Nail
First Post
Some can, some can't. It's the way of things.
BTW, HardcoreDandDGirl, very cool sig!
Expertise justification?
BTW, HardcoreDandDGirl, very cool sig!
UngeheuerLich
Legend
Nail, how high is your strength and which weapon and armor do you use?
if you build a battlerager with hammer and chain shirt and high constitution, i bet you will profit a lot from expertise, and your contribution will result in shortening the combat...
high damage, low hit chance is the perfect "expertise audience"
@ dragon: reducing 18 rounds to 16 rounds... I am very impressed...
the question is always, what price do you have to pay for this "tax"... if it is HP pr defenses, or healing surges, your PCs might have a better chance to survive 18 round than those 16...
@GM for powergames: I am glad your experience more or less supports my theorie...
@ giving it out for free... seems unreasonable... in the first 15 levels it is a real choice if its worth to take it... maybe give the extra +1 and +2 bonus at 15th and 25th level to everyone... or noone... doesn´t matter
if you build a battlerager with hammer and chain shirt and high constitution, i bet you will profit a lot from expertise, and your contribution will result in shortening the combat...
high damage, low hit chance is the perfect "expertise audience"
@ dragon: reducing 18 rounds to 16 rounds... I am very impressed...
the question is always, what price do you have to pay for this "tax"... if it is HP pr defenses, or healing surges, your PCs might have a better chance to survive 18 round than those 16...
@GM for powergames: I am glad your experience more or less supports my theorie...
@ giving it out for free... seems unreasonable... in the first 15 levels it is a real choice if its worth to take it... maybe give the extra +1 and +2 bonus at 15th and 25th level to everyone... or noone... doesn´t matter
GMforPowergamers
Legend
I had a simalar problem early in my days as a warlord...then my mom of all people helped me out (Non gamer, and barely pays attention to this kinda thing)
she herd me talking about what a hard choice of who to heal first was and she remeinded me of airplanes and air masks...the first thing they tell parents of small children is that you should put your own mask on first...becuse it does no one any good i f you pass out.
taking that to a D&D mind frame I found Second wind was a good option for the warlord...I may loss my attack (inless I am a dwarf) but by keeping myself in the game I help the team more then a few extra points of damage will....
I hope that helps...
For goodness sake.
In my post I expressly accepted that my position is just opinion, and that the test would be when a significant number of characters reach 15+, to see how many have expertise.
The only points I was genuinely contending are that 'relative improvement for less optimised players' is false, and has been demonstrated in these pages, and that expertise cannot meaningfully be compared to feats which can only benefit a few specific builds.
I fully accept that the rest is opinion. I hold that a feat tax is one that so many of all players take at a given level that it becomes a meaningless choice. I don't have the data for this, but I imagine this becomes the case shortly after 15th level.
Out of interest, who here has a PC at 16th level who could take expertise and hasn't, and who has a pc who has taken it?
In my post I expressly accepted that my position is just opinion, and that the test would be when a significant number of characters reach 15+, to see how many have expertise.
The only points I was genuinely contending are that 'relative improvement for less optimised players' is false, and has been demonstrated in these pages, and that expertise cannot meaningfully be compared to feats which can only benefit a few specific builds.
I fully accept that the rest is opinion. I hold that a feat tax is one that so many of all players take at a given level that it becomes a meaningless choice. I don't have the data for this, but I imagine this becomes the case shortly after 15th level.
Out of interest, who here has a PC at 16th level who could take expertise and hasn't, and who has a pc who has taken it?
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.
So, most such powers are white noise. Yup, they help. Nope, they aren't typically worth discussing with regard to whether the encounter should be a success or not, or how long the encounter lasts.
And what happens if the Cleric does not have Bless or if the Cleric cast it already this day?
My analysis gave the benefit of the doubt to the PCs.
Average successful hit.
Over an extended period of time, not just one power.
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.
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.
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.
Nope. I didn't assume the PCs are on bot mode. I just don't see where they have a big enough gun.
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.
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 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.
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).
I'm not seeing the love for the PCs. The Wizard is the only serious threat with this tactic and if he starts using it, he also becomes a serious target.
Maybe you could tell us where all of these Stunning ranged powers of level 11 or lower are located. I could not find any, even for the Wizard except for Sleep (which is not really stunned, but works about the same). Unless he's an Orb Wizard (and that's an entire other can of worms), the Dragon will probably save within a few rounds at +5 to save.
And, a Dragon can still hover when Stunned. So yes, stun will delay the Dragon, but it will not lower the number of rounds of combat by too much (the CA helps though).
Again, I'm not seeing a way to turn around the encounter here anywhere, especially since the PCs probably won't be stunning the Dragon.
There are many conditions. How does Slow bother the hovering Dragon at all?
Weakened helps, but typically for only 1 or 2 rounds until the Dragon makes the save (or the power expires).
Daze doesn't stop a Breath Weapon or two Claw attacks.
Pull or Slide might be helpful.
But, nothing here is that overwhelmingly helpful for the PCs.
Yup. Which is why I said "up to 5 rounds". It could be 1, 3, or 5, depending on whether the Rogue and Fighter can find other ways to get Combat Advantage. With the Dragon not fighting on the ground, it is unlikely though that most rounds will have these PCs with Combat Advantage. Some rounds due to a different power or feat or something, sure.
But note that I assumed that both the Rogue and Fighter would be getting CA every single round with the original numbers. I suspect that most people would find that generous.
Average? An n+4 encounter is average? I want to be smoking what you are smoking.
Yup. It all adds up. And Paragon Path features might shave off 2 rounds. Maybe.
But, that still puts the fight in the 16+ or longer range ASSUMING that nobody goes unconscious or dies. The fight turns in the Dragon's favor real quick if the Dragon can kill a PC, especially the Cleric. With the damage the Dragon does, it could do this in 6 rounds or so, probably after the Cleric does his first heal of the wounded Wizard, so maybe the Dragon might focus on the Cleric starting in round 4 or 5.
Yup.
And, just bad dice rolls can turn an encounter like this south for the players real quick.
Bottom line, n+4 encounters appear to be considerably easier at lower levels than higher levels. Even at level 11, a major power boost level for PCs, this is a tough "fight for our lives" fight. At level 10, an n+4 encounter is even more deadly because the PCs do not have the Paragon Path features (and Strikers do less damage, etc.).
A DM has to be real careful just following the suggestions from the DMG when it comes to several levels higher than the PCs encounters.
Last edited:
Firstly I didn't insult you. Just state that you ignore many facts.
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.
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.
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).
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.
And again, what I need to prove? That the fight with you dragon will be horribly boring to me? That nail is playing on 4lvl and he enjoy the game. We are talking here about late paragon and epic not beginning of heroic tier. +1 to hit from expertise at heroic is the same as many feats (well, all feats that gave situational +1 feat bonus are screwed). But at 15 lvl Expertise is superb. Defenses feats will be taken too offten. All depends on DM encounter creations, but even if he's doing fights with the same lvl monsters, defenses are far behind average.
One more thing. I didn't say the game is unplayable. It's very bad, boring and too long. Your solo fight could be nice fight if this will be the last fight at the end of campaign or so. If this was just one example from other fights it was very bad for two reasons:
- all fights are too long etc.
- all fights are the same, and thus your players make powergaming choices, and you kill options to take skill training feats etc. becouse of that.
And one thing about "party tactic". Everything is ok, but this is in some way true only for melee fighters. Ranged and laser have hard times, becouse they can't get even +2 from flanking. I've run fights with high level monsters where my sorcerrer wasn't very happy, when he was trying to hit sucha monster.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
And again, what I need to prove? That the fight with you dragon will be horribly boring to me? That nail is playing on 4lvl and he enjoy the game. We are talking here about late paragon and epic not beginning of heroic tier. +1 to hit from expertise at heroic is the same as many feats (well, all feats that gave situational +1 feat bonus are screwed). But at 15 lvl Expertise is superb. Defenses feats will be taken too offten. All depends on DM encounter creations, but even if he's doing fights with the same lvl monsters, defenses are far behind average.
One more thing. I didn't say the game is unplayable. It's very bad, boring and too long. Your solo fight could be nice fight if this will be the last fight at the end of campaign or so. If this was just one example from other fights it was very bad for two reasons:
- all fights are too long etc.
- all fights are the same, and thus your players make powergaming choices, and you kill options to take skill training feats etc. becouse of that.
And one thing about "party tactic". Everything is ok, but this is in some way true only for melee fighters. Ranged and laser have hard times, becouse they can't get even +2 from flanking. I've run fights with high level monsters where my sorcerrer wasn't very happy, when he was trying to hit sucha monster.
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.
UngeheuerLich
Legend
ok, lets settle this.
I hope we agree that if a dwarf with 16 strength and a Waraxe with dwarven weapon training (average damage 11.5) will benefit more from expertise than the 18 strength dragonborn with a longsword. (average damage 8.5) which is a realistic example.
And i hope we agree, that expertise is superior to some other feats which appeared before...
but I believe, if nimble blade and expertise would swap places in PHB 1 and 2, noone had complained, most uf us would accept, that nimble blade is for those people who want to be even more specialised (and need combat advantage for powers and features)
Last edited:
GenghisDon
First Post
I don't have much love for the PH2 at all, I won't be using expertese feat in my games. If the math is off & my players can't hit anything at mid paragon+, I'll just give them the bonus with any attack. We'll see how it goes. What little I plan to use of the PH2, I'll just use off PDF, I don't see it as worth buying.
UngeheuerLich
Legend
@ Bayuer: your post was insulting.
Your arguments are valid however. +4 defense feats and +2 defenses are more or less must have feats as are +2 or +3 to attack.
but I will say following: if you take none of them, your fights become easier! Your DM should strongly be advised to take Karin´s Dad´s advice to heart:
use level x-2 monsters if you would usually take level x. They do nearly the same damage (since you read everywhere that damage doesn´t go up fast enough ) have less hp and -2 attack and -2 defense...
There just has to be one update to the rules in DMG:
"As you level the game gets harder as your players level up, but the chances to encounter equally high monsters is lower"
Your arguments are valid however. +4 defense feats and +2 defenses are more or less must have feats as are +2 or +3 to attack.
but I will say following: if you take none of them, your fights become easier! Your DM should strongly be advised to take Karin´s Dad´s advice to heart:
use level x-2 monsters if you would usually take level x. They do nearly the same damage (since you read everywhere that damage doesn´t go up fast enough
) have less hp and -2 attack and -2 defense...There just has to be one update to the rules in DMG:
"As you level the game gets harder as your players level up, but the chances to encounter equally high monsters is lower"
GenghisDon
First Post
How many groups have you leveled up UngeheuerLich? I am still on my first "test" batch, but so far things are fine(& fast compared to what I hear from others), sticking more or less to the suggested encounter difficulty. Most folks say increasing the difficulty is the way to go, are you joking about n-2?
I mix things up, but I don't think I ever used these. The game seems pretty easy compared to other rpg's & to earlier editions( we have played 1e on up). Some of the ease is likely that we roll scores & are generally better off than the pt method, though they aren't nessecarily where you might want them. I am curious if anybody ever gets dropped or killed by the n-2 ecounters? I kinda thought they would be a waste of time.
I mix things up, but I don't think I ever used these. The game seems pretty easy compared to other rpg's & to earlier editions( we have played 1e on up). Some of the ease is likely that we roll scores & are generally better off than the pt method, though they aren't nessecarily where you might want them. I am curious if anybody ever gets dropped or killed by the n-2 ecounters? I kinda thought they would be a waste of time.
Similar Threads
Pathfinder 2E
What Are The Changes In Pathfinder Remastered?
