Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kaomera" data-source="post: 5003612" data-attributes="member: 38357">IMO "for no apparent reason" does not equate to "because it's broken".I don't buy that. If WotC had intended for Expertise to exist from the beginning, it would have been in the original PHB. If WotC believed that the pre-Expertise math was broken, Expertise would be errata instead of a feat. The only reason for the Expertise feats, again IMO, is that WotC intended Expertise to be a feat, with all that entails.re: Sure Strike: IMO Sure Strike exists because getting +2 attack is awesome in 4e. I know when I first saw it I couldn't understand how you could take any other at-will (for about five minutes before I realized that there was basically nothing you could actually do with that +2). Unfortunately, Sure Strike is not, itself, awesome. I'm not recommending anyone run out and take Sure Strike. If you had a way to add an effect to Sure strike (no, I don't have an example, I don't think there is one that justifies the damage loss, maybe HBO if you can make enough of the Fighter class features, but probably not even then), it might be good for that limited use. I'm not suggesting that WotC never makes mistakes, I just think that the evidence that Expertise / the math is a mistake / error is thin to non-existent. I could be wrong, but I haven't seen any compelling evidence to that effect, yet.I see some people stating that the math does not scale exactly between PCs and monsters, and that the introduction of the Expertise and other feats (which, if taken, narrow the gap) is proof that the original math does not work. Am I reading that wrong? I've also seen, pre-PHBII, some players complaining that the math does not scale exactly between PCs and monsters, and others complaining that high-level fights take too long (some from actual play). I view that as a possible, logical reason to introduce a feat that would help to allay both issues. Again, I feel that if WotC had meant for Expertise to be a global bump, they would have made it a global bump, and if they thought +1/+2/+3 attack (etc.) in place of a different feat would hurt the game, they would not have printed the feat at all. And I also saw, pre-PHBII, some players reporting on Epic-level play. Some of them reported finding "grind" to be an issue at those levels, but I didn't see anyone reporting a game-breaking problem with the numbers. None of that seemed to start until the publication of the Expertise (etc.) feats.I do see the argument that Expertise is the "best in feats", and I agree that it's annoying to see it on every sheet. I think it's totally valid and useful to bring that up, and for individual DMs to apply house-rules to address the issue, if they feel it will impact their game. I don't think WotC should or should need to respond, although maybe it would be nice to see a "working as intended" (or alternately "oops, no, that wasn't what we meant to happen", if that's the case). Expertise may even be too powerful, I just don't see that as a clear fact. There are simply too many other factors at stake regarding hitting, let alone overall DPR. I don't think you can balance the math as finely as some people seem to want it balanced without removing so many variables / options that you just don't have a game anymore.</blockquote>

Verification