So, about Expertise...

[keterys]

I've seen a group of all level 4 PCs that had it, a group of level 1s that _half_ had it (I didn't doublecheck when they just hit 2nd, but I bet it's 2/3 now... but I know the bard doesn't have it cause he'd need 2 feats, so he just gripes about it whenever he misses), and I have 3 LFR characters (level 4, 5, and 7) who all have it. And I'd _definitely_ rather have other feats on all three of those characters, but it's mathematically imprudent.

I was willing to give the game the benefit of the doubt that it would actually take until higher levels for the feat to really become ubiquitous, but no... it took about a week after the book came out for it to become ubiquitous, even with no group over 7 that I'm currently running or playing in (the high level game is on hold - I assume they'll all have it as soon as they can retrain). Yay.

 

[catsclaw227]

I have 3 LFR characters (level 4, 5, and 7) who all have it. And I'd _definitely_ rather have other feats on all three of those characters, but it's mathematically imprudent.

But.... for a silly +1 to hit you would rather do the "mathematically prudent" thing than build the character you want?

In a good campaign, hitting 1 out 20 times more often is not as fulfilling as taking a feat where I get some RP out of it.

Really? A +1 is that important at 7th level? Where did all the role-playing go?

 

[grickherder]

Except, as has been shown, repeatedly, in this thread, that it's, if not the best, among the top 3 or 5 feats, for ANY character, even ones that are already hitting more than 50% of the time. This is why it's called a feat tax, since every single character should take this feat.

In the two games I run and the game I play in, no one has taken it. Even with a free retrain offered by the DMs whenever a new book comes out. Not a single person. For all this "should" take it, people I game with are simply not making it the auto-include that the critics of expertise claim it to be. Are these people wrong not to take it?

I was so amused that no one was interested in it after all the ruckus online, that I tried to sell other people on it. No bites. Almost universally their answer as to why they aren't taking it was that they didn't need it. It was on my short list for my avenger until I actually played the Avenger. Oath of Emnity is the mathematical equivilant of like a +4.5 to hit on average, so I decided there were better things to get than a measly +1. It's still on my long list though. Aiming to take it after level 15.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

But.... for a silly +1 to hit you would rather do the "mathematically prudent" thing than build the character you want?

In a good campaign, hitting 1 out 20 times more often is not as fulfilling as taking a feat where I get some RP out of it.

Really? A +1 is that important at 7th level? Where did all the role-playing go?

when I see people choose math over playing the game I want to cry, and trust me I had a very eye opening experiance just last week.

 

[grickherder]

But.... for a silly +1 to hit you would rather do the "mathematically prudent" thing than build the character you want?

In a good campaign, hitting 1 out 20 times more often is not as fulfilling as taking a feat where I get some RP out of it.

Really? A +1 is that important at 7th level? Where did all the role-playing go?

It's all about play priorities. And some people get torn between taking interesting/character/role-playing related feat choices and feat choices that give them greater combat effectiveness. They're welcome to those priorities, but they also need to take responsibility for the choices that result. Subsequently, expertise is not a (feat) tax any more than the lottery is.

It's not mandatory-- even for those that have some sort of play priority that is somehow compelling them to take it. It's still a choice and people need to own up to the fact that they are prioritizing mathematical combat efficiency above other priorities. It's them doing it, not the feat doing it and they're somehow powerless and have no choice but to write "expertise" on their character sheet.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Didn't Mearls say there would be a Design & Development article on these Expertise feats in the near future (maybe even this month?)

yes early last week I asked him to look into this (I am a nobody, but he listened anyway...go figure)

You nailed it. And your real game examples are perfectly appropriate. I'm finding it to be exactly the same way. The whole expertise scare is a good example of theoretical problems that don't exist in actual play.

Thank you, I have been trying to push against this 'math build' stuff for months here and at WotC on the errata board. If no one noticed the problem before the feat, then how can the feat be a fix for the problem?

Except, as has been shown, repeatedly, in this thread, that it's, if not the best, among the top 3 or 5 feats, for ANY character, even ones that are already hitting more than 50% of the time. This is why it's called a feat tax, since every single character should take this feat.

Again that only takes into account that everyone weighs feats equaly. witch is better Multi classing to meet your concept, Rit caster to give you new options, attack bonus, or defence bonus? you can't break that quastion down to math. It is only a tax on people who WANT to hit more, just like tougness is a tax on people who want more hp, or lingustic is a tax on people who want more languages, or maybe rit caster is a tax on fighters that want to cast rit... It is a feat to give attack bonus, it is the BEST feat for that catagory, OK (I even think it should be nerfed a little +1 at heroic +2 @ 21) but it is not utomatic by any means, heck read my post ont he last page for characters who do not need it.

I've seen a group of all level 4 PCs that had it, a group of level 1s that _half_ had it (I didn't doublecheck when they just hit 2nd, but I bet it's 2/3 now... but I know the bard doesn't have it cause he'd need 2 feats, so he just gripes about it whenever he misses), and I have 3 LFR characters (level 4, 5, and 7) who all have it. And I'd _definitely_ rather have other feats on all three of those characters, but it's mathematically imprudent.

please remember that everytime that bard complains inless he missed by 1 that feat would not help. It would only help 5% of the time if we wanted to do this by math .

I was willing to give the game the benefit of the doubt that it would actually take until higher levels for the feat to really become ubiquitous, but no... it took about a week after the book came out for it to become ubiquitous, even with no group over 7 that I'm currently running or playing in (the high level game is on hold - I assume they'll all have it as soon as they can retrain). Yay.

So you all like to play offencive characters, and have a head for theratical numbers, and that clouds your way of thinking. 3 weeks ago when you had no such feat did you guys complain "Damn I wish I could get +1 better"??

 

[Regicide]

Really? A +1 is that important at 7th level? Where did all the role-playing go?

There are RP feats? Really? Seriously, if you're looking for RP, 4E is not for you. It is a combat simulator.

In the two games I run and the game I play in, no one has taken it. Even with a free retrain offered by the DMs whenever a new book comes out. Not a single person. For all this "should" take it, people I game with are simply not making it the auto-include that the critics of expertise claim it to be. Are these people wrong not to take it?

They are making a beginner's mistake in not taking it because the math isn't obvious to them. Fighters fight better, wizards wiz more, rogues are more rogueish etc.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It's all about play priorities. And some people get torn between taking interesting/character/role-playing related feat choices and feat choices that give them greater combat effectiveness. They're welcome to those priorities, but they also need to take responsibility for the choices that result. Subsequently, expertise is not a (feat) tax any more than the lottery is.

just remember you can't win if you don't play. So my odds of becoming a millionar soar when I gamble...

It's still a choice and people need to own up to the fact that they are prioritizing mathematical combat efficiency above other priorities.

I think I need this quote hot keyed for the rest of this arguement...

 

[keterys]

I already have the feats for my core concept by about 2nd... after that it's just a matter of what little fiddly things I want beyond that.

So, sure, I'd rather have hurl breath on my dragonborn warlord cause it's nifty than +1 to hit... but the +1 to hit just flat out helps my party more. But the paladin multiclass I took at 1st level and is the thing that was actually important to his character.

Similarly, my fighter has his cleric multiclass and novice power... but weapon focus traded to weapon expertise was a no brainer.

My warlock values Reaper's Touch for his character concept... but after that, none of them are vastly more important than other choices. I'd love to have room to get the extra 3 temp from infernal pact or pick up something like fighter or shaman multiclass just to mess around with it, but they're far less core to my concept than actually hitting.

Feel free to assume a holier than thou attitude if you wish, but it doesn't change the underlying math of the game. After the first four or so levels, many characters are _done_ with feats for their concept. In one game folks were done _after 1st level_ - if you've got the skills you want already, some classes just don't have feats that are all that important to roleplaying.

As is, in one game someone was done with feats she wanted by 3rd level and took a multiclass at 4th cause it was better than nothing. Feats do not RP make.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

There are RP feats? Really? Seriously, if you're looking for RP, 4E is not for you. It is a combat simulator.

is this a joke??? is it still the 1st were you are??

They are making a beginner's mistake in not taking it because the math isn't obvious to them. Fighters fight better, wizards wiz more, rogues are more rogueish etc.

I would say this is boarder line offenceive, but there is nothing boarder line about it...


maybe I would have given you the fighter one, except there main trick (mark) works hit or miss...maybe you don't understand as well as you think you do...