Does the math need fixing in practice?...Forked Thread: Expertise justification?
- Thread starter Lauberfen
- Start date
Alisair Longreach
First Post
If you play the game by RAW numbers it gets harder to hit monsters of equal level as you level up. Another thing to consider is that individual monsters require more hits to kill as you level up.
A combat encounter is usually resolved in one hour at the lowest level in 4E but combat gets harder and takes longer when leveling up. By mid-paragon tier and epic tier expect combat to get Nintendo hard and to take multiple hours to resolve.
A combat encounter is usually resolved in one hour at the lowest level in 4E but combat gets harder and takes longer when leveling up. By mid-paragon tier and epic tier expect combat to get Nintendo hard and to take multiple hours to resolve.
eriktheguy
First Post
I have seen some deep threads discussing this topic. When they don't break down into flame wars and uneducated opinions they can have some relevant info. From what I have read the following is mostly true [citation needed]:
1. Players have trouble hitting as they level up. A suggested fix is giving them +1 to hit at levels 5/15/25 respectively and banning the expertise feats in PHBII. These feats are seen by many as a 'feat tax', an attempt by Wizards to fix a mistake in their system by forcing each player to purchase a feat by making it better than most other feats.
2. Players defenses lag behind the monster's attacks, especially the players lowest defense. This gets to the point where monsters often hit the lowest defense on 2,3,or 4+. A suggested fix I support is giving the players +1 to F/R/W defense at levels 5/15/25. In addition, some have suggested allowing the player to add +1 to three ability scores instead of two at levels 4/8/14/18/24/28 because even with the first fix monsters often hit the lowest defense of a player on an obscenely low roll.
3. High level combat is too long. Fix this by lowering monsters' HP and EXP, or lowering their HP and increasing their damage. Some DMs have play-tested these ideas claim that they work well [citation needed]. Lowering the EXP value lets you add MORE monsters with LESS HP each. This works well in my opinion because it gives the controllers more work to do (I think they are a little weak in the current setup). More monsters means more damage, so combat is more dangerous and Leaders/Defenders also become more important.
1. Players have trouble hitting as they level up. A suggested fix is giving them +1 to hit at levels 5/15/25 respectively and banning the expertise feats in PHBII. These feats are seen by many as a 'feat tax', an attempt by Wizards to fix a mistake in their system by forcing each player to purchase a feat by making it better than most other feats.
2. Players defenses lag behind the monster's attacks, especially the players lowest defense. This gets to the point where monsters often hit the lowest defense on 2,3,or 4+. A suggested fix I support is giving the players +1 to F/R/W defense at levels 5/15/25. In addition, some have suggested allowing the player to add +1 to three ability scores instead of two at levels 4/8/14/18/24/28 because even with the first fix monsters often hit the lowest defense of a player on an obscenely low roll.
3. High level combat is too long. Fix this by lowering monsters' HP and EXP, or lowering their HP and increasing their damage. Some DMs have play-tested these ideas claim that they work well [citation needed]. Lowering the EXP value lets you add MORE monsters with LESS HP each. This works well in my opinion because it gives the controllers more work to do (I think they are a little weak in the current setup). More monsters means more damage, so combat is more dangerous and Leaders/Defenders also become more important.
Flipguarder
First Post
odd question. How large a difference is there between lowering all monsters defenses by 1, 2, or 3 (based on level), and giving expertise as a free feat to all characters?
EDIT: changed ac to defenses for obvious reasons.
EDIT: changed ac to defenses for obvious reasons.
Nifft
Penguin Herder
Expertise is one feat. Giving free expertise ONCE rewards PCs that:
- Use exactly one implement (and no weapons)
- Use exactly one weapon (and no implements)
However, plenty of PCs use two weapons, or a weapon and an implement, or even two implements and two weapons.
So you could give Expertise four (or maybe more) times, to cover every weapon & implement in your group... or you could just reduce the defenses of every monster and ban Expertise. Which I did.
Cheers, -- N
Flipguarder
First Post
I wasn't saying my DM's way was better, I was just wondering if there was some difference between the two besides having multiple weapons/implements that made you do that instead.
Nifft
Penguin Herder
Yes, there are also quite a few attacks that have no applicable implement or weapon.
Racial attacks (Dragonborn breath, Genasi Firepulse, etc.), fixed attack bonus magic & alchemical items, poisons, improvised weapons, and non-weapon attacks (including Bull Rush and all the cool stuff on page 42).
All of those are "punished" by using Expertise instead of fixing the defenses.
Cheers, -- N
Nikosandros
Golden Procrastinator
Isn't it simpler to just give a bonus to all attacks from PCs? Mathematically it's the same and you just have to adjust the values for the characters instead of all the monsters.
