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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="eamon" data-source="post: 5558728" data-attributes="member: 51942">It may be possible for some build to get all of these things, but it's certainly not typical. I usually assume 1 extra +1 - that's fairly normal.  In particular, +1's from items, paragon paths, and conditional feats are far from common.Note also that the game plays very poorly if PC's hit rarely.  Conversely, if they hit a bit more, it doesn't actually change much - the assumption has always been that creatures hit more often than not, particularly if they spend some tactical ammo to get a conditional bonus.I just don't see conditional bonuses ever really adding up to all that much.  Barring the rare item/paragon path (and don't underestimate the opportunity costs for getting these), most other conditional bonuses are uncertain at the best of times, and if they work, they tend to last for a fraction of one encounter - a tiny fraction of the nominal adventuring day.Over the course of 29 levels, that's +15+4stat+6enh+1something. Frankly, in my experience, even with expertise, item bonuses to damage etc, combats take too long in late paragon/early epic (no experience later than that, but I presume it's worse).  I'm sure maximal charop might help, but that's an unsatisfactory requirement.So the typical attack bonus falls behind, the typical damage bonus falls behind, and in my experience I've yet to see abilities that compensate.For example, I've seen an artificer with some attack-roll boosting paragon path.  When he hits with his at-will magic weapon (which is itself with a +3 weapon, and the power has a built-in +1), adjacent PC's get a +3 (!) bonus to attack rolls.  But... magic weapon still misses, the leader uses other powers, and PC's aren't always clustered (and if they are... hehe).  As a percentage of attacks in a combat, perhaps just 10% are made made with this bonus, even though it's a focus of the tactics - it's just not that practically easy to do this all the time - people aren't always adjacent, the leader misses, the leader chooses to use something else, the leader's attacks himself don't get the bonus, and sometimes the leader's stunned or otherwise incapacitated.I've also helped build a seeker with lots of ranged basic attacks (this for a player that likes simple, effective PCs without too many twiddly bits).  That guy gets an absolutely uniquely powerful boost in things like eagle eye goggles.  But... it's a seeker, and still not super powerful.  And many of the best powers, even for seekers, are not ranged basic attacks.So I can only conclude that the plainly obvious (basic) numbers fall behind without expertise, and that even with expertise and some pretty twinked out attack rolls my experience is that the game gets grindier at high levels (of course, that's also cause damage doesn't scale well).In addition, the moment a few PC's find some of those elusive attack bonuses, you get intra-party imbalance.  Particularly because people tend to focus on a few things - e.g. the 20 post-racial seeker with a crossbow and eagle eye goggles vs. the 18 post racial ranger with a longbow - that might end up being a systematic +6 difference (!).  That's huge, but can be OK so long as the ranger hits 55% of the time and the seeker 85%.  It's not going to be somewhat frustrating if the seeker hits 70% of the time and the ranger 40% (this would be without expertise).  And if the party ever encounters any even mildly overlevel opponents...And while PC's get better powers, so do monsters - and these often get really nasty aura's, broad immunities, and extremely powerful at-wills - so that's not necessarily a net positive.So basically, I just can't see how the game is improved by leaving out the expertise bonus.  Of course you fix it on the DM side of the screen, by reducing the level of opponents as levels rise, or by maintaining the DMG guidelines but reducing attack bonuses.I think it's also really important to note that the problems with never hitting are much worse that the problems of always hitting.  If both PC's and monsters hit almost always, the game remains playable - this is perhaps not ideal balance, but not a huge problem.  But if hit rates go very low, things get really boring and/or really frustrating.  So as a basic design, you're much better off having a decent baseline that ensures any non-gimped PC will hit reasonably often, and go from there.  If that means that twinked out PC's hit lots of times - that's OK.</blockquote>

Verification