Funny enough, for that year, I saw constant complaints that fights were grindy, got worse as you leveled up, and how much it sucked to constantly miss in fights, especially when you use your daily.
Does Expertise "Feat Tax" even matter?
- Thread starter catsclaw227
- Start date
Funny enough, for that year, I saw constant complaints that fights were grindy, got worse as you leveled up, and how much it sucked to constantly miss in fights, especially when you use your daily.
keterys
First Post
There's no 'everyone' involved. There are a couple of vocal 'oh my god, you can't hit at all' just like there are a couple of vocal 'oh my god, you hit too easily' types, but it's not a big enough bonus/penalty to be so obvious.
So proving that expertise isn't necessary isn't really the question. After all, compared to some of the egregious differences found in other game systems or editions it's a drop in the bucket.
Whether it improves the game for many is a far more interesting question. And one that's harder to debate, due to its subjective nature.
It's also worth note that there are a number of creatures in the monster manual whose defenses are pretty borked. The Tarrasque being the poster child thereof - look at his Will and Fort. In those instances, having only AC + Fort attacks will give you a very different exposure than a party with reasonable access to Will attacks who might find it far too easy to hit.
Nifft
Penguin Herder
I read them too. I think this is group dependent. How well you play off of each other probably works against 4E for some groups. Most of those talked about HP values though.
It does suck to miss with your daily. How many of those misses though were really within 2 or 3 points though? You guess is as good as mine.
It also sucks to roll a 1 when you use your daily. That has happened to me in 3 consecutive encounters...
And that is what I was saying. target another defense. I have not gone through their creatures to make sure they follow all the rules. I just go by what they print.
Also, I don't remember as clear, but I remember reading about creature design in a blog or something from the devs that said something along the lines of adjusting the monster to your vision of what it is suppose to be. You can call it fudging the numbers or whatever.
10 and 15 percent of all attacks, respectively.
Cadfan, helpfully
(also channeling Nifft)
Our fighter, ranger, and paladin will get right on that.
keterys
First Post
Once again, I might not be explaining well. The Tarrasque's 17 point gap between his defenses is bad (horrible) design. It obviously works to do so, but it's not a design feature.
Further, some groups are limited in what defenses they can reliably attack. And some PCs are extraordinarily limited in what defenses they can reliably attack. This is particularly true of AC, which some classes target almost exclusively, and some monsters (such as solo soldiers) have in scads.
And if your backup option to AC is Fortitude, then there might be some more bad news waiting
keterys
First Post
And if you ignore outliers (need a 4- to hit or 17+ to hit), that in turn is between 20 and 60 percent of misses negated by the feat, for perspective.
I considered doing it that way, but you have to know what the original chance of hitting was prior to Expertise. Good call using a range.
