[Blablabla]

.

[Shantis]

But...

Expertise and improved expertise focus in melee combat. Can be used in other moments, but not mean is a protection wall for everything.

If you need to get more protection with you cast something, make a wand, a bottle of potion or use combat casting o.ô

[Fiona Voust]

All this needs to be worked out in a class rebalance patch.

Wizards and clerics need to be toned down and other classes need to be boosted up.

[Shantis]

Combat Casting only gives a small protection against spells being cancelled on being struck. AC prevents you from being hit in the first place, and it isn't just used in melee combat, it's against any attack, including ranged. The points about using wands and potions are valid, but those things -stack- with Imp Expertise, so it's not an either/or situation. Imp Expertise gives a flat AC bonus, it's not an armor type so it stacks with everything.

The real issue here is that for warrior classes, taking Imp Expertise offers a real downside, as it reduces their AB which is obviously rather important to these classes. For a wizard, AB isn't important in the slightest unless you're going with some sort of battlemage build. For regular Wizards who can lob powerful offensive spells and create powerful summons, it's 10 AC for the cost of two feats...

Yes please! Why wouldn't you?  I'm sorry but Combat Casting doesn't stack up to that advantage. Well anyway, if I were playing a Wizard, I'd be taking Imp Expertise in a heartbeat. I can only assume that every Wizard on the server is taking advantage of this, and those who aren't are doing themselves a massive disservice. From a balance perspective, this is just insane to me. 

In regular Nwn, casting spells shuts off Expertise, and that's important because it helps balance things out. This basically means that Wizards can turn on Imp Expertise and cast away with massive AC, and don't have to worry too much about being hit because their AC is on par if not more than their tower shield wielding, full plate packing warrior buddies.. only they can still cast their spells freely in combat whereas warriors who take expertise have to take a massive AB hit which is their primary source of offensive potential.

In most cases, using a familiar or another player as meatshild to protect your wizard / sorcerer while he /she is casting something is more reliable. I agree, expertise work better if the wizard / sorcerer / druid use a spell or talent to change his shape and combat, like an umber hulk or bear. But pure casters, using expertise / improved expertise is not pratical.

Cleric and druid have a mixed build, to fight in middle term of casting and melee combat. If wish to cast and fight in melee / close combat terms, best a cleric / druid class, because divine casting don't have limits of using shield or armor.

[Shantis]

No, not reading anything bad. Relax.

It would be interesting if the caster class had some kind of improvement. But in the end, it's easier to create a PrC or a new class than to fix a feat or two.

[Walrus Warwagon]

I will be brief. Expertise has always been helpful to spellcasters and they used it, almost nothing in this sense has changed. Had to turn it on after using spells, but this is a minor limitation. The current implementation affects not only the expertise but also the power attack and makes the stances more useful for melee fighters. This was the goal of the change and the players themselves asked for it.

The correct question is maybe - is it possible to divide the actions into those that interrupt the stance and those that do not interrupt the stance?

[Shantis]

An "warlock" PrC class, with some advantages of offensive spell and a better melee protection can work better in this case.

The problem of opining as if playing with class X or Y is delicate because if it affects one, have to review everything. From class to races, from feats to skills.

My opinion?

In the case of expertise, it could only work if:

A - The character is stopped in a spot.

B - If he is in physical combat only.

Ranged and casting combat  don't need expertise for self defense. Have other tools and spells to improve the protection of the caster, skills and combat casting.


But I don't see a problem if make a special version for casters, with a better requeriment to become more accesible for casters only and if have a better limit or restriction. Like giving more AC only  while casting or something like that

[Autarch]

Just make how much AC can be gained tied to base attack bonus, like it's supposed to work. Now a puny level 1 wizard doesn't suddenly have the combat expertise to fight with +10 AC (but a level 20 wizard might).

[SpiffyHas]

Expertise functions as NwN:EE default, meaning, it stays active as long as the ability is active.

Dms will need to change the script to cancel on a cast action.

[Narrator]

Only requires a spellhook, which I approve of entirely. My level 3 wizard had 10 + 1 Size + 3 Dex + 10 IExpertise + 4 Mage Armor + 4 Shield = 32 AC.

Level 3.

32 AC.

That's just free stats for mages that no other class can enjoy with the same freedom-from-penalties.

[Sabaron]

I agree with the people saying that spellcasting should cancel Expertise.

[Zilta]

Spellcasting IMO should cancel expertise as from my understanding expertise is related to specifically trying to attack while maximizing defense, by definition a spell with a somatic component would require hand/body movements that would likely prevent any focus on defense.

[Swifty Willownall]

At first I didn't think much of this, since if a wizard is in melee, the extra ac from expertise or improved expertise would be great. But then I thought "What about those PvP scenarios?" Depending on the situation, if a guy in full plate fought a wizard in a duel for example, the wizard could just use expertise/improved expertise and have more AC than the fighter, who needs a high roll to hit the wizard, and now all the wizard does is cast spells because he doesn't use an attack bonus. So I can see the understanding of expertise being canceled while spell casting.

We did Ogre quest today with a wizard. He got his AC to 49? Or something stupid high like that. Full buffed. Now stack on expertise on top of that for the LOLs. It gets pretty ridiculous. Haha. I don't remember what his AC was exactly, but I DO remember that I had a +30 AB, and thinking "Wow, I still wouldn't be able to hit him without rolling high on the dice."

[Orcslayer]

Yeah i agree no insane ac mages please >_> they are already strong enough. Plus i hope Expertise will be changed so it cancels when you move but that is a dm decision

[Snacks]

Could someone do a breakdown of where these metrics are coming from? AC bypassing 40 on an unarmored spellcaster without EMA seems a bit high without utilizing some really weird multiclass cheese that would kind of screw over the stat spread on a mostly pure caster. I'm not arguing against the fact that in bursty encounters mages can get pretty tanky, because they can, but nuking expertise persistence because of it is going to hurt melee builds in the long run. Obsessing over upkeeping expertise was not a fun taking experience and I'd rather let mages have that survivability instead of going back to the tedious and error-prone was expertise used to behave.