Expertise justification?

[Plane Sailing]

I'd like to hear their reasoning too.

It seems unlikely that they would say mea culpa, we got the maths wrong and needed to introduce a fix, as few people are prepared to admit mistakes in design (thinks back to the 3.0 Halfling Outrider(?) as the most egregarious example, and that was only typography!). However, it would be refreshing if that was the case here - although even then, one wonders why they would do this feat based fix rather than issue errata... surely a better solution for design problems?

Cheers

 

[jasin]

few people are prepared to admit mistakes in design (thinks back to the 3.0 Halfling Outrider(?) as the most egregarious example, and that was only typography!)

Refresh my memory, what was wrong with it? It didn't have BAB or had some crazy jump in BAB like +8, +9, +20, something like that, right?

 

[CapnZapp]

Refresh my memory, what was wrong with it? It didn't have BAB or had some crazy jump in BAB like +8, +9, +20, something like that, right?

Google found this for me:

the Halfling Outrider prestige class was missing the Base Attack Bonus progression entirely in the first printing

Dungeons & Dragons - 3rdedition - Reviews - Complete Warrior Review

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Combat Reflexes is also a published feat in the core book. It provides a lower bonus that only applies to a subset of situations and has a prerequisite, making it obviously, undeniably weaker.

And one of the goals of 4E was balance. So what's up? Is Combat Reflexes hopelessly useless? Is Weapon Expertise grossly overpowered? Is this a feature, with Combat Reflexes providing diminishing returns for those who really want to boost their opportunity attacks, after they've already taken Weapon Expertise? If so, why is this additional feat published a year before the more basic one?
.

I think the problem is that when they started they were very careful about attack bonuses...then one day they said "You know it doesn't hurt to give bigger ones, and people want more" so they tried it and then put it out. People just like to over react and yell broken. when the truth is PHBI was just too careful, the feat is fine...

 

[Ryujin]

Then the question would be, "Why release a feat that effectively supercedes all of the previous ones, that have conditional bonuses?"

 

[jasin]

I think the problem is that when they started they were very careful about attack bonuses...then one day they said "You know it doesn't hurt to give bigger ones, and people want more" so they tried it and then put it out. People just like to over react and yell broken. when the truth is PHBI was just too careful, the feat is fine...

So Weapon Expertise is fine, it's just the PHB1 feats that suck?

Still not very encouraging of trust in the designers' decisions.

 

[Nail]

It's a published, errated feat in a main book, arguably a core book. They made the game, they should know it better than you, and one of the goals of 4E was balance. Why wouldn't you allow it? What is the DM's reasoning?

"Because he'd like to know why WotC made such an obviously superior feat."

 

[Nail]

And one of the goals of 4E was balance. So what's up? Is Combat Reflexes hopelessly useless? Is Weapon Expertise grossly overpowered? Is this a feature, with Combat Reflexes providing diminishing returns for those who really want to boost their opportunity attacks, after they've already taken Weapon Expertise?

Right.

I'd like to know: Why create these feats?

The reasons I can think of:

• Original designers canned --> it's the economy, stupid!
• Designers have decided that giving bonuses to hit is no big deal, and that PH1 feats are too weak.
• Math hole discovered; original math is off and this is steath errata.
• Designers realized high level team-tactics don't compensate for poorer to hit.
• Powercreep to sell books.
• Hitting is fun, so more hitting is more fun! This game is about fun maximization!!
• The feats are a mistake.

 

[Nail]

I too am of the opinion WotC really need to break the silence on the Expertise feats.

Perhaps they have already? Any chatter on the WotC boards that I missed??

I'd like to hear their reasoning too.

It seems unlikely that they would say mea culpa, we got the maths wrong and needed to introduce a fix, as few people are prepared to admit mistakes in design (thinks back to the 3.0 Halfling Outrider(?) as the most egregarious example, and that was only typography!). However, it would be refreshing if that was the case here - although even then, one wonders why they would do this feat based fix rather than issue errata... surely a better solution for design problems?

.....Halfling Outrider.....<shudder>

 

[tiornys]

In one of my gaming groups we're discussing the Expertise line of feats. The DM is leary of allowing them, and would like to see some justification. Help would be appreciated.

The expertise feats are probably a mathematical patch in the form of feats. Problem is, if they're meant to be a mathematical patch, they shouldn't be feats, because they are massively overpowered as feats.

So, here's what I'd say to your DM: player attack rates and defenses (except AC) scale at a lower rate than monster attack rates and defenses. The expertise feats and the epic defense feats look like they're meant to bring the scaling back to 1 for 1. If you think that's good for the game, lose the feats, and just apply +1 to attacks and non-AC defenses at level 5, +2 at level 15, and +3 at level 25. If you don't think the game needs the scaling fixed, just lose the feats.

If you're interested in a deeper analysis and (exceedingly) thorough discussion, here's the thread for it.

Additionally, I have a related question: "Has WotC released any official justification for the feats?" Has there been a design article in DDI that's discussed what their thinking was? In Dragon, mayhap? Is this just errata wrapped around a feat, or is it an honest choice, meant to be balanced with other feats?

No official word yet.

t~