Is the math off?

[fanboy2000]

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.

So, because someone wouldn't put a 12 in their primary attack stat, they should take Expertise?

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.

Is it your opinion that the feat doesn't grant a benefit, but that not taking is accepting a detriment?

If epic level play was just as balanced as heroic level play would the feat still be so controversial? Because a +3 is still better than no +3, regardless of how hard or easy any given monster is to hit. (Unless it's an automatic hit, in which case the +3 is superfluous. Or if the monster, even with the +3 is still only hitable on a natural 20, in which case the +3 would be useless.)

 

[Nifft]

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.

Ironically, that's one of the classes I'd showcase as having far too many "all-or-nothing" Daily powers to pass up any attack bonus.

Commander's Strike is great, sure, but you really want to land the hit that gives the whole party +8 to attacks vs. the big Solo.

(Bards, on the other hand, have a lot of Daily powers with encounter-long Effects...)

Cheers, -- N

 

[Nifft]

So, because someone wouldn't put a 12 in their primary attack stat, they should take Expertise?

Is it your opinion that the feat doesn't grant a benefit, but that not taking is accepting a detriment?

It's my opinion that 4e design has consolidated around the assumption that every PC will take those feats. I've shown a Racial power example in this thread already.

It's my opinion that some options are too good to reasonably pass up. These too good to pass up options include:
- Starting with at least a 16 (post-racial), usually an 18 (post-racial), in your primary attack stat
- Fighting with an appropriate weapon or implement for which you have proficiency
- Choosing level-appropriate magical gear
- Not voluntarily wearing a blindfold
- Taking Expertise before mid-Paragon tier

If epic level play was just as balanced as heroic level play would the feat still be so controversial? Because a +3 is still better than no +3, regardless of how hard or easy any given monster is to hit. (Unless it's an automatic hit, in which case the +3 is superfluous. Or if the monster, even with the +3 is still only hitable on a natural 20, in which case the +3 would be useless.)

Sure, that would make it even more obvious how poorly the feat was designed.

Cheers, -- N

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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.

Bull that is not even close...with a 16 start and +1 at 4th 8th 11th 14th 18th 21st 24th and 28th, and a magic item of within 2 levels of you, the character is pulling his own wight plane and simple...

a 12 starting stat is always from level 1- level 30 behind the curve...a 16 is the requared min stat for viability in most cases (sometimes you can drop to a 15 starting)

It's my opinion that 4e design has consolidated around the assumption that every PC will take those feats. I've shown a Racial power example in this thread already.

bull I will show you race feature right now... Dragon breath weapon from dragon born...

It's my opinion that some options are too good to reasonably pass up. These too good to pass up options include:
- Starting with at least a 16 (post-racial), usually an 18 (post-racial), in your primary attack stat
- Fighting with an appropriate weapon or implement for which you have proficiency
- Choosing level-appropriate magical gear
- Not voluntarily wearing a blindfold
- Taking Expertise before mid-Paragon tier

well if you tried to tell almost any player I know that your would be asked to leave the group very quickly...it is not your place to tell ANYONE what is or is not right for there character...and guess what we still kick but ont he battle mat with out your prereqs...


Example effective character from IN PLAY: a 19th level fighter with a 21 str with a +2 oath blade Longsword, and +3 hide armor... he had no expertise feat, but he was a 1 handed weapon talent and a kensi...so he had +2 from 'other sources'... and he had a magic bow, a really cool cloak, and like dozens of wondrus items to play with... and He very rairly ws droped, and he hit all the time...in fact in our 17th level last fight (one that boosted us to 18) he held two elites on him well the rest of us handled a third eilte and a dozen minons...

he was hitting more often then anyone except the ranger... and he had the lowest attack bonus in the game.

edit: to be fair I probly remember him hitting more then he did since his big thing was Mark, -3 to hit other targets, and a follow up attack that was way over the top ( 22 wis, and a feat that let him add it to attack...and marked scurge)

 

[Nifft]

Bull that is not even close...with a 16 start and +1 at 4th 8th 11th 14th 18th 21st 24th and 28th, and a magic item of within 2 levels of you, the character is pulling his own wight plane and simple...

a 12 starting stat is always from level 1- level 30 behind the curve...a 16 is the requared min stat for viability in most cases (sometimes you can drop to a 15 starting)

Behind the curve = behind the curve.

However, I do commend you for pulling your own wight plane. Sounds tricky to manage if you're not undead yourself.

bull I will show you race feature right now... Dragon breath weapon from dragon born...

Ugh. At least read the posts in question.

well if you tried to tell almost any player I know that your would be asked to leave the group very quickly...it is not your place to tell ANYONE what is or is not right for there character...and guess what we still kick but ont he battle mat with out your prereqs...

Excellent illustration of the "controversy": one side patiently tries to explain the math, the other side feels personally insulted for no apparent reason.

Ciao, -- N

 

[Theroc]

bull I will show you race feature right now... Dragon breath weapon from dragon born...

Yes. Almost anyone who plays 4th Edition should be aware of this power, since it was in the PHB. Before Implement or Weapon Expertise feats were added. Additionally, the racial ability Nifft described was printed AFTER those feats were implemented, following that trend.

Dragonborn Breath accuracy is left behind, apparently. So yes, we know it doesn't have that benefit, because it was printed before the 'implement expertise feat tax/useless feat everyone argues over' was invented. Or at least, before it was printed.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Excellent illustration of the "controversy": one side patiently tries to explain the math, the other side feels personally insulted for no apparent reason.

I would say one side claims math with out doing all of it, well the other doesn't like being told they are wrong by people not looking at the whole picture...


again...


you claim a 4 pt diff between attack/def of pc vs monsters over 30 levels...no one says "That isn't true" we can all see it... BUT you have yet to prove that is a problem...

and again we have the impass at 1st level you have X to hit Y to be hit Z damage 1x per encounter A damage 1x per day and B damage at will

at 30th level you have X+4 to hit, Y-4 to be hit zx2 damage 4 times an encounter (if not more) Ax2 or 3 damage 4+x per day and Bx2 damage at will pluse 7 "tricks" you have picked up from level 2+, 16 feats... and bunches of magic items (with protperties, and at wills and encounters and dailies) at least some of witch have synergies with each other makeing them more powerful then the sum of there parts, AND you have 2 new 'classes' worth of features...

when you look at all the increase and say "well it doesn't matter" then YOUR MATH IS WRONG!!!


when someone can compair the avrage 1st level character Vs a 1st level monster and then that same character advanced to 30th level Vs a 30 th level monster taking into account EVERYTHING gained in those 29 levels not just the + to hit and + to defs I will give it a chance, until then you are just claiming math you haven't shown...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Yes. Almost anyone who plays 4th Edition should be aware of this power, since it was in the PHB. Before Implement or Weapon Expertise feats were added. Additionally, the racial ability Nifft described was printed AFTER those feats were implemented, following that trend.

Dragonborn Breath accuracy is left behind, apparently. So yes, we know it doesn't have that benefit, because it was printed before the 'implement expertise feat tax/useless feat everyone argues over' was invented. Or at least, before it was printed.

BUT it is still a viable option...without the bonuses (and inless I am wrong there is no way to add to it)

 

[Obryn]

I'm actually disappointed if they're including Expertise-like bonuses on new racial powers. I've houseruled that every PC attack gets Expertise bonuses at levels 5/15/25, including the Racial Powers.

Attribute +12 is probably going too far, even at Epic.

-O

 

[Theroc]

BUT it is still a viable option...without the bonuses (and inless I am wrong there is no way to add to it)

That's as subjective as saying, "You can be viable with a 15 pre-racial in your main stat." In some games it is viable. In some games it is not. The point is Wizards is apparently scaling those bonuses into newer powers, which indicates that houseruling those bonuses into the older powers would be balanced and fair, since the trend indicates either power creep or a genuine 'problem' in the math, most probably anyway.

I'm no expert, so this is my somewhat biased opinion.