Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MrMyth" data-source="post: 5545009" data-attributes="member: 61155">P/A stance?  The feats never help make up the difference. The optimizer will always take them. The player who has already chosen not to optimize may or may not. You will basically never have a situation where the character with average stats picks Expertise and is able to catch up to the character who maxed his stats and then... didn't take Expertise.  Meanwhile, if I make a non-optimized character, 'not having fun' isn't something that happens during the desing process. It is something that happens during the game, when I discover how far behind my character is compared to the optimized PC. I'm not sure where badwrongfun comes into this.   When the PHB came out, there was a certain gap between an average PC and an optimized one. Say we had a Cleric at epic levels... at level 21. Starting with Str 16, he is up to Str 22. With a +5 Warhammer, he has an attack bonus of +23. Say we also have a Fighter. He started with Str 20, and gets an extra +1 to hit from being a fighter, and went Kensai for another +1 to hit, and Demigod to boost his Str by another 2, and has a +5 Bastard Sword with a +3 proficiency. His attack bonus is +29.  That's a difference of +6, which basically covers the gap between the two extremes - the PC who hasn't made any effort to optimize at all, and the one who has.  Add in Expertise, which increases that potential gap by 3 points - by half again as much - via a single feat.  In the PHB, a feat might be considered exceptional if it gave +1 to hit on a conditional basis. Expertise feats now give 3 times that all day long, and usually with other potent benefits as well.  Both of those differences - the degree to which the feats expand the gap, and the difference in power between those feats and other 'good' feats - is, yes, what I would consider extreme.   Sure. But, in an ideal game, those numbers are reasonably balanced. That was, in fact, one of the goals of 4E. Why should we set that aside now? What advantage do we gain by doing so?   No one is physically forced to take them, no. But the presence of feats so far superior to other choices does unbalance the feat selection process, and does make it more possible to end up feeling 'encouraged' to take them.  You mention wanting to take it since you might have a character who is a few points behind another character in accuracy, and are already feeling that lack. What happens if you didn't plan to take it but wanted to take something else, and suddenly the Fullblade wielder also has Expertise and is even farther ahead of you? That sort of dilemma is, to me, a problem.   Let's say we're at epic levels. My main weapon is a +5 sword, but I also carry a +3 javelin if I need to target something at range. It's heavy thrown, so I get to keep my str in the equation, but I accept that, between the lower proficiency and enhancement bonus, I won't be great with it. My attacks with it will be at -3 compared to my normal attacks - a hindrance, but it still can be occasionally useful.  Add Expertise to the equation, and the game's assumption that Expertise is in play. My attacks with the javelin will be at -6 compared to my normal attacks. That's a big difference.  Similar, say I spot a +5 Greataxe of Demonslaying, and want to pick it up and deliver the deathblow to this Balor who is beating the crap out of the party? Without expertise, switching away from a favored weapon would not cost anyone too much unless they are really built around that weapon - a few points of damage or the like. But suddenly being at -3 to hit... and why bother?  I don't object to feats that support the use of a favored weapon. But the benefits of Expertise are so extreme that they effectively limit your options once they are in play - just one more mark against them, in my book.   Except that we already have that represented in the game, via something called proficiency. If I'm actually untrained in the use of greatswords, I will indeed be at a penalty if I just grab one and start swinging. But if I am trained, shouldn't I expect to be able to make decent use of it once it becomes available? So yeah, it works on the realism level. And on the level of what is fun for the game, a style of play that limits your options for no particular benefit is not what I would consider good for the game.   Well, sure. But the game offered different expectations at launch, and this one single element is the primary component that has disrupted those elements. And, in my experience, has caused or has the potential to cause quite a few problems, as I have described above.</blockquote>

Verification