So with WE or IE, that same 30th level character's attacks should be only 1-2 points lower than a 30th level monster's defenses, while his NADs should be 2-3 points lower than the monster's attacks (about the same as his AC). This slight difference is much more manageable (with temporary or situational modifiers) than the 4-5 points mentioned earler.
While this rebalancing works (I call it D&D patch 4.1) it makes WE or IE "REQUIRED" for basically all high level characters. It's worse for hybrid characters or those who use both weapons and implements (such as bards or chaladins) because they need both WE and IE. PD is not "required" but is still a good feat, while RD comes very close to "required."
Now, this is all more or less common knowledge, right? Well I want to make WE and IE no longer "required" so my players don't have to spend a feat on it if they don't want to.
I've talked with some DM's who give their players WE and IE for free at level 5. That does save the players a feat slot, but is really more of a bandaid patch. I want to give my players an option.
So here's the houserule:
At 11th level, give all characters a +1 to all attacks. At 21st level, give them another +1 (for a total +2) to all attacks.
Weapon Expertise and Implement Expertise (and Focused Expertise) now give a flat +1 to attack rolls which does not scale with level.
The +1 to hit from WE and IE is still very useful at low levels, and remains useful even at high levels, but they are no longer "required" feats. Does anyone else already do it this way?
I'm still on the fence whether to give all players PD and RD for free.
I like it.
for my next campaign. I really like the idea of straighten out the math, but I also like the idea of given people options to improve if desired.
I'm pretty sure your math is correct and all, what I'm about to say comes from my experience as a DM of a campaign that started one year and a half ago, at level 1, and has recently reached level 23.
We've been playing the H/P/E published adventures. Some players have taken the Expertise feats, some players haven't. Only the Tank has taken the "...defenses" feat.
I can tell you that my players don't seem to "need" these feats. Sure, it makes their job easier, but what I see at the table is the Rogue hitting with a 3 or 4 on a d20 regularly. Without the feat, this would be 6 or 7? Well, it doesn't look that bad to me.
One thing I noticed is that the "bad" defenses of each PC (like Will for Barbarian and Rogue) is indeed VERY bad. A monster that targets Will is going to hit them on a 3 or 4 most of the times. Strangely, players seem to have accepted this as their "Achille's heel", and they play it accordingly.
"Oh noes, that guy dominates... Wizard, go get him!" and stuff like that.
I think the problem with For/Ref/Will goes even further than "one feat to fix them all".
Lately I was thinking that all classes have an in-built AC balancer. If you use Light Armor, you can normally add your main stat mod to AC. If you use Heavy Armors, well, you use Heavy Armors...
But they didn't do the same for NADs. If your main stats are not relevant to a particular NAD, you're screeewed, and this won't be fixed by having a +3 feat bonus to that NAD, IMO. I'm not saying every class needs to be good at every Defense, but apparently this is true for AC, so I wonder why it isn't for NADs.
Maybe they just didn't think about that... bah.
I'm pretty sure your math is correct and all, what I'm about to say comes from my experience as a DM of a campaign that started one year and a half ago, at level 1, and has recently reached level 23.
We've been playing the H/P/E published adventures. Some players have taken the Expertise feats, some players haven't. Only the Tank has taken the "...defenses" feat.
I can tell you that my players don't seem to "need" these feats. Sure, it makes their job easier, but what I see at the table is the Rogue hitting with a 3 or 4 on a d20 regularly. Without the feat, this would be 6 or 7? Well, it doesn't look that bad to me.
I'm glad you're not having problems with it. I will admit I don't have a lot of personal experience above low paragon, but the math at high levels just doesn't add up.
One thing I noticed is that the "bad" defenses of each PC (like Will for Barbarian and Rogue) is indeed VERY bad. A monster that targets Will is going to hit them on a 3 or 4 most of the times. Strangely, players seem to have accepted this as their "Achille's heel", and they play it accordingly.
"Oh noes, that guy dominates... Wizard, go get him!" and stuff like that.
I think the problem with For/Ref/Will goes even further than "one feat to fix them all".
Lately I was thinking that all classes have an in-built AC balancer. If you use Light Armor, you can normally add your main stat mod to AC. If you use Heavy Armors, well, you use Heavy Armors...
But they didn't do the same for NADs. If your main stats are not relevant to a particular NAD, you're screeewed, and this won't be fixed by having a +3 feat bonus to that NAD, IMO. I'm not saying every class needs to be good at every Defense, but apparently this is true for AC, so I wonder why it isn't for NADs.
Maybe they just didn't think about that... bah.
I think you're "supposed" to have an achilles heel. Most monsters do. But that's neither here nor there.
I think the Epic Fortitude, Epic Reflexes, and Epic Will feats (+4 to the relevent defense) were meant to allow you to protect your achilles heel, but the way the "to hit" and monster DPR math works it's actually worth more to get a +4 to your highest defense, and leave your low defense low.
Anyway, my point is when I got the idea for this houserule, it didn't seem revolutionary to me, so I just wanted to see if anyone else already did it this way.
Okay, so when the PHB1 and MM1 came out last year, it became obvious to the player base fairly quickly that a 30th level character's attacks and NADs would be 4-5 points below a 30th level monster's defenses. WotC also realized this ('tho I don't know why this didn't come up during playtesting)
I have two conflicting theories about this.
1) It was intentional. The idea was that leader buffs, more and better powers/options/items would make up for the difficulty hitting at higher levels.
2) It was an oversight. Something got cut that affected both PC hit and nACD's at higher level, and either the cut was late enough that playtesting was already done, or the problem was noticed, but too late to make a fundamental change. What might the culprit be? Maybe stat-boosting items. If 3e-style stat boosters, +2 to +6, had initially been included, they'd've theoretically raised everyone's attacks and defenses by up to 3 by the higest levels. Just like Expertise.
So here's the houserule:
At 11th level, give all characters a +1 to all attacks. At 21st level, give them another +1 (for a total +2) to all attacks.
Weapon Expertise and Implement Expertise (and Focused Expertise) now give a flat +1 to attack rolls which does not scale with level.
The +1 to hit from WE and IE is still very useful at low levels, and remains useful even at high levels, but they are no longer "required" feats.
A fine idea. I've heard of lots of people giving the feat away for free, but this is good if you want to retain a 'specialization' option (though, really damage-boosting feats already do that, too).
Free +1 to hit and NADs at 5th, 15th, and 25th.
Paragon and Robust Defenses are forbidden. Expertise Feats offer +1 to hit with no scaling.
Others attack boosting feats (Draconic Spellcaster, Feyborn Charm, and Gnome Phantasmist are the big offenders here) offer a non-scaling +1 to hit.
To account for the discrepency in the numbers at higher levels, give players the numerical benefits of WE/IE as appropriate for their character.
Then offer a feat (using the same name) that provides an encounter power effect that triggers when the character hits with a power that uses the appropriate weapon/implement.
For example, a fighter who uses hammers could take Weapon Expertise to gain an encounter power, usable as a free action whenever the character hits with his hammer, that adds the daze condition to the target of the attack (save ends). Weapon Expertise with a sword might add "Target receives 5 ongoing damage (save ends)." Implement Expertise (Holy Weapon) might impart a -2 penalty to an appropriate defense (again, save ends).
In this way each character would be balanced against monsters of their level in terms of numbers, while those who wish to specialize in their chosen weapon/implement would have the ability to enhance an attack every combat.