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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Smeelbo" data-source="post: 4706243" data-attributes="member: 81898">I will play Expertise as written, and see what happens.Yes, that is exactly what some are suggesting:Proposed Monster Manual Errata: Tier Gap Penalty: For monsters between levels 5 and 14, reduce all their defenses by 1. This penalty increases to -2 for levels 15-24, and -3 for monsters 25th level or higher. That's it: two sentences, easily remembered, easily applied on the fly, problem solved. Without essentially requiring all characters to take a feat, or for some builds, multiple feats.As you say, probably a better choice, although not identical in consequence.You may be right. It may be the case that the 1/2 level bonuses to attacks, defenses, and checks is just enough to keep almost all characters in play, as long as they don't make totally stupid choices. After all, a major design goal of 4E is that it be accessable and playable by a broad variety of players, many of whom will not have a solid grasp of probabilities and their consequences. Please note, I am not saying that some people on this board do not grasp probabilities, but that 4E, in order to accomodate a broader audience, wants to be robust enough to withstand a variety of decision making styles. I can't say whether they've succeeded or not. This argument over Expertise illuminates this question.This difference between 4E and 3.X is day and night, and one reason I have been converted to the 4E gospel. However, I don't think it's clear yet that 4E is really as robust as Hasbro claims, and as new powers and combinations enter the game, it will become increasingly untrue.Most of my character concepts appear to require 2-3 capability feats, then they want feats that improve what their capabilities do. Since attacking is what most characters do, I see taking Expertise around 6th level. That may be a problem, if it's the first general combat improvement feat that almost everyone takes.I sure hope you're correct, because I am a big fan of flexibility over focus. Many of my initial character concepts involve 16 stats, and I feel that if D&D 4E can't stand 16s, the game is flawed.I wish I could have a feat every level. I can never have enough feats.This is why every character I design has two engines: combat and roleplay (mostly skills). I optimize the combat engine well enough to support the roleplay engine, and the result is a balanced, playable character. My combat engine will always select Expertise as soon as practical.On the contrary, as level rises, combats last more rounds, and at-wills become a larger portion of your damage output. This is a big reason powers that activate on a critical hit become more attractive as level rises.Another intriguing option, but probably too much hassle, if, like armor, there are a variety of such materials.While it bothers me too, I see absolutely no way around it. Even if some of the developers refuse to admit it to themselves, power creep as marketing will continue, unless management takes a strong stand against it, and I deem that unlikely under Hasbro. I think 4E will eventually follow the Magic Type II model, where older material automatically "ages" out of the system as new material is introduced. That way, the number of character options remains roughly constant, and more importantly, the number of combinations will remain constant. Old power-creep powers and combinations will leave the system, new ones will be introduced, all the while allowing Hasbro to constantly sell new material without breaking the game. It works for Magic, and it will probably work for 4E.Exactly. Some strong optimizers argue that Expertise will be almost always taken at 1st level, and if true, I think we'd all agree it's broken. Others, like me, believe it will be almost always be taken around 6th level, and think it may be broken. Still others conclude that Expertise will be effectively mandatory at 16th level, but disagree on how bad this is.I believe the answer is three, including capability feats, such as Quick Draw and Multiclassing, which your character concept may require to work mechanically.Exactly.Yes, exactly what is the counter argument to that? If there is none, then Expertise is too good.This is a very good counter-example.Which is why, probably 2-3 years from now, older material will start "aging" out of 4E, like older blocks "age" out of Magic.That's certainly a clear alternative. I am not sure how viable it is, I don't have enough experience DMing 4E to judge for myself.I'll second that. In my experience, the players of a game devote far more resources to understanding the mechanics of a game and their consequences than the publishers do. Further, non-mechanical considerations, such as deadlines, budgets, and marketing, tend to dominate decision making, as you would expect in a business. Quality is almost never Job #1.Hasbro's best work is with CCGs, and they have and will continue to bring that experience to bear upon 4E.That this was their intention was immediately clear to me upon my very first reading of the PHB, when I read Generating Ability Scores, Method 1: Standard Array. Currently, my favorite starting array is 16, 16, 12, 12, 10, 8, and I sure hope 16s are playable. My conclusion about Expertise is that I am going to play it as written, and see what happens. Both of my active characters will take Expertise when they hit 6th level. Smeelbo</blockquote>

Verification