So, about Expertise...

[Styracosaurus]

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?

It is easier to just disallow the feat and not worry about it.

 

[Jack99]

It is easier to just disallow the feat and not worry about it.

It would be even easier if I stopped playing D&D, but the chances of that aren't really big

 

[WalterKovacs]

• Action Surge

You have one daily until level 5. Getting +3 to hit with that daily > +1 to hit with that daily. In other encounters, you have 1 or 2 encounter powers, again giving you very few options to add the +3 to. Having the most important powers be even more accurate can at least be comparable to having all your powers more accurate. This depends on whether you want higher damage output on average per round, or want to hit with your daily/encounter power.

Dwarven Weapon Training
Eladrin Soldier

For eladrin soldier, you gain access to the greatspear, giving you reach without losing proficiency bonus compared to your longsword, and a damage increase. With d8 becoming d10 and +2 to your damage, it is going to likely increase the damage per round compared to a simple +1 to hit. This depends on the accuracy you already have. The dwarf is in a similar position, gaining damage from both the fixed +2, and the higher damage dice of superior weaponry.

Two Weapon Fighting

TWF is already inferior to weapon focus, and is either (a) an addition to weapon focus or (b) a prerequisite to two weapon defense. The latter is often the main reason to take TWF ... the damage boost is secondary.

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.

(a) You get more than one feat option so the option of "this is better than that" is only relevant at the earliest levels. At best the list is "if you liked these feats, you'll be interested in expertise".
(b) Some, not all, but some, have benefits that weapon expertise cannot offer (such as heavy thrown, reach or defensive properties of the superior weapons; the ability to get two weapon defense).
(c) Some of them are not mechanically inferior to Weapon Expertise. Action Surge, for example, gives a greater bonus than Weapon Expertise until level 25. If the goal is "hit with daily powers" then it does that job better. More so, the extra damage from the racial weapon specializations will arguably give more damage per round than a slight increase in accuracy.
(d) There already exists feat that overlap each other and some feats that are purely better than others (in some situations). For example a multiclass feat gives a skill AND an additional power. Two Weapon Fighting gives a +1 to only one of the weapons, compared to weapon focus, etc.

There are going to be feats that will likely be best to pick first amongst it's peers. Few of the feats are obsoleted by the expertise feats ... most would just get pushed back a bit as they work well with expertise. It's not replacing so much as delaying. Now, for people that wouldn't be taking those feats in the first place, it's harder to argue that expertise is the correct choice.

 

[77IM]

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.

This is a great example, actually. That's a really interesting and appropriate concept. You've taken feats that seem like they support that concept. You're also being overshadowed by the elf ranger with 18 Dex and Weapon Expertise (bow) and the human laser cleric with 18 Wis and Implement Expertise (holy symbol) because they're just hitting noticeably more often than you. How does that make you feel? How would you feel if the DM kept encouraging you to take the boring +1 attack feat so that you can keep up with the rest of the group?

The existence of this feat isn't the end of the world, but I think it creates more problems than it solves.

-- 77IM

 

[Styracosaurus]

It would be even easier if I stopped playing D&D, but the chances of that aren't really big

Dude, you've got almost 3,000 posts. You ain't gonna stop playing DnD.

I just meant that it is super easy to ban one little feat rather than try and fit it into the system. It is even more work to fit the system to the feat.

 

[sfedi]

I just meant that it is super easy to ban one little feat rather than try and fit it into the system. It is even more work to fit the system to the feat.

Of course it´s easy to ban a troublesome feat. That´s not the point.

The point is if this feat is errata under disguise, or a truly bad feat.

If it´s errata, then you don´t want to ban it, on the contrary, you want to bring in the fix, but not in this crappy form. Just give out the bonus to everyone.

If it´s not errata, then ban it, as you said.

But what happens if you don´t know which of the two is?

You discuss it here

 

[Eldorian]

Of course it´s easy to ban a troublesome feat. That´s not the point.

The point is if this feat is errata under disguise, or a truly bad feat.

If it´s errata, then you don´t want to ban it, on the contrary, you want to bring in the fix, but not in this crappy form. Just give out the bonus to everyone.

If it´s not errata, then ban it, as you said.

But what happens if you don´t know which of the two is?

You discuss it here

I'm gonna go with errata in disguise, and it should be instead worked into the default leveling system instead of as a feat.

There are a few feats which help your character's offensive power more than expertise. Backstabber for example, or dwarven weapon training, or Mordenkrad proficiency, but after those, which are race/class specific, I'd go with expertise. And the big deal about expertise is that EVERY class/race combo is going to want it, pretty much before they hit paragon, as smeelbo was saying.

I mean, my warfroged barbarian took warforged tactics as his 3rd feat, after chain and scale proficiency, because hitting is that important, and that's a situational bonus to hit. It was my first choice of offensive feat, before mordenkrad proficiency.

 

[Smeelbo]

Power creep as a successful marketing

If Expertise really is a fix to the tier gap, then addressing the tier gap directly by tweaking the system, say by issuing an Errata to the Monster Manual with a -1 penalty to monster defense per each mid-tier would have been much cleaner and fairer to the player base.

However, a paragraph of errata to a book that we have already bought and paid for will not generate much additional revenue, while a feat that is probably better than any feat already in print absolutely will have a measurable impact on sales.

I've spent over ten years on the game store floor, half in the mid 80's, and half after the tech bubble popped. I've seen books literally sold before my very eyes by a single powerful feat, prestige class, spell, or ability. While the Player Handbook +2 certainly will sell a lot of copies just on the basis of the new classes alone, regardless of the quality of that work, Expertise will make the book almost mandatory for groups.

The developers hand this in mind when they announced that the "fix" for the tier gap would be in the PHB2. If it had been done properly, as an Errata to the DMG or MM, or perhaps in a DMG II, then it wouldn't have had nearly the same impact on sales.

You can be sure that every game store clerk who has it on the ball will show the customer Expertise when trying to close the sale.

Smeelbo

 

[grickherder]

You're also being overshadowed by the elf ranger with 18 Dex and Weapon Expertise (bow) and the human laser cleric with 18 Wis and Implement Expertise (holy symbol) because they're just hitting noticeably more often than you.

The gnome in question has an 18 in both INT and CHA, so the only difference is an extra +1 to hit from the feat. I've played in games where I had an 18 in my primary attack stat. I didn't feel overshadowed by the fighter or wizard with a 20 in their primary attack stat. +1 to hit? Big deal. Expertise starts to become obviously good at level 15 and especially at level 25. I'm okay with a feat being good enough that one might want to pick it up by level 25. That's hardly game breaking or evidence of a secret patch.

How does that make you feel? How would you feel if the DM kept encouraging you to take the boring +1 attack feat so that you can keep up with the rest of the group?

Keep up with the group because you're short a measly +1? Really? I guess in your group no one takes the +2 prof bonus weapons and everyone sticks to the +3? After all, that +1 suddenly makes everyone overshadow those who didn't take it...

 

[grickherder]

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

I must admit that I find what you're saying to be well... sad. In the games I run and play in, there isn't a drive towards eeking out every ounce of combat potency out of the builds. A solid third of the PCs started with 16s in their primary attack stats. Everyone does fine with the combats in the published adventures as well as encounters designed as per the DMG. I would find it sad as a DM and a player if I suddenly found myself in a group that would consider a character with an 18 in two attack stats to be an "awful character build."