Expertise justification?

[eriktheguy]

Alright, but what about the case player that really, really wants to make a "Quick Draw" character, mostly for reasons of Role-playing (or other feat-covered possible aspect of a character, such as dual-wielding Wands or having an off-hand Shortsword). Is it a "Feat Tax" because he feels it necessary to spend a feat on a choice to do something specific, and that it is better than all other feats?

Because that is what the Expertise-class feats are- a choice to be pretty darn good at a certain aspect of your character. The single feat "tax" isn't out-and-out better to choose for a character that mixes-and-matches power selection, such as a Cleric or Bard or even a Dragonborn Bullrush specialist.


[/LIST]

A feat being necessary to specialize in something doesn't seem like a feat tax to me. It seems like customization. Feat taxes like expertise are applied across the board and do not have any visible difference in gameplay. A player that hits because of the +1 from expertise doesn't feel special, because it was not 'their idea' to take the feat, and they are no different than anyone else. A player that is more prepared because of 'quick draw', blocks an attack because of 'two weapon defense', or lands a blow because of 'anger unleashed' feels special, because an ability specific to their character made them more successful. And although expertise isn't the best choice for all character builds, it is the best choice for the vast majority.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

A feat being necessary to specialize in something doesn't seem like a feat tax to me.

A player that hits because of the +1 from expertise doesn't feel special, because it was not 'their idea' to take the feat, and they are no different than anyone else.

But isn't specialixing in accuracy the same thing...and when the guy with 20 prime stat, expertise, high + weap/imp and all the condtional mods possible hits for the 7th round in a row, on a nat 4 going to feel his choices made a diffrence when for the last 7 rounds the rest of your group has only hit 4 out of 7 times each???

meanwhile the guy who took the def feats gets missed over and over again...

 

[Lauberfen]

Not really- specialising in accuracy = specialising in hitting with your powers = most of what you do. Specialising in accuracy is the same as specialising in being an effective character, in almost all cases. For example, you might argue that a choice between weapon focus and expertise is a choice between damage and accuracy. However in almost all instances expertise will increase your damage per round more than focus will. Therefore it's not a choice about specialisation, it's a choice about effectiveness.

 

[Nail]

Not really- specialising in accuracy = specialising in hitting with your powers = most of what you do. Specialising in accuracy is the same as specialising in being an effective character, in almost all cases.

Yup. Arguing the other side of this ignores what this feat does for all PCs.

For example, you might argue that a choice between weapon focus and expertise is a choice between damage and accuracy. However in almost all instances expertise will increase your damage per round more than focus will.

Much depends on your average damage per attack, and what rider effects there are if the attack hits. If you average less than 11 hp per successful attack (in Heroic Tier), you might be better off with Weapon Focus.

Run the numbers to see what I mean.

Ave. Dam per attack = (P-0.05)*Dave + 0.05*(Dmax+Dcrit)

 

[Lauberfen]

Exactly. I've found by experience that people who are more accurate also do fair damage (e.g. my rogue), and this combined with the need to hit with encounters/dailies makes me inclined to go for hitting eve if there is a slight loss of DPR with at-wills.

Crudely put, the best way to optimise damage is to get your chance of hitting and your average damage to be as balanced as you can- just like with multiplying numbers, this gives the biggest result. So hitting half the time for 10 damage is better than hittng 0.05 less or more for 1 more or less damage per blow.

 

[Stalker0]

In 4e, accuracy is a lot more important for four reasons:

1) Damage Reduction is mostly gone. In 3.5, in many cases a fighter fought creatures that had a lot of DR. Accurate hitting doesn't help if your attacks do less damage...its better to have big powerful attacks.

2) Secondary effects. Even for fighters, almost every power has a rider when you hit. To me this is the biggest boost to the importance of accuracy.

3) The removal of the auto hitting first attack. At high levels a fighter's primary attack almost always hit. And in many cases he only got one attack do to moving, charging, whatever. In those circumstances he gets one big powerful swing, and adding damage becomes more important, as the accuracy is already there.

4) Monsters can take the pain. In 3e, there was a good chance a high damage fighter could take out a monster if he hit a few times in the same round. Sure the chances of hitting were lower, but there was a huge tactical advantage to taking out a monster very quickly. In 4e even if you rack up your damage you are unlikely to ever get to that level (although I've made an epic level barbarian that might question that).


Now all of that considered, I don't think a +1 to attack rolls is necessarily too strong (I think its certainly better than +1 to damage, but not an automatic pick). But once the bonus gets to +2 there's no better feat, and at +3 its ridiculously good.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

But isn't specialixing in accuracy the same thing...and when the guy with 20 prime stat, expertise, high + weap/imp and all the condtional mods possible hits for the 7th round in a row, on a nat 4 going to feel his choices made a diffrence when for the last 7 rounds the rest of your group has only hit 4 out of 7 times each???

meanwhile the guy who took the def feats gets missed over and over again...

Not really- specialising in accuracy = specialising in hitting with your powers = most of what you do.

Inless you are a warlord specilizing in giveing other people attacks...

Specialising in accuracy is the same as specialising in being an effective character, in almost all cases. For example, you might argue that a choice between weapon focus and expertise is a choice between damage and accuracy.

Ok, so you chose what feat to complair it to...easy to make an argument that way isn;t it...try compairing it to rit caster, toughness, and frost touched...or how about backstabber.

However in almost all instances expertise will increase your damage per round more than focus will. Therefore it's not a choice about specialisation, it's a choice about effectiveness.

so you just show witch of two feats are better, way to go it is a great start...how many feats left to go???

Yup. Arguing the other side of this ignores what this feat does for all PCs.

makes them more accurat and with it more damaging...but what if my character is accurat enough and does enough damage without it...can't I choose to tak another feat to round out my character in a diffrent way. ESPEACIALY if I am not the striker of the party...

Run the numbers to see what I mean.

ok for everyone that likes running numbers lets see how your numbers handle this little fact:

[sblock=numbers for the number crunchers] The whole game is NOT just about your numbers. Expertise helps you 1 in 20 times from 1st to 15th, then 2 in 20 till 25th then 3 in 20 till 30.

lets say that you avarage 7 out of 10 encounters are combat that matter in a major way, and it takes an avrage of 10 encounters to level, and each encounter avrages 11 attacks (that is every other one getting the AP).

so about 77 attacks per level, lets round that up to 100 just for ease of numbers, and to acount for aoe and double strike people. 1500 attacks at +1, then 1000 attacks at +2 and 1000 attacks at +3

so 75 times at +1, 100 times at +2, and 150 times at +3

on avrage 325 times out of 3500 attacks this feat will affect. So you will hit about 11% more often.

So if you play over 30 levels, taking about 2 games to each level, and gaming once a week it will take over a year of gameing (60 games/weeks). So on avrage that is 5 to six attacks per game that this will effect, or about 1 per encounter. [/sblock]

yea that looks so impressive now doesn't it...

 

[Nail]

<chuckle>

 

[GMforPowergamers]

<chuckle>

WOW...just wow...

is that what happens when people disagree around here, we laugh at eachother...I thought we were talking, I guess you have your mind made up, and are nolonger really part of this...

 

[Nail]

I'm having some difficulty following your post. Could you clarify a bit?

It seems that you are claiming a +1 bonus is only a small increase in the chance to hit.....and I don't know that anyone is arguing that.