Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
So, about Expertise...
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="grickherder" data-source="post: 4715758" data-attributes="member: 68043"><p>I'm one of the minority here who doesn't see the need for a patch to the math and believes that the game currently works fine and situational modifiers to hit can fully compensate for the scaling difference between monsters defenses and PC to-hit bonuses.</p><p></p><p>Absolutely. And when their priorities reduce their enjoyment of the game, they can choose to re-evaluate them or not. Or house rule what's bothering them. It's a choice based on their priorities.</p><p></p><p>I've already expressed my disagreement that there really is a math problem. I'm willing to accept that the designers think there is, but the game has worked for me (both published modules and my own stuff) since it's been published.</p><p></p><p>I think the "staying competitive" thing is also a matter of player priorities. Right now players can choose to start with a 16 in their primary attack stat and not fail to pull their weight next to the rogue with the 18 (or even 20) dex who uses a dagger to attack reflex defense as an at-will. They can blast away with a +3 at first level while the rogue gets a +8/9 against the same defense and not be failing to pull their own weight. An 18 in their stat would be better ofcourse, but people make 16s work. </p><p></p><p>For some people though, 16 isn't good enough and they prioritize the extra combat effectiveness such that they always take an 18-20 at level 1. Players should feel free to take the stats and feats that give them a chance to hit that satisfies them (and some could argue that party optimization means satisfying your fellow player's demands for your character as well, but that's a larger social contract issue).</p><p></p><p>If the person then feels they have to burn a feat on expertise in an attempt to keep up with something like the rogue, they can. Feats are chosen-- no one has a gun to anyone's head. The feat tax is a lot like the lottery-- you have to choose to pay it. And everyone makes that choice based on their priorities and their own situation. If it ruins the fun, then is it really worth it? And if someone with a higher bonus ruins the fun for a given player, then that player has given away control over their own enjoyment.</p><p></p><p>One area where I completely agree with you is that feats should let you do cool stuff and a bonus to hit is less cool than what a lot of other feats already do. It is certainly a less interesting choice. Once again, I think it comes back to priorities. How much do value a different interesting feat choice over a bonus to hit?</p><p></p><p>Apparently for a lot of people, it's agonizingly close. Interesting is valued highly and a +1 to hit is valued highly as well (apparently slightly more so and people talk about being forced to pay a feat tax). <strong>If your priorities are such that the expertise feats force you to make an agonizing choice where you dislike both options, talk to your group about a house rule.</strong></p><p></p><p>I'm also willing to concede that if such an agonizing decision is foisted upon as many people as represenative of the participants in the thread, then WotC made a bad move in terms of pleasing their target audience. I suspect, however, that most people won't be so torn.</p><p></p><p>That's certainly a possibility. Had PHB2 or WotC's website had an errata simply saying that all characters get a +1 to hit at levels 5, 15 and 25, I'd have been like "okay... I guess." One thing I like about the expertise feats is that it allows those who feel they're not hitting enough to address it but doesn't force everyone to take it*. If someone <em>feels</em> forced to take something that is by definition something you have to choose (ie a feat), theres another dynamic at play.</p><p></p><p>*EDIT - just wanted to say that I understand the position that no one should have to take a feat if the feat is actually a math patch but I disagree with the idea that everyone should get a +1 to hit regardless of how they currently evaluate their contribution to the game. I think a house rule that gets rid of expertise is perfectly fine, but like the expertise feat approach better as it allows different players in the same group to decide if they want the bonus or not.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="grickherder, post: 4715758, member: 68043"] I'm one of the minority here who doesn't see the need for a patch to the math and believes that the game currently works fine and situational modifiers to hit can fully compensate for the scaling difference between monsters defenses and PC to-hit bonuses. Absolutely. And when their priorities reduce their enjoyment of the game, they can choose to re-evaluate them or not. Or house rule what's bothering them. It's a choice based on their priorities. I've already expressed my disagreement that there really is a math problem. I'm willing to accept that the designers think there is, but the game has worked for me (both published modules and my own stuff) since it's been published. I think the "staying competitive" thing is also a matter of player priorities. Right now players can choose to start with a 16 in their primary attack stat and not fail to pull their weight next to the rogue with the 18 (or even 20) dex who uses a dagger to attack reflex defense as an at-will. They can blast away with a +3 at first level while the rogue gets a +8/9 against the same defense and not be failing to pull their own weight. An 18 in their stat would be better ofcourse, but people make 16s work. For some people though, 16 isn't good enough and they prioritize the extra combat effectiveness such that they always take an 18-20 at level 1. Players should feel free to take the stats and feats that give them a chance to hit that satisfies them (and some could argue that party optimization means satisfying your fellow player's demands for your character as well, but that's a larger social contract issue). If the person then feels they have to burn a feat on expertise in an attempt to keep up with something like the rogue, they can. Feats are chosen-- no one has a gun to anyone's head. The feat tax is a lot like the lottery-- you have to choose to pay it. And everyone makes that choice based on their priorities and their own situation. If it ruins the fun, then is it really worth it? And if someone with a higher bonus ruins the fun for a given player, then that player has given away control over their own enjoyment. One area where I completely agree with you is that feats should let you do cool stuff and a bonus to hit is less cool than what a lot of other feats already do. It is certainly a less interesting choice. Once again, I think it comes back to priorities. How much do value a different interesting feat choice over a bonus to hit? Apparently for a lot of people, it's agonizingly close. Interesting is valued highly and a +1 to hit is valued highly as well (apparently slightly more so and people talk about being forced to pay a feat tax). [B]If your priorities are such that the expertise feats force you to make an agonizing choice where you dislike both options, talk to your group about a house rule.[/B] I'm also willing to concede that if such an agonizing decision is foisted upon as many people as represenative of the participants in the thread, then WotC made a bad move in terms of pleasing their target audience. I suspect, however, that most people won't be so torn. That's certainly a possibility. Had PHB2 or WotC's website had an errata simply saying that all characters get a +1 to hit at levels 5, 15 and 25, I'd have been like "okay... I guess." One thing I like about the expertise feats is that it allows those who feel they're not hitting enough to address it but doesn't force everyone to take it*. If someone [I]feels[/I] forced to take something that is by definition something you have to choose (ie a feat), theres another dynamic at play. *EDIT - just wanted to say that I understand the position that no one should have to take a feat if the feat is actually a math patch but I disagree with the idea that everyone should get a +1 to hit regardless of how they currently evaluate their contribution to the game. I think a house rule that gets rid of expertise is perfectly fine, but like the expertise feat approach better as it allows different players in the same group to decide if they want the bonus or not. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
So, about Expertise...
Top