1. Weapon/Implement Expertise and related feats are just poorly concealed errata in the form of feats. They're not balanced, they create a 'feat tax' for all PCs and/or they're a bad precedent for future releases. WotC should have just manned up to the fact that the game's math is faulty and issued real errata to fix it.
2. Weapon/Implement Expertise and related feats are errata in the form of feats, but who cares? Maybe real errata would have been better, but it's not a big deal.
3. They're just feats. They might be generally better than others, but they're still optional. There's no inherent problem with the game's math. Either other factors make up for PCs' apparent high level weakness, or the game is supposed to have Normal (heroic tier), Nightmare (paragon tier) and Hell (epic tier) difficulties. WotC knows exactly what they're doing with 4e, and there's a good reason for these feats even if we don't know what it is.
4. Do I smell nachos? What controversy?
5. Other?
#4. Mmm, nachos. I like nachos.
I'm only peripherally aware of the controversy, but from the little I've seen it mostly comes down to math. I'm a little dubious of that since there are many variables once you actually get playing. I haven't had much experience playing in the paragon and epic tiers, though the little I have played worked just fine without the feats.
Reminds me a little of the the people stating you needed to start with an 18 in your class's favored stat just to be viable. The game does not always come down to math but it seems that some get focused on that aspect.
#3. They're just feats.
Reminds me a little of the people stating you needed to start with an 18 in your class's favored stat just to be viable. The game does not always come down to math but it seems that some get focused on that aspect.
This bears repeating. Everyone is entitled to play how they like, but I'm still shocked when I see people claim you shouldn't play a particular race/class combo when you don't get a bonus to your favored stat, even if they are a good thematic fit. It's as if races are nothing more than their ability bonuses. (I'm tempted to house rule ability bonuses float around to whatever you want just to break any even the seeds of this silly notion, but thankfully it hasn't appeared in my groups yet.)
It's surprising how with 4e so many people assume that mathematical optimization is necessary and the norm. I don't see it being any more necessary than it was in 3.x (maybe even less so given some of the non-optional balancing factors built in like the +1/2 level to almost everything).
I wonder where the cultural shift came from? Maybe because so much is "roll to hit, deal damage and effect" rather than all the crazy 3 paragraph spells of past editions so the math stands out more than it used to? *shrug* I don't know. I know the flip answer is that it's new players who are more used to WOW than D&D, but I haven't really seen any evidence of it just being newer posters (and besides, if the game is drawing in enough new players to shift the online culture, that's awesome and the benefit outweighs the cost of having to explain that you won't lose if play a tiefling cleric.)
|
3. They're just feats. They might be generally better than others, but they're still optional. There's no inherent problem with the game's math. Either other factors make up for PCs' apparent high level weakness, or the game is supposed to have Normal (heroic tier), Nightmare (paragon tier) and Hell (epic tier) difficulties. WotC knows exactly what they're doing with 4e, and there's a good reason for these feats even if we don't know what it is.
Damn right its a plot of the Old Ones to enslave us all(I mean dynamic, forward thinking game development techniques by WOTC to sell more books and adventures)...now bring the Nachos! Fluffy must be appeased.
PS I've gone back to OD&D and am writing my own PHB and DMG.
I am mixed about the whole thing.
The whole maxing out stats to be viable is probably my biggest concern for 4E. When the character generator suggests putting a natural 18 in your primary stat, often requiring mediocre stats elsewhere, there is something wrong (especially when that natural 18 becomes a modified 20 for an ideal class-race combo). When an 18-20 primary stat becomes nearly necessary to be effective in your party role, especially for strikers, then it becomes an issue. No one in the party likes to miss when expending an encounter or daily power. Thus that high primary stat is needed for accuracy.
Before Expertise Feats existed, +hit was a huge factor in game play. Only stats and magic could give you a constant +hit. Other +hit came from situational factors, like Leader bonuses or Combat Advantage. Now +hit can be gained in other manners, but they all require a cost of some sort.
The Expertise Feats allow for more "non-ideal" race-class combos to exist. True, it requires a sacrifice of a feat, but that is a small price to pay, especially when considering the costs of multiclassing. The downside is that the feat allows for an ideal race-class combo, who may already have a 20 in a primary stat, to get even more hit bonus.
Overall, the Expertise Feats benefit both the RPers who want to play "non-ideal" race-class combos and the power gamers who want yet another +1 to hit to go with their 20 primary stat. As it appeals to two major crowds in the player base, I guess it can't be all bad.
I'll admit that 4th Edition is the first system where I've felt compelled to always have an 18 in my main stat - probably because it's just so stinkin' obvious. The math behind most other systems is less transparent, so I don't get caught up in it.
On to the Poll - #3. They're nice feats. NICE feats. But that's all they are - feats. I've seen all the math on how AC for enemies scales faster than to-hit and all that, so I don't deny that PCs are probably "down" 3 by level 25 or whatever it is. That being said, by that time they probably have more interesting tricks than '+3 to hit' (E.g. "Once per day when you die...", recharge mechanics, resistances, autodamage, a whole suite of utility powers) to even out the discrepancy in ways that aren't just "I hit more accurately."
It also depends highly on gameplay expectations. Should it be as easy to hit Lolth at level 30 as it was to hit a kobold at level 1? I would give a vehement "no" to this, though there are obviously some who would want that. They should take these feats. Furthermore, what kinds of combat tactics do you want to employ, if any? A party of four rangers should probably take them to account for the lack or leader and controller (de)buffs. A party that includes a Starlock, a Shaman and a Warden probably isn't in such dire need of to-hit bonuses to smooth out the math to whatever extent the group feels is necessary. I find myself moving less from combat tactician to kick-down-the-door, straight-up-the-middle as I age (which is kind of backward, in a way) and so I can see having one or two characters take them so I can just charge in blindly when I feel like it.
So while they're certainly useful and support specific styles of gameplay, I would hardly call them 'feat taxes' or even necessary.
Combination of #1 and #2. They are essentially errata and are unbalanced compared to all other feats. I would rather them just made it errata, but having it this way isn't going to kill me.
I'm not sure if this scaling bonus was necessary either, but I'm willing to roll with it to see how it goes.
#3. Power gamers will always optimize, and to them it likely would be #1 or 2, and there is nothing wrong with that at all. To me, a player who tends to take a flavor feat or two on any given character, it's clearly 3 :). I also don't think the 4E 'have to take a prime 18' is any different from the 3.5 version of the same 'need'.
I also find the whole 'feat tax' a silly concept, considering most classes get many more feats in 4E then in 3.5, so even if you did have to spend one - and I don't think you do - then it's really no big deal.
1. Weapon/Implement Expertise and related feats are just poorly concealed errata in the form of feats.
Let me guess: You don't get those feats for free if you have bought the original books.
It's Complete Psionics all over again.
Selling defective and inferior product and later selling the fix is despicable.
This rubbish about needing them to be viable is just that. Rubbish. I have taken Implement Expertise for one character out of the several I play, and he is not demonstrably more effective than those without. Ugh. The internets iz full of the rage.
Interesting...
For those of you who may not know, PCs lose the following effective bonuses during the transition from level 1 to level 30:
Primary Attack: 4
AC: 2
Primary NAD: 4
That's assuming casual optimization; jacking your primary stat at every opportunity and having +6 magical bling by 30th, but no assumptions of specific options that grant constant bonuses like Kensai PP and Demigod ED. [It doesn't matter if you start with a 20 or an 10 in your primary stat, you'll lose the same bonuses.]
Now if you take an Expertise feat and all the Fort/Ref/Will booster feats, you only lose:
Primary Attack: 1
AC: 2
Good NAD: +2 (That's right, your good NAD will actually gain 2 bonuses!)
Basically, there are three camps in this controversy:
The Math Ragers: How could WotC make such a rookie mistake like this? And then to make us pay for access to these "feats," the gall! And the they don't even fix the math properly; attacks and AC are still down while NADs are overcompensated!
The Fan Boys: These feats are exactly how the game is supposed to be played! The game is balanced perfectly as-is, and WotC has a reason for everything it publishes!
The Ignorant: Dude... *inhale*...whatever. Play the game, be at peace, life is good.
Geez, I'll happily be 'ignorant'. It seems to require less Peptobismol.
1. Weapon/Implement Expertise and related feats are just poorly concealed errata in the form of feats.Let me guess: You don't get those feats for free if you have bought the original books.
It's Complete Psionics all over again.
Selling defective and inferior product and later selling the fix is despicable.
Let me guess: you have no idea what you're talking about.
As has been stated, you don't "need" the expertise feats; the game is fine without them. They were included to placate a vocal group of dissatisfied players. You don't need to buy a new book to get them, either. Even the FREE introductory version of the character builder includes them, since they are available at first level.
Irrational hatred and unnecessary snark is despicable. ;)
I agree that Expertise is a just too good to ignore if optimization is one's goal. I would have preferred they issue erratta for the PHB.
It would be quite simple: Just give a +1 to all attacks and NADs at Paragon, and +2 at Epic. As for whiffing dailies, just give them all an arbitrary +2 to hit. Problem solved, and without disrupting the careful power balance of existing feats.
All that said, I can live with Expertise. It is just kinda kludgy.
Selling defective and inferior product and later selling the fix is despicable.
I agree, but I think in this case "defective and inferior product" is a bit harsh. I do think that they should have issued erratta, though.
Geez, I'll happily be 'ignorant'. It seems to require less Peptobismol.
Ditto. :)
I'll even fess up that it took me a while to figure out what "NAD" meant, that's how uninterested I personally am in optimization. I like many aspects of D&D, but CharOp is one that never caught my fancy.
Ever since feats first appeared in 3.0, I thought that the "+X to Y" feats were boring and unoriginal. 4e hasn't changed my opinion. If I can make a good explanation that's different. ("Garyn practices with that wand every spare moment he has, what is up with that?" "He doesn't want to fail... again." - insert enigmatic look into the distance.)
Unless it allows the PC to do something fun, or fits with an interesting story, "+X to Y" feats are a waste of my character's choices - in my opinion, of course. Besides, like jcarleski said above, you get so many more interesting options by 30th level, that losing a few points is no big deal. In fact, those interesting options often make it easier to set up things like combat advantage that help balance out any "penalties" subtly rather than overtly.
But to each their own. That's what's cool about this game. :)
I much prefer the situational feats and their bonuses. I get so much more enjoyment in those moments when everything comes together. Those are the moments you tend to remember the most. Not the "You know, I don't think I've missed with one attack roll today" moments.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Let me guess: You don't get those feats for free if you have bought the original books.It's Complete Psionics all over again.
Selling defective and inferior product and later selling the fix is despicable.
Thanks for the threadcrap, your post has been flagged.
Hey Gary, any chance we can get a threadcrapping flag? KaeYoss doesn't seem to capable of participating in any 4e discussion except by being a raging dick. It was cute for a while, but at this point, I'm sick of it.
Thanks,
Sebastian
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Why are these feats considered to be so good when weapon focus in 3.x is generally considered on the weak side? It it because 3.x feats tend to be more powerful, and therefore weapon focus was weak in comparison to them, or is it because 4e has fewer bonuses to hit and they add up quickly?
Just curious - I've seen people make reference to these feats being broken, but I don't quite understand why.
I do agree though, they aren't particularly sexy.
|
Geez, I'll happily be 'ignorant'. It seems to require less Peptobismol.
Yeah, but it apparently *inhale* requires more Hostess Twinkies and Pizza...*cough*
Ok, so the "controversy" is basically this: 4e is a game system that isn't perfect and people can min/max - optimize like any other edition? That, maybe, since they only had a couple of years to develop the system, there may be a kink or two?
Is this what I'm reading here? If not let me know, but, if so, um, yeah? It's a game? It was published? No game I've ever seen published was perfect? (Sorry for the upspeak, the mood just hit me...)
So, I guess I need to go with #4 or #5. Meh.
It's a sound system. It was written by people. Maybe they made a math mistake or two. Maybe they're trying to be cute as to how to address the "problem". No big deal, and no controversy I can see.
;)
Why are these feats considered to be so good when weapon focus in 3.x is generally considered on the weak side? It it because 3.x feats tend to be more powerful, and therefore weapon focus was weak in comparison to them, or is it because 4e has fewer bonuses to hit and they add up quickly?
Just curious - I've seen people make reference to these feats being broken, but I don't quite understand why.
I do agree though, they aren't particularly sexy.
While I certainly believe that they are boring and I would much rather have a feat that is more interesting, I see them as very powerful options, much more so when compared to similar options.
In 3.X Weapon Focus provided +1 bonus and that was it, your attack bonus was scaling (I would just randomly throw out) almost twice as fast as 4e attack bonuses, so that +1 means less than in 4e (I think, these are more random thoughts rather than vetted facts).
Also kick in the fact that Weapon/Implement Expertise scales at each tier makes them even more significant.
So, yeah, I think 4e has fewer bonuses to hit and that they add up quickly.
I don't like these feats for two reasons, I think they are boring and I think they are overpowered.
I don't expect them to change anything below 15th level, but beyond that I imagine that differences between characters to pop up.
Why are these feats considered to be so good when weapon focus in 3.x is generally considered on the weak side? It it because 3.x feats tend to be more powerful, and therefore weapon focus was weak in comparison to them, or is it because 4e has fewer bonuses to hit and they add up quickly?
Just curious - I've seen people make reference to these feats being broken, but I don't quite understand why.
I do agree though, they aren't particularly sexy.
In general, there are fewer ways to get attack bonuses in 4E, and fewer of those bonuses stack. Also, since saves were flipped into defenses, an attack bonus does double-duty, effectively acting the same way a save DC increase for casters did in 3.5E (which is something that was sharply curtailed from 3E because it was considered very powerful, IIRC).
So in the context of 4E, especially in comparison to other 4E feats, the expertise feats are so good they are very hard to skip. Which, interestingly, is particularly hard on classes with powers that are split between [weapon] and [implement] keywords (a lesson WotC obviously heeded when designing the druid).
|
|
I'll even fess up that it took me a while to figure out what "NAD" meant
I however will have to ask. What is NAD?
Perhaps because I haven't played beyond the glorious 3rd level yet. But, +1/+2/+3? Really that much of a game changer? True the "optimisers" may automatically take the etc 5% chance to bash something at 1st level. I think there are enough other interesting feats to make this only the auto-choice (I say auto-choice, not if you take it full stop) of the person who likes to min/max.
So blah is my opinion on the matter.... Of course it may change whe I find out what NAD is?
S.
I'll even fess up that it took me a while to figure out what "NAD" meant
I however will have to ask. What is NAD?
Perhaps because I haven't played beyond the glorious 3rd level yet. But, +1/+2/+3? Really that much of a game changer? True the "optimisers" may automatically take the etc 5% chance to bash something at 1st level. I think there are enough other interesting feats to make this only the auto-choice (I say auto-choice, not if you take it full stop) of the person who likes to min/max.
So blah is my opinion on the matter.... Of course it may change whe I find out what NAD is?
S.
NAD == Non AC Defense. Will, Fortitude or Reflex.
Basically saves in 3.x terms.
Which, interestingly, is particularly hard on classes with powers that are split between [weapon] and [implement] keywords (a lesson WotC obviously heeded when designing the druid).I'm a swordmage and this little factoid made me extremely sad.
Try playing a human paladin...I couldn't even get 3 at-wills that keyed off the same freakin stat. Needing two expertise feats was the least of my worries... :P
For me, these kinda fall between #2 & #3... I'm not 100% convinced that they are errata disguised as feats, but whether by error or design there is an underlying issue with the math that these feats have been designed to address.
I'm still not 100% sure how I'm going to address these feats in my game, but given we haven't really started using anything outside of the PHB yet (apart from some FR stuff) and everyone is still low level I'm not going to worry about it too much. Life's too short. :D
So in the context of 4E, especially in comparison to other 4E feats, the expertise feats are so good they are very hard to skip. Which, interestingly, is particularly hard on classes with powers that are split between [weapon] and [implement] keywords (a lesson WotC obviously heeded when designing the druid).
FYI, WoTC released a feat in the Monk Playtest that alleviates this issue, but only if you use the same weapon as your implement.
FYI, WoTC released a feat in the Monk Playtest that alleviates this issue, but only if you use the same weapon as your implement.So in the context of 4E, especially in comparison to other 4E feats, the expertise feats are so good they are very hard to skip. Which, interestingly, is particularly hard on classes with powers that are split between [weapon] and [implement] keywords (a lesson WotC obviously heeded when designing the druid).
That's great news, but man, is that a bad, bad place for that feat to appear. Hopefully it makes the PHB 3 cut...
Lets see. The feats give you +1 at 1st-14th, +2 at 15th through 24th and +3 at 25 through 30th level.
I guess I see the problem without really getting worked up about it. Its not a huge deal for characters below 15th level but it does seem to become something of a 'required' at some point after that. Probably by 15th and nearly certainly at 25th and beyond as its now just phenomenal.
Kind of reminds me of the weapons mastery chain of feats where getting any individual one of them was nothing really stunning but if you kept stacking them onto each other they were really, really, potent later on. I don't ever recall any character going up the chain from 1st but if you made a 14th level fighter from scratch you go a lot of bang by picking them all up.
I agree, but I think in this case "defective and inferior product" is a bit harsh. I do think that they should have issued erratta, though.
Selling defective and inferior product and later selling the fix is despicable.
If it needs errata, then it's defective and inferior.
No biggie, it happens. Post errata and fix it, and it's all fine and well.
Selling errata to fix errors - that's where I object.
Let me guess: You don't get those feats for free if you have bought the original books.It's Complete Psionics all over again.
Selling defective and inferior product and later selling the fix is despicable.
Thanks for the threadcrap, your post has been flagged.
Hey Gary, any chance we can get a threadcrapping flag? KaeYoss doesn't seem to capable of participating in any 4e discussion except by being a raging dick. It was cute for a while, but at this point, I'm sick of it.
Thanks,
Sebastian
Thanks for the personal insult, your post has been flagged.
hey Gary, any chance we can get him banned? Sebastian cannot help but derail threads he thinks should be over and insult people in the process.
I think I must be missing something here. It is +3 to hit at the maximum right? +15% is that really so huge? Perhaps just because I haven't played high level yet? Is it that you can't possibly hit creatures at high level without this feat?
Confused,
S.
My understanding is that there is a difference in how PC attack bonuses scale when compared to how monster defences scale once you reach high levels. I think someone upthread mentioned -4 (or -20%) at level 30 but I could be mistaken about these numbers.
Whether this difference in scaling is a math error or is by design is debatable (from my POV at least), but the Expertise feats do alleviate this difference.
I can't speak from experience about how high-level play is affected without these feats, but some people argue that the difference in scaling isn't a big issue once you take into account the ability of the PCs to buff each others attack bonuses through the use of tactics and powers.
If it needs errata, then it's defective and inferior.
No biggie, it happens. Post errata and fix it, and it's all fine and well.
Selling errata to fix errors - that's where I object.
It is the community that has labelled this as "errata". AFAIK WotC hasn't made any significant comment about why they introduced these feats.
The argument runs that "WotC are unwilling to admit they made a mistake with the underlying math" so they introduced these feats to fix the "problem" without having to admit it exists.
Of course this ignores the fact that WotC have already put out errata to fix the math mistakes they made with the DC by Level table in the DMG (& DM Screen).
Like most internet controveries, you might want to use a grain of salt or two to aid digestion of the arguments from either side... :D
I think I must be missing something here. It is +3 to hit at the maximum right? +15% is that really so huge? Perhaps just because I haven't played high level yet? Is it that you can't possibly hit creatures at high level without this feat?
Confused,
S.
Here's the deal with 4e bonuses -- of any source. A serious optimizer will say he needs that 20 at 1st level, that he needs a +3 proficiency bonus, etc... The horrible truth is that he's, well, partly right.
4e balance is about stacking up lots of little bonuses. So no single bonus is going to make or break a PC; we all know that a 16 in your attack stat doesn't make you a putz. But if you neglect enough bonuses you're definately going to notice a problem. For example, if you neglect to jack up your attack stat at level-ups, if you neglect to take Expertise, if your DM neglects those regularly scheduled deliveries of bling, the loss of those bonuses do add up. By epic level, you will be a putz, and you and/or your DM will need to compensate somehow (lower level monsters, tactics of SWAT-level efficiency, using a lot of extra character resources).
Exactly how many bonuses you need to lose to become a putz is up to debate, but I think four of them is at least touching on putz territory. And at the cost of a single feat, I can't imagine ever NOT taking Expertise in a RAW game; it's just too good of a deal to pass up. They don't do much to define my character, but I can do that with my zillion other PC options. And with straight role playing.
It is the community that has labelled this as "errata". AFAIK WotC hasn't made any significant comment about why they introduced these feats.
That can go either way. Was it really not their intention, or are they spin doctoring?
There's a difference between intentions and statements about intentions.
The argument runs that "WotC are unwilling to admit they made a mistake with the underlying math" so they introduced these feats to fix the "problem" without having to admit it exists.Of course this ignores the fact that WotC have already put out errata to fix the math mistakes they made with the DC by Level table in the DMG (& DM Screen).
Okay, now we're getting somewhere.
Like most internet controveries, you might want to use a grain of salt or two to aid digestion of the arguments from either side... :D
Okay okay. So let me rephrase what I said to make the meaning I intended originally more clear: If it is errata in disguise that is being sold, I find it despicable, because I find that sort of thing despicable (and it doesn't matter what wizards says about what this is all about). If it's just new crunch, then... It's just new crunch. Needed or not, boring or not, it doesn't concern me. I have no opinion about it, as I have no opinion about 4e's details really (since I don't play 4e).
I'm not here to discuss 4e as a game, but wizards' actions and implications behind these actions.
The reason for this is simple: Even though their current product lines don't interest me (I don't like 4e, it's not my sort of game; I don't like their current miniatures, I think the quality is too low and the price is too high; I don't like their current forgotten realms any more, so I won't buy any more rulebooks or novels), that might change in the future (maybe 5e will be closer to what I enjoy as a game again; maybe they turn the wheel around on minis; Maybe they fix the realms again, or come out with a new world that is sufficiently interesting for me to buy sourcebooks and/or novels about it.
There was a time when I liked their products. Such a time may come again.
But that doesn't matter if I don't like the company itself and its actions.
Maybe 5e will be the s**+ and blow PF RPG out of the water, or something like that, but unless they change their attitude, I'll keep making my dissatisfaction known with my wallet.
And for that reason I keep looking for their actions. Even after they have driven me away with their 4e campaign and what they did to my favourite setting, they keep doing things that drive me further away, like the PDF thing.
I try to keep an open mind, but that doesn't help if the good actions don't come.
And complaints are important. Ask the Paizo guys. A lot of those complaints might be ungrounded, but those can be as valuable as the perfectly justified complaints. And sometimes you will find something you haven't thought of and go "damn, he's right, that really is a problem".
Insulting and driving away those who complain will mean that no one dares to speak against the Powers that Be, and that's the worst that can happen to you as a company. You don't want to be dependant on a small core of customers who are fanatical followers to you and would buy your used hankies if you put them in a blister. You shouldn't drive those off, but it's always good business sense to please the maximum amount of people while displeasing the mimimum amount of other people. You have to make compromises sometimes, but most of the time, you can do both, and its often not just what you do, but also how you do it.
KaeYoss,
I can sympathise with how you feel about the direction WotC has taken with their product line and their actions as a company. In fact, I agree with many of the points you have just made.
To my mind, the existence of this thread and others like it are symptomatic to what I see as the biggest failing of Wizards' as a company right now. Open and honest communication with it's customers.
The reasoning behind why the Expertise feats have been added to the game hasn't been disclosed (AFAIK) and even if had been, a large chunk of the community would be unable to take it at face value due to WotC's recent track record in this area. That is, wrongly or rightly, some people feel they can no longer trust the company's statements.
One of the things I love about Paizo is their obvious commitment to communicating openly with their customers. This sort of commitment engenders a level of customer trust in a company's statements that is hard to get back once it has been lost.
Personally, I'm willing to give most people (and companies) the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the intentions behind their actions, although I will admit that WotC hasn't done themselves any favours in this regard lately. Although...
Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.
:D
|
|
I think Mr. Mearls said in an ENWorld thread that a Development Article might be published explaining the addition of the Expertise feats. I have yet to see it.
I'm in the disguised errata camp. A +3 to hit at epic levels is significant (this is in disagreement with a previous comment, but there it is). Since so much of the game is based on attack rolls, it seems like a no brainer that every class would take an Expertise feat (although the classes that are split between martial and spells would suffer). If a feat is a no brainer to take for every class, that makes it broken and suggests that it is a fix rather than simply a new choice.
It might not be so desirable at the lowest levels, but I would definitely take it in the Paragon tier.
That said, in my experience running L30 fights in 4e, the Expertise feats really aren't necessary.
Here's the deal with 4e bonuses -- of any source. A serious optimizer will say he needs that 20 at 1st level, that he needs a +3 proficiency bonus, etc... The horrible truth is that he's, well, partly right.4e balance is about stacking up lots of little bonuses. So no single bonus is going to make or break a PC; we all know that a 16 in your attack stat doesn't make you a putz. But if you neglect enough bonuses you're definately going to notice a problem. For example, if you neglect to jack up your attack stat at level-ups, if you neglect to take Expertise, if your DM neglects those regularly scheduled deliveries of bling, the loss of those bonuses do add up. By epic level, you will be a putz, and you and/or your DM will need to compensate somehow (lower level monsters, tactics of SWAT-level efficiency, using a lot of extra character resources).
Exactly how many bonuses you need to lose to become a putz is up to debate, but I think four of them is at least touching on putz territory.
I think what you're describing, and I largely agree with, is the result of "fixing" the math with target assumptions that are too tight. A little more slip in the gears, while vulnerable to exploitation, would serve the more casual players better, I think.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Of course this ignores the fact that WotC have already put out errata to fix the math mistakes they made with the DC by Level table in the DMG (& DM Screen).
I should probably start a new thread about this, but I've been running my game using the revised DCs feel way too low. I recently started using the DCs printed in the DMG, and they seem to fit my game better. I realize there's all sorts of math to prove they're broken, but they just seem to work for me.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
In general, there are fewer ways to get attack bonuses in 4E, and fewer of those bonuses stack. Also, since saves were flipped into defenses, an attack bonus does double-duty, effectively acting the same way a save DC increase for casters did in 3.5E (which is something that was sharply curtailed from 3E because it was considered very powerful, IIRC).
That makes a lot of sense.
I find that in 4e, the difference between DMing and playing is much greater than in prior editions. As a result, I have a really hard time figuring out what is/isn't good from the perspective of the players. Good to know.
I'm between #1 and #3. I'm about to start playing in a 4E campaign this weekend, and the DM has made the easiest, most sensible errata for these feats that I've seen:
Expertise feats are paragon-tier feats.
Easy as that; six word fix. I should point out the ubiquity of these feats around a gaming table. First of all, just about any build higher than 6th level with the DDI Character Builder includes these feats. They're practically an "auto add" in the CB (but so is Toughness, it seems). Also, I'd be tempted to walk around to Living Forgotten Realms tables at a convention and, in polling characters of at least 6th level, ask how many of them have an expertise feat. I'm sure it's much more than half. That seems to me to indicate a "feat tax," and poor game design.
I should probably start a new thread about this, but I've been running my game using the revised DCs feel way too low. I recently started using the DCs printed in the DMG, and they seem to fit my game better. I realize there's all sorts of math to prove they're broken, but they just seem to work for me.
I use them as they were presented originally, too. My players succeed enough as it is, not that that is a bad thing, but I do not want to make it any easier. The math is not the be all and end all in a game that uses randomization. Besides, my players are having fun when they are kicking ass and taking names. They are also having fun in those moments when nothing seems to go their way. Those are the moments that they seem to keep bringing up when they say "Remember when...".
When I first saw this post, I thought, oh no, here comes the whining... but, after reading through everything, I guess I have to begin to agree that these feats are a bit of a mess. It *is* bad when a feat is so good that it overshadows nearly every other feat available to that character. Dwarven weapon proficiency is another one: +2 to damage and proficiency in all superior axes and hammers... uh, that's a no brainer if you're a melee dwarf.
Normally, I'd say, well, characters don't HAVE to take them, they provide a nice way to get another +1 by taking a feat and then reducing your main stat by 2 or 4 so you can bump up your other stats...
But, the game I'm playing in, we have four 2nd level characters, and the DM is running us through a published adventure that includes a Level 4 Solo Young Black Dragon that can cloak itself in darkness AND sit in the middle of a pool of water (which we have no idea how deep it is). So, it sits there in the dark, blasting us, and we can't hit it. If we run into the water, who knows what's going to happen to us, and, if we run into the darkness to attack it, it gets total concealment for another +5 to it's already very difficult to hit AC of 22. With an AC of 27, a second level character is going to need some damn good rolls to hit the dang thing, unless just completely optimized. I'm not even sure you can get combat advantage to it if you can't even see it. So, if they are going to be publishing foes that are that freaking tough, well, then they are encouraging optimization, which sucks.
If I were DMing it, I'd have toned down the power of the dragon, but the guy DMing the game doesn't have a lot of experience, so he's playing it as written. (Meaning, a foe for 5 characters, not 4, which is a whole other story... the stubborn guy in our gaming group refused to consider having an NPC come along with us and then attacked the NPC the DM put in the dungeon for us to meet... "I'm a dwarf and she's a half-orc, so I hate her, and she's got magic armor, so I'm going to strip it off her before she even wakes up, never mind that she probably has good intelligence for us.... oh, and that I'm 'good'". Yeah, what a jackass.)
An optimized 2nd level character lucky enough to have already found a magic weapon, with expertise, would have a +10 attack. But, that's totally optimized, putting an 18 into the main stat, getting a racial bonus, nerfing every other stat, taking a feat for expertise, and using a +3 proficiency weapon that has a +1 enchantment. And, that character still needs to roll a 17 to hit this young dragon when it is in the darkness. Insane. Even with the +3 we could get from our warlord if he hadn't wasted that power on an imp (an imp!), that's still a 14 to hit the dang thing, by a fully optimized character. Crazy.
So, as a party, we ran to go kill other things. We might come back to fight another day if we can come up with a way to daze or stun the dang dragon so that it drops its globe of darkness, but I'm not sure any of our characters will be able to do that. I'm suggesting that we go hire another swordarm (we don't have a defender... we have a wizard, cleric, warlord, and avenger) and then come back later to kill the thing, and I think the stubborn guy is going to finally come to his senses and see that we need another member of the party, even if it has to be an NPC.
Sorry to totally go off topic there. Rant over.