Expertise justification?

[DrSpunj]

Here it is. Thanks.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The Immortal: Highest AC (without total defense or similar) - Wizards Community

not my point

I don´t feel like its a bonus, but a requirement. The 3.5 choice to add +1 to one stat was a real choice. Now you have 2 +1 bonus, but still only one is a real choice. The other one will go to your main attack stat.

 

[IanB]

I don't think breaking the attack bonus thing down simply by tier makes sense. The fact that WotC pegged the bonuses at 5/15/25 instead of at the tier breaks is meaningful.

The point of the fix isn't just to make the average over the whole tier more comparable to the average over another whole tier, it is to smooth the progression out even within tiers. I don't see why any house rule wouldn't just assign the bonuses at the same points that the feat does.

"I'm not seeing a problem in the heroic tier" doesn't answer any questions about whether the problem is real unless the experience is with the entire heroic tier.

 

[Intense_Interest]

not my point

I don´t feel like its a bonus, but a requirement. The 3.5 choice to add +1 to one stat was a real choice. Now you have 2 +1 bonus, but still only one is a real choice. The other one will go to your main attack stat.

So you have the same amount of choice that you used to have, or maybe the difference between 1/5th of a choice and 1/6th of a choice?

As should be obvious, I think 55% (at all levels) is a minimum. I also think that with help from multiple party members and optimal positioning, it should never be over ~80% (at all levels). As a game designer, you have a very narrow path to walk...and you should be *very* cognizant of that as you add things to the system.

So you should be able to hit on an 11 most of the time and hit on a 5 at best during optimum conditions, and the game should not change at all as you add levels?

While it is definitely an opinion, it just isn't supported by the 4E design: you aren't supposed to "jump into" Paragon teir without learning through game-play experience how to best use your multiple Encounters, Dailys, and APs/Surges. Especially when most PPs give you bonuses to use APs and an extra required PP-power. WotC said it when they re-designed game days for new players to be Heroic only.

Otherwise, the game isn't about meeting challenges and acrueing power to be used wisely, and instead about "running on a treadmill" and changing the scenery every 5 levels.

 

[Nail]

So you should be able to hit on an 11 most of the time and hit on a 5 at best during optimum conditions,

Yep!

and the game should not change at all as you add levels?

Ooooooo....you almost had it. Oh well.

Are you saying that as the players gain levels, it should be harder to hit their opponents, even under optimal conditions?

 

[IanB]

Otherwise, the game isn't about meeting challenges and acrueing power to be used wisely, and instead about "running on a treadmill" and changing the scenery every 5 levels.

Have you played at epic or near-epic levels before these feats were introduced? I have, as a high level implement using cleric. Missing 70% of the time against challenging opponents is not a fun play experience; it requires you to plan on missing when you choose your actions. That's not good.

My personal, small sample size of data says that post-feat the game is a lot more fun at those levels, particularly for characters that don't have a lot of other options for boosting attacks.

Point being, *yes* the math needs to stay roughly the same at all tiers. It is only a 'treadmill' as you put it if the story is basically irrelevant to the game.

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

While I agree that only hitting every 4 rounds on every fight is not fun, I think assuming that the game is only fun when you hit on a roll of 9 on a d20 is taking it too far...

I think you hitting an average, equal level opponent on an 11 is ok

I think hitting a level+4, very dangerous opponent in a 15 is good enough... it is supposed to be a tough fight, no?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

So you have the same amount of choice that you used to have, or maybe the difference between 1/5th of a choice and 1/6th of a choice?

1. please quote correctly! (the second paragraph of the quote was nothing I said IIRC)

2. The difference is now, that you can´t increase your stats by using items etc. That math assumes that you increase your main stat every chance. And if you put your second increas in the secondary attribute as you have put your first, you waste a bit of it.

So: result is, fighters who increase constitution and strength fall behind quite a bit.

Would it have been bad, if you had only one +1 to divide and math doesn´t assume distributing it? so a character fokussing on defense has a real reward (increasing low defenses is worthless... however increasing high defenses will give you a big reward)

So putting a +1 bonus to a stat solely to increase a defense would be viable choice.

 

[KarinsDad]

While I agree that only hitting every 4 rounds on every fight is not fun, I think assuming that the game is only fun when you hit on a roll of 9 on a d20 is taking it too far...

I think you hitting an average, equal level opponent on an 11 is ok

I think hitting a level+4, very dangerous opponent in a 15 is good enough... it is supposed to be a tough fight, no?

15 might be good enough, but I've seen n+4 where the PC had to roll a 17 at low Epic. That is hitting once every 5 rounds (let alone once per 4).

15 or higher is 1 in 3 (literally, 3 in 10)
16 or higher is 1 in 4
17 or higher is 1 in 5

A very small change in the chance to hit changes the wait between success drastically.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

15 might be good enough, but I've seen n+4 where the PC had to roll a 17 at low Epic. That is hitting once every 5 rounds (let alone once per 4).

15 or higher is 1 in 3 (literally, 3 in 10)
16 or higher is 1 in 4
17 or higher is 1 in 5

A very small change in the chance to hit changes the wait between success drastically.

and finally you are argumenting with relative damage

in this cases expertise is great