Proposal: Replace Expertise Related House Rule with Feat Slot

covaithe · Mar 29, 2010

Has this passed yet?

Walking Dad · Mar 29, 2010

renau1g said:
- Everything he said above! -

I'm no judge, but I think the same. Needing more feats for more diversion is kind of ridiculous.

Most wizards and other characters staring with 'only' cloth armor will get 'Unarmored Agility'.
'Toughness' is a really good feat and everybody should take it (this is my weakest argument).
Everyone will take 'Expertise x'.
Any weapon user class will use 1 feat slot of the heroic level feats for a superior weapon. Any implement user for a superior implement.

So, shall there be 4 extra feats for everyone to cover these, so the can take more fluffy feats?

Otakkun · Mar 29, 2010

You know, if I could vote I'd just vote for keeping things as they are. Even after reading all the arguments I see no real point in changing things.

renau1g · Mar 29, 2010

covaithe said:
Has this passed yet?

Yes. It's been 48 hours. Option 10 has garnered more support, therefore is the Option that passes. Everyone gets an Expertise type feat at 5th rather than the flat +1 bonus to hit that was previously. Anyone over 5th, please make the change. Murphy loses +1 to hit with his dagger

renau1g said:
Another Update

Option 6 - 4 yes (gary, Kal, , covaithe, THB), 2 no (Ozy, renau1g)
Option 10 - 5 yes (gary, renau1g, Ozy, THB, Dunamin), 1 no (Kal)

evilbob · Mar 30, 2010

renau1g said:
I just want people to understand that it was never a bonus feat, you get a feat at 1, 2, 4, 6, etc just the same, it's not like us draconian taskmasters of judges came in and said "NOW BOW TO US, YOU MUST GIVE US YOUR FEAT SLOTS AND WE CHOOSE THEM RAWR!"

I preferred the houserule as it was actually very clean, I fail to see what the issue was with it? A flat +1 to hit at level 5. Simple, elegant, clean, what WOTC should have done in the first place. Now, someone (you maybe?) brought up that WotC has introduced a PP that requires expertise to enter. Thinking about it now I should have just proposed we change that requirement to L4W Expertise instead.

It just seems a few people have the attititude that we're stealing a feat slot from them. I just fail to see how that could be as there was never a feat slot. I was being facetious
obviously, my point is that (and THB also made it) this IS NOT A BONUS FEAT TO JUST GRANT A BONUS FEAT!!! the point of this was to address a math issue that WotC has identified in the game and introduced a rather poor mechanism to address. Whether the rest of the interwebs outside of L4W agree or disagree has 0 bearing here. The judges and community decided on this course of action when the setting was created so it was determined that this was the best way to correct the math issue.

That's why I don't want to get rid of the house rule, it's fine, I just don't want people saying we're taking feats away from them.

Really? This is really how you see your fellow players - greedy whiners who are just grabbing for everything they can get and attacking the judges for not giving them super powerups? I can't speak for anyone else but nothing I have thought - or, to my knowledge, said - reflects the sort of attitude you are complaining about here.

I still think you should change your vote. I know it's too late and I know it doesn't matter, but it seems to me you wanted YES to option 2 and NO to option 10 (and everything else).

renau1g · Mar 30, 2010

I think it's a bit of a misread on your part to say this is how I see all of my fellow players rather than "a few people", which was in the quote you have in your post. If I did I would not dedicate so much of my free time to helping the community by being a judge and character reviewer. I have spent hours upon hours reviewing people's sheets in order to help facilitate a gaming environment where people can enjoy. Are there some players who I feel are off the mark on this particular issue? Yes. Do I feel the continue an argument past when they've made their point? Yes. Am I guilty of continuing it myself? Yes.

Oh if you have a personal problem with me I'd prefer you address me via PM or e-mail (my username at gmail.com) so it can take place in a more appropriate forum.

I voted for what I did because the tide seemed to have shifted away from keeping as is so I wanted to make sure that out of the alternatives the one that I felt was the second best was the one I voted for. Maybe I should have and deadlocked the vote.

Velmont · Mar 30, 2010

I agree that we lost the focus of this rule: fix a math problem introduce by D&D and not properly fixed. The original rule was just clean for that. The new rules might adds some flavor and make thing easier for character builder.

Sure, I think anyone want more feat, but I have a suggestion for everyone to solve that. Master a game, get some credit, raise your character in level and there you got your new feat

evilbob · Mar 30, 2010

I never said "all your fellow players" nor was that supposed to be implied; I was referring to your fellow players that you were disparaging. I was pointing out that again, I thought your response in this thread was a bit disproportionate to the supposed offense.

I have no personal problems with you r1, and you are free to PM me as well.

dimsdale · Mar 30, 2010

This is getting freaking crazy. Let's just move on shall we before people get so frustrated that they decide to leave. I certainly don't want that to happen.