Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Fifth Element" data-source="post: 5531011" data-attributes="member: 48135">But the game has characters with a stat of 16 and a +2 proficiency weapon on the same field as characters with a stat of 18, a +3 proficiency weapon and maybe another +1 from a class feature. If both of these characters can be effective then by no means is an additional +1 bonus a requirement to have an effective character.If the 16-stat character needs the feat to &quot;keep up&quot;, then the 18-stat character doesn't need it at all, since he's still ahead of the other character.Again, that depends on your definition of suboptimal, and also doesn't consider the effect of being &quot;suboptimal&quot;. Technically, a character operating at 99% of maximum numerical effectiveness is &quot;suboptimal&quot;, because he's not at 100%. But 1% doesn't matter. 5% probably doesn't matter, unless you're really paying attention.A suboptimal maximum attack bonus? Sure, that's pretty narrowly defined. But does a character have to have the best possible attack bonus to be &quot;optimal&quot; in an overall sense? Can the resources invested in other things not make up the difference? A character cannot possibly be optimal in all mathematical measures, since you have limited resources to invest in creating a character.Besides that, the CharOp assumption that the math is all that matters does not aaply to a rather large proportion of 4E players. I'm DMing a group at 17th level at the moment, and not a single character has an expertise feat. They do just fine in combat and have a great time otherwise.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Fifth Element, post: 5531011, member: 48135"] But the game has characters with a stat of 16 and a +2 proficiency weapon on the same field as characters with a stat of 18, a +3 proficiency weapon and maybe another +1 from a class feature. If both of these characters can be effective then by no means is an additional +1 bonus a requirement to have an effective character. If the 16-stat character needs the feat to "keep up", then the 18-stat character doesn't need it at all, since he's still ahead of the other character. Again, that depends on your definition of suboptimal, and also doesn't consider the effect of being "suboptimal". Technically, a character operating at 99% of maximum numerical effectiveness is "suboptimal", because he's not at 100%. But 1% doesn't matter. 5% probably doesn't matter, unless you're really paying attention. A suboptimal maximum attack bonus? Sure, that's pretty narrowly defined. But does a character have to have the best possible attack bonus to be "optimal" in an overall sense? Can the resources invested in other things not make up the difference? A character cannot possibly be optimal in all mathematical measures, since you have limited resources to invest in creating a character. Besides that, the CharOp assumption that the math is all that matters does not aaply to a rather large proportion of 4E players. I'm DMing a group at 17th level at the moment, and not a single character has an expertise feat. They do just fine in combat and have a great time otherwise. [/QUOTE]

Verification