|
2 years ago ::
Mar 02, 2011 - 7:53PM
#1
|
|
|
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"
Show
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
Problem | Solution |
|---|
Math Fixes |
|---|
| Attack degrades by 4 over 30 levels. |
Versatile Expertise @ 5 |
| NADs degrade by 4 over 30 levels |
Improved Defense @ 7 |
| 1Lowest NAD degrades by an additional 3 |
Add 1 to lowest NAD at 17, 22, 27 |
| AC degrades by 2 over 30 levels |
No fix. Not necessarily an issue and giving defenders standard 50AC is troublesome |
| 2Overpowered NAD items |
Remove scaling from Belt of Vim, Boots of Quickness, Diamond Cincture, Cirlet of Indomitability, Helm of Able Defense. |
Balance Fixes |
|---|
| 3Melee Training |
Choose 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). |
| 4Weaplement |
Implement 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!
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Mar 02, 2011 - 8:02PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Aug 23, 2008
|
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. 
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Mar 02, 2011 - 8:07PM
#3
|
|
|
I'd do Versatile Expertise at 5, Paragon Defenses at 11. Improved Defenses and weapon specific expertise are worth the feats.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Mar 02, 2011 - 8:14PM
#4
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Mar 02, 2011 - 8:18PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Jul 16, 2010
|
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.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Mar 02, 2011 - 8:18PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Sep 17, 2007
|
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).
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Mar 02, 2011 - 8:31PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Aug 23, 2008
|
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.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Mar 02, 2011 - 8:34PM
#8
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Mar 02, 2011 - 8:42PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Sep 17, 2007
|
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).
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Mar 02, 2011 - 8:45PM
#10
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
