Is it just me or are the expertises (weapon, implement, etc) way too good to pass up? With the difficulty characters seem to have with hitting things in 4th edition, these feats seem almost necessary. You may as well just give every character in your game one less feat and plus one to hit, because if they don't take their expertise, they are unquestionably sub-optimal.
How are other DM's out there dealing with this (if at all) and am I just being overly analytical?
Thanks in advance for any replies!
The upshot of all the discussion is this:
A) They're nice, but not necessary. My group has no problem hitting things.
B) They're completely unnecessary, and were only put into the game to pacify the mathematicians.
C) They're a poor fix for a problem with the math in the game, and amount to a "feat tax" on every PC, and PCs that use both a weapon *and* an implement (clerics, paladins, etc.) are even worse off, having to buy TWO feats.
D) Worse than that, they're broken on the very surface, because some powers don't use either an implement OR a weapon, so those powers fall behind the curve.
That's the whole discussion boiled down into the four sides. There, I just saved you about six hours' worth of reading.
a) no change, leave everything the way it is.
b) no change, or you can remove the expertise feats if you really don't like them
c or d) remove the expertise feats and just give a +1 to hit bonus to all PCs at certain levels (5,15,25) or (1,11,21).
Now, for possible DM solutions. If you believe in:
a) no change, leave everything the way it is.
b) no change, or you can remove the expertise feats if you really don't like them
c or d) remove the expertise feats and just give a +1 to hit bonus to all PCs at certain levels (5,15,25) or (1,11,21).
... similar to C and D, you can simply lower the defenses of all enemies at those levels, too. Works out the same, but doesn't confuse the players.
... similar to C and D, you can simply lower the defenses of all enemies at those levels, too. Works out the same, but doesn't confuse the players.
more work for the DM though, :P
But yeah, mathematically it's the same. Which way one prefers depends on the group and DM.
I have yet to feel that they're necessary. Certainly nice, but I've never looked at those feats and thought that they were must-haves above everything else, unless I was playing a character with suboptimal stats for his class (like a Warforged or Shifter wizard).
Most of the arguments from us mathematicians are based on the fact that a 16 shouldn't be sub-optimal, it should be normal. An 18 should be fully optimized, not actually expected of any decent character. That's why the math doesn't work out, and why we ***** so much about these Feats.
That and the fact that actually Errata'ing it would have taken twenty seconds and two lines of text. Expertise just feels lazy.
There are several threads on this topic, most of them over 10 pages long.
The upshot of all the discussion is this:
A) They're nice, but not necessary. My group has no problem hitting things.
B) They're completely unnecessary, and were only put into the game to pacify the mathematicians.
C) They're a poor fix for a problem with the math in the game, and amount to a "feat tax" on every PC, and PCs that use both a weapon *and* an implement (clerics, paladins, etc.) are even worse off, having to buy TWO feats.
D) Worse than that, they're broken on the very surface, because some powers don't use either an implement OR a weapon, so those powers fall behind the curve.
That's the whole discussion boiled down into the four sides. There, I just saved you about six hours' worth of reading.
I agree with this assessment 100%. I was going to just reply to the topic poster, but after reading further replies I had to quote this. It summed up my feelings from personal experience with these feats better then I could have articulated.
Of course, I realize (and detest) the large gap between player character and monster power ratio's in level advancement, but the gap isn't hugely insane that you need, or are required to have, the Expertise feats.
Those of you who don't think they're necessary: do you generally "max out" your attack ability scores? I prefer to go with 16s and already figure I'll have to rely a lot on Combat Advantage, and things like Nimble Blade and Combat Expertise.
While I agree that the Feat isn't 100% necessary, it doesn't add anything to the concept of a character who takes it, either.
I'm just glad my DM allows me to take the +1 per Tier fix, while a few of the other guys prefer Expertise.
Interesting. You do not mind if I pass this idea off to my GM? She may be interested in using it, with your permission of course.
Of course! I wish WotC would use it, much less everyone else! :D
There's no XP to be earned beating a dead horse.
I have yet to feel that they're necessary. Certainly nice, but I've never looked at those feats and thought that they were must-haves above everything else, unless I was playing a character with suboptimal stats for his class (like a Warforged or Shifter wizard).
The irony here is that a sub-optimal wizard (with say 16 or even 14 in int) with Implement Expertise will end up with more accuracy at epic tier than a Wizard with a starting int of 18 who doesn't take the feat.
I DMed a complete 4e campaign from level 1 to level 24 before PHB2 even came out and none of the players in my game ever had a problem hitting the monsters (except when they were consistently rolling bad for a night). The feat is just an added bonus that they can now either choose to take or not to take.
I want corner-case characters (14 in their Attack Stat, or even 16s could really use the boost) to not feel forced to take a Feat. Generally, yes, no one would really feel the difference, and more than half the Players in my current Party all have Main Stat 18s; the rest of us, though, shouldn't pay the tax, ya know?
I do not follow...
American expression mixed with DnD (nice one, by the way, Husky! XD).
If the discussion is metaphorically a horse, everyone takes turns riding it back and forth over the different arguments and points of view. However, if you continually go round and round like this, the horse (AKA discussion) dies, and now you're just beating it back and forth for no reason, because it obviously isn't going anywhere.
So Husky is simply pointing out that this horse has long since died, so beating on it some more won't garner any extra XP. :D
That being said, Expertise is a wise decision (read: not required, but recommended), because it is a cheap and effective way of increasing your ability to affect the enemy. Since you get feats every even level, plus 1st, 11th, and 21st, using a feat to grab this is really NO loss whatsoever. You have a lot of moving room with your feats, and I still grab Skill Training feats on my characters.
I do not see Weapon Expertise as required. It is JUST a +1 people. Combined with Weapon Focus, that ends up being +2. If you ever have such problems with opposed checks that it leads to being just 1 or 2 off of being capable of hitting the enemy, then perhaps that simply means your character has a few too much effort put into defense (or possibly increasing damage rolls as opposed to accuracy rolls).
That being said, Expertise is a wise decision (read: not required, but recommended), because it is a cheap and effective way of increasing your ability to affect the enemy. Since you get feats every even level, plus 1st, 11th, and 21st, using a feat to grab this is really NO loss whatsoever. You have a lot of moving room with your feats, and I still grab Skill Training feats on my characters.
It is not JUST +1, its +2 at level 15 and +3 at level 25. I could live with +1. Heck i had the same reaction as you back when everyone thought it was just +1. But now, if one character in the party has it, he's going to start to steal the spotlight from everyone else who doesnt have it, unless he started with a 14 or 12 in his main stat (depending on tier).
The feat also greatly discourages classes who use a weapon and an implement (clerics and paladins) to use attacks that use their non-expertised item unless they spend two feats, or claw for the Holy Avenger and the Crusader's weapon at higher levels, and get the "Focused Expertise" instead.
If they wanted to fix the math, they should have just errated it, or made a feat called "Combat Expertise" which added it to all attacks.
I do not see Weapon Expertise as required. It is JUST a +1 people. Combined with Weapon Focus, that ends up being +2. If you ever have such problems with opposed checks that it leads to being just 1 or 2 off of being capable of hitting the enemy, then perhaps that simply means your character has a few too much effort put into defense (or possibly increasing damage rolls as opposed to accuracy rolls).
That being said, Expertise is a wise decision (read: not required, but recommended), because it is a cheap and effective way of increasing your ability to affect the enemy. Since you get feats every even level, plus 1st, 11th, and 21st, using a feat to grab this is really NO loss whatsoever. You have a lot of moving room with your feats, and I still grab Skill Training feats on my characters.
There are several things wrong with your post. First, Weapon Focus doesn't give a bonus to attack rolls. It give a bonus to damage rolls. Second, Expertise increase to a +2 at lv 15 and +3 at lv 25.
There are several things wrong with your post. First, Weapon Focus doesn't give a bonus to attack rolls. It give a bonus to damage rolls. Second, Expertise increase to a +2 at lv 15 and +3 at lv 25.
Forgive me, I was mixing feats up. It happens sometimes, late at night. They do have similar names, after all. ;)
But yes, I see what you mean with increasing the bonus Expertise gives. My opinion still stands that a 1-3 difference in roll causing you problems means something more serious at the core of your character build than simply not choosing a specific feat.
I do still recommend that it be chosen, for an easier time in combat encounters, cause nothing else improves your attack roll quite so cheaply. If you don't want to grab that feat, reserving your other 18 feat slots for things you want even more, you're not gimped, you're just going to hit less, and have a slightly harder time landing attack rolls. In fact, I bet a few masochistic players actually prefer that added challenge.
Forgive me, I was mixing feats up. It happens sometimes, late at night. They do have similar names, after all. ;)
But yes, I see what you mean with increasing the bonus Expertise gives. My opinion still stands that a 1-3 difference in roll causing you problems means something more serious at the core of your character build than simply not choosing a specific feat.
I do still recommend that it be chosen, for an easier time in combat encounters, cause nothing else improves your attack roll quite so cheaply. If you don't want to grab that feat, reserving your other 18 feat slots for things you want even more, you're not gimped, you're just going to hit less, and have a slightly harder time landing attack rolls. In fact, I bet a few masochistic players actually prefer that added challenge.
I personally feel that +1 is quite significant. I'm not master mathematician but just looking at heroic monsters versus heroic players without 18s in their primary stats its pretty obvious its a big boost.
16 in primary stat = +3 to hit
Half Level = 0 (at level 1)
Level 1 Minion AC - 15 to 16
That's need an 11 or 12 to hit a minion, that is a 40% to 45% to hit said minion. Add in expertise and now you need an 11 or a 10 to hit meaning you now have an actual 45% to 50% chance to hit.
I consider 5% chance to hit a pretty big deal.
I personally feel that +1 is quite significant. I'm not master mathematician but just looking at heroic monsters versus heroic players without 18s in their primary stats its pretty obvious its a big boost.
16 in primary stat = +3 to hit
Half Level = 0 (at level 1)
Level 1 Minion AC - 15 to 16
That's need an 11 or 12 to hit a minion, that is a 40% to 45% to hit said minion. Add in expertise and now you need an 11 or a 10 to hit meaning you now have an actual 45% to 50% chance to hit.
I consider 5% chance to hit a pretty big deal.
Sad to say, I look at "40-45%" and still think to myself I have a good chance of winning, but I also happen to love challenges. I must be masochistic, but I honestly believe that luck is an important part of your ability to win a fight!
Sad to say, I look at "40-45%" and still think to myself I have a good chance of winning, but I also happen to love challenges. I must be masochistic, but I honestly believe that luck is an important part of your ability to win a fight!
I can see that point of view.
One of my major concerns and why I implemented a static plus one, two and three at heroic, paragon, and epic respectively is that monsters can hit PCs easier it seems than they can return. The scaling keeps the players from feeling frustrated that they constantly get hit without being able to hit back.
But yes, I see what you mean with increasing the bonus Expertise gives. My opinion still stands that a 1-3 difference in roll causing you problems means something more serious at the core of your character build than simply not choosing a specific feat.
That's the point. I want a Wizard with 14 Int to be at least plausible, if not all that effective. He wouldn't deal great damage or anything, many of his Secondary Effects wouldn't be nearly as good, but if he can never hit anything, well then he's just a burden to the Party. The only way to stop that from happening is to fix the math, and if you're just fixing an equation, it shouldn't take a Feat Slot; it definitely shouldn't punish you for using multiple methods of attacking (IE, you're screwed if you want to use a Weapon and an Implement, or two different Weapons).
That's the point. I want a Wizard with 14 Int to be at least plausible, if not all that effective. He wouldn't deal great damage or anything, many of his Secondary Effects wouldn't be nearly as good, but if he can never hit anything, well then he's just a burden to the Party. The only way to stop that from happening is to fix the math, and if you're just fixing an equation, it shouldn't take a Feat Slot; it definitely shouldn't punish you for using multiple methods of attacking (IE, you're screwed if you want to use a Weapon and an Implement, or two different Weapons).
Well in that particular case, you're giving up a little offensive power for something else that would benefit you somehow. I hope. I wouldn't want to purposefully gimp my accuracy (and defense, unless you got nice Dex) without getting something in return.
In that particular case, somebody who isn't AS amazing in that stat, can make up for the lack through training. Hence...Weapon Expertise, and Implement Expertise. Or two instances of Weapon Expertise.
Again, you have 18 feats. I know there are a lot of feats to choose from, but you're not as painfully limited in feat choice as you once were, in 3e.
But yes, I see what you mean with increasing the bonus Expertise gives. My opinion still stands that a 1-3 difference in roll causing you problems means something more serious at the core of your character build than simply not choosing a specific feat.
In a standard encounter, you're basically correct; losing 2-3 points off of your attack roll will not change the outcome of the encounter. However, for a difficult encounter, 2-3 points can easily be the difference between survival and TPK. Combat Advantage is +2. Cover is -2. Concealment is -2. Gaining these (and preventing the enemy from gaining them) is the primary concern of in-battle tactics. There's a reason all of those standard combat modifiers are 2 points: 10% matters.
Another way to look at it: when you add +2 to your attack roll, you're attacking with the statistics of someone 4 levels higher than you. That's a large portion of the difference between a hard encounter (level+4) and a standard one (equal level).
When Expertise is +1, it's overpowered when compared with similar feats, but still at a reasonable power level. Once it goes to +2 at 15th level, it represents a larger boost to the combat ability of a character than any comparable feat.
t~
In a standard encounter, you're basically correct; losing 2-3 points off of your attack roll will not change the outcome of the encounter. However, for a difficult encounter, 2-3 points can easily be the difference between survival and TPK. Combat Advantage is +2. Cover is -2. Concealment is -2. Gaining these (and preventing the enemy from gaining them) is the primary concern of in-battle tactics. There's a reason all of those standard combat modifiers are 2 points: 10% matters.
Another way to look at it: when you add +2 to your attack roll, you're attacking with the statistics of someone 4 levels higher than you. That's a large portion of the difference between a hard encounter (level+4) and a standard one (equal level).
When Expertise is +1, it's overpowered when compared with similar feats, but still at a reasonable power level. Once it goes to +2 at 15th level, it represents a larger boost to the combat ability of a character than any comparable feat.
t~
And there are powers, class features, and feats, that can counter those little +2s throughout the rules. You just have to find them.
They are nifty little gems. Now if I could just remember specific ones I have found...
As to the idea of a "level + 4" encounter because of the +2, I think I'm biased. I was addicted insanely to WoW for about a year, due to the fact that I worked for their customer service department for a while. In WoW, raid bosses are typically the max level of the players, +3. And they have to find gear to improve their accuracy against these bosses as a result, sacrificing some possible increases in damage, HP, mana, and other such stats along the way. I doubt it's as significant as it is in D&D, I will admit...but this is still why I am biased to think "Oh sweet, a hard encounter!" rather than an equal level one.
So I guess I love those sorts of challenges, where the enemy clearly has a superior advantage to me. And then still win. I don't like guaranteed wins, because then I don't feel like I accomplished anything, and a 50/50 to win doesn't feel like a challenge...it's a coin-flip.
And there are powers, class features, and feats, that can counter those little +2s throughout the rules. You just have to find them.
They are nifty little gems. Now if I could just remember specific ones I have found...
Not really the point. Obviously, there are far more variables in combat than I've touched on. Here's the point: a character with Expertise is more effective than a character without Expertise, because anything the second character is using to compensate for the lack, the first character can also use, and use better because he has an extra +2 hit.
As to the idea of a "level + 4" encounter because of the +2, I think I'm biased. I was addicted insanely to WoW for about a year, due to the fact that I worked for their customer service department for a while. In WoW, raid bosses are typically the max level of the players, +3. And they have to find gear to improve their accuracy against these bosses as a result, sacrificing some possible increases in damage, HP, mana, and other such stats along the way. I doubt it's as significant as it is in D&D, I will admit...but this is still why I am biased to think "Oh sweet, a hard encounter!" rather than an equal level one.
In retrospect, "level+4" is an exaggeration because I'm ignoring magical improvements and stat improvements, but Expertise is at least worth "level+2" in terms of hit rate, which is the most important factor in combat effectiveness.
So, look at it this way: If an equal level encounter is "standard" without Expertise, a level+2 encounter should be "challenging" and a level+4 encounter should be "hard". A level+6 encounter should be "all but impossible". Adding Expertise changes "standard" to "easy", "challenging" to "standard", "hard" to "challenging", and "all but impossible" to "hard". In other words, with Expertise, you can take on harder encounters than you can without it.
Your love of challenge has nothing to do with Expertise. All the feat does is shift the scale. You can have extremely challenging fights with it or without it, but you can face higher level enemies if you have it.
t~
That's the point. I want a Wizard with 14 Int to be at least plausible, if not all that effective. He wouldn't deal great damage or anything, many of his Secondary Effects wouldn't be nearly as good, but if he can never hit anything, well then he's just a burden to the Party. The only way to stop that from happening is to fix the math, and if you're just fixing an equation, it shouldn't take a Feat Slot; it definitely shouldn't punish you for using multiple methods of attacking (IE, you're screwed if you want to use a Weapon and an Implement, or two different Weapons).
/boggle
Why?
Do you also think they need to change the rule of the 100 meter dash because you want your crippled 70 years old war veteran uncle to have a chance at it? >_>
I'm not quite sure what the game gain from allowing low stats to do well... all it does is make high stats all the more powerful.
I mean what's next? A way to make a Druid with 8 wisdom viable? Where do you draw the line?
As to the idea of a "level + 4" encounter because of the +2, I think I'm biased. I was addicted insanely to WoW for about a year, due to the fact that I worked for their customer service department for a while. In WoW, raid bosses are typically the max level of the players, +3. And they have to find gear to improve their accuracy against these bosses as a result, sacrificing some possible increases in damage, HP, mana, and other such stats along the way. I doubt it's as significant as it is in D&D, I will admit...but this is still why I am biased to think "Oh sweet, a hard encounter!" rather than an equal level one.
To use Wow speak... not taking Expertise is like closing your eyes and randomly assigning your talent points and then going to raid Ulduar.
Sure you can do it. Sure, you might get lucky. And yes, it's going to be way harder than it needs to be. Naxxaramas isn't difficult. If you decide to go in there naked, you'll get your ass kicked, but it's not because the instance suddenly 'became' difficult.
Purposefully hurting yourself so an encounter is harder doesn't make the encounter 'hard' per say... because optimized character would trounce it - that's the same in WoW or D&D or well... anything. I mean, even walking can be hard if you shackle 300 pounds of steel to your ankles...
So yeah. I like challenge. But I'd rather be in a hard encounter that challenge my semi-optimized character rather than one that's difficult because I purposefully made it harder.
/boggle
Why?
Do you also think they need to change the rule of the 100 meter dash because you want your crippled 70 years old war veteran uncle to have a chance at it? >_>
I'm not quite sure what the game gain from allowing low stats to do well... all it does is make high stats all the more powerful.
I mean what's next? A way to make a Druid with 8 wisdom viable? Where do you draw the line?
Well, 14, obviously. If 16 should be considered normal, with 18 being stupendous, 20 being awe-inspiring, and 14 being sub-par, then they should all be at least viable. Right now, however, a 16 only seems viable in Heroic Tier; it gets a heck of a lot harder for a 16-AS character once he starts getting higher levels. 18 seems more what many people consider to be "normal" currently, and that's really not fair for most characters.
I mean, I think its well and good for players to look at their characters and decide that theres a worthwhile tradeoff to be had in spreading out their stats a little more than an 18 in their primary before racials can afford them, but I think it can be taken too far in some cases; most notably those where a secondary stat is assigned greater importance that whichever stat the character class uses to determine hit-rolls.
Theres probably a lot of obsolete 3E thinking behind the misplaced belief that a 16 (or *shudder* 14) as your primary stat is fine... the only reason they worked in 3E was because either the monster ACs were totally arbitrary, non-spellcaster classes eventually got more attacks per round that they could almost always guarantee something would hit, and spellcasters hardly had to bother with attack rolls at all... and when they did it was vs reflex which was a dice roll entirely in the DMs hands; not something particularly transparent to the players.
Oh, and the big one : the default method of stat generation was with random dice rolling, not a points-buy system, so to account for this complete unpredictability stats ended up counting for a lot less than they do in 4E.
In 4E, every character can start out with an 18 in their classes' primary stat if they want to : a stat array where the highest individual number is a 16-14 does NOT have to be playable.
I recently came too some errata on the Expertise, and it seems now you can only use the feat once per encounter to add some umph?
Here is the errata:
Add the following sentence to the end of the Benefits section: “Even if a weapon qualifies for this bonus more than once, you can apply the bonus only once when using that weapon.”
All that means is if you are using a Double Sword (which is a Light Blade & a Heavy Blade), you can't take Weapon Expertise in both types and get +6 to hit at level 25.
Well, 14, obviously. If 16 should be considered normal, with 18 being stupendous, 20 being awe-inspiring, and 14 being sub-par, then they should all be at least viable.
14 obviously?
Don't you mean arbitrarily?
Why not 13? or 12? or 11? If 14 is sub-par... than those numbers are to.
Right now, however, a 16 only seems viable in Heroic Tier; it gets a heck of a lot harder for a 16-AS character once he starts getting higher levels. 18 seems more what many people consider to be "normal" currently, and that's really not fair for most characters.
If you don't have an 18 or even a 16 in your main stats... well, it's really your own fault, this is a point buy system, anybody can have an 18 if they so wishes it >_>
So I instead choose to not have higher attributes with a cost to them. Each attribute needs only 1 point from the pool, no matter how high I take it. Unfortunately, I don't end up with at least 12 or 14 in everything still, but I get my points where I want them, and end up with only one stat that's not amazing, which I am perfectly fine with.
I'm fine with this because I don't expect my character to be the quintessential hero and be able to do anything that is asked of him, just because of having all good attributes. I have a party to handle my flaws.
I am tempted to also change that single 8 to a 10. My reasoning behind this is that all our characters are already considered heroes; we're already considered to be a cut above the rest. As such, we should at least have the "average" stat of an ordinary human, and then improve from there.
Starting a Fighter and giving him 8 Charisma in return for an 18 in Strength *sounds* balanced, but...then what this means is your Fighter is uglier and less socially-inclined than most humans, even though he's meant to be a bit heroic.
And most people would be inclined to move that 8 up to a 10 ASAP with increasing attribute scores, unless they're worried more about their more important stats.
As such, not only are you gimping your Fighter and making him somewhat less-than-human, but now you'll be inclined to toss attribute points into a stat you will rarely, if ever, make use of.
I think, instead of complaining so much to WotC, you should just do a homebrew style of assigning attribute points, whether you use my method or not.
And no, not arbitrarily. LOGICALLY. :P
Right now, here's the scale:
16 (sub-op) -- 18 (norm) -- 20 (superior)
14 is downright stupid, and nothing else is possible. However, Dwarven Fighters using Mauls shouldn't have to suck a Feat if they want to hit a decent amount in Epic, nor should they be forced to spend 16 points just to hit the "norm." All I'm suggesting is that we move the scale down a notch (which my fix would do, actually :D), like so:
14 (sub-op) -- 16 (norm) -- 18 (superior) -- 20 (stupendous)
That's all I'm suggesting. I've seen a few character ideas that would really benefit from being able to actually hit with a 14 Attack Stat, the more obvious example being a Multiclasser. An Elven Sorcerer/Wizard with 14 STR, 14 INT, and 16 CHA shouldn't automatically fail at life as a character. If he religiously raised his INT, he'd end up with a 22, but for some reason at Epic, that's pretty much 100% implausible if you want to hit 50%+ of the time.
And that just doesn't make any sense. Lowering the scale would make every Race plausible at a lot more Builds, rather than constantly scaring people into 18s like it seems to be doing now. I just like my fix even more because it does this.
Starting a Fighter and giving him 8 Charisma in return for an 18 in Strength *sounds* balanced, but...then what this means is your Fighter is uglier and less socially-inclined than most humans, even though he's meant to be a bit heroic.
My only issue with that statement is 8 CHA doesn't mean uglier or even less socially inclined. There are lots of ways to roleplay an 8 CHA. For example you are a hardened solider who has seen alot of terrible things and you just can't relate to people as well or perhaps you were a prize fighter who after years in the pit has been horribly disfigured.
On Topic: I implemented the 1/2 Level +1 at Heroic, etc from level one and there is a drastic improvement over the test combats we had run.
It would be actually STUPID for most people to buy the 18 before Racials. It's dumber than going for a 14 in most cases.
And no, not arbitrarily. LOGICALLY. :P
Right now, here's the scale:
16 (sub-op) -- 18 (norm) -- 20 (superior)
14 is downright stupid, and nothing else is possible. However, Dwarven Fighters using Mauls shouldn't have to suck a Feat if they want to hit a decent amount in Epic, nor should they be forced to spend 16 points just to hit the "norm." All I'm suggesting is that we move the scale down a notch (which my fix would do, actually :D), like so:
14 (sub-op) -- 16 (norm) -- 18 (superior) -- 20 (stupendous)
That's all I'm suggesting. I've seen a few character ideas that would really benefit from being able to actually hit with a 14 Attack Stat, the more obvious example being a Multiclasser. An Elven Sorcerer/Wizard with 14 STR, 14 INT, and 16 CHA shouldn't automatically fail at life as a character. If he religiously raised his INT, he'd end up with a 22, but for some reason at Epic, that's pretty much 100% implausible if you want to hit 50%+ of the time.
And that just doesn't make any sense. Lowering the scale would make every Race plausible at a lot more Builds, rather than constantly scaring people into 18s like it seems to be doing now. I just like my fix even more because it does this.
So here is my question: Is that having 14 STR, 14 INT, and 16 CHA from level 1, or is that AFTER having spent attribute points into them all the way to epic?
I think the problem people are running into is that the system of buying points for your stats is a rather gimped way of doing it. I know I'm not the only one who would reroll my d6s to get better stats when making a character.
That's 19 points spent, with the other 3 spent on Dex and Wis. After Racials, you'd get:
STR: 14
CON: 08
DEX: 13
INT.: 14
WIS: 14
CHA: 16
Which isn't a horrible character. It has a lot of options available to it, yet the math pretty much requires he take Implement Expertise ASAP, and take it twice (+Weapon Expertise for Melee!) if he doesn't take Arcane Implement Mastery.
14 is downright stupid, and nothing else is possible. However, Dwarven Fighters using Mauls shouldn't have to suck a Feat if they want to hit a decent amount in Epic, nor should they be forced to spend 16 points just to hit the "norm." All I'm suggesting is that we move the scale down a notch (which my fix would do, actually ), like so:
And how is this different?
Now we'll have people who are FORCED to spend 14 points just to hit the norm!
The horror! :P
You can slide it as far as you want, the different between stats is still going to be +/- 5% per modifier... and people won't want to play the guy who hits 50% of the time when they can hit 60%, just like now they don't want to play the guy who plays hit 40% of the time instead of 50%. 10% more to hit is 10% more to hit...
That's all I'm suggesting. I've seen a few character ideas that would really benefit from being able to actually hit with a 14 Attack Stat, the more obvious example being a Multiclasser. An Elven Sorcerer/Wizard with 14 STR, 14 INT, and 16 CHA shouldn't automatically fail at life as a character. If he religiously raised his INT, he'd end up with a 22, but for some reason at Epic, that's pretty much 100% implausible if you want to hit 50%+ of the time.
I disagree. I think that if you decide to multi-class two classes that have no synergy together and do so using a race that has no synergy with either class, than you should be terrible.
I'm rather happy that building a character involves a bit of mathematical smart and common sense rather then a system where one can open the character builder, roll their face on the keyboard for 5 minutes, and print out a totally playable character.
And how is this different?
Now we'll have people who are FORCED to spend 14 points just to hit the norm!
The horror! :P
You can slide it as far as you want, the different between stats is still going to be +/- 5% per modifier... and people won't want to play the guy who hits 50% of the time when they can hit 60%, just like now they don't want to play the guy who plays hit 40% of the time instead of 50%. 10% more to hit is 10% more to hit...
What the Hell are you talking about??
9 points = a 16. Then you still have 13 points left to make a decent character with. What would 14 points get you??
If you can't afford to buy an 18, or even two 16s, at times (as buying either an 18 or two 16s is pretty much all of your points, right there), then it would help a lot if you didn't absolutely suck because of it.
I disagree. I think that if you decide to multi-class two classes that have no synergy together and do so using a race that has no synergy with either class, than you should be terrible.
I'm rather happy that building a character involves a bit of mathematical smart and common sense rather then a system where one can open the character builder, roll their face on the keyboard for 5 minutes, and print out a totally playable character.
Sorcerer and Wizard...have no synergy?
Enlarge Spell, Destructive Wizardry...DUDE. Really, do some research before trying to laugh me out of an argument, because otherwise, you kind of look a bit stupid. Nothing personal, really, that was just a very...ignorant response, is all.And of course, all characters should be at least viable, if not altogether good. The Elf I proposed would be able to hit with his Wizard Powers under my fixed System, but they wouldn't do much, they'd just hit and get some base Effects going so that he could be an Arcane AoE Striker with a minor in Arcane Controller.
You have a class who works off Charisma and one that work of Int. You decide to pick a race that has no inherent bonus to either stats.
You have no synergy. If you did, you wouldn't need to come up with some ridiculous fix to make him work. You're going out of your way to make a terrible character, and when it's pointed out that he's a terrible character due to lack of synergy, you point out that they have a couple feat that bring them together, so obviously they have superb synergy.
And you're calling me stupid? Funny. >_>
If you can't afford to buy an 18, or even two 16s, at times (as buying either an 18 or two 16s is pretty much all of your points, right there), then it would help a lot if you didn't absolutely suck because of it.
Everybody can afford to buy an 18 or 2 16.
If you decide not to do it, it's a conscious decision you made - it's not because you 'can't afford it' - we all have the same point to buy our stats.
That's why your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on in the first place. You're gripping about some kind of imaginary unfairness when everyone has the exact same resource at their disposal.
You also totally fail to realize that 'sliding the scale' won't really solve anything. People will still consider the guy with a 14 gimp even if he hits with 50% chance at epic... because his friends with 18 will hit 60% of the time. There's is no difference between this and the current status quo where the guy with 14 hit 40% of the time and the guy with 18 hits 50% of the time.
10% is 10%, no matter where you put the slider.
But yeah, ignorant response and all.
And of course, all characters should be at least viable, if not altogether good. The Elf I proposed would be able to hit with his Wizard Powers under my fixed System, but they wouldn't do much, they'd just hit and get some base Effects going so that he could be an Arcane AoE Striker with a minor in Arcane Controller.
Reply With Quote
So than... what about the druid with wisdom 8? He should be viable?
What the Hell are you talking about??
9 points = a 16. Then you still have 13 points left to make a decent character with. What would 14 points get you??
If you can't afford to buy an 18, or even two 16s, at times (as buying either an 18 or two 16s is pretty much all of your points, right there), then it would help a lot if you didn't absolutely suck because of it.
I still say to use my method. The stats look nicer. A 16 attribute should only cost 6 points.
And frankly, I do NOT agree that Sorcerer and Wizard have synergy. Not at all. Wizards get magic power from intense and rigorous study of mental disciplines, usually involving reading a lot of spellbooks and training for years. Sorcerers get their magic power from pure magical energy and inborn talent to use it. They don't get training, and they don't get spellbooks.
I'm rather happy that building a character involves a bit of mathematical smart and common sense rather then a system where one can open the character builder, roll their face on the keyboard for 5 minutes, and print out a totally playable character.
This. That sort of character building flies in WoW, but not in D&D.
With your method using a 22 point buy... you could also start with 2 20s >_>
Yeah, it may be a little bit unfair putting it that way... but then you end up with 20, 20, 10, 10, 10, 10. So you might have insane strength and constitution, but otherwise be average.
I used it to get 17, 17, 14, 12, 12, 8.
So in that sense, the stats still look pretty fair, and certainly matches with Crimson Lancer's idea of a "normal" stat for our heroes.
Right... and you know what other class can share feat? Avenger and Barbarian - Wep Prof: Big 2 hander! Wep Focus: Big 2 Hander! Etc. Doesn't mean they have good synergy going on.
You have a class who works off Charisma and one that work of Int. You decide to pick a race that has no inherent bonus to either stats.
You have no synergy. If you did, you wouldn't need to come up with some ridiculous fix to make him work. You're going out of your way to make a terrible character, and when it's pointed out that he's a terrible character due to lack of synergy, you point out that they have a couple feat that bring them together, so obviously they have superb synergy.
And you're calling me stupid? Funny. >_>
Arcane Implement Prof, Admixture Spell, Enlarge Spell, Destructive Wizardry, Sorcerer Extra Damage adding on to Wizard Spell damage, Familiars...REALLY??? No synergy at all?? I could do this all DAY, dude! I already Built this Character! Now, admittedly, I did it with a Human, so he had two 16s where he needed them, but it's silly that you'd have to be one of a few specific Races just to make this Build viable.
THAT is what is stupid. I don't remember calling you stupid, I was only pointing out that Stat dependency has very little to do with actual synergy if the Classes already have a lot in common.
Everybody can afford to buy an 18 or 2 16.
If you decide not to do it, it's a conscious decision you made - it's not because you 'can't afford it' - we all have the same point to buy our stats.
That's why your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on in the first place. You're gripping about some kind of imaginary unfairness when everyone has the exact same resource at their disposal.
You also totally fail to realize that 'sliding the scale' won't really solve anything. People will still consider the guy with a 14 gimp even if he hits with 50% chance at epic... because his friends with 18 will hit 60% of the time. There's is no difference between this and the current status quo where the guy with 14 hit 40% of the time and the guy with 18 hits 50% of the time.
10% is 10%, no matter where you put the slider.
But yeah, ignorant response and all.
Stop thinking OP, and start thinking, "I want to be able to hit with more than one Attack Stat." the guy with the 18 can hit 60% of the time...with one Power type. The guy with a 16 and a 14 can hit 55% and 50% of the time, but with two different Power types. I'm talking more rounded characters with more options available. Lastly, it's not an "unfairness;" it's just an error in their math. An obvious one, too.
So than... what about the druid with wisdom 8? He should be viable?
He's not a character, he's an NPC. Stop trying to be smarmy.
Yeah, it may be a little bit unfair putting it that way... but then you end up with 20, 20, 10, 10, 10, 10. So you might have insane strength and constitution, but otherwise be average.
Yeah, but who cares?
There's tons of build out there who benefits greatly and get very little drawback from using 20,20,10,10,10,10 ... Their NAD might suck, but they'll be so incredibly powerful everywhere else it won't even be fair.
A Stormwarden Ranger with 20Str/Dex... a Brutal Scoundrel with 20STR/Dex... a Rageblood Barb with 20str/con... etc.
Add in racial bonus, you could actually start with 22 in both stats!
Just wait until you 22STR/CON Goliath Barb gets his hand on Storm of Blades and break the game in half >_>.
I have to be honest tho Drake - I don't get you.
You're claiming you won't use Weapon Expertise because you like a challenge, yet you're using a homebrewed point buy system that allow to create characters that are VASTLY more powerful than the original system intented (Even your 17, 17, 14, 12, 12, 8 is way stronger).
I guess I can now see your point - you don't need weapon expertise on top of stats like those, that would indeed be an overkill.
Totally agree on that one. The Hulk has a 20/20 split, and he is in no way hindered by his 10s. :S
Right... and you know what other class can share feat? Avenger and Barbarian - Wep Prof: Big 2 hander! Wep Focus: Big 2 Hander! Etc. Doesn't mean they have good synergy going on.
You have a class who works off Charisma and one that work of Int. You decide to pick a race that has no inherent bonus to either stats.
You have no synergy. If you did, you wouldn't need to come up with some ridiculous fix to make him work.
I kind of agree here... now if you had a tiefling sorcerer/wizard I think you'd be in business...
to be fair Crimson, I don't think the issue was how the classes go together, it's the classes in relation to their ability scores. No one's questioning the sorcerer/wizard combination, but as an elf it has its drawbacks and some of which would be severe.
Now, like you said, as a Human everything is different, as would a Tiefling. Although the Human might even be the better choice in this case because of the third at-will...
THAT is what is stupid. I don't remember calling you stupid, I was only pointing out that Stat dependency has very little to do with actual synergy if the Classes already have a lot in common.
Actually, it has EVERYTHING to do with it.
If both Sorc and Wizard used Intelligence, you'd have no problem using a 16 or 18 in one stat and this would be a non-issue.
The key of your issue is because you want class that have no synergy to work together and you don't like that you're feeling gutted by the point buy system or 'forced' to take a specific class to do it.
Stop thinking OP, and start thinking, "I want to be able to hit with more than one Attack Stat." the guy with the 18 can hit 60% of the time...with one Power type. The guy with a 16 and a 14 can hit 55% and 50% of the time, but with two different Power types. I'm talking more rounded characters with more options available. Lastly, it's not an "unfairness;" it's just an error in their math. An obvious one, too.
My Tiefling or Gnome Sorc/Wizard can hit 60% of the time with both his Cha and Int power because he has an 18 in both. >_>
While that's a bit of an extreme example, absolutely nothing prevent you from grabbing two 16 with your Elf in Cha and Int... not only will he be more accurate, he'll also have better AC and be an all around better character.
Even if the scale was slided back so that 14=50%, the guy with two 16 (or even, two 18) would still be equally better in that system than he currently is.
Your system doesn't 'solve' the issue... if it's even something that needs to be fixed, rather than some weird hang up you have about 16-18 being 'special'. They were when we rolled dice, they aren't in a point buy system.
He's not a character, he's an NPC. Stop trying to be smarmy.
And stop being an hypocrite?
Either all character must be viable or it's okay for some not to be.
Actually, it has EVERYTHING to do with it.
If both Sorc and Wizard used Intelligence, you'd have no problem using a 16 or 18 in one stat and this would be a non-issue.
The key of your issue is because you want class that have no synergy to work together and you don't like that you're feeling gutted by the point buy system or 'forced' to take a specific class to do it.
I just feel the Classes' Features/Feats/Powers and the like should be the basis for their synergy, not just what Stat they use to make attacks. I'm not really arguing for any huge change here, and technically, my Elf example would work perfectly fine in the current System if he too used Implement Expertise. However, not only would he really need to take that Feat to be viable, he'd need more Feats if he wanted to use two Implements, or make Melee Attacks, or anything but the most basic ideas those Classes provide.
Really, I just think more options should be viable than currently are, and (as ever) my only real problem is with how WotC decided to "fix" the problem. 'Cause those damn Feats just jam in my craw every damn time I look at them.
My Tiefling or Gnome Sorc/Wizard can hit 60% of the time with both his Cha and Int power because he has an 18 in both. >_>
While that's a bit of an extreme example, absolutely nothing prevent you from grabbing two 16 with your Elf in Cha and Int... not only will he be more accurate, he'll also have better AC and be an all around better character.
Even if the scale was slided back so that 14=50%, the guy with two 16 (or even, two 18) would still be equally better in that system than he currently is.
Your system doesn't 'solve' the issue... if it's even something that needs to be fixed, rather than some weird hang up you have about 16-18 being 'special'. They were when we rolled dice, they aren't in a point buy system.
Nah, again, the problem isn't huge, WotC just made a crap decision on how to fix it, IMHO.
And stop being an hypocrite?
Either all character must be viable or it's okay for some not to be.
8s are not Heroic, so he's not a PC. :P
Also, thanks for the interesting discussion.
I've been reading through this thread and being the nerd I am I decided to write a program to run 8000 iterations of a randomly generated 1 to 20 number (generated every iteration). I put in the attack modifier (one with +7 to hit the other with +8) damage was set to 4 (mid for long sword) and 6 (mid + 2). I made sure it would always hit on a roll of 20. I ran it for ac 17 to 28 and got some interesting results. Basically it was much better (in the long run) to take the +2 at least until the target AC was 24 to 25. So I reran for +1 to hit versus +1 damage (so 4 damage per success and 5 damage per). It was still better overall for the damage here's a C/P of the output for +1 damage versus plus 1 to hit:
Ac: 17
+1 dam: 22090 over 4418 hits, at rate 55.225%
+1 to hit: 19056 over 4764 hits, at rate 59.55%
Ac: 18
+1 dam: 20095 over 4019 hits, at rate 50.2375%
+1 to hit: 17744 over 4436 hits, at rate 55.45%
Ac: 19
+1 dam: 18340 over 3668 hits, at rate 45.85%
+1 to hit: 15856 over 3964 hits, at rate 49.55%
Ac: 20
+1 dam: 16030 over 3206 hits, at rate 40.075%
+1 to hit: 14136 over 3534 hits, at rate 44.175%
Ac: 21
+1 dam: 13775 over 2755 hits, at rate 34.4375%
+1 to hit: 13000 over 3250 hits, at rate 40.625%
Ac: 22
+1 dam: 12430 over 2486 hits, at rate 31.075%
+1 to hit: 11140 over 2785 hits, at rate 34.8125%
Ac: 23
+1 dam: 9730 over 1946 hits, at rate 24.325%
+1 to hit: 9396 over 2349 hits, at rate 29.3625%
Ac: 24
+1 dam: 8225 over 1645 hits, at rate 20.5625%
+1 to hit: 7904 over 1976 hits, at rate 24.7%
Ac: 25
+1 dam: 6125 over 1225 hits, at rate 15.3125%
+1 to hit: 6508 over 1627 hits, at rate 20.3375%
Ac: 26
+1 dam: 3960 over 792 hits, at rate 9.9%
+1 to hit: 4632 over 1158 hits, at rate 14.475%
Ac: 27
+1 dam: 2165 over 433 hits, at rate 5.4125%
+1 to hit: 3204 over 801 hits, at rate 10.0125%
Ac: 28
+1 dam: 1975 over 395 hits, at rate 4.9375%
+1 to hit: 1608 over 402 hits, at rate 5.025%
I'm not normally one to care about these things all that much...I always make sure my characters have stealth and other such skills. I prefer roleplaying the sneaking around and defending my fellow party members to just tweaking my guy for best damage but one has to do something while at work!
I think the main thing is that this assumes that whatever other effects that hits have are not in consideration and is purely from a damage point of view. Now if it's more important to put that debuff or whatever on the target then the +1 to hit probably starts to pull ahead but still only 5%.
Arcane Implement Prof, Admixture Spell, Enlarge Spell, Destructive Wizardry, Sorcerer Extra Damage adding on to Wizard Spell damage, Familiars...REALLY??? No synergy at all?? I could do this all DAY, dude! I already Built this Character! Now, admittedly, I did it with a Human, so he had two 16s where he needed them, but it's silly that you'd have to be one of a few specific Races just to make this Build viable.
You are confused. He means synergy on the fluff level.
I think. That's what *I* picked up on at least.
@Gadven: Kudos for making use of programming knowledge. That is what computer science is all about, using computers to find out annoying statistics for you.
The reason people like increased accuracy over increased damage is the psychological aspect. If you hit more often, that is...if you succeed on more die rolls...you feel more successful overall, even if you're less effective. I'm sure we could do a lot of statistical analysis on this, but in the end...it's still a very small difference.
People think "Oh, that 5% is a big deal" and they forget to realize that this 5% means 1 in 20 hits. Do all that many encounters actually last so long that the extra 1 in 20 matters?
People think "Oh, that 5% is a big deal" and they forget to realize that this 5% means 1 in 20 hits. Do all that many encounters actually last so long that the extra 1 in 20 matters?
By the time you reach Epic, you can be lagging behind Monster Defenses by 4 points, easily. That's 1 Attack in 5 you're missing.
By the time you reach Epic, you can be lagging behind Monster Defenses by 4 points, easily. That's 1 Attack in 5 you're missing.
My assumption would be that, by Epic levels, most characters have a wide variety of ways to reduce monster defenses, set up combat advantage, apply ongoing damage, reroll attacks, regain spent powers, etc. This is just from my cursory review of all the many wonderful high-level stuff in all the books I've looked through. Is this not the case, or does it just no have the effect of mitigating the lag to which you refer?
(I suppose monsters, by that time, have their own tricks.)
You have all those effects to help with your missing...and the enemies have at least 200 HP each in most cases. For Solos or Brutes (300-1000 HP), it would definitely be best to be able to hit with most of your attacks (using intelligent tactics, of course) as well as using all of those effects you mentioned.
I noticed a lot of those effects passively increase your offense or your defense without having to hit an enemy.
I think at epic levels, you're expected to have a good party of people with you who may be able to use powers that buff not just them, but you as well. I'm thinking mostly of the Leader here, but classes also have their own self-buffing powers.
So I have been struggling with my character build (starting at 1st level, and I want to be a swordmage)...obviously I need to find something to do with my time....anyway and this whole debate made me wonder, should I get Eladrin Soldier (+2 damage) or Weapon Expertise.
Your experiment is somewhat flawed. A typical level 1 swordmage doesn't deal 4 damage on a hit. He deals around 8.5 on a basic attack (longsword average damage 4.5 + 4 from stat mod), 13 on a 2[W] attack, and 17.5 on a 3[W] attack. Run those numbers, and you'll find that +1 damage is still slightly better than +1 hit on a basic attack, worse on a 2[W] attack, and significantly worse on a 3[W] attack. +2 damage is better, but it's getting pretty close on 3[W].
Fast forward to level 15. Now a basic attack is doing about (4.5 + 6 stat + 4 enhancement) 14.5 damage, 2[W] is doing 19 damage, and 3[W] is doing 23.5 damage. Expertise now represents a +2 bonus to hit instead of +1. Run your numbers again vs. the +2 damage that Eladrin Soldier adds, and you'll see that Expertise blows it out of the water.
The damage value of Expertise depends on the base damage of the attacks you're making. The higher the base damage, the more valuable it is to gain +1 hit. At level 1, Eladrin Soldier is better than Expertise at improving DPR for most characters, but then, we weren't saying that it was broken at a +1 bonus. It's broken at +2, and stupid broken at +3.
And, of course, as you mention, many characters care more about consistently applying the effects of their powers (requiring that they hit) than they do about the extra half point of DPR, in which case they'd want Expertise first anyway.
t~