Is the math off?

[keterys]

Again, I do not think most groups want to be able to hit the Stirge at 1st level with a 12 and Orcus at 30th level with a 12.

Bad analogy - stirge is a level 1 normal and Orcus is a 33 solo. Better comparison would be fighting a white dragon, or something similar.

And low level characters facing off against a dragon is pretty comparable to epic characters facing off against Orcus in terms of scope. In terms of hitting and being hit, it would be fine if those were kept the same, as long as the other stuff changed.

And boy did it - Orcus is knocking people to 0 hp in one hit, has an aura, turns people into dread wraiths, etc. Of course, the party is popping up from dead, teleporting around, etc.

So, the game _does_ change, but that doesn't have to mean anything to do with the hit chance or the chance of being hit.

 

[fanboy2000]

attack bonus at Epic has still fallen behind attack bonus at Heroic (relative to monster defenses).

Is that bad?

 

[Nifft]

Is that bad?

I used to argue that it wasn't (before PHB2 was published).

However, combined with the Expertise feats, what it means is: everyone loses one feat choice.

Cheers, -- N

 

[fanboy2000]

However, combined with the Expertise feats, what it means is: everyone loses one feat choice.

Is it unreasonable for a player not to take Expertise if it doesn't bother them?

 

[rjdafoe]

Except that the PC can expect to get those same bonuses in Heroic tier. It cancels out; attack bonus at Epic has still fallen behind attack bonus at Heroic (relative to monster defenses).

Then I guess the question is - does it matter in game play? I think not. Others may disagree.

 

[keterys]

Is that bad?

Oddly, that is neither here nor there. What is, is the Expertise feat, which screws it up whether you think it's good or bad.

 

[rjdafoe]

Bad analogy - stirge is a level 1 normal and Orcus is a 33 solo. Better comparison would be fighting a white dragon, or something similar.

And low level characters facing off against a dragon is pretty comparable to epic characters facing off against Orcus in terms of scope. In terms of hitting and being hit, it would be fine if those were kept the same, as long as the other stuff changed.

And boy did it - Orcus is knocking people to 0 hp in one hit, has an aura, turns people into dread wraiths, etc. Of course, the party is popping up from dead, teleporting around, etc.

So, the game _does_ change, but that doesn't have to mean anything to do with the hit chance or the chance of being hit.

Of course, the meaning behind that was I don't want to have the game so balanced that the assumption is I always hit a roll of <x> on a 20 sided.

the dissagreement with me is I think that the play in the number is not as high as people are making it out to be, in play. It is higher when you try to calculate these things as averages, because you cannot take into account all of the possibilities.

We have a DM that uses the +2 situational modifier as well. (from the DMs guide) when he thinks it should apply. So you see some of our group trying to apply that as much as possible.

We have even had people use aid another for the +2 as well. You would be surprised how a good group, taking advantage of teamwork, with all the roles covered, can mitigate high defenses.

 

[Nifft]

Is it unreasonable for a player not to take Expertise if it doesn't bother them?

IMHO it's exactly as unreasonable as putting a 12 in your primary attack stat, or deciding your warrior will always fight with an improvised weapon.

Sure, you technically can decide to not take the feat, but it's on par with deciding your PC will suffer a permanent debilitating condition, which grows worse over your career.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Nifft]

Then I guess the question is - does it matter in game play? I think not. Others may disagree.

I think the designers expected a certain level of optimization, which (applied to magic item choices & party synergy as well as power selection) could make up the difference.

Oddly, that is neither here nor there. What is, is the Expertise feat, which screws it up whether you think it's good or bad.

Agreed. There were several better solutions (like: just use lower level monsters).

Cheers, -- N

 

[fuzzlewump]

ok let me jump in here... if I am hitting an exceptable amount in my mind with out it AND want another feat then guess what...I don't need expertise

...

edit: by the way my 10th level eladrin warlord has the following feats: Fey Command, Heavy Sheild prof, Improved Tactics, Lend Might, Tactical Assault, Tactical Inspiration

I agree, if you think you're hitting enough then you can choose another feat. But that's not the argument he's making. He's making the argument that some feats are simply better than expertise. Not more interesting, more character fitting, or whatever, but mathematically better.

And also, a tactical warlord is a closet case on expertise. You don't need it if you're going to mostly be doing commander's strike. Notice how you got the tactical warlord equivalent, "Lend Might." +1 to attacks, and you grant attacks all the time instead of taking your own. You have effectively taken expertise on your character.