Expertise justification?

[Stalker0]

Consider first of all the scope that expertise gives to a player who wants a less than optimal race/class combo. Such a charcter will likely start with a primary stat of 16 and an expertise feat gives him a convenient leg up.

And if this had been how the feats were designed, it might have been much more tolerable. For example, if expertise for a ranger had required int 14 or something (aka something the ranger doesn't normally get) then the feat becomes a lot more balanced. It will only be given to characters who don't have optimal stats, and so is a feat mainly designed to balance out "weak" builds, not further increase the power of strong builds.

As it currently stands though, strong and weak builds both can take the feat, so its not doing the weak builds any favors.

 

[Runestar]

As it currently stands though, strong and weak builds both can take the feat, so its not doing the weak builds any favors.

I think what he means is that a "suboptimal" PC can take the expertise feat and still retain a decent chance of hitting his foes. You would compare it against the defenses of the enemies you are pitting him against, not other more optimized PCs who too can take the feat (which is not as relevant here).

You wouldn't care that your buddy's rogue with 20dex will miss the foe only on a natural 1 (hypothetically, for argument's sake). You will only care that with expertise, you can still hit that foe a fair amount of the time (even with subpar stats), and thus be able to still contribute meaningfully to combat, even if it is not to the extent of the rest of the party.

What I am interested in, is how this works with MM2 apparently lowering the defenses of select monsters. Might this result in some sort of "double-patching"? Expertise was introduced because attack rolls were presumably not scaling in line with monster defenses. But now, they are lowering defenses of solos (at least for now) so PCs can hit them more and thus kill them faster (hence reducing grind).

So between the 2, not only does any PC get a +3 to-hit at epic, but Orcus (example) would get -2 to all defenses as well (though he would deal more damage), for a total equivalent of +5 to hit. Does this seem too extreme to anyone?

 

[jasin]

I think what he means is that a "suboptimal" PC can take the expertise feat and still retain a decent chance of hitting his foes.

Decent compared to what? Game balance is a relative concern.

 

[Runestar]

Decent compared to what? Game balance is a relative concern.

Compared to the monsters in the MM, coupled with your own preference on what passes for a fair chance of hitting. Say you feel that you need an 18 in your main stat to have a "decent" chance of hitting (because that is what you are most comfortable with). With expertise, you can now drop that stat to 16 (and funnel the 4 points somewhere else).

If you felt that 16 sufficed, you could afford to drop your stat to 14 (which may be the case if you are playing a race which does not confer any stat bonuses to any of your key stats, like an eladrin barbarian).

The only problem is if the optimized PC took expertise, but not the unoptimized PC (which then leads to an even greater disparity in their degree of competence). The former now hits even more often, while the latter still has problems hitting, and the DM cannot properly design encounters without making it too easy for the optimized PC or too difficult for the unoptimized PC.

That is perhaps the biggest problem with making expertise a feat. There is no guarantee that the people who arguably "need" the feat the most will take it.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

20 + expertise is a waste of a feat and stats... at least up to level 15, when it becomes worthwhile...

If all you want is hack and slay, maybe, but otherwise just a waste...

it really makes no difference if you hit with a 10 or a 9... you will either hate the 9 or the 8.

it is just the little bit which may make the barbarian or the fighter happy... otherwise take better feats...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Decent compared to what? Game balance is a relative concern.

So if you were playing a warlord (Start 18 Str), and at level 11 your party rouge (Start 20 dex) had a +4 dagger, but you still only had a +2 Scimitar you would have a major problem with the game???

I ask becuse of how much more he hits.

Warlord 21str (+5) Scimitar (+2) Magic (+2) 1/2 level (+5) +14
rouge 22dex (+6) Dagger (+3) ckass (+1) MAGIC (+4) 1/2 level (+5) +19

against a 25 AC target you need 11's he needs 6's That must mean you suck right. I mean really.


How ever if instead of looking at other players you lloked at the mosnter... then you have a 50/50 chance to hit with out optimizing to hit.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

there were times when thiefs only hit about 20% when not backstabbing...

 

[Old Gumphrey]

Anyways, I guess, botom line is: if you're missing alot, or if the encounter feels like a grind, it's probably your DM's fault

This is absurd.

 

[Tuft]

Anyways, I guess, botom line is: if you're missing alot, or if the encounter feels like a grind, it's probably your DM's fault

This is absurd.

Why is that absurd? If the party hits too well for fights to be fun and interesting, the DM should certainly raise the AC to make them interesting again. The same should apply in the reverse situation... if the party hit too badly for them to be interesting, the AC should be lowered in the same manner.

Remember that DMs have free reins to design encounters any way they like.

 

[Tilenas]

Why would someone who plays a non-optimized character take the arguably most imbalanced feat? Non-optimization doesn't stop at ability score assignment, you know. I can think of tons of feats more interesting, chellenging, or useful than a to-hit-bonus.

it really makes no difference if you hit with a 10 or a 9... you will either hate the 9 or the 8.

I don't know which logical fallacy that is, and I hope you were being ironic so I won't have to research into that matter.