Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 einargratal Apr 27, 2011 20:40:56	My group has recently started a new campaign with a DM used to older systems.  He's played 4e but not DMed it.  And we've talked to him about whether he'd be giving our characters the Expertise/Improved Defenses feats for free, since it's generally accepted as a "feat tax". He told us there was no need because he would be adjusting encounters to account for our attack and defense stats.  However, our first session, he sent us up against Hobgoblins (Level 3 Soldiers) which have a base AC of 20 and gain a +2AC when adjacent to each other (which they constantly were, even with our minor pull effects at level 1). I had made a Dwarf Warden with an 18str and a Warhammer.  He had a +6atk at level 1, which would need a 16 to hit these things.  Compared to our Rogue who started with 20dex, using dagger (with +1 to hit from rogue feature) and her weapon is a +1.  Giving her a +10 to hit. In the game I ran, I gave my players the option of choosing which path they would take in an open world.  Generally, one way would be "normal" and the other "hard mode".  My players always chose "hard mode" and were happy with what they got considering they could change it to easier at any time. I'm wondering how to deal with the situation of a gigantic gap in attack bonus vs defense.  Especially since I made a comment of how I couldn't hit anything and the DM responded with "Hardmode is hard", which is the excuse I gave my players when they complained about an encounter being difficult.  But they had a choice...and I don't ever remember anyone saying anything about wanting an incredibly hard campaign.
#2 salla Apr 27, 2011 20:43:35	Take that into account and design characters as accurately as possible, and take the Expertise feats on top of it.  Hit the Optimization board for tips.  Get a decent controller who targets Will a lot.  Flank as much as possible (you have a rogue, so that's a good idea anyway).
#3 Cohen95 Apr 27, 2011 22:32:42	Although I agree with Salla's advice, and echo it, it's worth pointing out that a higher attack bonus is generally considered to be a Striker role feature (to wit: the Avenger). Granted, a difference of 4 is a bit much, but don't be surprised if it's consistently easier for your rogue to hit than for you to. Your rogue should also be easier to hit (unless the enemy is marked. It is marked, isn't it, Defender?), and that's part of the balance of it. Still, though, definitely hit the CharOp board if things continue to be harder than you expected, and feel free to bring it up with your DM away from the table. "Hey, remember how I used to offer the group the choice between normal and hard encounters? Can we get that choice, I'm not enjoying the constantly hard stuff. Or can you at least adjust down the defenses, like you told us at the beginning you were going to? That'd be nice."
#4 m4kitsu Apr 27, 2011 23:12:18	It find it typically takes a couple of levels for a group to really hit its stride and figure out how to act in a fight. The players are adapting to each other and the PCs are adapting to the pace of the world, and the DM is adapting to the PCs. Once that is underway, things usually "level off" to a median difficulty that is challenging but not impossible for the PCs. So, stick with it for a few sessions. If things are still frustratingly hard to deal with, then speak with your DM about it. ...Also, a shield-walled line of hobgoblins is supposed to be a tough nut to crack. The counter-balance here is they don't hit all that hard and are fairly vulnerable to control effects. Assuming equal numbers of PCs and Hobgoblins, that's a level+2 fight and should be difficult.
#5 CCS Apr 28, 2011 2:19:23	I'm sorry, you deserve extra feats/bonuses for free why?  Because popular opinion on-line is that you should have them?  No, sorry. If you truely needed this it would've found it's way into the actual erratta by now. Instead?  These feats exist to apease the minority segment of the players who whine & cry about it. So those who see a problem?  They can purchase these feats & get the higher bonus they belive they desreve. Those who don't think there's a problem?  The game continues to work just fine for them. As for thinking that you get to select your difficulty mode...... Well, just because that's how you DM, that doesn't obligate the next guy to do it that way.
#6 slobo777a Apr 28, 2011 2:34:36	I have to echo general sentiments and say that I don't see any major difficulty here. It just reads that an early encounter was difficult to win, and you were expecting it to be easier. But the group won, and without the DM needing to "cheat" on your behalf, yes? If you don't have Expertise for free, then use a feat slot, which is how things work in the rules as written. The "feat tax" is not really a balance issue at all - it's a gripe (justified or not) that there is no real choice if you feel that to remain effective you must take two or three "boring" feats, and therefore don't get to customise your character, which is what feats are supposed to be for. If the DM allows all core material, then take on of the later specialist Expertise feats, which partly solve this problem, and look like the best you'll get in this game.
#7 einargratal Apr 29, 2011 11:17:03	The group did eventually win the fight, but it's mostly because the DM did "cheat" in our favor.  When he said he would scale encounters, I assumed he would put in the effort to figure out what our abilities were and scale it to that.  What he ended up doing was creating an encounter which would TPK 100% of the time, and then just half or quarter the enemy HPs after a few rounds of us getting kicked around. And strikers fill their role to do more damage because they have higher damage powers or weapons.  Every class should be able to hit as often as others.  Their powers fill the role, not being able to hit.  My Warden can mark and create difficult terrain without hitting, but I can't slow or pull or knock prone or do anything a defender NEEDS to do.  They could simply replace me with a battle standard if they wanted my static abilities. And CCS, I was giving information on the feats just to show the difficulty of the situation.  The actual thing I was asking for advice on was how to handle the situation.  If you just want to be a dick, go to a forum where all people do is bitch all day.  These forums tend to be helpful to others.
#8 Cohen95 Apr 29, 2011 12:01:04	The group did eventually win the fight, but it's mostly because the DM did "cheat" in our favor.  When he said he would scale encounters, I assumed he would put in the effort to figure out what our abilities were and scale it to that.  What he ended up doing was creating an encounter which would TPK 100% of the time, and then just half or quarter the enemy HPs after a few rounds of us getting kicked around. Well, that's crap, and if he keeps it up, you should point out that he might have an easier time just building encounters that will be even from go, instead of building super-hard encounters so he can have fun beating you guys to a pulp for a few rounds, then suddenly turn all the enemies into minions. And strikers fill their role to do more damage because they have higher damage powers or weapons.  Every class should be able to hit as often as others.  Their powers fill the role, not being able to hit.  My Warden can mark and create difficult terrain without hitting, but I can't slow or pull or knock prone or do anything a defender NEEDS to do.  They could simply replace me with a battle standard if they wanted my static abilities. I don't find this to be factually provable. Again, every striker has a class feature that helps them hit better (Weapon Talent, Prime Shot, Oath of Emnity, etc). Not that this is the main point, and as I said before, a to-hit difference of 4 is more than you would expect (it should generally be a difference of 1-2, depending on weapon and feat selection, maybe 3. Maybe). Still, while every class does need to be able to hit as often, Strikers tend to get that stuff built into their class features, and class features contribute at least 1/3 to 1/2 of what helps a member of a given role fill their job. Again, though, the to-hit issue is off-topic, so I won't bring it up anymore. You need to continue to address the issue with the DM until he understands what you're trying to tell him. If he just doesn't want to hear it, maybe because he thinks you're trying to overrule him as DM or something, maybe you need a different DM.
#9 slobo777a Apr 29, 2011 13:19:19	The group did eventually win the fight, but it's mostly because the DM did "cheat" in our favor.  When he said he would scale encounters, I assumed he would put in the effort to figure out what our abilities were and scale it to that.  What he ended up doing was creating an encounter which would TPK 100% of the time, and then just half or quarter the enemy HPs after a few rounds of us getting kicked around. Well in that case I hope the DM took that away to re-balance. There is nothing "wrong" with the monster stats in general, but perhaps they were too numerous or over-levelled compared to the party. Definitely one of my least favourite feelings as a player is when my character is just being kept alive by the DM fudging the rules so that the game can continue . . . And strikers fill their role to do more damage because they have higher damage powers or weapons.  Every class should be able to hit as often as others.  Their powers fill the role, not being able to hit.  Not strictly true, in fact in my group there is a similar discrepancy between the main Striker (a Warlock) and a Warden. When the Warden does hit though, he hits very hard, same or better damage as the Striker . . . so in fact the difference in damage output there seems to be solely managed by the attack bonuses the Warlock gets (Hidden Sniper being a favourite) Really, just see if you can pick up one or two +1s  - a magic weapon, and Expertise. Also, as you are melee based, try to work with the Rogue to be his flanking partner for Combat Advantage. That will see your Warden hitting more often. The fight with the Hobgoblins should be atypical thanks to their shield wall ability . . .
#10 einargratal Apr 29, 2011 15:44:03	It's true that strikers get a bit higher than defenders for bonus, I didn't mean to make it sound even, but a difference of +4 is a huge deal especially when the person with a gigantic bonus still needed a 12 to hit something. This DM is usually one that doesn't focus on player min/maxing and I was just extremely surprised when I found out my "RP build" was basically useless.  He's always considered RP > Min/max.  I may either have to rebuild the character or just lose some of my flavor feats.  The problem is really him designating the campaign as "hard mode".  I know a normal on-level encounter would have allowed us to win, yet have challenge. The thing about the fight was a major disadvantage in positioning.  We were boxed in a 4x2 area surrounded by level 3 Soldiers.  The Rogue couldn't get CA at all and we had one side fighting the Warden and Ranger, while the other side fought a Wizard|Swordmage and Ardent.  Plus there were 2 ranged enemies on one side and a BBEG on the other. I just don't feel that I should sacrifice my cool concept to build an optimized defender.
#11 bronski113 Apr 30, 2011 6:25:30	Keep in mind the rogue is sacrificing damage and secondary stats for the extra attack.  Also you don't have a magic weapon yet which gives the rogue another advantage to hit.  But mostly it sounds like DM created a incredibly hard encounter.  You mentioned there were 2 ranged enemies and a BBEG but how many of the lvl 3 Hobgoblin Soldiers were there? I get the feeling that the encounter was way too high of level.  From what you said it sounds like there was at least 4 of the Hobgoblin Soldiers.  If the ranged ones were lvl 3 hobgoblin archers and the BBEG was an Elite you're looking at an encounter level of around 6.     Hobgoblins are a pain unless you can move them around but I just get the feeling the DM created an encounter that was just way too hard.
#12 SpacyRicochet May 09, 2011 8:24:33	I concur that it sounds like the DM made the encounter a tad too hard. Making higher-level encounters is fine, but especially in the beginning DMs should watch out when using too many above level Soldiers. That said, what level are you? Because even if you do convince your DM to give out some feats to alleviate feat tax, general consensus is that this only becomes more necessary from level 5 onwards. Thus, if you're below level 5, you should be okay for the encounters that happen.
#13 RyndarLocke May 09, 2011 20:54:29	My group has recently started a new campaign with a DM used to older systems.  He's played 4e but not DMed it.  And we've talked to him about whether he'd be giving our characters the Expertise/Improved Defenses feats for free, since it's generally accepted as a "feat tax". He told us there was no need because he would be adjusting encounters to account for our attack and defense stats.  However, our first session, he sent us up against Hobgoblins (Level 3 Soldiers) which have a base AC of 20 and gain a +2AC when adjacent to each other (which they constantly were, even with our minor pull effects at level 1). I had made a Dwarf Warden with an 18str and a Warhammer.  He had a +6atk at level 1, which would need a 16 to hit these things.  Compared to our Rogue who started with 20dex, using dagger (with +1 to hit from rogue feature) and her weapon is a +1.  Giving her a +10 to hit. In the game I ran, I gave my players the option of choosing which path they would take in an open world.  Generally, one way would be "normal" and the other "hard mode".  My players always chose "hard mode" and were happy with what they got considering they could change it to easier at any time. I'm wondering how to deal with the situation of a gigantic gap in attack bonus vs defense.  Especially since I made a comment of how I couldn't hit anything and the DM responded with "Hardmode is hard", which is the excuse I gave my players when they complained about an encounter being difficult.  But they had a choice...and I don't ever remember anyone saying anything about wanting an incredibly hard campaign. A +10 hits a 22 AC 45% of the time. I'm sorry you built a sub par level 1 character. If you had been so worried about hitting more often you would have chosen a Longsword and used your first feat for "expertise" You shouldn't get free feats so you can optimize better. Granted a +8 would only be a 35% hit chance against an AC of 22 utilizing flank would have increased your effectiveness by 10% allowing the rogue to hit on a 10 or better of the die.
#14 Neutronium_Dragon May 09, 2011 21:05:04	> I'm sorry you built a sub par level 1 character. > > If you had been so worried about hitting more often you would have chosen a > Longsword and used your first feat for "expertise" ...so they're subpar without expertise. Thus the term 'feat tax'. -- That said, level 3 soldiers are generally a bad match for a level 1 party, nevermind ones that gain further defense boosts from their abilities.
#15 RyndarLocke May 09, 2011 21:19:04	> I'm sorry you built a sub par level 1 character. > > If you had been so worried about hitting more often you would have chosen a > Longsword and used your first feat for "expertise" ...so they're subpar without expertise. Thus the term 'feat tax'. -- That said, level 3 soldiers are generally a bad match for a level 1 party, nevermind ones that gain further defense boosts from their abilities. It's not a Feat tax.  You can hit the defenses at level 30 without it. But not if you both choose a class that doesn't get a bonus to hit.  Not if you use a weapon that isn't a +3 prof bonus, not if you don't take the feats that over come those other short comings. Lets be honest even if he had the free feat he'd still have missed 60% of his attacks.  He'd still be here crying it was to hard.
#16 Neutronium_Dragon May 09, 2011 21:29:02	You don't maintain the system-assumed hit rate without it, however, and a class bonus to hit is meant to be an advantage, not a catch-up. As for it being too hard: he has a reason to feel that way, as I noted - level 3 soldiers with a further defense boost ARE a bad match for a level 1 group, expertise feat or not.
#17 solik May 11, 2011 4:52:30	Flanking plus forcing the monsters into suboptimal positioning using superior tactics (teamwork!) changes that hit roll of a 16 to a 12, which is quite reasonable for a Defender against an enemy soldier. If you're grouping with the guys you've run "Hard Mode" on before, they should be tactically savvy and have appropriate builds to help you set this up. Also, fighters have an at-will power that does damage on a miss.
#18 Centauri May 11, 2011 14:07:48	Defenders have much less actual need to hit than strikers. Not a one of them has to hit to mark, which is their main schtick, and a warden has a mark punishment that doesn't require an attack roll. Granted, in this encounter there doesn't seem to have been a lot of room for movement, but you could have been pulling, slowing, and preventing enemies from shifting, in addition to the -2 to their attacks. In this situation, pulling the enemies away from each other sounds like exactly what needed to happen. The Expertise and Defense feats are not a tax. They "make the math work" but you don't actually NEED the math to work that precisely. If your attack roll is lower for "cool" reasons, that's the only time I'd recommend them. For instance, you could take a +3 proficiency weapon (as others have mentioned), but if you're attached to the idea of a hammer for some reason, but you don't want to give up your attack bonus, then you take Expertise. Weapons with +3 proficiency are not a "tax," though, they're just an option. Normally I'd recommend taking some powers that don't require AC to hit, but Wardens don't seem to have many of those. None as at-will powers, anyway. Still, if a group of enemies has a particularly tough AC there are always other attacks to consider. You could grab, bull rush, or just aid attack or defense. Not that glamorous, I guess, but useable in a pinch. Not all enemies will have the AC those hobgoblins did. They're higher level, and good AC is sort of their thing. In all, I wouldn't sweat this one fight that much. Clearly the DM wanted a tough fight for you. You made it through, so good work. You don't need to optimize. I'm all for a cool concept, but I enter into them fully understanding that I might not hit as often, or will be more situational. Keep that in mind, and be patient when its not your PC's turn to shine with massive hits.