|
3 years ago ::
Sep 28, 2010 - 1:51PM
#791
|
Date Joined:
Jul 14, 2008
|
No. Combat is the central focus of the rules of 4th edition, and there's a significant difference.
My apologies. I made an assumption that was not true. I agree with your above statement. I have said as much before.
Noncombat encounters don't really need rules (with the exception of skill checks - and don't get me started on skill challenges, please) - they're governed primarily by the imagination of the player roleplaying the character. As an example, a friend of mine recently got frustrated with his half-orc-with-large-axe character's failed attempts to find hidden pixies that were plinking us with nondamaging status effects arrows, so he started chopping down a nearby tree. Nothing in that action requires a to-hit roll, the [W] of his axe is irrelevant, etc, etc, etc. The rules exist primarily to adjudicate in an impartial manner what happens when "I swing my sword at the ogre" rather than leaving it solely to DM discretion.
Although, a DM could give the tree a certain number of hit points to demonstrate how many rounds it takes for the half-orc to cut it down. I don't disagree on any other point.
I'm preparing for nothing. I have no characters who would be affected by this, and won't for some time. I'm making the argument because there's no reason that discussions with the goal of improving the system should rely on me getting some benefit from it.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Fixing the math would benefit character accuracy. Whether that equates to improving the system is what is up for discussion.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 28, 2010 - 1:56PM
#792
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
What I mean is that I don't think they should fix the math because I want my character to hit more. I think they should fix the math because I do think it will improve the system. There are many gaming systems where I've argued for reductions in player power in order to make the system better. We've got the same goal.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 28, 2010 - 2:08PM
#793
|
Date Joined:
Jul 14, 2008
|
What I mean is that I don't think they should fix the math because I want my character to hit more. I think they should fix the math because I do think it will improve the system. There are many gaming systems where I've argued for reductions in player power in order to make the system better. We've got the same goal.
I'm all for making the system better. And I wouldn't be against a math fix if the expertise feats went away.
However, the removal of such feats would leave somewhat of a bad taste in my mouth, as it removes an option that separates characters that are more focused on ability with a particular weapon from those that simply 'know how to use them'. Perhaps this could be represented by reflavoring the focus feats. And as long as WotC doesn't make the new monster hp totals differentiate from PC damage by 1 per tier, we should be okay. 
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 28, 2010 - 2:27PM
#794
|
Date Joined:
Dec 27, 2008
|
Perhaps this could be represented by reflavoring the focus feats. And as long as WotC doesn't make the new monster hp totals differentiate from PC damage by 1 per tier, we should be okay.
Are you serious? A brief list of axe mastery feats for characters who want do more than "know how to use" an axe:
Savage Axe
Symbol of the Sonnlinor
Deep Gash
Tunnel Stalker
Black Hood Butcher
Black Hood Executioner
Black Hood Slayer
Black Hood Student
Kulkor Battlearm Captain
Kulkor Battlearm Hunter
Kulkor Battlearm Rattler
Kulkor Battlearm Student
Kulkor Battlearm Warrior
Moradin's Forge Champion
Moradin's Forge Marshal
Moradin's Forge Student
Reaving Axe Brute
Reaving Axe Slayer
Reaving Axe Student
Reaving Axe Tyrant
Headsman’s Chop
Enduring Wallop
Punishing Axe
Deadly Axe
Thirsty Blade
Knock-Back Swing
Axe Mastery
Cleaving Axe
Sweeping Blade
That's before we get into the axe-specific fighter powers. You will not miss expertise.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 28, 2010 - 2:36PM
#795
|
Date Joined:
Jul 14, 2008
|
Perhaps this could be represented by reflavoring the focus feats. And as long as WotC doesn't make the new monster hp totals differentiate from PC damage by 1 per tier, we should be okay.
Are you serious? A brief list of axe mastery feats for characters who want do more than "know how to use" an axe:
Savage Axe
Symbol of the Sonnlinor
Deep Gash
Tunnel Stalker
Black Hood Butcher
Black Hood Executioner
Black Hood Slayer
Black Hood Student
Kulkor Battlearm Captain
Kulkor Battlearm Hunter
Kulkor Battlearm Rattler
Kulkor Battlearm Student
Kulkor Battlearm Warrior
Moradin's Forge Champion
Moradin's Forge Marshal
Moradin's Forge Student
Reaving Axe Brute
Reaving Axe Slayer
Reaving Axe Student
Reaving Axe Tyrant
Headsman’s Chop
Enduring Wallop
Punishing Axe
Deadly Axe
Thirsty Blade
Knock-Back Swing
Axe Mastery
Cleaving Axe
Sweeping Blade
That's before we get into the axe-specific fighter powers. You will not miss expertise.
Of course I won't miss expertise. I have been decrying it's existance for some time now. I was attempting to demonstrate the perception of a math gap applied to damage instead of attack. Apparently I didn't do this very well.
All of the feats listed above could be taken instead of expertise for a mechanical benefit. Many posters are arguing that there is no greater benefit from a feat than expertise. Even if this perception were restricted to much fewer players, it would still be bad for the game because it devalues all of the feats you listed.
I would not be sorry to see expertise disappear. I do not however agree that a math fix is necessary. And in the end, this has little to do with expertise.
If the math gap were fixed tomorrow, I wouldn't cry about it. I would adjust accordingly to make sure that my players continue to be challenged, and more importantly continue to have fun.
The amount of time I take for preparation would not change. Therefore, I see no reason to change the math.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 28, 2010 - 4:53PM
#796
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
If the problem is players sapping the monsters' actions, give the monster more actions. This has already been done with monsters that act on multiple initiative counts. We ran into one of these in Sark Dun Encounters and the monster was very challenging.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 28, 2010 - 6:48PM
#797
|
Date Joined:
Jul 22, 2001
|
Personally I used Masterwork Weapons in my game. (add a +1 prof bonus for every +2 enhance, and come up with some cool materials. Players will -love- it.) But as far as an official solution, this is the best thing we're going to get from them.
I like that idea, would you mind if I stole it and presented it to my GM as a potential house rule?
I think the expertise feats are a tax, I think the other guys in my group do as well, there are things I'd rather have instead of math fixes for feats. However I usually play either a defender, or a leader; & for the most part you cannot do either if you miss.
Sergent at arms of the house of trolls.
Est Solarus oth Mithas
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 28, 2010 - 8:38PM
#798
|
|
|
There are several better ways to have done this (Masterwork Weapons, Masterwork Weapons, MASTERWORK WEAPONS)
I'd just like to throw a theory out there as to why they didn't go for that:
When they created Masterwork Armors, there were exactly 6 possible types of armor you could wear. They knew there would only ever by 6 types of armors that people could wear. All armor fills the same purpose (protecting the body by deflecting/diffusing blows). Each of the six kinds of armor are essentially made of one primary material each. There were two steps of masterwork, so that makes 2x6=12 types of masterwork armor they needed to create.
Then they looked at the weapons. There are 37 weapons in the PHB. They knew there was a damn good possibility there would be more weapons in future supplements. Various weapons fill a variety of purposes. Some slash, some stab, some smash, some entangle, etc. Each individual weapon is made of a variety of materials. Many are metal, wood, and leather all together. There are many, many configurations of weapons with dozens of different pointy bits and striking heads, and they should, rightfully, be makeable from a variety of materials. Even something simple like the Quarterstaff is not easy. Quarterstaves are wood, yes, but with metal bands enforcing them. Or they could just be made thin and entirely of metal. Or hollow and metal. Or just wood. Or wood wrapped in hides. A dagger could be metal, or bone, or stone, or a dragon tooth, or crystal, or dozens of other things.
They would not want to abandon the "naming each kind of masterwork item individually," nor would they want Diablo II disease where the same exact axe is called a "hand axe" on normal, a "hatchet" on nightmare, and a "tomahawk" on hell. They probably also didn't want to discount D&D traditions like silver weapons hurting werewolves, and they definitely didn't want to cause controveries by saying something like, "All Quarterstaves with +4 enchantments are made of X."
Hell, even if they did want to do all of those things, they weren't going to come up with 74 new names.
The proposed change wouldn't completely solve the issue. It seems to be the concensus pick for how to mitigate it. In short it's a palative rather than a cure. Why do it? Becasue if you are going to have mis-balanced and poorly scaling abilities that render Epic Monsters basically helpless after a couple of rounds, we can at least get them killed off in a reasonable period of time before total and complete boredom sets in. Not permitting Expertise hinders this.
-Polaris
But don't forget that the actual goal is to remove Expertise, fill in the math gap, and then rebalance the game around that now properly filled in gap, rather than building the entire system on a cracked foundation. Getting rid of "feat taxes" is only step 1.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 28, 2010 - 9:52PM
#799
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
I have no problems with a feat giving +1 to hit - but it shouldn't be solely because they won't update the monster manual. It should be because I care about hitting more, and so choose to devote a scarce resource (feats) to improve.
Now, I really doubt that even with the math fix that expertise feats will ever not get gold ratings in charop handbooks, but that's not really the point.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 29, 2010 - 5:58AM
#800
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2006
|
But don't forget that the actual goal is to remove Expertise, fill in the math gap, and then rebalance the game around that now properly filled in gap, rather than building the entire system on a cracked foundation. Getting rid of "feat taxes" is only step 1.
why is step one the removeing of the feat? Should not step one be to fix the (in your opionon) broken foundation... then correct around the new foundation?
step 1 for me to rework the system would be have items scale from 1-35 by defualt, and up to 42 with the artaficer feats... that opens up at level 26 finding a level 31 +7 weapon or armor.
((((quick note an artaficer with the right 2 feats can draft items of his level + Int mod+2, and he can at 30th level have a +10 int mod)))
maybe add in the masterwork weapons idea...
then I would take the current expertise+ feats and make them prereq 15th level... make them just +1, and scale to +2 at 25th...
now with these changes a party of 5 will find 15 items between level 31 and 35 above level 30 (aka +7 itmes) witch means not every character can have neck, weapon, and armor inless that is the only thing you find... making these items not madatory but extra assa tot he coolness. the masterwork weapon/implments could come into play at level 11, and eaither be +1 to hit or made out of a special metal/wood ect... then at level 21 you can get two bonuses...
in a 3.5 3rd party book there where masterwork, suppioror, lamanated, and serated weapons... I imagin we could come up with a bunch of bonuses...
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say?
|
|
|
