Proposal: Replace expertise related bonus with a feat bonus

LadyLaw · Oct 14, 2010

stonegod said:
A feat that us required for a PP is not a feat tax; it's a build choice. Having the fixed bonus does not after that as that feat is required for that build. Should other PP that require feats be given for free?

Me, I'm up for waiting until the next Expertise book comes out to limit reretweeking.

I didn't mean that it should be given for free because it's required for a PP. I meant that the current system allows you to take the feat as part of your build choice for that PP and still get the bonuses of the feat. If you have a blanket feat bonus in place, then you won't get the bonuses associated with the feat aside from being able to take that PP. That makes it a wasted slot in my opinion.

As I said, I'd rather have no house rules on the subject at all. I've never felt required to take anything (feat or item) and I don't think I would without some sort of house rule about this in place.

I merely feel that should we need a house rule, the current one seems fine to me, and I'd really prefer that we not need to change them every 3 months when WotC adds something new because it gets confusing.

Walking Dad · Oct 14, 2010

renau1g said:
...

Races with attack powers that would not be covered by Versatile Expertise:

1) Dragonborn
2) Minotaur
3) Bladeling
4) Duergar
5) Fire/Caustic Genasi

Really, the only one that is played here in any sort of number is the Dragonborn. So, in the aggregate, no I don't think that giving a +1 to hit on Dragon's Breath is really that big of a deal.

re: power creep on dwarven weapon training - can't have creep when it was in the first book The power creep came in Essentials when dwarves (already top-tier for many melee classes) got to bump Str as an option. Gith weapon training is good, but the race isn't well supported so it's kind of a trade-off. 1 great feat....and little else.

Power Creep in the sense that the racial weapon feats fromthe PH doesn't scale as much as the feats in later books.

Mewness said:
6) Thri-kreen

The kreen being slightly problematical as their attack power actually scales properly as written. (Shock!)

Why is the proposed rule better than the existing rule?

--It helps with weaponless, implementless attacks, which mostly don't scale properly.
--It reduces power creep, because the new expertise feats give benefits besides patching the math. Yes, Githzerai Blademaster is a powerful feat, but we don't give it away for free. We shouldn't give Staff Expertise away for free either.
--It's truer to the intent of the house rule, which is to fix the attack math, and not to give out free feats for build purposes.

Good point. kreen's power scales properly...

I will go out of this discussion and just completely ignore the houserule. I don't take expertise feats before 6th level anyway and will buy them on that level and be done...

BTW, some of the new expertise feats give the +2 bonus on 11th level , not 15th...

evilbob · Oct 14, 2010

If anyone is worried about "power creep" then I would submit our current rule (get a feat for free) is worse than the proposal; the newest batch of expertise feats really are that good.

I still think the "ugh, I don't want to have to do this again" argument - while perfectly valid and frankly understandable - is nonetheless not a good point considering WotC keeps drastically changing the rules on us. That's the way they're handling it, folks: we have to keep reacting or else our rules to fix their rules will fall behind (like they did before). Until WotC settles down, we will continue to have this discussion. There is no reason to believe that regardless of the decision we make here, we will not have this same thread again in 6 months. Until WotC fixes the system instead of applying patches, it will remain broken.

As for waiting another month for more books to come out, I think it's more annoying to make people make decisions now and then change them in a month. I'd rather just make the decision now. It's also an argument that can be applied indefinitely; there will always be another book coming out in just another month that will have changes. On the other hand, who are we kidding: it's going to take us a month to figure this all out anyway, right?

Walking Dad · Oct 15, 2010

IMHO, you are right. WotC is constantly changing the rules and house rules have to react constantly. Let's ditch the house rule. Are we really afraid, everyone would take expertise at first level? And if so, now most will take a different feat than the next guy. I still prefer to take a proficiency, unarmored agility or toughness first.

The main argument was the reduced variety between characters, that birthed the house-rule. I don't think it no longer applies. Band aid for a band aid will never make everyone happy.

Just a rule to make racial abilities better is not really needed. They fall behind anyway, because they have no weapon/implement support and so no item bonus for to-hit and damage. And if you take a feat to get those, they benefit from expertise feats, too.
To make them really worthwhile, we would have to use the DMG2 and Dark Sun option, that they made for less-magic item games (inherent bonus).

Someone · Oct 15, 2010

Walking dad is right. There are enough "must have" feats to fill all slots up to level 10 at least, and then you have paragon must haves. Toughness, proficiencies / superior implements... a house rule on Expertise doesn't really fix the phenomenon; I agree that pluses to hit are very good and the best option for some kinds of characters, but a player that prefers mechanical advantages over flavorful options will always find a dry, but mathematically superior, option.

renau1g · Oct 15, 2010

The reason we gave it originally is that it is a math fix instituted by WOTC for an error they made when developing the system. Toughness is not that, Superior proficiency's aaren't that.

KarinsDad did an excellent analysis in LEB that breaks down the math.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/5343328-post958.html

Walking Dad · Oct 15, 2010

But now they are more than just a math fixnow.

Yes, the balance for to hit (and not to get hit back) becomes unbalancing with level. If you refuse to:
- get better armor than cloth.
- Don't get an accurate implement or weapon with a +3 accuracy bonus
- don't take a racial feat that improves (Draconic Arrogance, Gnome Phantasmist, ...)
- expertise.

So, yes, the game expects you to choose feats that help you in combat. Do we need a houserule for this?

evilbob · Oct 15, 2010

They are more than just a math fix, yes: but they still refuse to fix the math! Until that happens, I think our convoluted house rules are still much better than no house rule at all. There's still a feat tax and there's still useless racial abilities... I still think those are worth addressing unless WotC ever does.

As a side note, at this point, it feels like they are just testing out eventually changing it so that you get a +1 per tier to hit. That would be a great solution to the whole issue. In the meantime, they just keep headed down the wrong path: and instead of trying something new (because expertise feats suck), they just keep trying to fix the wrong problem.

Walking Dad · Oct 15, 2010

evilbob said:
They are more than just a math fix, yes: but they still refuse to fix the math! Until that happens, I think our convoluted house rules are still much better than no house rule at all. There's still a feat tax and there's still useless racial abilities... I still think those are worth addressing unless WotC ever does.

As a side note, at this point, it feels like they are just testing out eventually changing it so that you get a +1 per tier to hit. That would be a great solution to the whole issue. In the meantime, they just keep headed down the wrong path: and instead of trying something new (because expertise feats suck), they just keep trying to fix the wrong problem.

For peace sake I will stop arguing now.

Last point: You are right with them changing the rules to +1 / tier. If the proposal passes, I would wish it does the same, not giving the bonuses at 5/15/25. (BTW, the feats don't suck, they are a trap for players who don't take them, like Toughness was a trap in 3.5 for players to take. And the new feats are still ok without the whole to-bonus thing.)

KarinsDad math is right, but I see no reason to not allow players an 'easy start'.

renau1g · Oct 15, 2010

This proposal would allow players an "easy start" as they can take the feat at 1st, but the benefit for the house rule comes into effect at 5th (which is where the math breaks down) and they can retrain it then.