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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="grickherder" data-source="post: 4705070" data-attributes="member: 68043">Sure.  That's a fair way to put it.  I'm with you on that.  The point that I was trying to make is that I consider the notion that the meaningfulness of my contribution to the team effort isn't mitigated by someone else's capabilities.  I won't begrudge someone taking expertise to hit more often any more than I begrudge someone picking a class like a rogue that hits a lot more often than my (say) sorcerer does.  What I'm objecting to is the notion that everyone else will take it, so I have to as well or I'll suck.  I think the reality of the situation is that people are already finding satisfaction in their to-hit percentages before this feat is published and that everyone is going to suddenly find their rolls to be too low and have to pay a feat tax is a bit of a reach.Another good point.  Nimble blade is a conditional +1 to hit and Expertise is effectively a universal +1 (or at the very least, conditional but in a way the condition is satisfied nearly all the time).  It's not better.  I still maintain that it's not the scaling issue that's the problem, but the encounter design.  For example, let's use replacing the level 3 solo brute in the DMG with the soldier.  Same XP, but way higher defenses.An interesting thing about seeing encounter design as the root cause of the potential problem is that it's actually an admission that 4e fails in a design goal.  Namely, that you can make encounters of monsters 7 levels higher than the party level and that it'll work.  As a DM, I'm not ever going to do that.Missing sucks in 4e.  There's no greater whiff feeling than missing with a daily.  It sucks.Absolutely.The hilarious thing is that my advocacy for using monsters with lower defenses is effectively the same thing as giving the players a flat bonus.  My emphasis on encounter design as the solution is the same as giving a flat bonus because the net effect is the same as far as percentage-to-hit goes.  As odd as it sounds, I think the best encounter design is one that de-values a bonus to hit beyond a reasonable level.  I want a point of diminishing returns such that an extra +1 to hit is superfluous for an already optimized build and useful for a sub-optimal build.  Using lower level monsters makes this the case.  Especially given how they'll outnumber the PCs and how well they work in level+2 "hard" encounters.I've enjoyed this thread, but now realize I've been arguing for something and not being clear about it.  So here it goes:My proposal for an alternative to expertise is an errata to the encounter design section of the DMG so that it discourages high defense monsters, solo soldier encounters and monsters of 7 levels higher than the party, effectively making it easier for the PCs to hit without the need for spending a feat on it.Life's hilarious, isn't it?</blockquote>

Verification