So, about Expertise...

[Samurai]

I don't know if anyone else has proposed this, as I haven't read the whole thread, but what about a compromise: The feat really isn't broken until it gives +2 and +3 to hit, so why not say that the feat only gives +1 to hit, no matter your level.

Then, all characters also automatically get a +1 attack bonus at 11th and 21st level.

The feat is now balanced, and available for those that want a little extra specialization in a specific weapon or implement, but characters will also get automatic bonuses at each tier.

 

[jtrowell]

It would be better, but the feat would still be one of the best, and stricly better than some others like Nimble Blade (already one of the best feats for rogues)

 

[CapnZapp]

Actually, +4. PC attack bonuses increase by +25, monster defenses by 29. (Some Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies can up PC attack bonuses by 1 more each, but that's theoretically balanecd by the rest of the Path/Destiny).

Assuming no feats, and no items except Neck, monster attack bonuses increase by 29 while PC F/R/W increases by 21-25, depending on the number of stat pumps to a relevant stat. That leaves space for up to 8 points of bonus to a non-pumped defense, and 4 to a fully pumped one. PHB feats exist that ameliorate 2 points of this gap. Balancing these out fully is kind of tricky, since anything that brings the non-pumped defense up to par puts the pumped defenses above par.

Thanks!

I'll stick with +3 attacks/+6 defenses then. It's close enough, and it's simple to remember:

+1 attack per tier and +2 defense per tier.

And leaving an odd point or two is probably a good idea, to account for player ingenuity (read "me as the DM making mistakes like handing out too generous items")

This brings me to another question:

Is there anywhere a complete list of items and feats that impact attacks and defenses? It seems like as a DM you'd want control over where these things have snuck in, so you aren't suprised by the PCs getting them without you really having taken them into account.

No, wait, I'll start a separate thread for this issue.

 

[CapnZapp]

Sounds like a solid idea for a house rule! Let us know if you come up with a good way of translating it into rules-text.

I guess the simplest implementation by far is to hand out one instance of Weapon/Implement Expertise as a free bonus feat.

That would take care of this particular issue - anytime you take this feat again, it automatically can't apply to your bestest attack (because presumably that one you selected the first time).

It's still raw in that it won't help your secondary attacks catch up with your main ones though.

A more direct solution is difficult to arrive at - the main problem is that the game doesn't define "bestest attack".

And relying on the player to identify his particular character's main attack won't work - if he can, he'll identify a secondary attack as his main one, to then be allowed to "catch up" with his real main one...!

Unless you're ready for a whole truckload of rules text, the only simple implementation will be "your best attack, the one which can't benefit from the feat, is the one identified by your DM with reassessment taking place each level"...

I agree it was a neat idea, but it won't work in practice. It really can't - it would mean specific anti-minmaxing rules, and unless you involve the DM, they too will be minmaxable. In the end, there will probably be a lot of rules for very little benefit (in the form of added fun)...

 

[CapnZapp]

After some thought, one possible implementation is keying off the race ability score modifiers.

That is, take Dragonborn: +2 Strength, +2 Charisma.
These modifiers key off the Str and Cha attacks, and the Fortitude and Will defenses.

Remember all of this is presuming you get a basic +3 bonus to all attacks and defenses (at 25th level perhaps).

We would then say you could not take feats like Expertise for Str/Cha attacks and you could not take the corresponding +3 defense feats (whatever its name is) for Fort/Will.

This would hopefully ensure the bonuses only benefit secondary features in a deterministic way (not involving the DM).

Of course, we need to check that for newly generated level 25 characters we haven't simply reversed racial favorites for specific classes....

 

[darkInertia]

Although I think it's a good and important discussion, let's keep on topic and not discuss the defense tier gap (which can instead be found here).

In regards to expertise, I think we need to ask ourselves the following questions:

1) Should feats be relatively equivalent in power/effect?

2) Is expertise equivalent in power to other similar feats?

3) Is there a deficit in the math supporting the game mechanics related to PC attack progression versus monster defense progression?

For the first and second points, I don't think that it is helpful to bring in the argument that a power of a feat is defined by when a PC will/must take that feat. As other people have posted, players are varied in their play style and in how they get enjoyment from the game,

Instead, when looking at the feat, you must compare it to other feats, specifically feats that have a similar mechanic. Thus, it is not helpful to compare expertise to any of the feats that grant a bonus to skills, since they are affecting two different mechanics in the game. The better comparisons are between either feats that grant a bonus to damage, or better yet, feats like Nimble Blade.

Because of its lack of requirements (both to obtain the feat and the bonus granted by the feat), as well as it's scaling with each tier, expertise is a more powerful feat than nimble blade, and thus it is one of the stronger feats to take (at any tier).

However, I think that the first question cannot be argued or proved. It is ultimately up to the developers of the game to decide, although we as consumers and players should hold them accountable to it. While we all have our own opinion about this subject, the developers must decide whether they want their game to be balanced, and if it should contain power creep.

Finally, people have already gone through and done the legwork and math to show that the last point is true and relevant. Whether this was an oversight or if it was intended for a purpose, people's opinions of this deficit are varied. I think that it would be very helpful if we received feedback to these questions from the developer, but barring that, many informed people seem confident in choosing a side and making a house rule to fix these questions and problems cause by this feat.

 

[Smeelbo]

PHB+2 rewards specialists (20) over generalists (16)

After looking over the new feats in PHB+2, my new concern is that these feats greatly favor specialists (characters with a starting score of 20 in their attack), and generalists (those with a starting 16).

Prior to these new feats, one could reasonably argue that the specialist paid for his higher attack bonus with his much narrower stats, and so his defenses would suffer significantly, whereas the generalist had overall better stats and more solid defenses.

However, the new attack and defense feats greatly favor the specialist. Since offense is clearly better than defense, the specialist gains more from taking Expertise, and can cover his supposed weakness by taking the defense feats. It is not symmetrical, because improving already decent defenses is not as good as improving an already great offense.

Thus the generalist falls further behind the specialist.

The specialist can adequately mimic the main advantage of the generalist, better defenses, but the generalist attempt to mimic the specialist fails. The generalists sole hope is the significance of his higher secondary stats, which, by the trends we are seeing towards single stat classes, appears to be a fool's bet.

In my opinion, if 4E cannot withstand 16s, it has failed. If only starting 18s and 20s need apply, that a lot of the "choice" and "flexibility" that have been sold to us is little more than snake oil.

It may well be. But it makes me sad.

Smeelbo

 

[Obryn]

Since offense is clearly better than defense, the specialist gains more from taking Expertise, and can cover his supposed weakness by taking the defense feats. It is not symmetrical, because improving already decent defenses is not as good as improving an already great offense.

I think your math is off...

A +1 to-hit from any source benefits someone with a lower chance of hitting more than it benefits someone with a higher chance of hitting.

As an example, if character A has a 50% chance of hitting, a +2 to-hit improves his chances of connecting by 20%.

If character B has an 80% chance of hitting, a +2 to-hit improves his chances of connecting by 12%.

Yes, of course it helps specialists. But it helps generalists more.

-O

 

[keterys]

That actually ignores the benefits of reliability (and I don't mean Reliable) - that is to say, increased chance to land the stun effect, to immobilize all the targets in an area, etc.

Damage is increased less for the high hit person in proportion (but equally in literal amount, ie like +5 DPR each), but it's _all good_.

 

[WalterKovacs]

The generalists sole hope is the significance of his higher secondary stats, which, by the trends we are seeing towards single stat classes, appears to be a fool's bet.

Actually, the new classes benefit more from the secondary stat than many of the original classes.

The wizard, for example, has very little outside of at-wills that reference wisdom, and I can't think of any that reference dex or con. So, other than a single once per encounter class feature, the wizard is almost entirely a single stat. However, a lot of the classes in the PHBII rely on their secondary stat for AC [unless they buy a lot of heavy armor feats which still has stat requirements].

Examples:

The avenger's class features each key off their secondary stats (not to mention both secondary stats apply to AC). Each stat has an at-will that benefits from it directly. At each level of encounter attack power there is one power for each class feature with a bonus based on DEX/INT stats. There is also a paragon path that benefits from intelligence.

The barbarian actually needs to either get heavy armor, or some ammount of DEX/INT (they get a boost to AC/Reflex while in light armor, but it isn't enough to allow you to completely dump those stats. You'd probably want a minimum of 14 to start, and even then it wouldn't be that great.)

The class features each use the secondary stat, and will trigger multiple times per battle, as a striker will likely bloody or kill a few enemies each fight presumably. While again there are encounter powers all over the place that benefit from the secondary stats, in this case there are also some dailies and utilities that use the stats. Only one at-will uses con, and none use charisma though.

Compared to Fighters and Wizards, and Wisdom Clerics, etc ... the PHBII classes have more focus on encouraging the secondary stat.

Every class could just max out their attack stat if they wanted to, but most classes discourage it (and, with PHBII having no class with proficiency in scale or plate armor, you can't exactly ignore your stats as you'll need them for AC one way or the other, either for armor prof or using light armor well.