Modern Feat Tax Fix

105 posts / 0 new
Last post
There was a thread about a year ago - The Endgame Errata - many many pages long with a good solution.
Essentially it gave expertise free at 5 and fixed some other issues.

To be clear on the purpose of a feat tax fix: Take attack for example: Players lose about 4 over 30 levels. So instead of having the designed 50% hit rate they now have a 30% hit rate - assuming they max their main stat. The goal is to balance that out and then from there players can choose where to allocate their resources - they can choose to buff atk, dmg, def, initiative, etc.
Full explanation
63341907 wrote:
Gencon 2008. Developer panel states they want 55% to theabsolute minimum to hit percent vs even level. Why? Because during play testing they found that combats could drag for 14+ rounds at 50% hit chance and it just wasn't fun. Their base assumption is a 16 stat, boosted at every opportunity, and a +2 Prof weapon if a weapon user. 15 AC, 13 NADs at level leads to +5/3 to hit which hits on a 10+, which is 55%. They achieved their goal. Trumpets blared and etc. 

Someone clever took this statement, scaled PCs up to 30, and went "Wait a minute.... we lose accuracy, we're not maintaining the parity developers said they wanted." Developer respone: "Yeah, we changed the way scaling worked at one point and didn't notice that, thanks. We will 'Publish a fix in the PHB2.'" Worth noting that during development someone obviously wasn't talking to someone else, because a clever person made sure AC scaled properly even after whatever the internal change was, they invented Masterwork. Someone attempted to add the NAD fix onto Masterwork, but did not do a good job, heh. 

Expertise Feats are published. Community response "Aren't these a feat tax?" Developer response "Kind of, but we wanted to publish the fix in the format of a feat because we wanted everyone to have access to it. If we'd errata'd the level-up chart people who don't play with the online content wouldn't have gotten it." This was before they switched over to making extensive use of errata. 

Flaws in the fix are pointed out for MID classes and etc, we get Versatile Expertise. Still no non-feat tax fix. Essentials are published, with basically a whole second feat rolled into the Expertise feats. Which is probably the best solution they'll ever offer. 

The defense issues stem from the same central problem and the some original statement, developers wanted parity > parity doesn't exist.

Worth noting that a party that does not take any +NAD or +Hit feats, and if there is "no fix required" then they shouldn't, will get into situations where they only hit 25% of the time, and are hit 95% of the time (in the NADS, ouch, as AC does scale). With MM3/MV damage expressions that will result in a TPK even for a party that is optimized around those constraints at Epic. Might as well make them all MID classes while you're at it.



Example of Degredation: Errata to the Levelup Chart








































ProblemSolution
Math Fixes
Attack degrades by 4 over 30 levels.Versatile Expertise @ 5
NADs degrade by 4 over 30 levelsImproved Defense @ 7
1Lowest NAD degrades by an additional 3Add 1 to lowest NAD at 17, 22, 27
AC degrades by 2 over 30 levelsNo fix. Not necessarily an issue and giving defenders standard 50AC is troublesome
2Overpowered NAD itemsRemove scaling from Belt of Vim, Boots of Quickness, Diamond Cincture, Cirlet of Indomitability, Helm of Able Defense.
Balance Fixes
3Melee TrainingChoose stat to atk/dmg for MBA at 1 for any character with a melee at-will weapon power that is not str based. (pre-nerf Melee Training).
4WeaplementImplement abilities through weapons - add the enhancement value to the attack and damage, but ignoring any item properties. If a player wishes to receive the item properties they can acquire MC feats or take Arcane Implement Proficiency.
CB Solution - add a dummy implement for calculating atk/dmg 


1
 NAD is still lower than higher NADs. This is to fix it degrading even more.
2 With The NADs scaling fixed these should not scale - they would be the choice for every defender if they gave +3 to a defense. Every defender would buy every single 1 - limiting choice.
3
Melee Weapon users who are not str based are unable to hit with a MBA (See Battlemind, Chaladin, Dex Ranger, Dex/Cha Rogue, Avenger). It's illogical that they can hit all day with normal attacks, but once a MBA comes they whiff everytime.
4 Cleric/Avenger/Paly carry a second main weapon.


I need suggestions on the AC degredation fix and on proof of an initiative degredation. For PCs they get half level + dex mod. Monsters seem to get half level and ____? If someone has some math they could link me to that'd be great.

I'm looking for real analysis of the issues and proposed fixes, not simply "this is how I do/don't handle it - my players are ok"

Thanks for any help!
There are reasons why some characters take Expertise other than Versatile, so I'd modify it as picking one Expertise at L.5 (Free). THey don't stack anyhow so I don't see why one would need to ban them, if some strange Character decided (for whatever reason) to take other such Feats (it would almost certainly be a foolish decision on the player's part but...)

Improved Defenses free at L.7
New signature under development.
I'd do Versatile Expertise at 5, Paragon Defenses at 11. Improved Defenses and weapon specific expertise are worth the feats.
There are reasons why some characters take Expertise other than Versatile, so I'd modify it as picking one Expertise at L.5 (Free).

Ya I actually intended that. Was just short with my words. But now that I think about it I'm not sure. See the replies below

Imp Def sounds good.

Are there still outdated racial powers that need to be fixed? What is the scale that they should be?4/8/12? instead of 3/6/9 (adding 1/2/3). Or was it 3/6/9 instead of 2/4/6?


Paragon Defenses at 11. Improved Defenses [is] worth the feats.


Paragon defense is +1 to all NADs. According to the old thread there was a bigger difference(3 differnece I think). Improved defense should be for free.


Any other fixes?
There are reasons why some characters take Expertise other than Versatile, so I'd modify it as picking one Expertise at L.5 (Free). THey don't stack anyhow so I don't see why one would need to ban them, if some strange Character decided (for whatever reason) to take other such Feats (it would almost certainly be a foolish decision on the player's part but...)



Some of those expertise feats are honestly ridiculous (like Staff Expertise's never provoking for ranged and area attacks).  Stick to Versatile Expertise for free; they can use a feat if they want that extra bit.

Edit:  Also, giving out any expertise feat punishes classes that don't have super expertise feats, like dagger implement casters, ki users, totem users, etc.
Maybe it's just me, but I feel like the Essentials Expertise feats fix this issue. It's kind of hard to explain, but while the bonuses they give are usually not good enough to take a feat made up entirely of them, in conjunction with the Expertise bonus they make a feat tax into a genuinely interesting and useful choice beyond mathpatching. Similarly, if I were to tackle Superior X where X is Will/Fort/Ref, I wouldn't remove the bonus entirely. Instead, make the defense bonuses apply at level 16/21, and have the Superior feats give you a +1/tier bonus to their defense plus their perk. This slightly corrects the issue with defenses, but retains an incentive for picking up something that isn't the insanely powerful Superior Will to round yourself out.
Mountain Cleave Rule: You can have any sort of fun, including broken, silly fun, so long as I get to have that fun too (e. g., if you can warp reality with your spells, I can cleave mountains with my blade).
Maybe it's just me, but I feel like the Essentials Expertise feats fix this issue. It's kind of hard to explain, but while the bonuses they give are usually not good enough to take a feat made up entirely of them, in conjunction with the Expertise bonus they make a feat tax into a genuinely interesting and useful choice beyond mathpatching.

The problem is that doesn't fix the problem he's getting at with "Feat Tax"

If you combine the mathpatch with a specific Feat then every character has to take that Feat in order to get the patch. So it's still a tax: You get a bit of whipped cream on top, but it's still a tax because you *have* to pay it (take that Feat), which is an Opportunity Cost.

If the side-benefits are good enough, they should be stand-alone feats rather than bundling them with the math-patch. That way real options return, which is what 4E tries to create.

If I understand Kryx's goal correctly, and I think I do, it is to *UNBUNDLE* what amounts to "disguised math errata" from Feats. Incorporate these fixes directly into characters, rather than compelling them to pay a tax in order to get the fix in the first place.

Then if you like this, that, or the other benefit of whatever Feat, take it for that reason. Players will then have the oportunity to make more choices.

New signature under development.
If I understand Kryx's goal correctly, and I think I do, it is to *UNBUNDLE* what amounts to "disguised math errata" from Feats. Incorporate these fixes directly into characters, rather than compelling them to pay a tax in order to get the fix in the first place.

Then if you like this, that, or the other benefit of whatever Feat, take it for that reason. Players will then have the oportunity to make more choices.


Correct.
Maybe it's just me, but I feel like the Essentials Expertise feats fix this issue. It's kind of hard to explain, but while the bonuses they give are usually not good enough to take a feat made up entirely of them, in conjunction with the Expertise bonus they make a feat tax into a genuinely interesting and useful choice beyond mathpatching.

The problem is that doesn't fix the problem he's getting at with "Feat Tax"

If you combine the mathpatch with a specific Feat then every character has to take that Feat in order to get the patch. So it's still a tax: You get a bit of whipped cream on top, but it's still a tax because you *have* to pay it (take that Feat), which is an Opportunity Cost.

If the side-benefits are good enough, they should be stand-alone feats rather than bundling them with the math-patch. That way real options return, which is what 4E tries to create.

If I understand Kryx's goal correctly, and I think I do, it is to *UNBUNDLE* what amounts to "disguised math errata" from Feats. Incorporate these fixes directly into characters, rather than compelling them to pay a tax in order to get the fix in the first place.

Then if you like this, that, or the other benefit of whatever Feat, take it for that reason. Players will then have the oportunity to make more choices.




The problem is that the added benefit is very useful, but not significant enough to stand on its own. To put it in another way, if I have a Brutal 1 2d6 weapon, Surprising Charge trumps Weapon Focus every single time. I still like Weapon Focus, but without some extra stuff it just isn't worth it. This is the case with more or less every Expertise, too. If you can get those things as a small benefit, they add to the choices you can make. If you have to pay specifically for them, they're a trap choice. So, since you're going to cut choices that would otherwise be viable from the game anyway...why not keep the more attractive ones?
Mountain Cleave Rule: You can have any sort of fun, including broken, silly fun, so long as I get to have that fun too (e. g., if you can warp reality with your spells, I can cleave mountains with my blade).
The problem is that the added benefit is very useful, but not significant enough to stand on its own.


I understand what you're saying, but it doesn't fix the feat tax. First step: Remove the tax and THEN have a fix for the gimped feat.

2 choices:


  • Allow them to take the other expertise feats - bonuses don't stack.

  • Combine with another minor feat - I'm not familiar enough with them to make a judgement, but if anyone has any ideas please feel free to share.

At this junction, for my game, due to fairness issues with the essentials expertise feats (no equivalents for totems, dagger implements, holy symbols, poorly scaling racial attacks, etc), I remove all expertise feats, and lower all enemy defenses by 1/2/3 at level 1/11/21. I also remove improved defenses, and lower all enemy attacks against FRW by 0/1/2 at level 1/11/21. This way I can use CB without having to worry about house rules. And since I scratch build all my monster stats, these adjustments are no big deal.
It would be much easier to use the CB and just add 1/2/3 to attack and 1/2/3 to def at the levels specified above.
I'd do Versatile Expertise at 5, Paragon Defenses at 11. Improved Defenses and weapon specific expertise are worth the feats.



i've been both a dm and a player, and the dm in me says that this is the correct answer.  but the player in me says "GIMME STAFF EXPERTISE FOR FREE!!!!"
I usually give melee training for free, since it's basically mandatory for any non-essential melee build. You can choose among MT, improved defenses and toughness for free.

Chauntea/Lathander/Torm Cleric since 1995 My husband married a DM - καλὸς καὶ ἀγαθός

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/14.jpg)

This doesn't conveniently work in the character builder, but I think the best solution is to remove the scaling from all of the scaling math tax feats (i.e. blah Expertise, Improved Defenses, Superior blah), and give the scaling bits for free at 11 and 21 (so, +1 to hit and NADs at 11, +2 at 21).

t~
The problem is that the added benefit is very useful, but not significant enough to stand on its own.


Really?  Take out Heavy Blade Expertise's feat bonus to attack rolls and you basically get Defensive Mobility.  I'm not sure how often baddies get OAs that target things that aren't AC, but in those situations HBE is still just flat out better than Defensive Mobility even without the attack bonus.

Now, you can argue that Defensive Mobility is a crappy feat, but it illustrates the point.  The "secondary" effects of the new feats are at least on par with other published feats.  Some are really, really good, but even the less awesome ones are still "normal feat" power level plus the attack bonus.

Question for those who have actually tried to implement this:  is there any way to get the CB to let you have a bonus feat?  I know if I go to a non-22-pointbuy stat array it will whine and give me the orange house symbol but it will still build the character for me.  Is there a way to add bonus feats?


D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Question for those who have actually tried to implement this:  is there any way to get the CB to let you have a bonus feat?  I know if I go to a non-22-pointbuy stat array it will whine and give me the orange house symbol but it will still build the character for me.  Is there a way to add bonus feats?

If you still have the offline character builder, there is a workaround.  Start a character in the online CB, and choose the world/setting you're using (if you're using Home Game, just create in the offline builder).  Save and export the character.  Open it with the offline character builder.  Do everything "illegal" that you want to do.  Save, then import that file back into the online character builder.  As long as you don't touch the houseruled stuff, it should work normally.  I've used this to implement inherent bonuses, and to create divine classes in the Dark Sun setting (so I could add themes), and I've been told it works with houseruled feats.

Known Workarounds.

t~
And if I've had to reformat since the online builder came out...?

D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
And if I've had to reformat since the online builder came out...?


Anyone with the offline character builder could add the alterations and then send you the files.  Check your PMs.

t~

I give out Versatile Expertise for free, and Melee Training (pre-nerf, fixed stat) for free for classes that have multiple melee at-will powers based off a stat other than strength.

I havn't added a new campaign file with the extra "grants" yet, but I'm tempted.

If you want Staff Expertise or Hammer Expertise or some other one, you have to spend a feat for it.  The relevant player did, just for the "doesn't provoke" bits.

I do not currently give Imp. Defenses for free, because I believe that a small number of feat taxes make sense, and my problem is primarily with the number of them rather than the concept.  ("glass canon" is a valid character concept in a way that "can't hit anything in combat" is not)

"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima

My vote is for: at level 5 pick an expertise feat.  Hopefully the other weapon/implement types get feats.  Versatile Expertise would then be a tax for users like holy symbol + weapon.
DPR King Candidates 3.0
How much damage should I shoot for?
You're fired : 1 Kills Per 5 Rounds = .2 KPR Fair Striker : 2 Kills Per 5 Rounds = .4 KPR Highly Optimized : 3 Kills Per 5 Rounds = .6 KPR Nerfbat please : 4 Kills Per 5 Rounds = .8 KPR It's OVER 9000!!!!!: 5 Kills Per 5 Rounds = 1+ KPR
DPR? KPR? KP4R? Bless you
DPR = Damage Per round ~= Chance to hit * damage on a hit KPR = Kills Per Round. 1 Kill = 8*Level+24 damage = DPR/(8*level+24) KPNR = Kills Per N Rounds. How many standards can you kill in N rounds?
I do not currently give Imp. Defenses for free, because I believe that a small number of feat taxes make sense, and my problem is primarily with the number of them rather than the concept.  ("glass canon" is a valid character concept in a way that "can't hit anything in combat" is not)

Not to be rude, but this logic is flawed.
If the whole concept of fixing feat taxes is just to simply fix math that WoTC screwed up then it should apply to every feat tax, not just the attack ones.

Based on the math(please someone correct me if the math has changed since the original post linked in the OP) Attack and defense fall behind by at least 1/2/3 and it ended up being more on attack (4 total I think).


Based on this I think the fairest Feat Tax fixes are as such:


  • Versatile Expertise at 5. New Expertise feats are allowed, but do not stack.

  • Improved Defenses at 7.

  • Pre-Nerf Melee Training at 1 for any character with a melee at-will weapon power that is not str based.


I'd potentially take it even a bit further to fix MID requirements for classes like Paly/Cleric
Not to be rude, but this logic is flawed.

It's not, but you're welcome to feel that way.  I expressed it in terms of "What I do", not what you have to do.

I go into more detail about why I don't fix every bit of slippage in my blog

(I give the "One weapon, one implement that could be a weapon" as the free feat, to avoid boning weaplement/dual weapon/etc users.)

Based on the math(please someone correct me if the math has changed since the original post linked in the OP) Attack and defense fall behind by at least 1/2/3 and it ended up being more on attack (4 total I think).

In addition to Defenses and Attacks, already covered, Initiative falls behind for everyone, ~3 points if you push Dex, 6 if you don't.  (Monsters get 1/2 level to stats, or ~+7 to the modifier over 30 levels.  PCs get +8 over 30 levels, or +4 to the modifier)

AC still slips by one, IIRC.  That's what the paragon specialization feats fix.

"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima

It's not, but you're welcome to feel that way.  I expressed it in terms of "What I do", not what you have to do.


This isn't an opinion piece. If the goal is to fix the simple math of WoTC then it should apply to all math, not just the one you choose.

In addition to Defenses and Attacks, already covered, Initiative falls behind for everyone, ~3 points if you push Dex, 6 if you don't.  (Monsters get 1/2 level to stats, or ~+7 to the modifier over 30 levels.  PCs get +8 over 30 levels, or +4 to the modifier)

Seems like another area to fix.
This isn't an opinion piece. If the goal is to fix the simple math of WoTC then it should apply to all math, not just the one you choose.

Well there's your mistake.

The goal isn't to "fix the math".  If that was the goal, we'd just play Gamma World and ignore all this enhancement bonus magic item stuff and stat boosts and all this other cruft.

The goal is to create a fun game where people have an abiltity to create characters to represent a wide range of archtypes, including ones not foreseen by the game authors.

"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima

.... That's the goal of the game, yes, but the goal of fixing feat taxes is as stated above.
I do not currently give Imp. Defenses for free, because I believe that a small number of feat taxes make sense, and my problem is primarily with the number of them rather than the concept.  ("glass canon" is a valid character concept in a way that "can't hit anything in combat" is not)

Not to be rude, but this logic is flawed.


It's not, but you're welcome to feel that way.  I expressed it in terms of "What I do", not what you have to do.

This isn't an opinion piece. If the goal is to fix the simple math of WoTC then it should apply to all math, not just the one you choose.


.... That's the goal of the game, yes, but the goal of fixing feat taxes is as stated above.

Move the goalposts much?

I stated what I do in my game, since my goal is to create a fun game.  You're telling me I'm wrong in that, because I don't fix every feat tax.  Yet you make no argument about how fixing every feat tax improves the quality of the game, while I make arguments about how it hurts the quality of the game.

You're saying my subjective opinion is objective wrong.  And when I called you on it, you moved the goalposts to "oh, not what the OP was asking for".  Knock that off.

"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima

I have no idea how I'm "moving the goal posts" or why you're getting upset.
I AM the OP and my goal from the beginning of this thread and on the old thread linked in the OP is to fix the math problems that WoTC created. I've stated that repeatedly.

If WoTC didn't have this issue and then try to patch it with a feat tax we wouldn't be having this discussion. My goal is to reverse the first issue and just set the math straight.

In terms of DM implementation it is simply a math fix and should be implemented by every DM imo. If a DM is worried about player challenge they can throw higher level monsters.
Now with that said every DM has the choice as it is their game.

If you just want a list of things that don't scale right, take from the blog post I referenced:



  1. To Hit: Expertise.

  2. AC: Armor Specialization (even w/ magic equipment, you fall off by one)

  3. Your bad NAD (only two stat bumps, so 1-2 NADs really fall behind)

  4. All three NADs (Imp. Defenses)

  5. Initiative (Monsters get 1/2 level to stat, PCs get 8 over 30. Or 2 for most stats)

  6. Melee Training, for some melee, non-str classes (Battleminds are the posterchild)

  7. Armor Proficiency for specific builds (Str/Wis rangers, Shamans, Swarm Druids, etc)

  8. Crit-range expanders for DPR focused builds (monster HP scale fast. PC DPR doesn't w/o serious feat investment)

"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima


If you just want a list of things that don't scale right, take from the blog post I referenced:



  1. To Hit: Expertise.

  2. AC: Armor Specialization (even w/ magic equipment, you fall off by one)

  3. Your bad NAD (only two stat bumps, so 1-2 NADs really fall behind)

  4. All three NADs (Imp. Defenses)

  5. Initiative (Monsters get 1/2 level to stat, PCs get 8 over 30. Or 2 for most stats)

  6. Melee Training, for some melee, non-str classes (Battleminds are the posterchild)

  7. Armor Proficiency for specific builds (Str/Wis rangers, Shamans, Swarm Druids, etc)

  8. Crit-range expanders for DPR focused builds (monster HP scale fast. PC DPR doesn't w/o serious feat investment)



Ya I saw these and I actually have a feq questions comments:

  1. Fixed w/ Versatile @ 5.

  2. Seems minor, but could be fixed

  3. This is part of the game design that you have 2 good defenses and 1 bad. Not everyone can be Paladins or Monks. This has existed in earlier editions as well. I wouldn't fix this. Players can choose to help weak defenses if they want.

  4. Fixed w/ Improved Defense @ 7

  5. Could potentially be fixed like Atk/Def. I'd have to look more into it.

  6. Fixed w/ Melee Training

  7. Any suggested fixes?

  8. Are you suggesting crit-expander feats for classes that don't have it already?

I'd actually also add a #9 - MID problems or Weaplement. Why must holy classes like Cleric/Avenger/Paly be required to have 2 weapon/implements while other classes function with 1? Essentials did a lot to fix this, but I would be inclined to take it a step further to make it so Cleric/Avenger/Paly can cast through their weaplement.

Ya I saw these and I actually have a feq questions comments:

  1. This is part of the game design that you have 2 good defenses and 1 bad. Not everyone can be Paladins or Monks. This has existed in earlier editions as well. I wouldn't fix this. Players can choose to help weak defenses if they want.

  2. Any suggested fixes?

  3. Are you suggesting crit-expander feats for classes that don't have it already?

.


#3: This game version defines "bad" as "~3 less".  8 less is something else in kind.  The problem is a scaling one, not the static difference.  (that is, your difference of 3 at low levels becomes 9 at high levels.  IMHO, it should stay at 3.)

#7: I have build specific feat patches.  For example, my Hide Armor Expertise is "For purposes of AC only while in Hide, treat your Dex modifier as 3/4/6", IIRC.  Something along those lines, anyway.  It's still primal only, but it makes Hide armor scale right.

For Warlock's, I've written up a feat for a Dragon Pitch that didn't get accepted that does something similar based on shadow walk, and another that's like the Str/Wis ranger feat described next..  For Str/Wis Rangers, I've stolen a feat from someone else's Dragon pitch for a Ranger "Chain+Scale Prof in one feat" feat.  Still has preqs, and adds Ranger specific preqs, but lowers the feat cost.  (Again, you'll note my opinion that some cost is acceptable, and the problem is the amount of cost, not the existance thereof.  So, you'd want to give them for free or something...)

#8.  Well, sorta.  Striker classes that don't have good ones.  Warlock's Crit enhancer feat has too high/limiting preqs.  I'd remove those, but replace with a thematic condition ("cursed").  Similar deal for Sorcs("arcane").  Rangers and Rogues should both have access to "quarry/have CA" style crit feats... yeah, the weapon specific ones are mostly close-nuf, but Cha Rogues get a little bitter.

"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima

#3: This game version defines "bad" as "~4 less".  8 less is something else in kind.  The problem is a scaling one, not the static difference.  (that is, your difference of 3 at low levels becomes 9 at high levels.  IMHO, it should stay at 3.)


Ya I remember this topic for the original thread. Add 1 to the lowest NAD at 4/8/12/16/20/26?


#7:


Could you post the specifics? I'd love to incorporate these.

#8.  Well, sorta.  Striker classes that don't have good ones.  Warlock's Crit enhancer feat has too high/limiting preqs.  I'd remove those, but replace with a thematic condition ("cursed").  Similar deal for Sorcs("arcane").  Rangers and Rogues should both have access to "quarry/have CA" style crit feats... yeah, the weapon specific ones are mostly close-nuf, but Cha Rogues get a little bitter.


I'm wondering if this is a roundabout fix to high monster HP that was discussed in the original thread. If your purpose is to do more dmg to keep up with monsters I'd ixnay this. If your purpose is to make feats attainable to all builds of Strikers then I'd love to see them all.

#3: This game version defines "bad" as "~4 less".  8 less is something else in kind.  The problem is a scaling one, not the static difference.  (that is, your difference of 3 at low levels becomes 9 at high levels.  IMHO, it should stay at 3.)


Ya I remember this topic for the original thread. Add 1 to the lowest NAD at 4/8/12/16/20/26?

I don't have any good fixes for this one yet.  It's an artifact of only-two stat boosts (when monsters get 6), so the relevant levels would be 8/14/21/28 (assuming even stat start).

(Re: DPR and Monsters.  Monster basically gain 8 hp/level.  A standard monster at around 5th level should die around the 4th or 5th hit.  So, to keep up, PC DPR should go up by around 2/level, which is the source of that 20/40/60 old rule of thumb.  But that doesn't take into account the shift of hits from at-wills to encounters, and that some encounters are simply sick.  I'm not trying to present a solution here, just trying to give you the ground work to think about the issues.  It's a pretty horrible unanalyzable mess)

"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima

so the relevant levels would be 8/14/21/28 (assuming even stat start).

I thought you said it fell behind by 9. Does 4 fix this?


I'd really like to see your #3 and #7 solutions. And you also mentioned a #9 or MID/Weaplement solution earlier. How did you word that?
so the relevant levels would be 8/14/21/28 (assuming even stat start).

I thought you said it fell behind by 9. Does 4 fix this?

I meant it went from "3 worse" to "9 worse", which is slippage of 6, but I was wrong.  The real slide is just 4-5.  (5 for Demigod/other ED that offers +2 to 2 stats).  So yeah, 4 would fix it.
I'd really like to see your #3 and #7 solutions. And you also mentioned a #9 or MID/Weaplement solution earlier. How did you word that?

(there's nothing particularly special in my wording of feats, because I don't bother using my "R&D wording" care when doing house feats, because I'm the DM and can tell people what the Intent was).

Regarding Weaplements: my "free expertise feat" house rule gives "Versatile Expertise".  I chose that because I have a preference for fixes that can be implemented in the CBC via house rules.  Versatile Expertise gives +1/2/3 to hit with a weapon and an implement, but does not limit the bonus to weapon or implement attacks.  And it doesn't require proficiency in the implement, and any weapon can be used as an implement by a monk.

So effectively, that's "+1/2/3 feat bonus to hits" with any two weapons or implements anyone wants.  Well, there are a few implements that are not weapons, so there are certain implement combinations that won't work (but I'll give out the specific Implement feats instead if a PC desires.  The PHB2 versions, not the Essentials "Tax+Refund" feats).  And it certainly handles Expertise for Weaplement users.

"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima

I'd still love to see the solutions as I don't even really know the problem as I haven't played those combinations so I have no idea how to fix it.

And expertise wasn't the issue I'm talking about. I'm talking about characters that require multiple main weapons. Classes like Avenger, Cleric, Paladin. Whereas other classes require 1. 
I've stolen a feat from someone else's Dragon pitch for a Ranger "Chain+Scale Prof in one feat" feat.  Still has preqs, and adds Ranger specific preqs, but lowers the feat cost.  (Again, you'll note my opinion that some cost is acceptable, and the problem is the amount of cost, not the existance thereof.  So, you'd want to give them for free or something...)


Intriguing I was considering a Knighted Lord feat with similar situation - I think the Warlord being stranded at chain (or scale for one build) without pumping there con seems like a shame - they should have plate without hybrdiing in to Paladin.

A Strength Wizdom Ranger - guess I hadnt considered that a real option.

  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

I'd just do a "tier bonus" of +1 per tier to attacks and NADs (at 1, 11, and 21).  That effectively duplicates the effect of the new Expertise feats and Improved Defenses.  I wouldn't give Melee Training for free, though.
I'd just do a "tier bonus" of +1 per tier to attacks and NADs (at 1, 11, and 21).  That effectively duplicates the effect of the new Expertise feats and Improved Defenses.  I wouldn't give Melee Training for free, though.

That'd make for some powerful 1st level characters (which already don't have a lot of problems with being underpowered).

If that's your intention, then sure. But if you're looking for math fixes, then adding the bonuses in at the levels they lose them is probably better.

Personally, I wouldn't give out the new expertise feats at all, as they're essentially two feats in one. A numerical +1 feat bonus per tier should be preferred.
While I do of course see the "irregular" scaling of some game variables (especially attack bonus and secondary NAD) I`ve never (as a player and dm) felt need for a "math fix", even more so after the arrival of essentials.

I as a player have no problem with spending 2 or 3 of my characters feats over 30 levels if I feel I dont hit as much as I want to or if one of my NAD is annoyingly low. After all, that is what feats are for imo. And with the amount of feats availabe to all classes in 4E (as opposed to 3E) there are still plenty of feats left to flesh out your character.

But if you feel otherwise, why not simply give all players 2-3 extra free feats of their choice (say, at level 5 15, 25)?

Thus they can decide if the like to take, for example, versatile expertise, NAD defense feats, melee training or another expertise feat.
In our group we give out the expertise feat for free, when players take a non-combat feat.  It makes for much more interesting characters.  We are considering doing the same with the improved defenses feat.

Noncombat feats:  Alchemy, skill focus, slowfall, Martial practices, skill training, long jumper, etc.