Expertise justification?

[keterys]

The reason to have Epic level be slightly harder to hit is because of the how many more synergies there are at Epic levels than Heroic levels. Instead, your system has Epic level being much easier to hit than Heroic level before counting any synergies.

For what it's worth, some of the best powers for hitting (Lead the Attack, Frigid Darkness, Righteous Brand, etc) are actually used more at heroic than epic.

By epic you do get nicer action point-related bonuses, and a couple paragon path bonuses, though.

It's easier to get combat advantage via stun, blind, daze, but it's not actually hard to get it at low level.

 

[KarinsDad]

For what it's worth, some of the best powers for hitting (Lead the Attack, Frigid Darkness, Righteous Brand, etc) are actually used more at heroic than epic.

Are they?

Unless one is using Daily powers, level one has one encounter attack power. Level 30 typically has 4 to 6 (depending on class, paragon path, etc.).

So if a PC uses up all of the encounter attack powers right away, at level one that means he is using At Will powers in round two. At level 30, that means he is using At Will powers in round six.

But due to the increased number of relative hit points for higher level monsters, it would seem that encounters last more than 4 rounds more at level 30 than level 1 (maybe 6 rounds or even more).

So for a 8 round level one encounter, that's 7 rounds of At Will powers. For a 14 round level 30 similar encounter, that's 9 rounds of At Will powers. Granted, these numbers vary a lot depending on many factors like whether Dailies or sustained powers are used, but I would still think that At Will powers would be used a lot at all levels. They just get used more later in the encounter at higher levels.

 

[keterys]

I think you're overlooking an awful lot of powers, there. For example, just from the first couple pages of cleric:
Lance of Faith, Righteous Brand, Divine Glow, Bless, Blazing Beacon, Weapon of the Gods
Plus several that just give combat advantage - Wrathful Thunder, Command, Daunting Light, Split the Sky, Spiritual Weapon

There's a whole lot more than just Warlord's Favor in play, and with the way that combats work out you might find that bonuses are around an order of magnitude more often, because the cleric is using Righteous Brand every round, every encounter power gives a bonus to hit, etc.

And Righteous Brand, Lead the Attack, and Frigid Darkness are still some of the best attack boosting powers out there up through 30th level, from levels 1, 1, and 3 respectively.

 

[KarinsDad]

For what it's worth, some of the best powers for hitting (Lead the Attack, Frigid Darkness, Righteous Brand, etc) are actually used more at heroic than epic.


And Righteous Brand, Lead the Attack, and Frigid Darkness are still some of the best attack boosting powers out there up through 30th level, from levels 1, 1, and 3 respectively.

I'm not understanding your point. First you say that they are used more at Heroic, then you say they are the best all the way to Epic. What exactly are you trying to say?

 

[Regicide]

I'm not understanding your point. First you say that they are used more at Heroic, then you say they are the best all the way to Epic. What exactly are you trying to say?

Best at what they do. But what they do isn't the best thing to be doing at epic.

 

[keterys]

It seems to me that there is this assumption that epic is full of powers that boost the attacks of PCs or drastically lower the defenses of monsters, but as far as I can tell these powerss are actually most prevalent at lower levels and have likely been swapped out.

For example, looking at the last several levels of cleric (since we looked at the first couple), there's plenty of damage, some big areas and ranges... but there are attack penalties and AC boosts and lotsa healing, but not a single power that gives an attack bonus to an ally, Haunting (Enc 23) gives a minor bonus to the cleric himself for one attack and Holy Wrath (Day 19) gives a +2 bonus to the cleric. A daily Nimbus of Doom gives a -2 penalty to all defenses (save ends) which isn't horrible but likely won't persist long... and that's it for levels 17 through 30.

Lots more blind and stunned at epic, of course.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I cast rais thread...

the tomb

check out about 14, 15 mins in when Expertise comes up...these feats are tests to see what group is more prevalent A(have to have it) B(Don't want it forced on them)


So I guess it means these argument serve the purpose of showing what both of us want

 

[KarinsDad]

check out about 14, 15 mins in when Expertise comes up...these feats are tests to see what group is more prevalent A(have to have it) B(Don't want it forced on them)

Actually, they said nothing of the sort. They said nothing about a "don't want it forced on them" group.

The question was:

What are we going to see to speed up combat at paragon and above?

Expertise was given as an example.

We are paying attention to times when it looks like maybe the ... some people's experiences suggesting that the math of the game isn't working out quite right. And so we're implementing with those feats we've implemented a solution that is kind of a stopgap. We intend to watch and observe and see whether those feats become everyone's got to take that or you're just stupid which a lot of feats used to be in third edition and if that becomes the case, we'll look at a more comprehensive solution for the game. We don't want to rush into a solution that might be just as broken as the problem that we're trying to solve. We don't want to overeact to discussion on the message boards that might not be representative of what everybody's experiencing but we do want to pay attention to those things and make sure we're addressing them in a reasonable way.

First off, they admitted that they were trying to solve a problem here and they indicated that it was a math problem and a problem with the speed of combat at Paragon and above (they didn't say exactly what the problem was).

Second, this "wait and see" philosophy appears to be a reaction to the fact that so many people dislike the implementation. It's a "Oh yeah, we intended it to be a stopgap measure, yeah, yeah, that's the ticket, we intended to come up with a more permanent fix in the future".

One does not intentionally put a fix into the game system and intend for it to be replaced by errata at a later time (the very next sentences in the podcast were about a better errata system, hence the implication). That makes zero sense.

One fixes it the way they thought was best right away. In this case, the solution fixes a portion of the math and teed off part of the gaming community by making the fixes feats. Opps.

Now, they are backpedaling to say that they intended for the feats to be temporary and replaced by a more comprehensive solution if a large part of the gaming community takes them. Of course a large portion of the gaming community is going to take these feats. Everyone? No. Many people. Hell, yeah.

If their original intention was to find this out, good betting money at the time would have been that the answer was yes (+3 to hit, of course yes), so why not just put a better solution in right away? They could always errata any solution later.


It's pretty obvious. They put the fix in for a math bug dealing with the speed of higher level combat (they don't specify exactly which ones, but to hit is obvious from Expertise and possibly too many monster hit points which they discuss later in the broadcast). Good job WotC. But, they errored by making it a feat (not such a good job, but at least they tried). Now, they are trying to make it sound as if the feat idea is only temporarily if it seems like everyone wants to take the feats (a second mistake because it sounds illogical and hence disingenuous, you don't give people candy and say if everyone likes the candy, we'll give you a better candy later, you go straight to the better candy).

From my perspective, their hearts are in the right place, but they are going about it the wrong way. They are especially going about it the wrong way if this "more comprehensive solution for the game" ends up requiring people to buy another book.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Actually, they said nothing of the sort. They said nothing about a "don't want it forced on them" group.

Second, this "wait and see" philosophy appears to be a reaction to the fact that so many people dislike the implementation. It's a "Oh yeah, we intended it to be a stopgap measure, yeah, yeah, that's the ticket, we intended to come up with a more permanent fix in the future".

so there is the problem I hear "We did X to test the waters and are taking a wait and see apporach" to mean just that...you on the other hand assume they are lying...

see They call out that right here:

if a large part of the gaming community takes them.

I say that it is not a majority... enough of us still see it as optional, and know I know I must go to great leangths to make sure my friends post or write WotC that we like it as is...

Of course a large portion of the gaming community is going to take these feats. Everyone? No. Many people. Hell, yeah.

can I get a quote...a %...any numbers to back this up?? I see a vocal minority on the charc op board...and some people here on enworld...

If their original intention was to find this out, good betting money at the time would have been that the answer was yes (+3 to hit, of course yes), so why not just put a better solution in right away? They could always errata any solution later.

go back to my post a few pages ago about people who have diffent play styles...they need to balance what you want and what I want...guess what that means they need to see who agrees more.

Now, they are trying to make it sound as if the feat idea is only temporarily if it seems like everyone wants to take the feats (a second mistake because it sounds illogical and hence disingenuous, you don't give people candy and say if everyone likes the candy, we'll give you a better candy later, you go straight to the better candy).

lets use this metaphore...lets say you have 10 people in a room, and 3 are diabetic (Can't have choclet) 2 are on a diet, and 2 just don't like choclet (Do people like that really exsit???)... you put out a small tray of chocholets and find only 3 people eating them, all three keep going back, and all three talk about how great it is...5 people don't even give it a second look, 2 people kinda look, and maybe one of them has a peice, but only one...
now you know choclet wasn't a good idea, good thing you didn't put out giant chocolet bunnies...

 

[KarinsDad]

so there is the problem I hear "We did X to test the waters and are taking a wait and see apporach" to mean just that...you on the other hand assume they are lying...

If it looks like a horse, smells like a horse, and sounds like a horse, I'm not going to assume it's a rhinoceros just because they tell me that it is a rhinoceros. Duh!

This is called a spin. It's no different than your "don't want it forced on them" statement. There was no indication of that from the quoted text, you just claimed that this is what they said based on what you wanted it to be.

In their case, it's a marketing spin. It's what every company does when they make a mistake and creating a feat tax for both to hit and NADs is thought by many people on the boards to be a mistake. Companies put the best possible face on mistakes. Why would WotC be any different? They wouldn't.

I think they put what they thought was a low intrusive with respect to new rules fix into the system, the community found it to be highly intrusive, and it backfired on them. I don't think there was any grandiose plan ahead of time to replace solution #1 with solution #2 based on how well solution #1 was used by the gaming community. That is so farfetched and hence the reason I think they are spinning now. Opps, we gotta say something now. You want to believe that drivel at face value, go ahead.

I'm not going to convince you, so I won't try any further and unless you have some real meat and potatoes about the rules themselves to discuss, I won't discuss this anymore. But, it was important to write the actual text as opposed to your interpretation of it.

To me, the important part of the message is that "Yes indeed folks, Expertise is an attempt at a fix for higher levels", just like many of us have claimed since PHB II came out. Whether they are trying to fix the sweet spot, or trying to fix grindiness, or trying to fix something else is debatable because the only thing they said they were fixing was the speed of combat at Paragon and higher levels. Does speed mean number of rounds of combat? Does speed mean how much time each round takes? Or something else? They didn't explicitly say.