So, about Expertise...

[Jhaelen]

That feat alone will sell tens of thousands of PHB2's.

Lol. Hyperbole, much? A feat will sell exactly nothing, since it'll just appear in the Character Builder for everyone.

Additionally, the feat isn't even particularly good at the beginning of an adventurer's career. I couldn't see myself taking it before paragon level.

But it is slightly annoying since it's a terribly BORING feat.

 

[Runestar]

In any case, the point is they could have chosen to add new powers that apply penalties to defenses in a way that gave rise to interesting tactics, but instead they have literally taken the cheap way out (fewer developer hours).

I don't see how it would necessarily be any better. In your case, we would then "have" to take and use those powers just to retain parity in hitting at higher levels. Which would pigeon-hole builds further because everyone now finds themselves taking the same few powers.

It would be like arguing that the attack disparity is negated by using a taclord. It means that every epic party must have a taclord. Regardless of whether anyone wants to play one or not.

In such a case, it seems like the lesser of 2 evils. The loss of a feat will hardly be felt. Players will likely just end up taking the feat and forgetting it was even there to begin with.

 

[Mistwell]

I still think an awful lot of people never play games much beyond the heroic tier. Saying this feat is so mandatory it will result in books being sold seems a bit silly, given it's not even that good a feat in the heroic tier. Nor do I know many DMs who have some rule that if you do not personally own the book you cannot take the feat. If the feat is so good, people will take it regardless of owning the book.

 

[Fedifensor]

Well, my opinion has been posted on the WotC boards, but to repeat it here...

As many others have pointed out, this is a must-have feat that harms the game as a whole. Here's the reasons:

• Bonus to hit is more powerful than other feats. It is always better than the "situational +1" feats, even at level 1. It is much better than the feats that offer +1 damage with a specific weapon group or damage type.
• Scales up to +3 to hit. At 15th level, it is the best feat in the game. At 25th level, I'd rather have this even if I was burning two or three feat slots to get it.
• Because it is so much more powerful, it becomes essential for every build, effectively reducing the number of feats a character gets.
• Encounters are designed to challenge the players. An Epic encounter designed without taking this feat into account goes from a challenge to a cakewalk, because it doesn't account for the extra +3 to hit.
• In a group where some players have the feat and others don't, the characters who don't have the feat will be at a disadvantage, contributing less to the group.
• Characters who use both weapons and implements lose two feats instead of one for the same increase in overall effectiveness.
• The feat discourages characters that use multiple weapons or multiple implements, because of the extra cost.
• If intended as a math fix, it's errata that costs around $30 (though it comes with other benefits).

 

[ObsidianCrane]

Hmm I'll wait to see the actual book (or a picture of the page of an actual book) before making final judgement. The feat listing typically leaves types and conditions out when describing feats.

However that said it seems to me in reading this thread that a number of people want to negate any weakness their character might have. These weaknesses are (hopefully) intentional design. You can choose how to apply stat bonuses, you have to choose optimal core stats, or secondary or even tertiary stats for example. Each choice has benefits and deficits and you should be considering and weighing, not automatically discarding the secondary and tertiary options.

This is something 4E exploits a lot in its design - opportunity cost. Feats are where this is most apparent, each one is an opportunity and some (like Astral Fire etc) impose opportunity cost when you build your attributes as well.

This feat is a long way from an auto-pick for my characters with 18+ starting attack stat. It is however a feat characters with 14 - 16 in an attack stat can really benefit from, and the availability of the Feat makes these lower attack stat characters far more viable, and thus allows for greater build options.

Of every character I have built at the moment I have 2 that want this feat, and thats because the characters' counter to low defence is higher hit and damage. So I'm trading the opportunity to have a higher defence, for the higher attack. (This is a key advantage of Rogues, primary attack and defence stat are the same so they have lower opportunity cost, its also why Sneak Attack needs CA (hopefully).)

Yes it looks like a very good choice, but its nowhere near the must have feat that it was in 3.X. Its not like people are rushing to take Sure Strike and its ilk.

 

[Fedifensor]

This is something 4E exploits a lot in its design - opportunity cost. Feats are where this is most apparent, each one is an opportunity and some (like Astral Fire etc) impose opportunity cost when you build your attributes as well.

The problem is, there isn't much of an opportunity cost. Many feats in 4E are flavor feats - not a major factor in the character's effectiveness, but they add something cool, or some area of specialty. Weapon Expertise (or Implement Expertise for the casters) is a flat +1 bonus regardless of the situation that you are in.

Yes it looks like a very good choice, but its nowhere near the must have feat that it was in 3.X. Its not like people are rushing to take Sure Strike and its ilk.

Sure Strike gives a +2 to hit at the expense of damage, and no other effect. One of the reasons everyone looks for to hit bonuses is the need to connect with Encounter and Daily powers. which do more damage and/or have a secondary effect that only works when you hit. I can't even count the number of times I've missed with an Encounter power, burning it for the encounter with no gain. It's especially frustrating at 1st and 2nd level, where you only have one class Encounter power.

Of course, if this feat doesn't interest you, then there's no reason to take any of the following feats in the Heroic tier:

• Action Surge
• Astral Fire
• Blade Opportunist
• Burning Blizzard
• Combat Reflexes
• Dark Fury
• Dragonborn Frenzy
• Dwarven Weapon Training
• Eladrin Soldier
• Elven Precision
• Hellfire Blood
• Nimble Blade
• Power Attack
• Powerful Charge
• Precise Hunter
• Raging Storm
• Two Weapon Fighting
• Weapon Focus

All of the above feats give a conditional bonus to hit and/or (usually 'or') damage. All are mechanically inferior to Weapon Expertise, even before 15th level. That's a pretty large selection of feats marginalized by a single feat in the PHB 2.

To use your statement above, the opportunity cost of taking any of the feats I listed is too high, when the alternative is a flat +1 to hit in all situations with your primary weapon.

 

[keterys]

This feat is a long way from an auto-pick for my characters with 18+ starting attack stat.

While this is mathematially untrue at mid heroic through low paragon, there are certainly other options that may be more fun or are extremely close. From mid paragon on, you are blatantly mistaken.

 

[vermilion]

While this is mathematially untrue at mid heroic through low paragon, there are certainly other options that may be more fun or are extremely close. From mid paragon on, you are blatantly mistaken.

He's blatantly mistaken that his characters won't auto-pick it? What, are you gonna Jedi mind-trick him into taking it every time he hits level 16?

 

[ObsidianCrane]

Thanks Vermilion.

The problem is, there isn't much of an opportunity cost. Many feats in 4E are flavor feats - not a major factor in the character's effectiveness, but they add something cool, or some area of specialty. Weapon Expertise (or Implement Expertise for the casters) is a flat +1 bonus regardless of the situation that you are in.

Cool so that +1 to hit with my weapon its really going to rock my world when I'm sneaking past the guards... oh wait there's a situation it doesn't matter in. You know when factoring the opportunity cost of something you need to look beyond the proverbial end of your sword.

BTW this is a problem I have with the "Math Gurus" lots of time is spent crunching numbers and comming to the conclusion that there should be an extra +1 at x-level or whatever. Many of my characters played in actual game player are needing <10 normally to hit. Rarely a 10-11. The monster's AC going up will not significantly impact the game, and frankly the DM should be looking at the typical attacks of the party and determining monsters appropriately.

Sure Strike gives a +2 to hit at the expense of damage, and no other effect. One of the reasons everyone looks for to hit bonuses is the need to connect with Encounter and Daily powers. which do more damage and/or have a secondary effect that only works when you hit. I can't even count the number of times I've missed with an Encounter power, burning it for the encounter with no gain. It's especially frustrating at 1st and 2nd level, where you only have one class Encounter power.

Hey I hate blowing that encounter power as well.. is there anyone who doesn't?

But if the argument is that +1 hit is worth sacrificing all other options at x-level (lets say 5 as you can retrain a 4th level feat to Expertise when you supposedly need this pip the first time) then the trend would be that powers that give +2 attack would be premium powers and you would be taking ways to increase their damage or other effects with your feats religously.

But in Char Op land that isn't the case.

The rigid mindset that the "best way" is to get that +1 is why we end up with people complaining that they cannot get their defences high enough - they burnt all that resource to eek out that extra +1 to attack and damage without properly considering that it would have long term negative impacts on their character.

Sure my 20 Int Wizard hits more than my 18 Int one... but my 18 Int one has far more options and the same or better defences at the same level with the same equipment. Hence the opportunity cost of that extra +1 to hit and damage from my 20 Int was higher than it might appear on the surface.

Of course, if this feat doesn't interest you, then there's no reason to take any of the following feats in the Heroic tier

I actually gave examples of 2 characters it interests me for, so you are barking up the wrong tree.

My point is that the feat is not absolutely a must have feat. Its a good feat worth using a slot up on to improve the hit chance of your character if needed.

To use your statement above, the opportunity cost of taking any of the feats I listed is too high, when the alternative is a flat +1 to hit in all situations with your primary weapon.

The feat is clearly better than a conditional +1 to hit that does nothing else - duh.

Its not clearly better at first level than a feat that gives +1 to hit and damage with an at-will, your encounter and daily. (Tieflings only)

Its not clearly better than feats that have nothing to do with combat that I need for my character to develop as I see them.

Its not clearly better than Muti-class feats that add additional options and give skill training.

Yes its better than conditional attack bonuses, and I understand the basic math crunch of why its better than damage bonuses (you hit more so you damage more), but I suspect that isn't as absolutely true as the maths gurus want us to believe in actual game play (if only for fun factor - its hard to say as its moving into subjective realms).

When talking "opportunity cost" one needs to look at the whole picture, not just a little part of it.

 

[Branduil]

This is reminding me of 3.x arguments like "the Cleric isn't overpowered because I can still have fun playing a fighter." Well, sure, but that's not what people are arguing. The point is that any character without this feat simply won't be as efficient as those that do. That's all that needs to be considered when judging its power.