if the monster get's already hit on a 2. Ok, that was an level 1 example.

How about higher levels? Now there is a problem. Higher level powers should be more powerful. So for example the leader that grants you a +1 to the attack roll at level 1 should grant you a higher roll at higher levels. Or at least should be usable more often or with a longer duration. It should be better.

Same is true for feats. They should make the players better.

And that's the reason why monsters have to get better, too. If they don't most of those cool new options you gain over the levels would be wasted, cause you do not need them.

The question is not if the monster defenses should scale faster than the players attack bonus. The question is just how much.

[Lucy Land]

I've been trying to set up a game (3.5) for the past...two months now?, where I live, and it's just been awful. This relocation has completely destroyed my ability to actually play Dungeons and Dragons. Or really socialize at all. I'm stuck in the house all day because I have to share a car with my brother and he uses it to go to school every day, and go to his soccer games on the weekends, and then I work late every night.

Actually playing a game is just not on the table for me right now.
My sympathies go out to you!

[Sception]

Isn't "a character optimized on hitting will hit easy, while a character who is not optimized on it will hit hard" exactly how it should be?

The latter character might be optimized in something different. Of course there are still builds that are better than other builds. But this has not much to do with expertise feats.

Yes and no. Yes, a character who puts resources into hitting should be better at hitting, but because of the mechanics of hitting in D&D, a simple D20 roll against a set DC, that gap shouldn't widen over the course of play, or at least shouldn't widen to nearly the degree that it does.

And with 4e's combat focus, almost everything has to pass through the attack role gatekeeper, meaning that giving up attack to be good at something else is almost always making yourself worse at the thing you're supposedly specializing at!



In addition, while monsters should get more difficult as you advance in level, having that added difficulty come in the form of their defenses scaling faster then PC attacks is a poor way to do it, because it feels more frustrating then challenging. Fights where you watch your best attacks flitter away into nothing because you only hit on a 17 (something that happened once or twice in my first high level 4e game), only to wind up in an hours long at-will slog against a solo's bucketload of HP on top of the night impossibility of hitting? It's just painful, not fun at all.

Ideally, PC attacks and monster defenses should scale evenly to begin with. an appropriate level threat that is easy to hit should be hit on maybe an 8 by the accurate character, maybe a 10 by the less accurate character, and this before situational buffs like combat advantage. Something hard to hit should be hit on maybe a 12 by the accurate character, maybe a 14 by the inaccurate character, again before situational buffs. Push that up or down a couple points if the PCs are fighting something above or below their level. There shouldn't be so many stacking attack buffs that the accurate guy is hitting on 2s, nor should the balance for that come from harder to hit enemies, leaving the inaccurate guy hitting on 20s. And this should be the same for level 4 PCs or level 24 PCs. There shouldn't be any scaling bonuses to hit, nor should there need to be.

But PC and monster stats don't scale evenly with level. That's more or less what expertise fixes, and that's why its a feat tax. Not because its so much better then everything else (although it is), but because it's a feat that's there to patch an error/design fail in the core gameplay math. You need to take the feat to be playing the game as intended to begin with, so it's basically one less feat for everybody. Imagine if HP didn't scale with level for PCs? Imagine if starting HP was all you get, but then you could take a feat for +8 HP per level. That's the kind of 'patchwork over design flaw' that expertise represents. You can get by without it for much of a character's career, especially if you don't skip on other sources of accuracy, but by the time you hit late paragon, it's basically a permission slip to play the game at all, at least for anyone who rolls attack rolls at all (which is almost but not quite everybody).

[Leolo]

Yes and no. Yes, a character who puts resources into hitting should be better at hitting, but because of the mechanics of hitting in D&D, a simple D20 roll against a set DC, that gap shouldn't widen over the course of play, or at least shouldn't widen to nearly the degree that it does.

If you think this thought to the end there can only be one option in the game for a character to optimize to hit chance. Because the second option would already widen the gap.



But PC and monster stats don't scale evenly with level. That's more or less what expertise fixes, and that's why its a feat tax.

In fact this is debatable. Or at least the calculations that were used for this argument usually ignore variables.

Monster defenses scale with the level of the monster. That's simple. How does player character offensive options scale? Most calculations will tell you: "Half your level, plus ability increase, plus magical item"

If you calculate this until level 30 the players loose by 5 points. Problem with this calculation: It is incomplete. Feats (even ignoring expertise feats) and other fix benefits (paragon path / Epic destiny or similar things) narrow the gap to about 2 or 3 points. Seems as if the monsters scale still faster? In fact they don't. Because there is still something missing in the calculation. Temporary benefits. 4E is full of them. Players can get them by doing something, can grant them other characters, can lower monster defenses, attack lower defenses or reroll missed attacks.

During the level increase the player characters gain more such options.

How much of them? No one knows. In fact in none of those discussions i have seen a real debate about the topic: How many pluses are temporary benefits worth? But to say if monster defenses scale faster than player characters offensiv power exactly this would be needed.

I don't even think wizards of the coast knows how much it would be worth. It depends on the group and is much to complicated for simple calculations. That's why the simple calculations are so famous, and people still claim the math is wrong without thinking about the question why there is an gap at all. (Please note that i do not know if the math is right or wrong, as i can not say how much the value of the last variable is. I just know the simple calculations without this are incomplete)

[Reluctance]

Isn't "a character optimized on hitting will hit easy, while a character who is not optimized on it will hit hard" exactly how it should be?

Assuming that powers, non-expertise feats and situational bonuses all ended up covering the hit gap, expertise feats are still horribly designed. A flat +1 to hit would be a bit strong and a bit dull, but still fit within the system's math. A scaling to-hit bonus in a system explicitly designed to make bonuses equally effective at level 30 as they were at level 1 is either a patch, or a gross mistake. Given how rare scaling hit bonuses are, I'm inclined to believe the former.

Even if you're arguing that high-level characters should be able to leverage more of their feats* and get bigger hit bonuses/apply bigger defense penalties as their rider stat rises, that doesn't change a thing about expertise. If it's a needed fix, it's obviously going to tie up a feat slot for every character. If it's an unneeded fix, it's an overpowered feat as you go up in levels and shouldn't be available as an option. Once again, patch or mistake.

*(Food for thought: Until expertise and other scaling hit feats showed up, all feats that gave hit bonuses gave Feat bonuses. You were supposed to be good in a broader variety of situations, not able to stack multiple situational bonuses. That only changed when they made the hit-patch feats the Feat bonuses to avoid hijinks.)

[Leolo]

@Reluctance: Yes, that's true. In fact i believe the main reason for the expertise feats was that WotC heard the angry voices and gave them what they wanted.

Without thinking about if it is needed. As said above, it is really hard to say if it is needed, so this might have even been the right decission.

I don't know a tool to measure the variable benefits. Even such simple things like "attacking the weakest defense" are hard to judge. It is obvious that higher level characters have better options for this. They will pass the knowledge check more often, have better experience, more variable powers and maybe feats, powers or items that let them change the defense they attack. And we can say what's the average difference between the weakest and highest defense is.

But that are all no hard parameters, they are spongily and every character might have a higher or lower benefit from them. Are they worth a +1 bonus in our calculation? +0.5? +1.5? No one knows.

Same is true for things like combat advantage. It is a fix +2, but how often do you use it? At lvl 30 more often than at lvl 1, that's for sure. How much more often? No one knows. We could guess a number. If it is right or not is hard to tell.

Or think about options that grant a bonus on your next attack roll(s). A +3 on attacks if you are able to use an action point will raise your total attack bonus by slightly more than 0.5. (+3 bonus twice in a 5 rounds combat where you make 6 attacks - no bonus on the next fight because you do not use an action point in this fight, so its a +6/11). Obviously you will have more such options at higher levels. How much more? Have fun to find out.

WotC has not taken the time to find it out. In fact i don't know if it is even possible to gave a appropriate answer to such questions. So they gave the community a feat that narrows the gap without entirely closing it.

It's not perfect. Most characters i have seen on higher levels do hit even better than they do on level 1, and this change increases this.

[tcrudisi]

Even such simple things like "attacking the weakest defense" are hard to judge. It is obvious that higher level characters have better options for this. They will pass the knowledge check more often, have better experience, more variable powers and maybe feats, powers or items that let them change the defense they attack. And we can say what's the average difference between the weakest and highest defense is.

"Attacking the weakest defense" is not always possible. Sometimes it's easy enough to tell what defense to attack, but not always. Monster knowledge checks do not help with this, which is what I believe you are claiming it does. Here's what you get from the highest success monster knowledge check: origin, type, typical temperament, keywords, resistances, vulnerabilities, and what its powers do. Note also that this becomes more difficult to get at higher levels without even more investment, as the hard dc scales at faster than +1 / 2 levels.

Finally, casters have some choices. Rogues can attack Reflex and AC ... but melee classes? They typically have a choice to attack AC, AC, AC, and rarely Fort.


Same is true for things like combat advantage. It is a fix +2, but how often do you use it? At lvl 30 more often than at lvl 1, that's for sure. How much more often? No one knows. We could guess a number. If it is right or not is hard to tell.

I don't think I get it any more or less at level 30 than I do at level 1. If I'm playing a melee, the answer is easy: I almost always have it at level 1 and I almost always have it at level 30. Depending on the caster I am playing, the same is also true. So, go ahead and guess a number: I'll use it for both my level 1 and my level 30 calculations.

Also, we view combat advantage differently. I view it as an award for playing well and getting an advantage over my enemy. You seem to view it as an automatic thing that should be included in the math for everyone. If I view it as an advantage for being strategic and you view it as something that everyone should get at later levels just to make the math correct, well, we've got a disconnect.


Or think about options that grant a bonus on your next attack roll(s). A +3 on attacks if you are able to use an action point will raise your total attack bonus by slightly more than 0.5.

AP features are something most everyone gets at paragon. They don't always raise your ability to hit (some give you a free move action or something similar). Outside of those, there really are very few "spend an AP, get a bonus to hit" items, feats, and features. (Off-hand, I can only think of one from each, though I'm sure there are a couple more.) There are a quite a few powers that raise your to-hit. Most of them require you to hit before you give allies the bonus. Oh, the irony. Good luck hitting since your attack bonus has decreased in the last 10 levels! /snicker.

[Leolo]

Also, we view combat advantage differently. I view it as an award for playing well and getting an advantage over my enemy. You seem to view it as an automatic thing that should be included in the math for everyone. If I view it as an advantage for being strategic and you view it as something that everyone should get at later levels just to make the math correct, well, we've got a disconnect.

Not entirely. I view all such bonuses as something that should make you able to attack better. (and of course they do)

So it is an award, and should be. But i do believe the game should be at least consider that players get a bonus. More so if there are many possible options that can grant you some. The optimal target numbers should be somewhere between "i have no bonuses" or "i have many of them".

[Yakk]

Isn't "a character optimized on hitting will hit easy, while a character who is not optimized on it will hit hard" exactly how it should be?
Because the gap is huge in many cases. Like a factor of 3 to 10 huge.

The latter character might be optimized in something different. Of course there are still builds that are better than other builds. But this has not much to do with expertise feats.
Suppose there is a factor of 5 accuracy difference.

In order to match that with, say, a "hard hitting" build, the hard hitting build would have to auto-kill any non-solo/elite (and some elites) they actually connected with.

And it isn't as if high-accuracy is only useful in corner cases. In corner cases, the existence of high-accuracy options makes everyone else feel utterly useless (or, rather, anyone who doesn't invest in accuracy (and isn't a lazy warlord) is useless against high-defense opponents pretty much).

In nearly the worst cases for high accuracy builds, where they hit on a 2+ while the low-accuracy hits on a 8+, their options are still strong. Hitting 95% instead of 65% is a 50% boost in hits landed. A 50% boost in effectiveness is pretty large in 4e.

And even playing with reasonable accuracy-boosting characters (nimble blade rogue daggermasters with 20 starting dex), I've rarely if ever seen a situation where they break 95% hit rate (ie, I've rarely seen a 1 miss merely because it is only a 1). About the only way this can happen with any regularity is an epic tier game with a psion who augment 1s their level 1 defence-dropping power, boosts the secondary stat that produces the penalty, and chain-uses it against even-level opponents (or similar corner cases of single powers from some classes, which use epic-tier character economy breaking to chain use the originally intended to be a limited use power -- which happens, I'll admit!)