No offense meant, Nail, but I wrote *exactly* what he said in the quoted section.
The only thing I left out was the "ah"s and "err"s because he was stumbling over his words.
Expertise justification?
No offense meant, Nail, but I wrote *exactly* what he said in the quoted section.
The only thing I left out was the "ah"s and "err"s because he was stumbling over his words.
GMforPowergamers
Legend
so at the end of day one on the complety not scientfic poll we have 63 people responded and exactly 1/3 (33.33%) said they don't want the feat changed...
can those of you that want it changed atleast see why WotC has to tread lightly here...since atleast some players like it as is...
can those of you that want it changed atleast see why WotC has to tread lightly here...since atleast some players like it as is...
Nail
First Post
You did?
<goes back, reads over KD's post carefully>
Oops! You did!
FWIW, the quote bracket you used (in which you transcribe the WotC developer comments) looked like it came from GMforPowergamers, as you had quoted him immediately above that. My mistake!
Anyway, I *still* don't like their reasoning, at least as expressed in the pod-cast. This sounds like the same approach they used for 3.xe's polymorph, which also didn't work.
You do realize that there is a high percentage of people who very rarely want anything that gets into print changed.
For whatever reasons, they prefer to play the game as written, almost regardless of what is written. If WotC had written a rule solution instead of a feat solution, they would vote against a feat solution.
Like? Maybe. Prefer? Maybe. Voted in a given way, yes.
And yes, I see your point.
Falling Icicle
Adventurer
All I thought the poll said was that I believed it was a "math fix." And I do believe this, since monster defenses clearly scale faster than player to hit does. But that response is not meant to imply that I want them to change the feat. It's kind of nice having feats that aren't "I get a +1 to hit once in a blue moon, and only if I'm standing on one toe and have combat advantage."
Nail
First Post
I game with a few of these people.
My sense is that they "just want it to work"...and just hope that it does. Examining the math of the game (etc) is the antithesis of fun for them, so their working assumption is "Everything printed is right." Full stop.
Considering how long they tested 4E for, including feeding ill-fitting garbage into 3E to test it out, it should be right. The people you played with pay money for the books, it should be right, that's WHY they bought the books.
When WotC is willing to ship me out an updated version of the book gratis, then I'll be willing to put up with their
ups. Until then, get it right, then print.Intense_Interest
First Post
When WotC is willing to ship me out an updated version of the book gratis, then I'll be willing to put up with their
"Get it Right"? At who's subjective whim are we deciding here? The cohort that enjoys hitting Vecna on an 8+? The ones who don't want to spend a feat to hit on an 8, yet are hypocritically okay with having to buy stronger magic items as they level (GP TAX, I TELLS YA!)? The ones who are pretty much okay with everything in the books?
Whoops, looks like we can't wave a flag and call things conclusions then.
keterys
First Post
Slight tangent, but now I'm curious what it takes to hit Vecna on an 8. Let's see, AC 49 or Ref 47 seem to be the way to go...
Without party buffs, your rogue demigod with a dagger and a Ref attack like Piercing Strike is looking at Pre-Expertise +37 (Level +15, Stat +9, Enh +6, CA & Nimble +3, Prof +4) or +40 after... a less hit-optimized rogue will be around +34/+37, or needing a 10/7 or 13/10, bumping required rolls all by 2 for AC-required attacks.
A dragonborn warlock would more likely be looking at something like +29 (Level +15, Stat +8, Enh +6), needing an 18 to hit Reflex, 20 to hit AC or Fort, and 20 to hit Will with no crits possible. Post-Exp and Arcane Power, the extra +6 would drop those to 12-14 needed.
That's... a truly interesting disparity between the possible types. Of course, you are going to bring some bonuses and penalties into it. Vecna is good about slipping out of some setups and dropping conditions, but probably not quite good enough, especially for the first couple rounds. The long at-will slog later on would be less pleasant.
Without party buffs, your rogue demigod with a dagger and a Ref attack like Piercing Strike is looking at Pre-Expertise +37 (Level +15, Stat +9, Enh +6, CA & Nimble +3, Prof +4) or +40 after... a less hit-optimized rogue will be around +34/+37, or needing a 10/7 or 13/10, bumping required rolls all by 2 for AC-required attacks.
A dragonborn warlock would more likely be looking at something like +29 (Level +15, Stat +8, Enh +6), needing an 18 to hit Reflex, 20 to hit AC or Fort, and 20 to hit Will with no crits possible. Post-Exp and Arcane Power, the extra +6 would drop those to 12-14 needed.
That's... a truly interesting disparity between the possible types. Of course, you are going to bring some bonuses and penalties into it. Vecna is good about slipping out of some setups and dropping conditions, but probably not quite good enough, especially for the first couple rounds. The long at-will slog later on would be less pleasant.
Another tangent but I like the Flying Blade Adept's high-crit chance coupled with an encounter-long -2AC penalty on a crit. A +2 to hit AC at paragon, maybe it was a MATH FIX!!!! Dun dun dun!
I'm sure there are better paragon options though.
Anyway, Vecna is a chump.
Skill challenges? Stealth? Skill check DCs? Incorrect beginner "help" for the classes? The DM screen has errata! Is there any surprise the basic math of the system is... questionable, when they can't even get the simplest things like DCs correct?
Last edited:
Similar Threads
Pathfinder 2E
What Are The Changes In Pathfinder Remastered?
