So, about Expertise...

[Iron Sky]

What about changing it so it only effects encounter and daily powers (which is what I originally thought it was anyway)?

It would make it useful for connecting with the powers you really want to connect with, but not quite a no-brainer. It would still probably become a must-have at paragon (when you have at least 4 encounters and 3 dailies), but may not trump the circumstantial +1 to-hits that apply to all attacks...

 

[Hypersmurf]

Goblin Hexers...

-Hyp.

 

[Jhaelen]

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:

So?
Personally, I'm always looking first for feats that will allow me to do something I couldn't have done without the feat.
Feats that allow me to be better at the things I can already do, are always the second choice. Imho, the single best feat you can take will always be the first multiclassing feat.

Following your line of reasoning a player would be stupid if he didn't put an 18 into her character's main attack stat. But actually that's far from the optimal choice in most cases.

 

[keterys]

Following your line of reasoning a player would be stupid if he didn't put an 18 into her character's main attack stat. But actually that's far from the optimal choice in most cases.

This argument is not logical.

Getting a stat from 16 to 18 takes 7 build points, which could easily net you 4 or so points in other stats (and almost certainly net you a +1 in an important secondary stat)... and only gives you +1 attack, when all is said to done.

This feat gives +2 or +3 attack and costs you... a feat. Which you have several of and we have an established cost/benefit for... do any of the feats give you '+2 to your primary stat' or '+2 to your secondary stat and a tertiary stat'? No, that'd be way too good. And this feat gives even more than +2 to the primary stat, at higher tier.

How about this - were people taking the conditional +1 attack feats, before expertise (nimble blade, hellfire blood, etc), since this is more than twice as good? No? Okay, it's blown the cost/benefit ratio. It's power creep. Period. Can we at least agree with that, and that it's not desirable? If you have no use for attack on a character, that's totally separate from whether it's bad design, right?

Next question is - why would it be so extremely good? Well, we have lots of discussions about how character attack bonuses didn't scale well over tiers, and the +3 makes up that difference. Great, we have a reason! Just a lousy solution to that problem. Inherent math problems can be fixed, but doing so with feats and equipment that limit choices and create distance between optimized and unoptimized play is a sad thing.

 

[ObsidianCrane]

Which you can do in a home game, but not published modules and LFR modules. People buy a published module in part because WotC has supposedly done the balancing work for the DM. If the math behind the progression is problematic, then the module will have a different difficulty than is intended...and a feat (which by its nature is optional) is not the way to fix this problem.

Firstly you can tweak LFR modules - it says it right there at the start of each module and is the default position for LFR, they call it "DM Empowerment"

Secondly WotC modules typically follow the DMG recomendations for "Standard" encounters, that's like playing on Easy mode for most players.

So far I've yet to find a problem with the Math progression in actual play at either Heroic or Paragon tier, time will tell.

Given that one of my first 4E experiments was the Iron Mage, I don't think that's a good example to prove your point.

OMG you built a staff wizard with uber defence... I bow before your awesomeness for not actually understanding what I'm talking about at all.

While 4E is flexible, the game is primarily designed for combat. The core of the combat system is a tiering of powers where the less often you can use them, the greater their effect. In such a system, a flat +1 to hit with all of your powers is very powerful.

Not disputing that its a powerful feat... I'm disputing the contention that its a "must have" feat.

Your DMs need to use skill challenges more if you think Combat is the be all and end all of the game. Maybe then the hyper combat optimisation of characters would be less of a focus. (I know my combat orientated characters are really boring to have in a skill challenge.)

You say "math gurus" like it's an insult.

And others hold up the maths like its the only factor in the evaluation of feats, powers and game play, its not.

I have issues with the feat, which have been happily addressed by other posters, but I also have issues with people acting like the feat will automatically appear on every character ever made.

 

[Fedifensor]

Firstly you can tweak LFR modules - it says it right there at the start of each module and is the default position for LFR, they call it "DM Empowerment"

A process that will receive clarification in the next few months, due to the abuse of the system. It also requires a DM skilled enough to make adjustments on the fly.

Secondly WotC modules typically follow the DMG recomendations for "Standard" encounters, that's like playing on Easy mode for most players.

Tell that to players of Scalegloom Hall, or Keep on the Shadowfell. Or, to use a LFR example, Beneath Haunted Halls. None of those qualify as Easy mode.

So far I've yet to find a problem with the Math progression in actual play at either Heroic or Paragon tier, time will tell.

At Heroic, the problem isn't as bad. It's a 4 point difference over 30 levels, so the difference in the first 10 levels is 1, maybe 2 points.

OMG you built a staff wizard with uber defence... I bow before your awesomeness for not actually understanding what I'm talking about at all.

About as on-topic as you citing your own wizard as proof that an 18 (before stat modifiers) is always going to limit you. Clearly, it doesn't.

Not disputing that its a powerful feat... I'm disputing the contention that its a "must have" feat.

The definition of "must-have", in my eyes, is a measure of effectiveness. There's always going to be people that ignore the effective option, for one reason or another. Maybe it doesn't fit their character conception, or they want a greater challenge, or they're simply not aware that the feat is better...but that doesn't change the fact that anyone skipping Weapon/Implement Expertise through the Heroic tier (when they have 5 other feats to round their character out) is choosing to lower their combat effectiveness relative to those who do take the feat.

Your DMs need to use skill challenges more if you think Combat is the be all and end all of the game. Maybe then the hyper combat optimisation of characters would be less of a focus. (I know my combat orientated characters are really boring to have in a skill challenge.)

Most of my play opportunities of late have been LFR, where even "DM empowerment" doesn't allow a DM to make up new encounters from whole cloth. The default writing style for WotC modules, whether for purchase or from the LFR campaign, is to have a lot of combat. Specifically, the LFR module guidelines recommend 2-5 combat encounters per 4-hour module. Apparently, WotC feels combat is the be all and end all of the game.

I have issues with the feat, which have been happily addressed by other posters, but I also have issues with people acting like the feat will automatically appear on every character ever made.

Only on the characters created by players that value effectiveness. There will always be people who choose not to take an option no matter how good it is.

 

[keterys]

Actually, I think part of the problem that some of us are feeling is that people _won't_ take it, and they're effectively being penalized (or their group is, depending how you think of it, but that's a little less fair).

Fwiw, skill challenges are very much a part of LFR modules, but even if half of the game is skill challenges and half combat, I've never found that I needed more than 2 feats spent on skills to contribute to every skill challenge I've played in. It would certainly be possible to spend, say, 5 - multiclass, 2 skill trainings, 2 skill focuses, say... at that point I'd imagine you'd have -something- to do in every skill challenge that came up, or at least have covered the skills that could possibly make sense for your character... but you have 9 feats at 16th level. 5 for skill challenges, 4 for combat still means you can pick up 3 'cool' combat feats as well as the effective expertise option.

No, it won't be used by 100% of the playerbase by 16th level. Yes, it should be used by 100% of the playerbase by 16th level - when it's just +1 though, especially at low level, it's a lot less of a big deal.

 

[grickherder]

Say we multiplied the races by the classes (and their sub builds) and came up with a number of rough builds that one could make. What do you suppose the choice number would be for this feat for most of the builds? At what choice would it have to be in order for it to be considered a "must have" or "broken" or "a patch disguised as a feat"? First choice? Second? Fifth? Tenth? Fourteenth?

My opinion is that if it's not first or second in the majority of the builds, it's not a must have/broken/disguised patch. Because if it's 3rd, or 5th or 8th or whatever, that's an awful lot of feats that beat it out. Even if 99% of characters out there end up with it by level 26 that means that up to 15 other feats beat it out for a player's choice before that +3 just became too tempting.

Another thing to remember is that feats are tied to concept. I want to play a warlock/wizard gnome, for example. If I start off with expertise, I don't have the concept at all because I don't have the multiclass feat. I guess I could take it at second level, but then I have to wait on taking Fey Trickster to get the rest of the cantrips. I guess I could take it at fourth, but then I have to wait on Improved Misty Step. I guess 6th then, but then I can't take either Melee Training or Reaper's Touch so I can fight up close as well. Oh, 8th then. But wait a minute! I haven't even taken any power swap feats yet! And since I want to paragon multiclass, I need to take my 6th, 8th and 10th level feats as power swap feats.

Must have right...

 

[Smeelbo]

Expertise probably taken by almost all characters by 6th level

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

I've sold dozens of books in a single store on the basis of a single feat or class feature. Books are often bought on a group basis, i.e. the DM will only allow the feat or feature if he has access to the book, so the player who wants the feat or feature buys the book to show the DM. As for Character Builder, I don't use it, no one in our group uses it, and I'm not the least bit interested in it. This coming release day, I plan on selling as many copies of PHB2 as I can.

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.

Upon further consideration, I've come to nearly the same conclusion. If it's a "feat tax," then it's a tax on the paragon and epic tiers, although I think a lot of characters will take it mid to late heroic.

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.

I understand what you're saying. I was suggesting that it would have been more fun to have something to do other than just take a feat, but you're right, it would impose a larger burden than a single feat. Unless, of course, it had been done correctly in the first place, and most all the various high level powers were part of various viable gap closing strategies. In any case, if the intent were simply to fix the gap, applying a tier penalty to monster defenses would be simpler and leave more feat choices available to characters.

I still think an awful lot of people never play games much beyond the heroic tier.

Put me in that camp. The first D&D game I ever played I went to 12th level and died the first day (this was OD&D in the 70's). Our next two campaigns ended at 28th level after 3 years and 15th level after ten years. Since then, I've played 1st to 12th level over and over again, the game just seems to become unplayable much beyond that. Perhaps 4E has figured out how to make late paragon and epic playable, but then again, maybe not. I can easily see myself satisfied playing heroic to mid paragon again and again.

Nor do I know many DMs who have some rule that if you do not personally own the book you cannot take the feat.

Every campaign I've ever been in, someone in the group had to provide access to the book to the DM if they wanted their character to use a specific feat, class, spell, race, item and so on. The group needs access to the book, not the player using the book.

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.

Once a character has the feats that provide capabilities necessary for their character concept, they will take this feat. For example, Axam the Dwarf Ranger requires Quick Draw, Dwarven Weapon Training, and Sneak of Shadows to be what he is supposed to be. But come 6th level, I will be taking Weapon Expertise: Axes. I suspect that will be true for most characters, they will take Expertise by mid-heroic.

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.

But the claim is that the tier gap is too much for existing encounters, and that Expertise will change these encounters from tedious and challenging to reasonable and challenging.

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.

I don't think it'd be a problem in low heroic, by late heroic most characters will have Expertise, and by mid-paragon, all characters will have it. I think you'd only see a practical difference in late heroic to mid paragon.

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.

These are very telling objections, and one reason I'd consider applying a tier penalty to monsters instead.

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

Most character concepts require at most 3-4 "capability" feats. By late heroic, almost all characters will be looking for feats that improve what they already do, rather than adding new capabilities. Since attack rolls outnumber all other checks by an order of magnitude or two, Expertise will improve that character more than any other feat. That's why optimizers study combat so much, because in most games, that's most of the die rolls. Outside of combat, once I have my framework of abilities, ingenuity and role play will have a bigger impact on group success than any feat.

Back to opportunity costs. If outside combat, a feat that marginally improves my skill checks is not as effective as a good scheme or good character interaction, then giving up that non-combat feat is not much of a loss. In contrast, clever scheming in combat quickly plateaus in value, as there is only so much terrain and so many combinations of powers available, and in that case, bonuses help more.

If skill challenges worked better in practice, there would be more incentive to "game the numbers" outside of combat. But combat is a numbers game.

Not taking it once it's +2 attack is most likely either being stubborn (well, it's broken so I won't take it - actually it doesn't even fit my RP concept to hit more often so there's no way I could take it), uninformed (What feat? Oh, haven't seen that), foolish (huh, +2 attack is no big deal, why would I want to hit more, I enjoy complaining about missing), or crazy (Yah, man, can't take expertise man, cause then the man is gonna know what I'm doing yeah, can't let that happen, yeah). Of the 9 feats someone has at 16th, I'd be surprised if even two of them are better than it. Even completely support-focused Leaders have to hit a lot of the time.

I think Keterys is absolutely correct here. Optimizers will take Expertise low to mid heroic, and everyone will take it by mid-paragon.

However taking this feat necassarily limits your other options by a single feat (as does taking any other feat) and that might not be enough of a difference.

I think once most characters have 3-4 feats under their belt, they will be hard pressed to find anything nearly as good as Expertise.

4E can be used for many things. However, as evidenced both by published modules and the guidelines for LFR module creation, 4E is primarily a combat game. Heck, the LFR guidelines recommend a minimum of two combats in a four hour module - with the average being 3 to 4. Trust me, I like feats like Skill Training...but it's not going to come up nearly as often as that +1 or more to hit.

Every D&D campaign I've ever been in, no matter how much roleplaying was going on, has turned on the meat of combat. D&D is distinguished by being very combat centered. For pure roleplayers, there are much more appropriate games than D&D.

If the math behind the progression is problematic, then the module will have a different difficulty than is intended...and a feat (which by its nature is optional) is not the way to fix this problem.

Preach it, brother!

But by the time you are thinking about nimble blade, you're simply better off with weapon expertise.

I've heard some claim that Nimble Blade is too good, and Expertise is way better.

I think however much you want to resist, this feat is just a matter of "when" you want your +1 (or +2).

This is exactly right.

What about changing it so it only effects encounter and daily powers (which is what I originally thought it was anyway)?

The problem with that, I think, is that as tier rises, combats last many more rounds, and at-wills become a more significant fraction of your total damage output. If it only applies to encounters and dailies, the gap effectively remains.

My opinion is that if it's not first or second in the majority of the builds, it's not a must have/broken/disguised patch. Because if it's 3rd, or 5th or 8th or whatever, that's an awful lot of feats that beat it out.

It's not that those other feats are better than Expertise, it's that they're necessary for the character concept to function adequately. For example, because I am making an axe throwing dwarven ranger, I need Quick Draw to throw multiple axes and switch more easily between battle axe and hand axe. Because my group initially lacked a rogue, I needed to take Sneak of Shadows.

If almost every character should have it by 6th level, regardless of their build type, then that's certainly a problem. If almost every character ought to have it by 16th, that may or may not be.

Another thing to remember is that feats are tied to concept....And since I want to paragon multiclass, I need to take my 6th, 8th and 10th level feats as power swap feats.

Paragon multi-classing is considered sub-par for exactly this reason: it takes up way too many feats. Almost no one will Paragon Multi-class instead of taking a Paragon Path.

If Paragon Multi-Classing is really as bad as they say it is (and I haven't found a PMC build I like yet), then you're essentially arguing that your proposed awful character build has no use for Expertise, and we'd agree.

Smeelbo

 

[Jack99]

Personally, I think I am going to strike those feats from PHB2 and hardwiring them into the system. Everyone gets +1 to hit at 5th, 15th and 25th with both weapon and implements.

Anyone sees any problem with that?