Expertise justification?

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

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.

Sometimes I think people forget that the DM designs the world, and can adjust it according to the needs of the game.

Example: If the party is Avenger, Dagger rouge, Tac Lord, Fighter, and Wizard. It handles things very different then say a party of Warlock, Archer ranger, Laser cleric, Swordmage, and Invoker. In fact I would say that a flying dragon with hover would be a almost impossible match for one, no problem for the other, well a group of High damage melee soldiers and Brutes would be the reverse.

If a party is all hitting on 7+ then use elite soldiers of lev+3 or 4. If the party is on average hitting on 15+ maybe you want lurker and skirmishers of lev+1 or 2. The name of the game is fun after all, and as the DM you control most of the world

I know in my friend Tom’s game he told me that his party hates red dragons, because at level 4 they faced a level 7 solo, and being a soldier the Defenses were nigh unhittable.

 

[tiornys]

Sometimes I think people forget that the DM designs the world, and can adjust it according to the needs of the game.

Example: If the party is Avenger, Dagger rouge, Tac Lord, Fighter, and Wizard. It handles things very different then say a party of Warlock, Archer ranger, Laser cleric, Swordmage, and Invoker. In fact I would say that a flying dragon with hover would be a almost impossible match for one, no problem for the other, well a group of High damage melee soldiers and Brutes would be the reverse.

If a party is all hitting on 7+ then use elite soldiers of lev+3 or 4. If the party is on average hitting on 15+ maybe you want lurker and skirmishers of lev+1 or 2. The name of the game is fun after all, and as the DM you control most of the world

I know in my friend Tom’s game he told me that his party hates red dragons, because at level 4 they faced a level 7 solo, and being a soldier the Defenses were nigh unhittable.

What do you recommend for the DM who has two characters that hit average enemies on a 6, one who hits those same enemies on a 10, and two who hit the same enemies on a 14?

In a party where everyone is at roughly the same optimization level, I agree; the DM can adjust as needed. But in a party with widely varying optimization level, I don't think there's a good answer.

t~

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

What do you recommend for the DM who has two characters that hit average enemies on a 6, one who hits those same enemies on a 10, and two who hit the same enemies on a 14?

In a party where everyone is at roughly the same optimization level, I agree; the DM can adjust as needed. But in a party with widely varying optimization level, I don't think there's a good answer.

t~

well that is a little much (8pt spread) but off hand i would say have some soldier and some controler...infact that might be the baxic set up.

 

[Nail]

What do you recommend for the DM who has two characters that hit average enemies on a 6, one who hits those same enemies on a 10, and two who hit the same enemies on a 14?

In a party where everyone is at roughly the same optimization level, I agree; the DM can adjust as needed. But in a party with widely varying optimization level, I don't think there's a good answer.

t~

well that is a little much (8pt spread) but off hand i would say have some soldier and some controler...infact that might be the baxic set up.

I've had PCs (in 3.5e) with that kind of spread. It's not unheard of.

Dealing with it requires a bit more that just adjusting Atk, AC, and Dam of the monsters.

 

[tiornys]

well that is a little much (8pt spread) but off hand i would say have some soldier and some controler...infact that might be the baxic set up.

Yes, you could try mixing above level soldiers with below level controllers, or something similar. But then you have to hope that the characters with the high attack bonuses go after the soldiers, and the characters with the low attack bonuses go after the controllers. And every battle has to be set up in roughly the same way. It's a huge restriction on what you can do, and while you can take some creative approaches to dealing with it (mixing skill challenges with combat, calibrated threats, etc.), the fact that you have to just illuminates the problem.

I agree that the spread is a little much. It was also impossible before the introduction of the Expertise feats (and now, their even more ill-advised racial counterparts in Arcane Power). The maximum gap used to be a 6pt spread (assuming a minimum attack stat of 16 bumped each level). Expertise makes it 9. Expertise stacked with the new racial feats makes it 12. It is currently possible to have two characters in paragon tier, in which each character is reasonably built, where a monster who is an average challenge for one character to hit is either an auto-hit or auto-miss for the other character. That's not healthy for the game.

t~

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

What do you recommend for the DM who has two characters that hit average enemies on a 6, one who hits those same enemies on a 10, and two who hit the same enemies on a 14?

In a party where everyone is at roughly the same optimization level, I agree; the DM can adjust as needed. But in a party with widely varying optimization level, I don't think there's a good answer.

t~

I believe that the Expertise feats were made for these cases... like those players who make characters with three 16s as their highest stats (I'm looking at you Mauricio!)

Sadly, those are the kind of players who easily miss this feat and take Quick Draw instead

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I've had PCs (in 3.5e) with that kind of spread. It's not unheard of.

If that is the worst you got in 3.5 consider yourself lucky, I often had 20pt variances...or more. Infact I had 1 PC have 27 more attack then another in one game. I know the number well it was a nightmare. It was a 16th level full bab character against a psywarrior/psion/soulknife with some weird prestige class at 16th level.

What do you recommend for the DM who has two characters that hit average enemies on a 6, one who hits those same enemies on a 10, and two who hit the same enemies on a 14?

In a party where everyone is at roughly the same optimization level, I agree; the DM can adjust as needed. But in a party with widely varying optimization level, I don't think there's a good answer.

t~

well it depends is the character needing the 14 having fun?
if so nothing everything is fine
if not I recomend the espertise feat, and add a magic item drop or two to aid in accuracy.
In a game a played in our rouge was a dagger rouge who had all nad (or atleast close to all) targeting powers. He had a high plus dagger that did psychic damage, and a headband of intlect. He started with a 20 dex. At level 20 he had a +26 or 27 Vs Nads before CA (Witch I think I can count on my hands howmany attacks he made the entire campaign without CA) He often threw the d20 and said "Not a 1 I hit"
I was a warlord/paliden (Paragon multi) and I started with an 18str I had at 20th level +21 or 22 to hit AC before combat advantage (I had it more often then not, but not as often as stabby)
So that was a 4-6pt diffrence. and you know what I never really noticed...he hit more often I am sure, he did wicked more damage (He was a striker afterall) but I had a kick but leader that could sub as a defender. I made it to level 27 before I died (Game was ending soon so I didn't make a new character for the last 3 sessions)
we all had fun, and I know the wizard/ranger (only 1st multi class feat) had a worse attack bonus then I did.

 

[tiornys]

tl/dr summary: WotC should make things balanced because balance is hard. Expertise isn't balanced, but the idea behind it is justified because that idea rebalances other problems. If Expertise were errata, the problems that can arise if only some characters take it disappear.

well it depends is the character needing the 14 having fun?
if so nothing everything is fine
if not I recomend the espertise feat, and add a magic item drop or two to aid in accuracy.
In a game a played in our rouge was a dagger rouge who had all nad (or atleast close to all) targeting powers. He had a high plus dagger that did psychic damage, and a headband of intlect. He started with a 20 dex. At level 20 he had a +26 or 27 Vs Nads before CA (Witch I think I can count on my hands howmany attacks he made the entire campaign without CA) He often threw the d20 and said "Not a 1 I hit"
I was a warlord/paliden (Paragon multi) and I started with an 18str I had at 20th level +21 or 22 to hit AC before combat advantage (I had it more often then not, but not as often as stabby)
So that was a 4-6pt diffrence. and you know what I never really noticed...he hit more often I am sure, he did wicked more damage (He was a striker afterall) but I had a kick but leader that could sub as a defender. I made it to level 27 before I died (Game was ending soon so I didn't make a new character for the last 3 sessions)
we all had fun, and I know the wizard/ranger (only 1st multi class feat) had a worse attack bonus then I did.

I find it pretty cool that you have a group where this kind of thing works out. Problem is, you can't demonstrate that something is generally true (or that it is never true) with anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence can only demonstrate that something is sometimes true, or that something is sometimes false.

Your experience supports a claim that it's ok for the math to be imbalanced because people can have fun with that. Unfortunately, I have direct experience with players being dissatisfied because of imbalanced math. I've also read numerous other anecdotal comments relating roughly the same thing. So, I can definitely say that it is sometimes true that imbalanced math has a negative effect on the fun people have with D&D.

Now, prior to releasing 4E, WotC gathered enough anecdotal evidence to convince them that having balanced math led to a better experience for more people than having imbalanced math. Sales of 4E suggests that they were correct. I'm not claiming that everyone has more fun with a better balanced system; you couldn't prove that to be generally true with anecdotal evidence if you wanted to, and in fact, I've seen cases where the higher level of balance leads to player dissatisfaction. In my experience the ratio is around 4:1 in favor of balance.

Now here's the thing. It's easy to make things unbalanced. Really easy. I can think of over ten methods for doing so in the time it's taking me to type this sentence. It's harder to spot things that are unbalanced. It's a skillset that includes general game experience, knowledge of game design/development theory, knowledge of statistics, mathematical ability, analytical ability, creativity, lateral thinking, and intuition. It's much, much harder to make things balanced; that skillset includes being able to spot things that are unbalanced, added to a host of tools for trying to rebalance them.

So, what I want from WotC is the best balanced system they can give me, because I can use all the help I can get at making the system balanced. Spotting imbalanced things, I can get help with. Tons of help, just by browsing these message boards; doing this will alert me to most anything that is potentially imbalanced, and I can make my own decisions from there about what I think crosses the line. Making things unbalanced, if I decide to do that, I need no help with.

The expertise feats are unbalanced. I spotted that one on my own. But, they look like they're intended to rebalance a system that is unbalanced, which I wouldn't know without these boards. The idea is good; the execution through feats is subpar. Errata would be immensely superior, in part because it would decrease the potential gap in character hit-rate. Right now, you can have some, but not all, of the characters in a group taking Expertise; if it were errata, either all of the characters would benefit, or none would. Either way, DM's would be dealing with smaller potential gaps than the ones mentioned above.

t~

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Your experience supports a claim that it's ok for the math to be imbalanced because people can have fun with that. Unfortunately, I have direct experience with players being dissatisfied because of imbalanced math. I've also read numerous other anecdotal comments relating roughly the same thing. So, I can definitely say that it is sometimes true that imbalanced math has a negative effect on the fun people have with D&D.

so you missed the part where I said that is where I start...

well it depends is the character needing the 14 having fun?
if so nothing everything is fine
if not I recomend the espertise feat, and add a magic item drop or two to aid in accuracy.

Now, prior to releasing 4E, WotC gathered enough anecdotal evidence to convince them that having balanced math led to a better experience for more people than having imbalanced math. Sales of 4E suggests that they were correct. I'm not claiming that everyone has more fun with a better balanced system; you couldn't prove that to be generally true with anecdotal evidence if you wanted to, and in fact, I've seen cases where the higher level of balance leads to player dissatisfaction. In my experience the ratio is around 4:1 in favor of balance.

Now all you need is to realize you have the right idea, but the wrong cause.

See the promlem is System mastery. Things that look good but are not, or things that look like they do X but they really do Y.

This is my problem with Careful Strike Vs Twin Strike. One looks like it is accuracy the other looks like it is damage, the truth is (with system master) that twin strike is both. There is no reason that someone bad at math and new to the game not to think Careful strike is more accurate then twin strike (Bad)
This on the other hand is the reverese of System mastery, it weres it's discription on it's sleave
Imp expertise and weapon Expertise scream (If you want to be more accurat take me)

The expertise feats are unbalanced. I spotted that one on my own. But, they look like they're intended to rebalance a system that is unbalanced, which I wouldn't know without these boards. The idea is good; the execution through feats is subpar. Errata would be immensely superior, in part because it would decrease the potential gap in character hit-rate. Right now, you can have some, but not all, of the characters in a group taking Expertise; if it were errata, either all of the characters would benefit, or none would. Either way, DM's would be dealing with smaller potential gaps than the ones mentioned above.

I expect that they will have that as an optional idea, becuse you see not everyone wants to 'power up' there game, so it leaves it as an option this way.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

becuse somehow my main point got left on pg2...

We have seen and herd form group who played through all three teirs of play H,P,E and never found themselves in this slump of "I can't hit" lets call them group A
We have seen and herd from groups who played to paragon and felt the defences went up to much and the game watered down...lets call them group B
We have seen and herd form groups who in epci felt the monsters got to tough. we will call them group C.
We have seen people complain (I may be bias but I give this group the least amount of slack) that right from day one 1st level the game is too hard. we will call them group D.


I have no dubt WotC has herd from all 4 of these groups, and heck they might even have people in office in diffrent groups.

So now lets say they errata +1 to NADS and Attack at 5,15,and 25th...group A will feel it is too easy, group B will feel 5 levesl are too easy, group C will think 20 levels are too easy...group D will most likely prefer this...or they might complain it is still to 'late in the game'
So put yourself in there shoes...how do you work with the most number of people...make it a choice...infact break it down to a few choices.

We right now have atleast 4 diffrent ways to boost attack (Gnome illussion feat, Fey charm feat, Dragon born arcane feat, and the expertise feats) we have a few diffrent Nads boosting feats (some to all three some to just one but more...or those epic ones) So what does that do...
It means every player now gets to decide "What do I want to focus on?" I have a PC in my tuesday night game who is a swordmage going for maxed out defences, and took toughness. He seams to hit just fine at paragon levels with out expertise, so he will save his feats for the ones he wants...on the other hand our warlord can't hit to save his life, and is very rearly hit, so expertise was a good choice for him, but the NADs uppers not so much.

people who claim they are non choices fail to realize that they are the ultimate choice. (I even have a post in the errata board to up Helfire blood to +1, +2 at 15, +3 at 25th to give another option and another choice to the group)