Is the math off?

[GMforPowergamers]

Behind the curve = behind the curve.

the 'curve' is 16 starting, up every chance, magic item of within 2 of your level, and (weapon only) a +2 prof weapon...

so a (start 17) 23 str fighter with 1 handed talent and a +5 sword at 23rd level is

2 points ahead of the curve 1 for the fighter talent, one for +3 prof weapon
(at 24th level that increase to 3 ahead for 4 levels when it drops back)

on the other hand a Rogue (fighter multi) kensi demi god with a +6 dagger, and weapon expertise and a 28 dex is 8 points ahead of the curve (maybe more if he targets nads like rouges can)

3 for dex, 2 expertise, 1 for prof of dagger, 1 for rogue talent, 1 kensi...

the fact that one person is ahead of the curve by mroe does not put you behind the curve...the game is players Vs monsters not PVP...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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

yea, me too, infact most people;s opionions are...funny how we ave to argue about them though...

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.

OK, BUT if you sat down to a game and the DM wasn't house ruleing the BW would you tell other PCs not to play there Dragon born character???

Or to spin this back around...if you want to take expertise with every character by level 12 cool, more power to you have fun...but when you say others should (even when they choose not to), or that DMs should give them out free (if the DM didn't want to) or even try to push WotC to change it when you KNOW there are people happy with out it...then there are problems...

I have a fellow player who thinks like an optimizer...he always has a min 18 starting stat to attack, he never take multi attack stat powers, and he always has +3 prof weapons...he also always has the NAD uppers, and expertise. How ever we have never seen him pull away from the pact in usefulness....


[sblock=going back an edtion or two] We in my group have had alot of problems over the years of one character domanating becuse he was built 'better' from my characters of grant and antra in 2e, to my firend paul makeing an abjurer in 3e...

we call them 1 man parties...becuse alone they could bring 70+% of the power of the rest of the group...

in 4e even the most optimized character is still 'just part of the team'[/sblock]

 

[keterys]

When expertise is +2, it's the same hit change as getting a 12 instead of a 16 in a primary ability score.

When expertise is +3, it's the same hit change as getting a 10 instead of a 16 in a primary ability score.

Obviously, you can do it. You can even play a character who accomplishes a lot with that handicap. But the game really suggests otherwise, and doing so is basically a system mastery trap. But, sure, there are games in which you have a wizard with a 10 or 12 Int base. I still wouldn't _suggest_ it.

 

[Theroc]

OK, BUT if you sat down to a game and the DM wasn't house ruleing the BW would you tell other PCs not to play there Dragon born character???

Or to spin this back around...if you want to take expertise with every character by level 12 cool, more power to you have fun...but when you say others should (even when they choose not to), or that DMs should give them out free (if the DM didn't want to) or even try to push WotC to change it when you KNOW there are people happy with out it...then there are problems...

I have a fellow player who thinks like an optimizer...he always has a min 18 starting stat to attack, he never take multi attack stat powers, and he always has +3 prof weapons...he also always has the NAD uppers, and expertise. How ever we have never seen him pull away from the pact in usefulness....


[sblock=going back an edtion or two] We in my group have had alot of problems over the years of one character domanating becuse he was built 'better' from my characters of grant and antra in 2e, to my firend paul makeing an abjurer in 3e...

we call them 1 man parties...becuse alone they could bring 70+% of the power of the rest of the group...

in 4e even the most optimized character is still 'just part of the team'[/sblock]

Just because I will not tell someone how to play their character doesn't mean I won't inform them of any potential pitfalls in their choices, if I am unsure if they are aware. Particularly since many of my friends would have lesser system mastery than I, were I to engage in a F2F game, I would let them know of potential issues if the DM was not addressing them.

I will not say, "Don't play a Dragonborn", I may say, "As a not, if we ever get to epic levels, you may have trouble hitting things with your breath weapon, due to XYZ Math rant"

I will tell them I highly recommend they take X feat as it is mechanically superior and explain a bit about why that is, if they are interested, but in the end I would leave it up to them. Just because I should not tell them what they 'can' do doesn't mean I'm no longer allowed to give advice.

Just because the DM doesn't WANT to adjust that math, doesn't me he should not. He's allowed his choice, right or wrong. If I feel he SHOULD, I will suggest/recommend it. If he does not take the advice, I may be disappointed, but chances are I will still want to play. I won't pressure Wizards to do anything, because I know my lone voice crying in the wilderness is meaningless, but if I feel my voice may correct the error, then I will for d*** sure make my opinion heard.

I am not certain the math is very off, but the inclusion of a similar scaling of Racial powers to Implement expertise in those racial feats tells me that something is off. It also would prompt me to encourage a DM allowing such races in their campaigns to look into adjusting racials such as the Dragonborn's to follow that trend, due to how it appears to me.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

When expertise is +2, it's the same hit change as getting a 12 instead of a 16 in a primary ability score.

When expertise is +3, it's the same hit change as getting a 10 instead of a 16 in a primary ability score.

so what... having a 16 means you are avrage...having a 10, and expertise +3 (alhought it isn't possble until the last 5 levels) it would be avrage... but having the 16, 17, 18 even a 20 but not expertise doesn't LOSE you your bonus...

Obviously, you can do it. You can even play a character who accomplishes a lot with that handicap. But the game really suggests otherwise, and doing so is basically a system mastery trap. But, sure, there are games in which you have a wizard with a 10 or 12 Int base. I still wouldn't _suggest_ it.

Not takeing a bonus is not a handy cap, especialy when you take a diffrent benfit...

 

[Mircoles]

I've no clue, math annoys me. I don't even like adding up my damage dice.

 

[keterys]

so what... having a 16 means you are avrage...having a 10, and expertise +3 (alhought it isn't possble until the last 5 levels) it would be avrage... but having the 16, 17, 18 even a 20 but not expertise doesn't LOSE you your bonus...

If you have 20 people who are +10, and you give 19 of them +3 (so they're now +13), the 20th guy who still has +10 is no longer the average. It's actually 12.85

Not takeing a bonus is not a handy cap, especialy when you take a diffrent benfit...

And if you take a feat, and you have a choice between, let's say, +1 damage per attack or +6 damage per attack, and 19 of 20 people take the +6, the 20th person is handicapping themselves by taking the +1. If you don't like the word, choose another one, but it remains the same in effect.

There might be many reasons for doing so, of course. I would never make a character who maximized save penalties and removes combatants like an orbizard. I tend to avoid that by just making other character types. There are few character types that can avoid making attack rolls, however.

My experience with epic characters actually suggests that a base 18 (16 plus racial) and expertise +3 will both appear on average, with the occasional base 20 or base 16, so a character who just has a base 16 and no expertise is actually 4 less than the average. Not enough to break anyone's game. Thankfully very few things outright break games as might be found in some other game systems I can think of. That doesn't necessarily make them right either.

So if you think that Expertise is bad and not necessary or good for the game - fantastic. I assume* you voted that the 'math is off' since the _new_ math includes Expertise.

* Not actually, no.

P.S. Is it just me or doesn't enworld put a red underline under words that are misspelled? It seems odd to have so many in one line, as if one weren't taking sufficient time to weigh and consider one's words or were excessively agitated.

 

[rjdafoe]

Astral Seal? That imposes a -2 penalty on a critter's defenses (so +2 to the whole party), and it targets Reflex.

Cheers, -- N

Yea, that is it. I was remembering 2 different powers and getting the stats mixed up.

 

[keterys]

I've no clue, math annoys me. I don't even like adding up my damage dice.

I'd love to try a game sometime that used averaged damage, to see how much of a difference it makes. I suspect people are too attached to their damage dice... but very curious.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

If you have 20 people who are +10, and you give 19 of them +3 (so they're now +13), the 20th guy who still has +10 is no longer the average. It's actually 12.85

and if only 8 or 9 take it???

And if you take a feat, and you have a choice between, let's say, +1 damage per attack or +6 damage per attack, and 19 of 20 people take the +6, the 20th person is handicapping themselves by taking the +1. If you don't like the word, choose another one, but it remains the same in effect.

and if 10 take that +6, and 3 take a multi class feat, and 4 takes one that is just for there class and 1 takes linguastics, and one takes a NAD upper, and the last takes Improved intative... then what does that mean?

There might be many reasons for doing so, of course. I would never make a character who maximized save penalties and removes combatants like an orbizard. I tend to avoid that by just making other character types. There are few character types that can avoid making attack rolls, however.

I don't avoid attack rolls eaither...

so a character who just has a base 16 and no expertise is actually 4 less than the average. Not enough to break anyone's game.

so you agree with me???

So if you think that Expertise is bad and not necessary or good for the game - fantastic. I assume* you voted that the 'math is off' since the _new_ math includes Expertise.

no a feat you can choose is not part of the assumed math just becuse you said so... infact I voted the math was fine becuse you can choose how you want to play...aka if you want the feat and I don't...we can still both play right now and be happy...

P.S. Is it just me or doesn't enworld put a red underline under words that are misspelled?

no that would be MS word...

It seems odd to have so many in one line, as if one weren't taking sufficient time to weigh and consider one's words or were excessively agitated.

or I just have a hard time spelling and writing (well typeing) my thoughts... on the other hand I have a golden tounge and the 'gift of gab' if we ever meet I do much better in person.

Unfortonatly on most web sites my thoughts get lost to people who nit pick spelling and gramer...