Expertise justification?

[Nail]

Uhmm....how do you (the DM) select the PCs that are "sub-optimal", and how do the other players react to this selection? (I know how I'd react.....)

I don't see anything wrong with it, everybody in my gaming group suggests feats or powers to each other all the time (we rotate DM duties). No one is offended, since we all realize that an RPG campaign is a story we all make together...

You avoided the questions. What is the definition of a sub-optimal PC, and who decides that (since you rotate DMs), and how do the other players feel about that?

He did "kinda" answer the question. His answer is: "We've not actually done it yet, this is all hypothetical."

The point: How do you justify one player getting access to a feat, but not another player? Even among long-time close friends, this is a serious question.

 

[Lauberfen]

I was merely demonstrating that it is always better for more optimised characters, and thus increases the power gap.

To think about higher levels a little, my rogue is almost optimised, Eldarin with max dex. 9th level. She does 1D4+2D6+10 with sly flourish, for 19.5 damage on average.
Her bonus to hit is +15, +17 with combat adventage.
Monsters at that level have ACs around 24- usually higher, because I'm usually fighting higher level monsters (probably level 10 on average, with level 11-12 encounters as standard).
That gives a 0.8 chance of hitting. 0.8 x 19.5 is 15.6
Adding expertise gives an extra 0.975 damage, compared to focus which gives 0.8.

So expertise is better at increasing damage per round for a character who has almost the highest bonus to hit possible at her level (a better magic item is all she's missing, she's using a lifedrinker dagger +1)

Significantly, Average damage increases over levels, but chance of hitting doesn't. This means that expertise becomes disproportionately useful, even without staging at 15th and 25th.

 

[Tilenas]

thus a waste of a feat and ability points...

With that far a gap between our respective ideas about how to enjoy this game, we won't reach a common ground. You go ahead and optimize away!

 

[KarinsDad]

For example, I have a level 8 very much not optimized party in one game with characters who deal, without weapon focus and only using at-wills, 1d8+6+1d6 (Eldritch Strike + Curse), 1d6+11+2d8 (Sly Flourish + Sneak Attack), 1d10 + 7 (Enfeebling Strike). More min/maxed characters with, say, things like Iron Armbands of Power, Brash Strike, Totem Daggers, Staff of Ruin, Dwarven Weapon Training, being a Sorcerer, etc will skew the math even more.

Precisely.

Weapon Expertise tends to quickly overshadow Weapon Focus beyond the first few levels not just because of increased dpr, but also because it assists in placing riders or conditions on the monsters.

Even at "better for Weapon Focus" levels like 11 and 21, Weapon Expertise can sometimes win out for dpr with PCs like Strikers. For normal PCs, Weapon Focus does typically average slightly more dpr at levels 1 to 4, 11 to 14, and 21 to 24, but this little extra bit of damage is often offset by the % chance of adding a rider.

And all of this tends to be moot since many players take both feats.

 

[Nail]

Not that what I'm about to say will end this thread or anything, but as the OP here:

Our DM has decided to ban Expertise "for now".

<sigh> I don't agree with his decision...but I like playing in his game, so.....

 

[DrSpunj]

Not that what I'm about to say will end this thread or anything, but as the OP here:

Our DM has decided to ban Expertise "for now".

<sigh> I don't agree with his decision...but I like playing in his game, so.....

You and the rest of the party are victims of your own success here, me thinks, given last night's "by the skin of our teeth" battle.

7 PCs (only 2-3 I'd really consider optimized, IMO), all 4th level against Kobolds: 4 lvl 6 soldiers, 5 lvl 5 skirmishers and 6 lvl 3 minions. This was in a cave using Paizo's Darklands? Flipmat, open cave with 4-5 large pillars breaking up the terrain. By XP this was a Level+3 to Level+4 encounter and the party had already fought through 3 previous encounters this "day". I think 2 of them had used a daily power in previous battles but mostly they were at full capacity except for used Healing Surges; every PC had an Action Point available. The TacLord was importantly down to 2 Surges entering this battle.

From the 2nd round I was able to get CA for the mobs attacks about 80% of the time. From round 1 my dice were hot! And I'm very glad I always roll in front of my players because even I was surprised by how many 15+ rolls I made. OTOH, my party had Beshaba's own luck throughout the battle and missed I think with about 75% of their attacks (a handful were admittedly by 1 where Expertise could have tipped the balance).

Even with that skewed distribution of rolls dramatically in my favor with a Hard encounter by the XP guidelines I was able to bloody about half the party but by the end even the TacLord was still standing due to a timely Cure Light Wounds from the party cleric. At multiple times Nail had bonuses to attack typically of around +3 or +4, and at times was able to add +6 or more (but please correct me if I'm wrong here, Nail, I know Righteous Brand, a Warlord +1 power and CA came together on at least 1 attack you made) and other PCs were able to get similar bonuses at times using good teamwork. There were so many bonuses for party members flying around for both attacks and damage that everyone was consistently adding another +1 or +2 to their not-quite-final totals whenever they called out their results (whereupon our TacLord or Cleric would remind them about another bonus which they usually hadn't factored in), which did turn several near misses into successful hits.

If the party had rolled even average they would have hit a lot more often than they did with the bonuses they had. If I had rolled average the foes would've missed a heckuva lot more. I'm concerned that this "Hard" encounter would not have been nearly as much fun (my primary consideration!) if the dice weren't strongly in my favor last night.

Regardless, at level 4 I do not see a "need" for Expertise and the math seems to back that up until late Heroic or even into Paragon levels. I certainly hope this campaign makes it that far but I think Expertise series of feats are an extremely poor attempt at fixing anything and at this time don't feel comfortable with them as an option. We'll need to revisit the need again if the party levels up that high, however.

But I am really happy that you're having fun!

 

[Nail]

It was a nasty fight (in a good way!). I was convinced by round 2 that we had at least 2 deaths-on-the-way (because of your "Monsters will coup-de-grace" policy), and that without those 2 the rest of us were humped.

The only way we got through that battle is by pulling out absolutely every power we had, using every action point and scrap of healing we had, using every ounce of tactical acumen we had, and then hoping the dice turned our way. By the time we emerged victorious, we were completely and utterly running on fumes. I'm entirely unconvinced that we were "victims of <our> own success".

As for our apparent bad luck: I'd bet our rolls for the night were average, taken in aggregate. I know that "experiential bias" is strong when there are personal interests (MY PC IS GETTING PASTED!!!) at stake.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I was merely demonstrating that it is always better for more optimised characters, and thus increases the power gap.

To think about higher levels a little, my rogue is almost optimised, Eldarin with max dex. 9th level. She does 1D4+2D6+10 with sly flourish, for 19.5 damage on average.
Her bonus to hit is +15, +17 with combat adventage.
Monsters at that level have ACs around 24- usually higher, because I'm usually fighting higher level monsters (probably level 10 on average, with level 11-12 encounters as standard).
That gives a 0.8 chance of hitting. 0.8 x 19.5 is 15.6
Adding expertise gives an extra 0.975 damage, compared to focus which gives 0.8.

So expertise is better at increasing damage per round for a character who has almost the highest bonus to hit possible at her level (a better magic item is all she's missing, she's using a lifedrinker dagger +1)

Significantly, Average damage increases over levels, but chance of hitting doesn't. This means that expertise becomes disproportionately useful, even without staging at 15th and 25th.

too bad you are wrong... monsters are killed by relative damage... and you just overlooked that weapon fokus is better in your first example... in this example, yes, expertise is better...

still you are wrong...

the real question is: how many turns does the monster last... use a brute force method to test how many turns it takes to kill a monster...

edit: [/ignore] Consider 100hp monster. If you are doing 18.5 Damage on average, you need 6 rounds to kill the monster... if you add 1 damage, you dont save a single turn.

If you however do only 5 Damage and you add 0.5 Damage you nly need 19 turns instead of 20... [/ignore] wrong argumentation for expertise, sorry

you should also use a brute force (which i usually try to avoid) which considers max and minimum damage... on certain hp values a point of damage (if you hit) is much better than a +1 to hit... (on a lower damage die power (e.g. d6) when max damage is 1 too low to insta kill)

+1 to hit means 1 more hit in 20 attacks.

insta kill on max damage means an auto kill in 1 of 20 attacks (the natural 20 which wont suffice if you add expertise) and an insta kill every 6 hits which means about every 12th attack)

so try it out

p.s.: I know how powerful expertise is, especially when it grants +2 or +3, but its not gamebreaking at all and DPS only begins to matter if Monster HP is at least 10 times of your party´s average damage per round (which means a solo monster usually, which has also higher defensens so expertise gets extra useful)

 

[UngeheuerLich]

With that far a gap between our respective ideas about how to enjoy this game, we won't reach a common ground. You go ahead and optimize away!

If all chars take it, it senseless... it just forces the DM to use better monsters, wich are worse to hit and have more hp... so you are actually contributing to grind...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Precisely.

Weapon Expertise tends to quickly overshadow Weapon Focus beyond the first few levels not just because of increased dpr, but also because it assists in placing riders or conditions on the monsters.

Even at "better for Weapon Focus" levels like 11 and 21, Weapon Expertise can sometimes win out for dpr with PCs like Strikers. For normal PCs, Weapon Focus does typically average slightly more dpr at levels 1 to 4, 11 to 14, and 21 to 24, but this little extra bit of damage is often offset by the % chance of adding a rider.

And all of this tends to be moot since many players take both feats.

here I agree:

if you want to get riders like increased damage or other effects going, expertise is the right choice... so if you are doing very very high damage or need to get your daily in for more damage... by all means take expertise...

if you profit from your leaders + to hit bonuses, and do relative low damage, by all means take weapon fokus or a more intersting feat...

and just to add: weapon expertise is a boring feat... i would have been more happy if there had been some restrictions... (to make other feats non-obsolete) and the increase at level 15 and 25 make it really a must have feat...