Expertise justification?

[UngeheuerLich]

I didn´t use n because x can be n+3 e.g.

I just said instead of giving everyone +2 to attacks and defenses, just reduce encounter level by 2

too bad its just theory.. looking at numbers...

I am also still in my first test batch and also everything works fine...

edit: and I am playing with 3 characters who rolled stats... combats are quite fast, and perfectly balanced: I regularly drop a char and even elites go down fast. Even minions fullfill their roll so far.

But i am convinced that before i start whining, that equal level encounters become harder that I a) try it out first, and b) adjust monsters.

D&D 3.5 challenge rating didn´t work if I believe what I read everywhere... but for me it worked 90% of the time... but I really didn´t expect them to be accurate...

no matter how much you standardize, there are so many variables that "balance" that even with years of playtesting there will still be things not balanced by numbers...

but lets not forget: RPGs are no computer games... it is run by a DM who can just change what doesn`t fit in a certain situation.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I only dismiss it for three reasons:

1) Most such powers require a successful hit to work.
2) Most such powers last for a turn instead of the entire encounter like Bless.
3) Most such powers affect one ally instead of all 5 PCs like Bless.

again such powers are 'extra' they give more bonuses, but only for a short time

And what happens if the Cleric does not have Bless or if the Cleric cast it already this day?

that is why it was not figgured in, but an example of buffing...

Feel free to point out exact examples where these PCs can average more than what I wrote.

I was not assuming super optimized PCs from the optimization boards, just normally optimized PCs that would be found in most games.

I'll gladly bow to any legitimate numbers that you can back up with details.

I just said felt low...I guess I will go with your numbers, it just seams low from what I am use to...

Yup. At level 7, a PC could acquire a +3 weapon with no special powers. Or, +3 armor, or +3 Cloak, or a +2 item with special abilities.

The point is that is it unlikely that all 5 PCs in a normal campaign would have +3 weapons at level 11. Possible, yes. Likely, no.

And that affects the analysis. We assumed so for simplicity, but that is not typical so I pointed it out.

also with 2 rit casters in the party, and normal tresure it could happen it may not...it really is too hard to tell it also matters is this the first 11th level encounter or the last, do they have the tresure from the whole level? who knows....

You missed my point. I did not think a TPK was just possible.

I thought a TPK was likely if the Dragon does not fight on the ground.

now can we please not get side tracked, you said the math...oh wait side trek comeing...

I assumed the Dragon to be played intelligently and the PCs to be played intelligently (even though some PCs might have Int 8, an Int 13 Dragon should be as tactically capable as they are).

Doing Hover and Attack is not playing the Dragon to the hilt either. It's Dragon 101. Attacking a single foe until it is dead, especially a Cleric once he heals or a Wizard if he drops conditions on the Dragon, is Dragon 101.

Dragons were made to spread there attacks out, that is why solos have multi attack powers. How ever it is much tougher if they single focus, but still not impossble. but again this is ment to be the deadliest thing PCs can fairly fight...

An Adult Red Dragon is 400 to 900 years old (give or take). It should have learned some lessons in that timeframe. The game is Dungeons and Dragons. A Dragon should never be played like a putz.

The Dragon could drop rocks from 300 feet up outdoors and never get counterattacked. The Dragon could have traps. The Dragon could have allies. That would be playing the Dragon to the hilt (and yes, that would up the XP, but the point is that the Dragon should be prepared to do that if necessary).

As DMs, we often think in two dimensional terms instead of three dimensional terms.

Use all of the abilities of the Dragon, not just some of them. And, focus fire.

But, the Dragon should not fight to the death. If it is about 75% wounded and there are still 3 or more PCs standing, it should flee.

this whole section proves nothing...it shows that a level 15 party can be TPKed by a level 5 normal monster that flies and uses tactics...becuse flying CAN make a monster much tougher when they stay out of range...non of this matters to the discusion of expertise becuse +10 to hit will not help the party in above situation...

This is a 400 to 900 year old Dragon. It should not be stupid enough to stick around. Dragon 101. Go buy a small army of monsters with a little treasure and come back and attack the PCs when they are vulnerable. Then, replenish the treasure from both the PC's dead bodies and from the bodies of the army that the Dragon turns on when the PCs are dead. Dragon 101.

really dragon 101...where do you get this from? I never read anything suggesting such a tactic before...infact I understand dragons to be greedy and NOT pay for such things, but to collect slaves...

Yup. These things can happen.

CAN.

And they can bring the Dragon to the ground for a few rounds out of the 18.

With a Wizard that hits on 1 round in 3 if Bless is up. With a Cleric whose Command prayer hits 15% of the time. With a Fighter and a Ranger and a Rogue, none of whose knock prone attacks are ranged with the exception of Walking Wounded (unless there is one in Dragon, I did not look there).

so again it comes down to luck and tactics, but eaither way it is tough...

Yup. It all adds up. And Paragon Path features might shave off 2 rounds. Maybe.

ok...just more fuil

Yup.

And, just bad dice rolls can turn an encounter like this south for the players real quick.

bad dice rolls can turn a deadly encounter into a TPK yes...bad luck and a deadly encounter is TPK worthey...

Firstly I didn't insult you. Just state that you ignore many facts.

reread my post where I quited you, you were very insulting

Secondly you can win almost all the fights on higher level. My team won a n+6 fight one day. So what? It was the most not enjoying fight I ever played.

sorry you don't enjoy the game...

You see. Many DMs think that making such a fight makes game better and more challanging. And by this I mean giving higher level monsters and creat n+3> fights all the time. This makes thing called grind. Maybe for many people sitting at the table for 6 hours and having 2-3 fights is ok, but I don't. 2 hours for one fight is way too much for me.

see many DMs never run into this 'grind' that may be becuse they use encounters like the book suggests...

And at late paragon my barbarian was hitted on 3 on his REF, when my DM throw a artillery monster. The next decission at my table was to take all +2 REF/FOR/WILL feats, to survive. So don't be funny about hitting thing (but I must admit your comment about it was fun; +1 for you).

wow, and becuse you had 1 bad defence you and the rest of your party needed to up all defences...over reacht much?

The system isn't bloody Hegel theory. You can see easilly after almost year of playing what it's all about, so don't tell me that I'm still newbie and must still learn much before I can say anything about it.

why not, do you really belive there is nothing left for you to learn?

At to end this discussion. If your players are happy becose 2h fights, they hit rate etc. Play the same way you are playing. But don't say other people that they are wrong, when they don't like such a game. Clearly the feats exists, they change math very much and many other feats compared to Expertise sucks.

It is not I that want to change something or that someone is wrong...I am defending playing as is well others are saying the game 'must be chnged'

 

[GenghisDon]

UngeheuerLich: I couldn't agree more with your sentiments, I didn't have any trouble with 3e/3.5 either, save for a painful learning curve at the very start by my players(all but 1 guy kept getting killed). Nothing like that with 4e at all. I suspect it was the postioning/mini's, we hadn't used them much prior. Balance is over rated in P&P games, it may be as important as people seem to think it is for player vs player video games, but not for D&D. I think they tried too hard for something that is best manufactured by individual DM's. I like to hear what others do, but I test it out myself & know my own style & what it affects. I'd actually like to do less # crunching as DM, 3.5 epic play really made me more accountant, less inspired creator for a time, but they seem pretty workable in 4e. Playing some of the old stuff again gave me a laugh about how it all worked pre-balance.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

now here is a challenge if these feats are mandatory...show me a monster you can not beat with out them...

remember even in an equal level fight 4e assumes there is a chance of PC losing...

so at level +4 solo it should be very possible to tpk, but still possible to win...

now anyone want to show me the unkillable monster....no tactics no "add x y and Z just numbers show me unhittable ACs and auto hit attacks...


we were told the system was balanced for +1 magic items almost out of the gate, +2 at 6th +3 at 11th +4 at 16th +5 at 21st, +6 at 26th...so assume they have weapon armor and neck equal to that...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

a monster out of the book, or may I create my own ignoring all guidelines (but using RAW?)

 

[Regicide]

we were told the system was balanced for +1 magic items almost out of the gate, +2 at 6th +3 at 11th +4 at 16th +5 at 21st, +6 at 26th...so assume they have weapon armor and neck equal to that...

We were told that? I guess this feat means they lied. Apparently it was balanced for a +3 at 6 a +6 at 16 and a +9 weapon at 26th but they did an oopsy and got the numbers wrong?

 

[Coffee Dragon]

I think good numbers to shoot for in general are:

Level x-1 brute/artillery: 90% chance to hit (3-20)
Level x skirmisher/lurker/controller: 75% chance to hit (6-20)
Level x+3 soldier: 50% chance to hit (11-20)

(Stealth edit: for attacks targeting AC)

This assumes an optimized character with expertise, level-appropriate magic weapon/implement and the relevant ability score maxed. In the case of weapons, assume +3 for proficiency.

The rationale for those numbers is that missing more than half your attacks seems a bit much, but you should still have the opportunity to miss the easiest-to-hit monsters.

 

[KarinsDad]

that is why it was not figgured in, but an example of buffing...

I figured it in my calculations because it is something that would often happen, or other buffs combined might be equal to it.

I just said felt low...I guess I will go with your numbers, it just seams low from what I am use to...

Like I said, come up with better. I'm not married to these numbers.

Here is how I calculated them. I took the strongest damage At Will power and then added one die of damage because most Encounter and Dailies are 2W or even 3W, not 1W. And, even if using At Will powers, it's possible to do more damage with feats or synergies. I rounded to the nearest 10 (just to make the equations easier).

Cleric: +3 Mace, 19 Str, Righteous Brand, 16
Fighter: +3 Longsword, 21 Str, Weapon Focus, Reaping Strike, 21 if hit, 10 if miss ~= 25 (adjusted down a little due to the fact that most encounter / dailies do not do half damage on a miss and of course he will not get this if the Dragon flies)
Wizard: +3 Orb, 21 Int, Magic Missile, 18

So, an average of 20 for the non-Strikers.

Rogue: +3 Dagger, 21 Dex, Weapon Focus, Backstabber, Sly Flourish, Sneak Attack, 32
Ranger: +3 Longbow, 21 Dex, Weapon Focus, Lethal Hunter, Twin Strike, 29+ (the Ranger is a more complex calculation, his encounter powers actually tend to not work as well as Twin Strike in some ways, he does 29 if one attack hits with a 2W, 24 if one hits with Twin Strike, and 37 if 2 hit with Twin Strike, the extra points of damage from two hits with Twin Strike will only happen 3 or 4 times in the entire encounter since Twin Strike will not be used for up to 8 of the rounds and if it is used more, it is 1W, not 2W)

So, an average of 30 for the Strikers.

Will the PCs buff up even more on some rounds, sure. Can PCs have feats and magic items and powers that bump this damage up a little, sure. But, they will also be using At Will powers a LOT in 18 or so rounds and they will not be getting Combat Advantage every round which means that more than half of the attacks (the At Will ones) will result in 16 or so damage for the non-strikers and less than 30 for the Strikers.

And, their At Will powers might not be the strongest damage dealing ones in the book.

Overall, this seemed reasonable.

this whole section proves nothing...it shows that a level 15 party can be TPKed by a level 5 normal monster that flies and uses tactics...becuse flying CAN make a monster much tougher when they stay out of range...non of this matters to the discusion of expertise becuse +10 to hit will not help the party in above situation...

Well, if you are going to gimp the monster, why use it in your example?

DMs should use all of the abilities of a monster.

Of course the encounter is much easier and falls more into the hard range instead of the TPK range if you are going to purposely gimp the monster.

really dragon 101...where do you get this from? I never read anything suggesting such a tactic before...infact I understand dragons to be greedy and NOT pay for such things, but to collect slaves...

I get it from years of roleplaying. Re-occurring villains happen all of the time in DND. It's a staple. As a DM, I am always looking for ways to acquire one for the game.

Dragons are greedy and might collect slaves. But to get real horsepower NPCs to fight PCs with and not just 2nd level ones, it might have to coerce the NPCs with something more than just fear. If it can do it with just fear, great. That's a DM call, but as a DM, I personally just would not do it that way. It's not as if it is not planning on getting all of its treasure back. Dragons are sly. It is planning on getting its treasure back (by killing the NPCs) and with interest (i.e. PC treasure).

This was just an example of what roleplaying adds to the encounter if the Dragon loses and losing should not just mean killing the Dragon. If the Dragon is played like a real flesh and blood intelligent creature, it should want revenge. And, it should realize that fighting these PCs on its own is risky. Hence, mitigate the risk.

Sure, you can play your encounters as just hack and slash fests, monsters fight to the death. Or, the wounded Dragon slinks away to never be seen again. I tend not to. Different strokes.


I still see this encounter as a high chance TPK and even if the PCs win and the Dragon flees, they had better level up quickly. At least in my game.

 

[Bayuer]

Ok, if I were insulting sorry then. Didn't try to achive this.

@GMforPowergamers
You still don't get my point I think. This +3 to hit isn't there to make game playable but easier. This are diffrent things. Many DMs offten use higher level monsters and think that makes game more challanging. Without the Expertise this leads to just longer fights, not harder, thus don't really enjoying.

Example about n+6 fight was just to tell you that there aren't many TPK situatuins in game. This was exeception from fights, but many my DMs use n+4-6 monsters offten in fights. I can't forget n+5 boss elite soldier in one fights... The grind is there. Many DMs says that they don't feel the grind but they don't play on paragon/epic but on heroic. That's huge diffrence.

Yes becouse effects like stunned, dazed are very annoying. When you look at some monsters rolls to hit you (DMs and I as DM roll in front of players) you just must have it. 3 on die. Hit. 6 on die. Hit. Ok. PC can have weakness, but he's not suppose to be Bmx Badit.

I'm still learnig but obvious fact can't be ignored. You defend the style of play before PHB2? Lol. The designers gave us Expertise and other feats. This wasn't implemented to game withou reasons. We just talk loud abut the reasons they do it. We still waiting for Design and Develompent article and... Well.

To be honest I was so pleased to see 4E came out. But now. This is some nonsens. Community gave them overpowerd feats, items, powers and what? There isn't such a thing like errata to me in this days. Sure some minor spelling changes and few bugs, but 10 months passed and we still don't have clarifications about zones/walls and forced movement. Bloodclaw and Reckless Weapon too. This is one big nonsense to me.

@UngeheuerLich
I wrote an article some day in my primal language about how to build encounters, so thanks for advices And to be honest. The best fights are when there are many enemies the same lvl as players (on higher levels with Expertise and NAD feats).

I think there's no sense talk about Expertise. It's in game and we mus accept it. Banning it is very bad approch. +1 to hit wan't make game that much easier on heroic. At paragon/epic it's must have. Cheers.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

We were told that? I guess this feat means they lied. Apparently it was balanced for a +3 at 6 a +6 at 16 and a +9 weapon at 26th but they did an oopsy and got the numbers wrong?

OK I call pure BS here... I mean the whole point of this discussion is some of us feel the feats are bonuses not requared, then you roll in here like it is a fact they need it...but I don't see you answering my challenge...so I guess it is just unprovable...

I figured it in my calculations because it is something that would often happen, or other buffs combined might be equal to it.

OK...

Like I said, come up with better. I'm not married to these numbers.

Here is how I calculated them. I took the strongest damage At Will power and then added one die of damage because most Encounter and Dailies are 2W or even 3W, not 1W. And, even if using At Will powers, it's possible to do more damage with feats or synergies. I rounded to the nearest 10 (just to make the equations easier).

Ok, those numbers look fine when you doo them out, I guess I am just use to the ranger in my game calling 40+ pts on twin strike becuse he is pimped out for damage...and he does have 6 levels on this example...

Well, if you are going to gimp the monster, why use it in your example?

DMs should use all of the abilities of a monster.

Of course the encounter is much easier and falls more into the hard range instead of the TPK range if you are going to purposely gimp the monster.

I am not gimping anything...I was useing the numbers to show the numbers work without the feats. If we get into tactics, and other abilities it will spiral out of expertice mattering...infact the very notion that we spent half a page + argueing over flying shows that the +1 2 or 3 to hit is so meaningless...becuse that is no longer what you are argueing...

I get it from years of roleplaying. Re-occurring villains happen all of the time in DND. It's a staple. As a DM, I am always looking for ways to acquire one for the game.

same here, although I will admit I don't agree with your way of doing it, I do agree with the basics, although it has nothing to do with expertise...

Sure, you can play your encounters as just hack and slash fests, monsters fight to the death. Or, the wounded Dragon slinks away to never be seen again. I tend not to. Different strokes.

and this has to do with attack bonus how??? I like Rp, and I love to have things unexpexted happen, and I retrate enemies all the time...but again way off topic...

I still see this encounter as a high chance TPK and even if the PCs win and the Dragon flees, they had better level up quickly. At least in my game.

I also see if you have the dragon retreat at bloodied then it is easier for the PCs...but hey we realy are way off topic here...

Ok, if I were insulting sorry then. Didn't try to achive this.

ok excepted...I belive you if you say no harm ment..

You still don't get my point I think. This +3 to hit isn't there to make game playable but easier.

now I agree 100% there...infact that is my point alone...
these feats make the game easier, but having it be easier isn't bad. Some people really like to choose this sort of feat, and if you feel you need it, there it is

Example about n+6 fight was just to tell you that there aren't many TPK situatuins in game. This was exeception from fights, but many my DMs use n+4-6 monsters offten in fights. I can't forget n+5 boss elite soldier in one fights... The grind is there. Many DMs says that they don't feel the grind but they don't play on paragon/epic but on heroic. That's huge diffrence.

N+6...ow...That would be hard (Infact harder then the game is ment to be) I am glad I have yet to run into one. I think the problem isn't the system here, but people who are DMing the difficulty up to 11...I mean wwhen I DM I use level N -2 through N+2 for most encounters, but for big ones go N+3 or 4... I will admit every solo I have used has been N+3 or N+4 up intill next tuesday. (I have an encounter of a N-2 solo with 2 N normals and 6 N-2 minons)

Yes becouse effects like stunned, dazed are very annoying. When you look at some monsters rolls to hit you (DMs and I as DM roll in front of players) you just must have it. 3 on die. Hit. 6 on die. Hit. Ok. PC can have weakness, but he's not suppose to be Bmx Badit.

I think that is also a factor of N+5 monsters more then anything...In N or N+1 encounters that doesn't happen...and since the DMG suggest N-4 (Really that low, that seams too low) through N+4 and it tells you to becareful with things that target weakdefences...I think that is very much a DM problem not a system problem...infact it is going OUT of the systerm

I'm still learnig but obvious fact can't be ignored. You defend the style of play before PHB2? Lol. The designers gave us Expertise and other feats. This wasn't implemented to game withou reasons. We just talk loud abut the reasons they do it. We still waiting for Design and Develompent article and... Well.

I expect you will see that articule in the next month or so...infact I called July as my expected month for it weeks ago..

I wrote an article some day in my primal language about how to build encounters, so thanks for advices And to be honest. The best fights are when there are many enemies the same lvl as players (on higher levels with Expertise and NAD feats).

what about lower level...do your players never face N-X level threats???

I think there's no sense talk about Expertise. It's in game and we mus accept it. Banning it is very bad approch. +1 to hit wan't make game that much easier on heroic. At paragon/epic it's must have. Cheers.

glad you made up your mind, most of us are still working on it...