So, about Expertise...

[GMforPowergamers]

I already have the feats for my core concept by about 2nd...

I put emphisis on the impportant part there...the part that says you are right, but also says you might be wrong

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.

really, were did you find this, since I have seen people at high paragon and low epic still saying they have a ton of feats for there concept...

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

how hard is it to understand your way is not the only way...


now for my new hot keyed ending:

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

 

[Regicide]

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

Haha, okay, go ahead and give me some examples of your characters RP feats, and, heres a hint for you, if you use it in combat, it's not an RP feat. Feats used in combat are for improving your combat ability which has nothing to do with role play, and... expertise is better than it if it is a combat feat.

 

[77IM]

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

The game rules shouldn't allow you to make that choice. They should not allow me to make a character that is more -- or less -- useful than yours. That's what "game balance" ultimately means. My character can be different but not better.

This thread has devolved into people arguing whether or not the game should be balanced. I'm for balance, because it's always easy for the DM to unbalance things by throwing a monkey wrench into the works, if that's what the group wants. ("You're playing Aragorn, so you're 4 levels higher than everybody else... and you hobbits, I have news for you too...")

I'll certainly grant that combat is not the only measure of usefulness, but in most D&D groups it is the most important measure. (For example, it's possible to have fun with a weak character if he is getting a lot of the spotlight -- see aforementioned hobbit example.) But I've played in too many games where one PC wound up accidentally better or worse -- power-wise -- and the other PCs came to resent it. Then the DM has to untangle the mess and it's a pain. So I'm definitely in favor of the core rules being balanced.

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.

Since when is being torn any fun? That sucks. A game may be "a series of interesting decisions" but that does not mean that every decision is automatically fun. A trade-off between combat effectiveness and character concept is a lose-lose.

-- 77IM

 

[Iron Sky]

Haha, okay, go ahead and give me some examples of your characters RP feats, and, heres a hint for you, if you use it in combat, it's not an RP feat. Feats used in combat are for improving your combat ability which has nothing to do with role play, and... expertise is better than it if it is a combat feat.

Skill Focus: Diplomacy.

Ritual Caster.

That said, I do agree that Expertise is better than 95% of combat feats out there. For some characters, Superior Weapon Prof will be better at low levels, but I can't think of any other feat that every character I can think of would definitely get at some point...

 

[grickherder]

Since when is being torn any fun? That sucks. A game may be "a series of interesting decisions" but that does not mean that every decision is automatically fun. A trade-off between combat effectiveness and character concept is a lose-lose.

It does suck being torn. A trade off between combat effectiveness and character concept is indeed a lose-lose. I still maintain, however, that such a dichotomy is created by players emphasizing certain priorities over others. I'm not torn. No one in my groups is torn. If someone finds themselves torn between choosing expertise and something they would normally find more interesting if not for how good expertise is, that's a result of their priorities.

Does it suck that the current rules create a situation where people with certain priorities will find themselves torn in their feat choices, feeling they have to pay a feat tax to stay competitive? Yes it does. So the options for those who find themselves in such a situation are to either a) modify their priorities, b) accept being torn and live with whatever they choose, c) create a house rule that removes the situation or d) do nothing and complain about it on the internet.

 

[grickherder]

Feats used in combat are for improving your combat ability which has nothing to do with role play

It doesn't have to be this way. You don't have to separate the combat mechanics and role-play so starkly. I don't want to get into a tangent about "what is role-play?" but I will put forward that the definition is broad enough that what you said above doesn't have to be true.

My suggestion for exploring this is to intentionally insert elements of role-play into the combat. Have dialogue. Explore theme. Force elements of decision making related to character priorities (note, character priorities, not player) right into the combat encounters.

My second suggestion is to insert combat abilities into the non-combat times. Use the flavour/narrative of your powers and your knowledge of their capabilities during non-combat. Replace some combat encounters with skill challenges. Have combat where the outcome of the combat is irrelevant (and thus not resolved using the combat system), but where what is said by the combatants is what matters.

 

[tiornys]

It does suck being torn. A trade off between combat effectiveness and character concept is indeed a lose-lose. I still maintain, however, that such a dichotomy is created by players emphasizing certain priorities over others. I'm not torn. No one in my groups is torn. If someone finds themselves torn between choosing expertise and something they would normally find more interesting if not for how good expertise is, that's a result of their priorities.

The true problems don't arise in your kind of group, any more than they arise in keterys's kind of group. Both of those groups are composed of people with similar priorities, so their relative balance stays the same. The problems occur when three people from keterys's group get together with two people from your group and start gaming with their level 16 characters.

At that point there's a very noticeable difference in combat capability between the characters, to the point where the math prudent characters dominate combat at the expense of the RP prudent characters. This leads to a less fun experience for everyone.

4E isn't quite to the point where the DM has to bend over backwards to present a challenge that is powerful enough for the reasonably optimized people but not too powerful for the reasonably built but unoptimized people. These feats, however, are a huge step in that direction.

That's the core of my problem with these feats. They are too powerful for 4E feats. Having options that are too powerful in comparison with the other available options creates potential problems with in party balance. The game shouldn't be about trying to keep up with your teammate, and in general 4E is excellent at avoiding this. With these feats, unfortunately, 4E failed at that goal.

t~

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

The game rules shouldn't allow you to make that choice. They should not allow me to make a character that is more -- or less -- useful than yours. That's what "game balance" ultimately means. My character can be different but not better.

100% Agreed, which is why I suggested that the best way to fix this feat would be not to ban it or to give it automatically to everybody.

Instead, limit it to characters with less than 17 in their primary attribute in heroic (20 in paragon and 22 in epic).

That way, you allow a "non-optimized" build to keep up with the rest of the party.

Balanced Paladins and Clerics, some Star Warlocks, the odd Warlord who wants CHA, INT and STR (I have one in my table).... The people playing such MAD builds would benefit, while at the same time we disallow the feat for those people who have 20 in their primary at first level and collect every single possible bonus along the way.

 

[tiornys]

100% Agreed, which is why I suggested that the best way to fix this feat would be not to ban it or to give it automatically to everybody.

Instead, limit it to characters with less than 17 in their primary attribute in heroic (20 in paragon and 22 in epic).

That way, you allow a "non-optimized" build to keep up with the rest of the party.

Balanced Paladins and Clerics, some Star Warlocks, the odd Warlord who wants CHA, INT and STR (I have one in my table).... The people playing such MAD builds would benefit, while at the same time we disallow the feat for those people who have 20 in their primary at first level and collect every single possible bonus along the way.

The problem with this idea is that it promotes flipped builds, where you emphasize the secondary statistic of a class at the cost of the primary, relying on this feat to make up the lost to-hit. So, your Warlords can now have amazing riders on their powers sacrificing the hit chances that a Str-optimized Warlord currently has. Orb wizards can max their Wis without worrying as much about their Int. Etc.

That's not, of course, the intent of the change, but it is the optimizer's response to it.

t~

edit: also, since some classes (and builds) get more oomph out of their secondary stats than others, you also make those classes/builds comparatively more powerful than those which currently do well with a very high primary stat and moderate secondary/tertiary stats. Warlords, for example, gain much more from the proposed feat than Rogues do.

 

[KarinsDad]

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

Roleplaying?

Roleplaying exists in DND?

DND is and has historically been an explore, kill, loot game.

People throw a little roleplaying into that, but there are zero roleplaying rules in DND. A few roleplaying guidelines, sure. But, no roleplaying rules. As an example, there are XP rules for combat encounters and XP rules for noncombat encounters (only if a skill challenge is involved) and XP rules for quests, but no XP rules for roleplaying. The skill challenge system in the DMG is terrible and even it tries to distill roleplaying down to a set of dice rolls.

The vast majority of feats are combat feats.

The vast majority of powers are combat powers.

Roleplaying? Please.

Roleplaying in DND is the small amount of glue between encounters. It's the tool used to set the stage for the next set of combat adventures.

When 90+% of the rules are about combat, it's a combat game. Sure, a given group can say "Oh no, we roleplay a lot in our game". But, I seriously think that such people are overemphasizing their roleplaying to seem cool or some such and not actually sitting down and figuring out how much time the PCs explore, kill, and loot, and how much time they actually talk to NPCs or even in character to other PCs. And no, I do not consider making tactical decisions or using a thieving skill for a PC roleplaying. Some people consider that everything their PC does (like walking) is controlled by the player and hence is roleplaying. I don't. I consider roleplaying to be the communication aspects of the game between PCs and NPCs, or PCs and PCs, and the DM telling an interesting and involved story.

Bottom line, DND emphasizes rules and combat over storytelling, plot, and (non-statistics) character development unlike some other RPGs.

Go to YouTube. Watch the DND sessions that people have videoed. A very small percentage of the time is actually spent on roleplaying. As a DND gaming community, we have disillusioned ourselves into believing it isn't so, but it is. Or, secretly video your own sessions without telling the players and afterwards, see how much time was actually spent having the players (including the DM) act in character or the DM relate story elements (such as history or plot) beyond that of the description of the contents of a room.