Opinions wanted: is 'Master at Arms' an expertise feat?

[Piratecat]

I reduce monster defenses by +1/tier, and have asked my players not to take expertise feats. Someone's interested in Master at Arms, however.

Master at Arms

Benefit: You gain a +1 feat bonus to the attack rolls of weapon attacks. The bonus increases to +2 at 11th level and +3 at 21st level.
Also, you can use a minor action to sheathe a weapon and then draw a weapon.​

It sure seems like one - bonus to hit, nifty minor advantage - but isn't named as one specifically. Any opinions?

 

[Dice4Hire]

I certainly would make it one. It has the exact same bonus as the old expertise feat (though it is a bit better)

 

[Aulirophile]

It is an Expertise feat. Though letting players take the new Feats for the secondary bonus seems all right if you effectively give it out for free, so long as they don't also get the bonus to hit.

 

[BobTheNob]

Without a doubt. Its an expertise feat. That it doesnt have the word 'expertise' in it is neither here nor there. In terms of mechanics and relevance to game and character design, its an expertise feat

 

[Blood Jester]

First off, full disclosure, I am the player in question.

What I really want is something like the old Weapon Focus feats, which were a simple bonus to hit. I have hideous dice luck, and always gladly take anything that can mitigate that luck.

Now in our games House Rules have been labeled as a no-no, so nothing like a straight +1, non-scaling feat will be built. (It had otherwise occurred to me to suggest that.)

So when we house-ruled out the Expertise feats, that was a bummer for someone like me.

In reality, I only pointed out the Master at Arms feat to PC to be silly, because I assumed he had seen it, and I would call it *better* in all ways than the feats that were outlawed, so found that funny. I expected much more indignation when he saw it.

His response about it made it seem as if he was *more* open to this feat than the Expertise feats, which surprised me, but I figured I'd ask if I was reading his message correctly. So I am not actually adamantly pursuing a previously closed line of attack. We have discussed this topic several times, and I try not be a jerk to PC (or any DM/friend).

In regards to Aulirophile's suggestion, spending a feat on just the weapon swap seems horribly underpowered (Quick Draw alone is better on multiple levels).

Having said all that, to me it is much more fun to choose to take a feat that makes me better at something, and face tougher foes, than feel homogenized and have a behind-the-scenes nerf to the enemies to balance things. I am probably the only person in our campaign (or at most one of two) who feels that way (or probably anyway at all) about this, so it is not something I am pushing.

 

[Zaran]

If only we can convince WotC to make the character builder recognize all these new feats as expertise feats so that they will satisfy prerequisites on the builder.

 

[Piratecat]

So when we house-ruled out the Expertise feats, that was a bummer for someone like me.

Remember, you're already getting it for free with every weapon! The vanilla version, at least. I reduce monster defenses by +1 per tier, and no feat is required. I also give an additional +1 for describing attacks, but that's just gravy to encourage cool descriptions.

Thanks for the quick feedback, everyone. I agree, it's an expertise feat. And Blood Jester is a spectacular player who really does have awful luck with dice. I once watched him fail something like 6 saves in a row against a stun effect. Yikes.

 

[DracoSuave]

Well, seeing as this is a house rule, it's entirely up to the DM, obviously.

The way I'd look at it tho is... why is the house rule used? What is its purpose? In this instance, it's a house rule that is designed to remove the +1/2/3 bonuses to character attack rolls. It's not because the word 'Expertise' is offensive, it's the effect that such a feat gives that is disallowed.

So, is this a feat that breaks the idea of banning +1/2/3 to attack roll feats? Absolutely.

Moreover, I tend to look unfavorably at players who try to break the spirit of house rules by trying to use a technicality as 'It doesn't have Expertise in the name!' as if that is somehow relevant to the point.

I understand your desire for a simple feat that gives an attack bonus. You simply have to put trust in your DM that he won't put you out of your element for attack-probabilities. To be honest, Expertise feats are not, despite what people claim, necessary to attain 50/50 attack rates... you start off, and stay, ahead of the curve.

But even if they are, the DM has more than enough ability to adjust monster encounters to compensate should it be a problem.

Remember, you're already getting it for free with every weapon! The vanilla version, at least. I reduce monster defenses by +1 per tier, and no feat is required. I also give an additional +1 for describing attacks, but that's just gravy to encourage cool descriptions.

Thanks for the quick feedback, everyone. I agree, it's an expertise feat. And Blood Jester is a spectacular player who really does have awful luck with dice. I once watched him fail something like 6 saves in a row against a stun effect. Yikes.

Oh hey, like this!

--------------

There remain ways in the game, however, to address YOUR issue, so that you can play the character you want. You are expressing a desire to increase accuracy, and this is a very fine goal. My suggestion is to play a character that either gives you inherent bonuses to accuracy, say a thief or fighter, a race or class that allows you to change misses into hits, say essentials human, elf, avenger, or deva, or a class that allows you to take advantage of the non-AC defenses system, say a wizard, sorcerer, or whatever, or a class that doesn't rely on hitting to be effective, like a warlord or Con/Cha hammer rhythm battlemind.

If you play a deva or elf avenger, you won't miss Expertise one bit.

 

[Aegeri]

I have a player in my games called Terrendos and he's the only person I've ever seen almost die repeatedly to those fail three saves and end up dead/petrified/turned into cupcakes effects. His dice rolling is notoriously horrible or maptools just hates him. I haven't figured out which it is just yet.

Masters at Arms is an expertise feat, but the secondary benefits of the newer expertise feats is why I don't mind them so much. The attack bonus is something you need to address, but coming with a side benefit makes them more palatable to me. It's why I no longer hand them out for free anymore, but I equally don't mind players taking the newer feats. I just hope that wizards EVENTUALLY publishes expertise feats for other situations like tomes, totems and that sort of thing.

 

[Klaus]

Remember, you're already getting it for free with every weapon! The vanilla version, at least. I reduce monster defenses by +1 per tier, and no feat is required. I also give an additional +1 for describing attacks, but that's just gravy to encourage cool descriptions.

Thanks for the quick feedback, everyone. I agree, it's an expertise feat. And Blood Jester is a spectacular player who really does have awful luck with dice. I once watched him fail something like 6 saves in a row against a stun effect. Yikes.

He should play a halfling avenger... Rerolls FTW!