Is the math off?

[rjdafoe]

I hesitated somewhat, but that's generally the case with almost anything you say on the internet.



Depends on what wrong means to you. If we're talking about creating a more effective character and this one particular feat at 25th+ level... then yes, that is what I'm saying, with the stated exception that it _may_ be possible to find fourteen other more effective feats. I haven't seen anyone provide such a list for any singular character, but it is possible.

If we're talking about making a fun character, then I hope I've made it clear that's not contingent on perfect math. Fwiw, I often purposefully play a less effective character than is possible, because I find it more enjoyable. And I certainly often find other feats to take before Expertise because they're important to my character concept, such as multiclass feats.

If you think that +3 to attack doesn't make a notable difference in a character's effectiveness, though, I will stand by my statement.

But, if you enjoy missing more often, then by all means don't take Expertise. Realize, of course, that your group may find it less enjoyable to have you missing more often, but they might not care. A lot of that may depend on whether you're a leader or not.

In the case of certain leader types, like tactical warlords and clerics with astral seal, missing may cause other party members to miss, detracting from their fun.

I understand, but there are an awfull lot of people that game to game, not to "win" the game. We also play Savage Worlds, and most of us have taken major hindrances - because it is fun to work around them.

IME, most people remember the memorable fights becuase they had a disadvantage they had to overcome. +3, to me, is not a real disadvantage that needs to be overcome, especially when we can change that 16 we need to hit to a 10 by using a power that attacks another defense.

 

[Nifft]

I understand, but there are an awfull lot of people that game to game, not to "win" the game.

Agreed! And that's the second terrible thing about Expertise: it's re-introducing System Mastery into a game that had largely done away with it.

Before Expertise, all you really had to tell new players was:
- Start with at least a 16 (post-racial), but preferably an 18 (post-racial), in your primary attack stat
- If your class has two primary attack stats, pick one (until you know what you're doing)
- Use a weapon you're proficient with

One thing I really liked about 4e was how hard it was to gimp a PC without trying.

IME, most people remember the memorable fights becuase they had a disadvantage they had to overcome. +3, to me, is not a real disadvantage that needs to be overcome, especially when we can change that 16 we need to hit to a 10 by using a power that attacks another defense.

Not all classes have that option.

Cheers, -- N

 

[rjdafoe]

PHB2 classes are all "A"-shaped rather than "V"-shaped, and I'm sure that was intentional, and I'm sure it was indeed based on player feedback.

You'll have to sell me on Power Creep. The Invoker is a fine example: it has kick-ass At-Will powers for a controller, but lackluster Daily powers -- the opposite of a Wizard, and not necessarily superior to a Wizard.

Another fine example: the Barbarian. It's fun as hell to play, but it's out-damaged by a (boring) Ranger.

Yet another example: the Avenger. Low damage, but high DPR thanks to seldom missing. Has been widely criticized for damage being too low.

Sell me on Power Creep. So far I'm just seeing less swingy classes, not stronger ones.

Cheers, -- N

I havn't played all the classes, but alot of people I know seem to think they are better designed than the PHB1.

I like the Sorcerer for it's Wild Magic build. I don't think that there is another class that has the potential that this class has.

I have just started playing a 1st level Human Sorcerer in a game.

I have at-wills that attack 3 different defenses - Chaos Bolt, Dragonfrost, Acid Orb.

Chaos Bolt targets will - I did 45 total points of damage to 3 different creatures with it.

Acid Orb has a range of 20 and targets reflex.

Dragonfrost pushes and targets fort.

The 1st level daily power Dazzling Ray does 6d6 points of damage, 1/2 damage on a miss plus a penalty on defense on an even number.

Arcane Reserves feat gives me +2 damage with at-wills after encounter powers are gone. (of course this is Arcane Power)

Sorcererous Blade Channeling allows me to use ranged powers as melee powers.

There is nothing like these in the PHB1 that I remember. I also had a hard time picking feats while making the character, and most of the feats that I considered where not PHB1 feats.

I don't neccessarily think that the expertise feats where to fix anything rather than make characters more powerful, at the cost of a feat.

 

[rjdafoe]

Agreed! And that's the second terrible thing about Expertise: it's re-introducing System Mastery into a game that had largely done away with it.

Before Expertise, all you really had to tell new players was:
- Start with at least a 16 (post-racial), but preferably an 18 (post-racial), in your primary attack stat
- If your class has two primary attack stats, pick one (until you know what you're doing)
- Use a weapon you're proficient with

One thing I really liked about 4e was how hard it was to gimp a PC without trying.

Not all classes have that option.

Cheers, -- N

Hey! We agree!

On those fights, the people that can choose a lower defense shine brighter than the ones that can't.

I don't see a major problem with that either. Everyone is contributing, the Leader may be able to use a lower defense to make sure that the AC people get a better chance to hit, etc.

I don't think that everyone is always going to be as beneficial as every other member on each combat. It really is up to the DM to make sure he knows the party.

And thos efeats are there, for the people that feel like they are needed. Just don't try and tell everyone their wrong for not taking them

 

[Herschel]

My thoughts:

The game is much too complex for some of this simple analysis to stand up to scrutiny. One character hitting one monster in a vacuum is not how the game is played.

What games are less off? In many rpgs it can be hard to tell how tough an opponent is.

If the game gets too easy you remove the incentive for players to use tactics & positioning. Why bother taking the risk of gaining CA if your probably going to hit anyway?

Well said.

 

[Nifft]

I have at-wills that attack 3 different defenses - Chaos Bolt, Dragonfrost, Acid Orb.

So you're like a Wizard, but without the area attack options.

The 1st level daily power Dazzling Ray does 6d6 points of damage, 1/2 damage on a miss plus a penalty on defense on an even number.

Fighters have a 6d6 1st level daily power in the PHB, and it becomes (Brutal 1) with a weapon from AV1. It's Reliable.

- - -

I'm not sold on Sorcerer being stronger than Archery Ranger. You could easily sell me on Sorcerer being way more fun than an Archery Ranger, though. When I played an Archery Ranger, it was all about Twin Strike and killing fast, while Sorcerers seem to have options that are more interesting (if less powerful).

Cheers, -- N

 

[Herschel]

Agreed! And that's the second terrible thing about Expertise: it's re-introducing System Mastery into a game that had largely done away with it.
...
One thing I really liked about 4e was how hard it was to gimp a PC without trying.

Cheers, -- N

I can agree with this point to an extent, I just think it was the easiest way to make non-standard race/class combinations viable. (regardless of the small can of worms it opened)

However, having a class without the option of targeting another defense forces interesting tactical choices. For example, in one adventure at Level 10 our party consisted of my Assault Swordmage and a Tactical Warlord as the front line with a Bard, Warlock and Wizard backing. We ran in to a big-AC solo with a couple of lurkers on some nasty terrain with traps. Tactically, there was a choice to make as I have attacks against other defenses than AC but the Warlord does not. Do I use my other attacks (including ranged/area attacks) first or do I mark him and maintain combat advantage to help the Warlord hit? Or do we focus fire on the solo while the Warlord tries to go after lurkers?

If the majority of the party only attacks AC, I call that party design flaw, not a game flaw. Sometimes every party member should get a chance to shine, but sometimes they need to take a back seat.

 

[Nifft]

I can agree with this point to an extent, I just think it was the easiest way to make non-standard race/class combinations viable. (regardless of the small can of worms it opened)

Nah, there are already a bunch of race-plus-class-specific feats to patch that stuff, if you want to use feats to patch that stuff.

However, having a class without the option of targeting another defense forces interesting tactical choices.
(...)
If the majority of the party only attacks AC, I call that party design flaw, not a game flaw. Sometimes every party member should get a chance to shine, but sometimes they need to take a back seat.

Could be a flaw, could be an advantage. For example, if you had a melee Bard instead of a Warlord, he could use an at-will power to lower one of the target's defenses by -2 for a whole turn. If everyone can target that defense, the benefit to the party is increased.

But the point is overall valid: the smallest unit of combat in 4e isn't the PC, it's the party.

Cheers, -- N

 

[keterys]

so it is impossable for two people to sit at the table and be happy with there characters hit rate, and not be avengers or have expertise...

That isn't what I said at all, but I suspect it doesn't truly matter what I say.

Martial/Divine/Arcane mastery, _____ Mastery (blank is weapon you weild), Blind fight, Epic recovery (especilay for a dwarf), that is just quickly looking at an epic fighter sheet infront of me...

Three of fourteen for a particular character down... eleven more?

Crit on 19+, recover powers when you take your action point, remove fighting blind peneltiies, gain a third wind... all of those are great uses of any epic feat.

Of course they are. So would +1 to attack be a good use of an epic feat. +3 to attack is a good use for _three_ of 'em

I guess it depends on weather or not you often run into langauge barriers...

Actually, it doesn't. There are actually a lot of problems with linguist if you want to compare it mathematically to stuff...
1) You need a DM that will have barriers that exist regardless of what languages you possess. Meaningful ones, where your lack of language isn't already compensated in the adventure in some other way. Some adventures are actually potentially less fun if you speak the language, oddly.
2) You need to have some actual gain occur by having it. Note that avoiding a combat is not necessarily a gain. In fact, if the combat nets you more treasure and xp, avoiding it may be a material penalty.
3) You need to not be able to get around the language barrier another way. At 24th level, that would include any number of lower level magic items and rituals. For example, a pittance will net you three polyglot gems that make linguist start looking pretty shoddy.

 

[rjdafoe]

So you're like a Wizard, but without the area attack options.

Fighters have a 6d6 1st level daily power in the PHB, and it becomes (Brutal 1) with a weapon from AV1. It's Reliable.

- - -

I'm not sold on Sorcerer being stronger than Archery Ranger. You could easily sell me on Sorcerer being way more fun than an Archery Ranger, though. When I played an Archery Ranger, it was all about Twin Strike and killing fast, while Sorcerers seem to have options that are more interesting (if less powerful).

Cheers, -- N

Must have missed that one.

Almost - when I roll an even number on Chaos Bolt there is a secondary attack on another creature. If I roll an even number on the secondary attack, I repeat the secondary attack! I can't attack the same creature twice with one use of the power.

There is an area at-will, I just didn't take it as we have a Wizard. My encounter is an Area though.

There is also that resist 5 roll after every extended rest, as well as a +1 to AC or make a save, every turn based on even, odds numbers rolled.

I out damaged the Ranger the first game, although to be fair, I did roll pretty good, and got a few even numbers on Chaos Bolt.

One of the ways it is more powerfull is that I do not target AC, and I can choose what defense to target without much loss of damage.