Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="kaomera" data-source="post: 5533404" data-attributes="member: 38357">The issue is that not all of the ways that you can spend your limited resources are equal. I'm not saying what's optimal and what's not because ideally a player is going to optimize for the highest value of &quot;I have the things I want on my character sheet&quot;, and not any numerical value or aggregate thereof. However, while I expected that the fact that a +2 attack bonus is pretty much flat-out better than the benefits of any other feat for any character who actually needs / wants to hit things would drive players away from other feats that they actually might want or enjoy more, there aren't enough such feats that it makes a difference. Players are still taking expertise (indirectly) because it's &quot;best&quot; or &quot;most optimal&quot;, but the direct reason they are taking it is because the way 4e is designed you do your best &quot;cool stuff&quot; when you hit, and players want to do their cool stuff as often as possible.I think my post was pretty vague, but you're not talking about anything near as severe a focus on defense as I am. For one thing, all of the mark punishment you're talking about actually requires you to hit. I really don't like overly defensive characters, and I think they're sub-optimal for the game in general in the sense that they aren't fun. But I'm probably obsessing over an extreme example.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="kaomera, post: 5533404, member: 38357"] The issue is that not all of the ways that you can spend your limited resources are equal. I'm not saying what's optimal and what's not because ideally a player is going to optimize for the highest value of "I have the things I want on my character sheet", and not any numerical value or aggregate thereof. However, while I expected that the fact that a +2 attack bonus is pretty much flat-out better than the benefits of any other feat for any character who actually needs / wants to hit things would drive players away from other feats that they actually might want or enjoy more, there aren't enough such feats that it makes a difference. Players are still taking expertise (indirectly) because it's "best" or "most optimal", but the direct reason they are taking it is because the way 4e is designed you do your best "cool stuff" when you hit, and players want to do their cool stuff as often as possible. I think my post was pretty vague, but you're not talking about anything near as severe a focus on defense as I am. For one thing, all of the mark punishment you're talking about actually requires you to hit. I really don't like overly defensive characters, and I think they're sub-optimal for the game in general in the sense that they aren't fun. But I'm probably obsessing over an extreme example. [/QUOTE]

Verification