Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Feat Taxes, or, It's That Time of the Week Again
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Aulirophile" data-source="post: 5552504" data-attributes="member: 86312"><p>Uh, your anecdotal experience and pointing out PCs get more powers as they level proves diddly. And the fact that you don't even understand the argument (by your own admission) but disagree with it is just sad. How can you possibly competently disagree with something you don't understand?</p><p></p><p>You got options here:</p><p></p><p>Anecdotal Experience Argument: Unless someone else in this thread played 4e for slightly more then 10 hours a day on average for a year, you have nothing to stand on here. Not the best decision of my life but I'll be damned if <em>anyone </em>in this thread can claim more anecdotal experience then I can, so if you want to drag the argument down to that level as if it has some significance: I win. </p><p></p><p>Math: You can clearly see that PCs do not maintain a 55% hit rate vs even level, which is the stated minimum and every bonus (including mundane things like CA) is <em>on top of </em>that. In addition to. So you <em>cannot </em>count that and even then, nothing besides Expertise, no party composition, no leader buffs, <em>nothing else in the entire game </em>fixes this. So yes, the math is proveable, and yes it does so in a vacuum, and no, that doesn't matter, because it is supposed to work regardless of party composition and only does so with Expertise. </p><p></p><p>Developer Statements: 55% vs even level is the minimum and we made a mistake, Expertise is explicitly the fix for this self-admitted mistake. </p><p></p><p>What exactly does it take when the developers said they had a minimum hit% they wanted based on extensive playtesting, the math clearly shows the minimum isn't maintained, the developers said that it was a mistake based on a change (which if they would tell us wtf it was would hopefully settle this debate even in the minds of the most obdurate) and released Expertise as a "fix", their words, and the "fix" neatly closes the gap? </p><p></p><p>Expertise makes the game work <em>as intended. </em>Period. In previous editions Feats like that were considered taxes. So Expertise is a Feat Tax. It is quite possible to do without it (I played for a long time before it was even released) but it is a <em>horrible </em>experience at Epic. I played multiple Epic characters without Expertise vs MM1 Monsters. It was arduous at best. </p><p></p><p>Also, if you really want to mathematically prove that Expertise isn't needed, you need to calculate encounter length for every single party composition with and without it, from 1-30. Just doing a handful should drive the point home: Doesn't work.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Aulirophile, post: 5552504, member: 86312"] Uh, your anecdotal experience and pointing out PCs get more powers as they level proves diddly. And the fact that you don't even understand the argument (by your own admission) but disagree with it is just sad. How can you possibly competently disagree with something you don't understand? You got options here: Anecdotal Experience Argument: Unless someone else in this thread played 4e for slightly more then 10 hours a day on average for a year, you have nothing to stand on here. Not the best decision of my life but I'll be damned if [I]anyone [/I]in this thread can claim more anecdotal experience then I can, so if you want to drag the argument down to that level as if it has some significance: I win. Math: You can clearly see that PCs do not maintain a 55% hit rate vs even level, which is the stated minimum and every bonus (including mundane things like CA) is [I]on top of [/I]that. In addition to. So you [I]cannot [/I]count that and even then, nothing besides Expertise, no party composition, no leader buffs, [I]nothing else in the entire game [/I]fixes this. So yes, the math is proveable, and yes it does so in a vacuum, and no, that doesn't matter, because it is supposed to work regardless of party composition and only does so with Expertise. Developer Statements: 55% vs even level is the minimum and we made a mistake, Expertise is explicitly the fix for this self-admitted mistake. What exactly does it take when the developers said they had a minimum hit% they wanted based on extensive playtesting, the math clearly shows the minimum isn't maintained, the developers said that it was a mistake based on a change (which if they would tell us wtf it was would hopefully settle this debate even in the minds of the most obdurate) and released Expertise as a "fix", their words, and the "fix" neatly closes the gap? Expertise makes the game work [I]as intended. [/I]Period. In previous editions Feats like that were considered taxes. So Expertise is a Feat Tax. It is quite possible to do without it (I played for a long time before it was even released) but it is a [I]horrible [/I]experience at Epic. I played multiple Epic characters without Expertise vs MM1 Monsters. It was arduous at best. Also, if you really want to mathematically prove that Expertise isn't needed, you need to calculate encounter length for every single party composition with and without it, from 1-30. Just doing a handful should drive the point home: Doesn't work. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Feat Taxes, or, It's That Time of the Week Again
Top