General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
Fogriving? I was pretty happy knowing that a character would hit at least once in a round. This 4e notion that misses and hits hovering around the 55% mark with a give-and-take of about 10% is crazy when you combine it with a bunch of one-shot attacks that you're relying upon to do the majority of the damage.
Huh?
With dailies and their best encounter powers, players I find set themselves up for the most advantageous position possible, meaning they use their racial ability (eladrin, deva), crank up the attack bonus from possible sources and
Again, assuming we are dealing with the mythical 50% success rate, frankly, you should only be missing on a 5 or lower. IME, at-wills whiff a lot but encounter and dailies? Nope, unless the dice REALLY hates, a.k.a you need to roll a 6 or better and in that situation, at levels 1-15, expertise doesn't help.
re: Wizard
Heh,,,ok, any controller can potentially make up to 20 rolls in an encounter, which means that at levels 1-15, assuming you have a 50% hit chance, with expertise, you hit 11 times and without, 10 times. Of course, the fact that you're hitting MULTIPLE characters means that any single power is really unlikely to be totally wasted.
Now, here's my question. Is one extra attack going to significantly affect a typical encounter? IME, no.
Hell, even with 40 rolls per encounter, this means that you hit 22 times with Expertise and 20 times without it. There's no elite that even takes 20 hits to defeat at levels 1-15 with at-wills.
There's a great deal of truth in this. But none of it negates this basic advice: glom onto an across-the-board +1 bonus to hit if it's available. You don't need to notice it making it a difference in every battle. You just need to know beforehand that your base chance of hitting is as good as it can be.
But I thought the question is "is it essential"? At levels 1-15, No. Again, this is all IMO.
In a lot of ways, it is more psychological benefit than an actual benefit since at those levels, unless the encounter involves a significantly overlevellled solo, you are NOT going to even see the effects of Expertise.
Again, I consider it akin to Natural Spell. Is there a druid player who doesn't take Natural Spell as soon as possible. Sure, it doesn't even affect most battles, but just having it seems to make the player feel more confident/better about their character.
To me, an "essential" feat IMO is the 3.x WEapon Finesse Feat. Now THERE...there's a feat any rogue needs to grab by level 6 and without question by level 9.
Without it, many a rogue is looking at least a 3 pt swing between their dex and strength and unlike front line melee classes, they needed every plus they could get.
With dailies and their best encounter powers, players I find set themselves up for the most advantageous position possible, meaning they use their racial ability (eladrin, deva), crank up the attack bonus from possible sources
"Set themselves up for the most advantageous position possible"? Soooo....flank. Just saying "flank" saves a lot of effort.
Basically, you either have combat advantage or you don't. That's as deep as tactical bonuses tend to get in 4e. And for a lot of characters that requires the Distant Advantage feat. I think that "tax feat" been rather overlooked in this discussion.
Every other bonus is going to come from someone's powers, and that's not a given. Utilities that grant to-hit bonuses either have one-round durations or are dailies (or both). Attacks that grant to-hit bonuses are themselves subject to whiff factor. So there's big question of how much "setting yourself up" any given character can do from round-to-round or encounter-to-encounter. Sometimes you have to make do with squat. That's particularly true in the case of all these knucklehead leaders that load up on healing powers as if healing is hands-down the best possible kind of buffing there was (but I guess that's another discussion).
Quote:
Again, assuming we are dealing with the mythical 50% success rate, frankly, you should only be missing on a 5 or lower. IME, at-wills whiff a lot but encounter and dailies? Nope, unless the dice REALLY hates, a.k.a you need to roll a 6 or better and in that situation, at levels 1-15, expertise doesn't help.
Stop the presses! I've encountered the mythi many times. Encounters and dailies don't enjoy any inherent bonus to hit that at-wills don't. They ought to, but they don't. That you consider large bonuses from external sources to be a given is peculiar to say the least. How many devas and elves are in your party exactly?
Yeah, the biggest problem with the "encounters and dailies are where you concentrate all your bonuses" issue is that at level 11 you have 4 encounter attacks and 3 dailies, meaning you'll probably be throwing down 4 or 5 special, important attacks per encounter per player. So... 23 as a ballpark? I've got no doubt that people time their attacks for the best moment they can, but be reasonable about these things. Miss chances are real.
so please explain to me what would happen if we both sat down at an LFR game, and played level 1-16, and I didn't take expertise, or a NAD increaser, and neatehr does 1 or 2 other players. Since you earlier said:
I have to ask would you complain we were 'makeing it harder for you'
As I also said, check in with the other players at the table and the DM about what kind of expectations they have. I not only wrote that; it's in my sig.
As for what I would do?
First, I would wonder why battles were becoming harder and harder, why it felt like we were fighting short-handed. I would start thinking about why it was suddenly harder for all of us to achieve narrative goals.
After a while, I'd presumably notice that your character was not hitting creatures, was absorbing more damage, and was requiring more frequent emergency measures to bail out. Then, I'd try to diagnose why this was occurring. Are you devoting resources to other things that equivalently help out the party? Then, that's fine, provided that you're making sure that other people know not to devote resources to that choice. Are you new to the game and need some help? Are you unhappy with how things are going? Well, then we can figure things out, pretty easily. Some people don't like the mechanics of the game; if I can lend a hand with that and let them shine in other areas, what's the big deal?
BUT: if you're taking magic items others should have to make up for these choices, that's a problem. That's a problem, because that's when your choices impacted someone else's fun.
And if someone's character dies because you can't hit the side of a barn or soaked up all the healing? That's a HUGE problem, because that's when your choices impacted someone else's fun. That's when I get angry.
So, yeah, if your choices are going to impact someone else's fun, the least you can do is let your fellow players know.
Understand my take on this now?
__________________ All role playing advice is given without knowledge of you and your group. Only you and your group knows what is fun for you. What you are doing is not badwrongfun. My advice is offered based on what I think might be fun for you to try.
"Art is the demonstration that the ordinary is extraordinary." - Amedee Ozenfant, Foundations of Modern Art
"I already have a place where I can get little recognition for my accomplishments, advance at a very slow pace, and have to work hard to eke out minimum rewards for my efforts. It's called work." - toberane.
First, I would wonder why battles were becoming harder and harder, why it felt like we were fighting short-handed. I would start thinking about why it was suddenly harder for all of us to achieve narrative goals.
Ok, so what if that didn't happen? what if without htese feat I was still a powerhouse member of the team?
Quote:
After a while, I'd presumably notice that your character was not hitting creatures, was absorbing more damage, and was requiring more frequent emergency measures to bail out.
what if without those feats none of that was true (Becuse it is not always...)
Quote:
And if someone's character dies because you can't hit the side of a barn or soaked up all the healing? That's a HUGE problem, because that's when your choices impacted someone else's fun. That's when I get angry.
But my fun might have some feats in mind...but you don't mind messing with that by telling people what the have to take...
Quote:
So, yeah, if your choices are going to impact someone else's fun, the least you can do is let your fellow players know.
Understand my take on this now?
not in the least...
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remathilis
Planescape
It should be given special award to Die Vecna, Die: a module that manages to trash no less than THREE different settings (Greyhawk, Ravenloft, Planescape) in the course of one module.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remathilis
Those of you who fretted that monsters have too many hp and fights take too long: meet the barbarian. The ULTIMATE "Lets speed this combat up, I need to whiz" class!
so weapon focus is just as good as a feat which procs at a critical hit. you know in 1 of 20 rolls it makes a difference... great
Hitting with an attack is going to do more damage than 1d10, unless your a terribly built character at level 1. Weapon focus is better. Not sure if it was a joke, but there ya go anyway.
EDIT: Assumed you meant devastating critical... but I'm pretty sure there isn't much better than that anyway.
It is odd how much of a fervor gets thrown up by this concept every time it comes up.
I'm going to go a step further. Way further.
I think any feat which is inherently boring and just gives a passive benefit that is of a clear and notable mechanical nature is one that taxes the ability of characters to make more interesting and fun builds.
Cause, sure, you can put your guy who can shift on charges and quickdraw and throw his rarely-used weapons further and such against the guy with +2 attack, +2 damage, and high crit. And it'll go the same way every time. And that's not really what was promised from the game system. Or what's in the best interest of the fun of the system.
So, I'd happily see Expertise go. And paragon/epic defenses. And toughness, I guess. And Weapon Focus. Superior Weapon Proficiency. All that boring crap. Give me feat options that add play options, tactics, story. Not another bloody +1.
This stuff's not breaking the game, but from my porch I deem it crap and want it off my lawn.
P.S. If you're going to argue about expertise, try to argue about its effects at 15th at +2. That way you avoid the hyperbole of "But it's only +1, chances are it doesn't even have any effect at all on an average battle" _and_ the "At +3 it's more than three times as good as these lesser feats and gives +30% damage" and settle on something slightly closer to its average.
I think any feat which is inherently boring and just gives a passive benefit that is of a clear and notable mechanical nature is one that taxes the ability of characters to make more interesting and fun builds.
Word. Channel Divinity feats, Reaper's Touch, Linguist. Those are interesting feats. Improved Initiative is not.
__________________ I have a gaming blog - about D&D4, roguelikes and various gaming
"Rule 2: Give the players opportunities to use their cool abilities, because a neat class ability or spell that doesn't get used isn't fun. For this reason, I tried to cut off PC limbs for months after Velendo got access to regeneration." - Piratecat, Piratecat's Story Hour
Ok, so what if that didn't happen? what if without htese feat I was still a powerhouse member of the team?
Look: I've written many times that this is based on a situation in which a player is not holding up his end of the bargain and is not compensating elsewhere. Please read what I wrote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMforPowergamers
what if without those feats none of that was true (Becuse it is not always...)
Please read what I wrote: gimping, not achieving the same end by different means.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMforPowergamers
But my fun might have some feats in mind...but you don't mind messing with that by telling people what the have to take...
not in the least...
You will when you read what I wrote. I have not told anyone what to take. I've encouraged a discussion among players about what they expect. That's not the same thing as a player ordering another player around. This only becomes an issue when you are impacting other players' fun by requiring magic items to make up for your choices or getting other PCs killed to make up for your choices.
I'm presenting a limited case with an end result of a conversation at the table about shared expectations and fairness in resource allocations. Evidently, this is very threatening to you, when it's clearly not controversial to anyone else in this thread. You might want to think about why that is.
__________________ All role playing advice is given without knowledge of you and your group. Only you and your group knows what is fun for you. What you are doing is not badwrongfun. My advice is offered based on what I think might be fun for you to try.
"Art is the demonstration that the ordinary is extraordinary." - Amedee Ozenfant, Foundations of Modern Art
"I already have a place where I can get little recognition for my accomplishments, advance at a very slow pace, and have to work hard to eke out minimum rewards for my efforts. It's called work." - toberane.
Hitting with an attack is going to do more damage than 1d10, unless your a terribly built character at level 1. Weapon focus is better. Not sure if it was a joke, but there ya go anyway.
EDIT: Assumed you meant devastating critical... but I'm pretty sure there isn't much better than that anyway.
There are critical hit feats which allow followup attacks and knock prone. Allow you to retain combat advantage and recharge dailies. And IMHO they are too unreliable if they only trigger 1 of 20.
Triggering twice as often however sounds ok. So expertise becomes a no-brainer from level 15 on. Not before.
Improved initiative is a feat which has to compete with quickdraw. A feat which allows you to draw your bow and get an attack in you otherwise would have not. Or draw a potion, shift and attack. Which in mostbattles is worth more than a +2 bonus to initiative. On lower levels it may also be better than +1 to hit. (Yeah, beeing able to attack can be worth more than a slightly inccreased chance to attack)
Even the worst built char can pull its own weight if you put your best scores in primary and secondary attribute and don´t wear the worst armor you can find.
16 in main attribute, +2 proficiency weapon and you still hit 50/50 at level 1. Not that i would advise to do so... in general
But imagine a dwarven str/wis cleric who wants to be in melee. (Str 16, wis 18, dwarven weapon training)
He will do good damage on ranged attacks, but if cornered in melee, he will make good use of his mordenkrad. Not hitting so well, but doing tons of damage and healing himself at least 3 times per combat with a minor action. Try to convince this player that he is doing everything wrong.
even with 14 strength he would be dangerous in close combat.
edit: even with 12 strength in combat he will be dangerous. And if i would focus rather on charisma than stregth as secondary attribute i would consider taking expertise for the mordenkrad to compensate.
Last edited by UngeheuerLich; 25th October 2009 at 02:01 AM..
I still don't see the problem with Expertise as a feat tax.
Taking it before level 6 for most PCs is a waste. Most PCs have at least 3 powerful, neccesary, or staple feats in the heroic tier they they'll take eariler if they were optimizing. Proficiencies, aror, class and racial features will be upgraded first. +1 to attack when you don't really need it is not so important.
By the time you actually need it, you should have over 6 feats. Unless you are heavily optimizing, you should have most to the feats you really want. One of seven or eight feats doesn't hurt you too bad.
It is odd how much of a fervor gets thrown up by this concept every time it comes up.
I'm going to go a step further. Way further.
I think any feat which is inherently boring and just gives a passive benefit that is of a clear and notable mechanical nature is one that taxes the ability of characters to make more interesting and fun builds.
Cause, sure, you can put your guy who can shift on charges and quickdraw and throw his rarely-used weapons further and such against the guy with +2 attack, +2 damage, and high crit. And it'll go the same way every time. And that's not really what was promised from the game system. Or what's in the best interest of the fun of the system.
So, I'd happily see Expertise go. And paragon/epic defenses. And toughness, I guess. And Weapon Focus. Superior Weapon Proficiency. All that boring crap. Give me feat options that add play options, tactics, story. Not another bloody +1.
This stuff's not breaking the game, but from my porch I deem it crap and want it off my lawn.
My view is that feats should either be interesting/unusual stuff that rounds out the character (Skill Training, Linguist, Quick Draw, et cetera), or boring numerical stuff (Skill Focus, Weapon Focus, Expertise, et cetera). But not both.
My preference is for the former, but there is a place for the latter. The problem is that when the two occupy the same build space, the boring numerical feats are almost invariably better picks than the interesting unusual feats.
I suspect the purpose of creating both types of feats was an attempt to appeal to both the min-maxer personality and the role-player personality (what in M:tG terms would be called "Spike" and "Timmy"). The thing is, though, the min-maxers of the world don't need stuff tailored specially for them; they'll work with whatever they're given. If that means figuring out a way to squeeze a combat bonus out of the Linguist feat, so be it.
__________________ Have you ever known a person who always behaved exactly the way you expected? Real people don't stay in character.
Last edited by Dausuul; 25th October 2009 at 02:28 AM..
It is odd how much of a fervor gets thrown up by this concept every time it comes up.
I'm going to go a step further. Way further.
Ok,you didn't actually go that far, you know that, right?
Bottom line here is that feats would be a nightmare if none of them added flat numerical bonuses. I got at least two guys in my group who don't have or want the character builder and really can't keep track of all the stuff their character currently gets from feats, powers, class features and magic items.
__________________ All role playing advice is given without knowledge of you and your group. Only you and your group knows what is fun for you. What you are doing is not badwrongfun. My advice is offered based on what I think might be fun for you to try.
"Art is the demonstration that the ordinary is extraordinary." - Amedee Ozenfant, Foundations of Modern Art
"I already have a place where I can get little recognition for my accomplishments, advance at a very slow pace, and have to work hard to eke out minimum rewards for my efforts. It's called work." - toberane.
For the record, I don't think that being a "feat tax" means that without the feat in question your character will be a worthless waste of paper incapable of contributing meaningfully to the group or of being in the slightest bit pleasurable to play.
But seriously, you mock the math gods at your peril. Don't let the fact that attack bonuses are forecast across a 20 point distribution that makes personally noticing the effect of +1 (or +2, or +3) to hit difficult. Its there. Its there, eating away at your character like a canker.
And the fact that you may not personally see it is probably a really, really good argument for not having this sort of problem in the game. Because whether you see it or not, you DO experience it. You don't have a choice on that. And it would be nice if the game designers hadn't put in a penalty for not really grokking statistics. Then everyone could take fun feats and avoid Expertise, and no one would suffer unknowingly for it.
Entire casinos in Vegas are founded as multi million or billion dollar businesses on differences in odds tighter than those generated by a heroic tier Expertise feat.
Ok,you didn't actually go that far, you know that, right?
I'm surprised I wasn't called a blasphemer for denouncing Superior Weapons, honestly.
Quote:
Bottom line here is that feats would be a nightmare if none of them added flat numerical bonuses. I got at least two guys in my group who don't have or want the character builder and really can't keep track of all the stuff their character currently gets from feats, powers, class features and magic items.
Does the character builder really make a big difference for this? I know one guy who prints out his sheet from it and still has no idea For those kinds of characters, slightly more passive things like 'Pervasive Light' and 'Twofold Curse', sure. And even Skill Training. Nothing wrong with having the freedom to go 'Yeah, I'm not that good at it, but I think all that Ale and Whores has trained me up some Streetwise' without going 'Well, or I could get +2 to damage with every attack, hmm'.
Interesting is in the eye of the beholder sometimes...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellzon
Word. Channel Divinity feats, Reaper's Touch, Linguist. Those are interesting feats. Improved Initiative is not.
Improved initiative ... maybe is not interesting... but if you were using it to represent somebody who is unusually aggressive (always looking forward to the fight) ... it might be better than increasing the characters dexterity ;-)
And the Deva ability which allows you to apply their wisdom to initiative implies something different about how their mind operates which I find interesting.
“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.”
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
