Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MrMyth" data-source="post: 5545270" data-attributes="member: 61155">It really depends on the game. But if the expectation is that Expertise is the norm, a character without it will remain that much farther behind the curve. I noted above how the gap between optimized and average widened from +6 to +9 with the presence of Expertise. So, at Epic levels, prior to Expertise the DM could present an enemy with 36 AC. The average character hits it on a 13, the optimized character hits it on an 7.  The optimized character is a bit ahead of the curve, but hardly hitting it all the time. The average character is a bit behind the curve, but still hits enough to feel effective.  Expertise enters the picture. Now, the optimized character hits it on a 4. What happens then? Now, maybe the DM is of Aulirophile's mindset, and figures that a PC hitting on as low as a 2+ is a perfectly reasonable expectation for the game. On the other hand, maybe the start bringing in tougher monsters to compensate - meaning the average PC is now hitting even less. Even if the adjustment doesn't take place, having an enemy you hit 1/3 of the time, while your ally hits almost all the time, may start to get frustrating.  Basically, if the expectation is built into the system - either due to the base math itself, or due to a DM compensating for the power creep caused by Expertise - then having the 'choice' of taking or not taking Expertise is a trap for the non-optimized character. That is simply way too much impact for one single feat to have.   Even if the ideal can't be achieved, that isn't any reason not to aim for it. And trying to keep feats at an equivalent power level in the game, as well as trying to preserve a reasonable balance between average and optimized PCs, doesn't seem like "letting optimization rule you".   I don't think that is true or fair. Maybe some groups will always find something to bother them. But in my group, being bothered by a flaw in the game doesn't mean there is an issue in the group, it means there is a flaw in the game.  Saying that a player should just 'suck it up' and be mature about having the game discouraging non-optimized characters is, in my opinion, unreasonable. As I said before regarding the DM 'fixing' things - sure, you can get around a problem by a DM fixing it. Sure, you can get around it by having players ignore their growing frustraton and just keep playing. But wouldn't it be best if the problem didn't exist in the first place?  This is what I especially don't get. I am trying to argue for a system that better supports the ability for players to not optimize if they don't want to - as 4E set out to do from the start - and your response is to unleash a string of invective ranting about powergaming.  We're trying to push for a system that allows for both the average PC and the optimized PC to each contribute and be able to function at the same table, and your response is to claim that powergamers are the filth of the earth and WotC shouldn't even acknowledge their existence.   Well, count me in as one of those unreasonable people. I've said from the start that Expertise was not needed despite the math, due to all the other factors typically ignored when focusing on the math in isolation from the rest of the game. My experience since that has pretty much supported that.  I'm not going to claim that I have absolute truth on my side, but I do think that casually dismissing any other point of view is the same sort of behavior that Herschel is doing that you are objecting to.</blockquote>

Verification