poll on Expertise...Forked Thread: Expertise justification?

[keterys]

I'd actually rate it a a fair bit less strongly than doubling the number of inspiring words. You get 3-4+ dice of healing at that level, which can be appreciable, and you often just don't want to heal two people at once.

But boy did we sidetrack

 

[Mistwell]

This poll assumes the expertise line of feats is about the math, no matter what you answer.

I disagree with that assumption.

I think you can believe the feats are fine, and simultaneous want WOTC to change some math. And that option is not available in this poll.

 

[Oompa]

It's even simpeler..

If a player creates a character he loves, but is not optimal, you as a DM should take this in note and not throw hard monsters to hit in a encounter...

If you have a mixed party with optimal and sub-obtimal characters, just throw in a mix of enemies..

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I am shocked...I may have to admit I was wrong...so far only 1/3 of the people think like I do...however I do atleast feel justified in feeling this was an issue with multi side...

 

[Eldorian]

It's even simpeler..

If a player creates a character he loves, but is not optimal, you as a DM should take this in note and not throw hard monsters to hit in a encounter...

If you have a mixed party with optimal and sub-obtimal characters, just throw in a mix of enemies..

... And hope that your crappy character fights your crappy monster and it isn't in fact the optimized character who kills everything?


Expertise is a stupid feat. I don't know why this gets argued. It's mathematically better than every other offensive feat after 15. It's strictly better than many other feats which are considered very good, such as nimble blade.

 

[eriktheguy]

I play a warlord. Often my ability to contribute to the fight hinges on whether I can hit with my daily. I am usually forced to take expertise over my other feats because what they do is nothing compared to hitting or missing with a daily. I used to use a polearm for some cool strategy at levels 1-3, but I don't anymore. It has -3 compared to my sword (lower enhancement, lower proficiency, no expertise) and I can't afford to shell out a feat just to use it occasionally. So now my character is less interesting and more homogenized thanks to feat tax.

If I have to keep paying this feat tax, I want free health care for my PCs.

 

[brehobit]

Wah! My opinion isn't there.

It's a math hack that's not a bad idea, but implemented horribly. It becomes a "must have feat" that is strictly better than many others (though it stacks with them). It also discourages characters taking more than one weapon/implement (say a STR/WIS cleric) and that already gets trashed badly by 4e.

It's just a horrible way to do something that only maybe needed to be done and is a net loss to the game as it reduces either flexibility or equity.

 

[Flipguarder]

I just thought of something

Is it possible ... just possible that wotc thought that BOTH

1. We had maybe one too many feats at paragon, and epic.
2. We had too low to hit in the respective tiers.

Thus they killed two birds with one stone?

 

[eriktheguy]

I just thought of something

Is it possible ... just possible that wotc thought that BOTH

1. We had maybe one too many feats at paragon, and epic.
2. We had too low to hit in the respective tiers.

Thus they killed two birds with one stone?

Possible, but unlikely. It's a heroic level feat, so all they are doing is limiting your selction of heroic level feats, not your paragon or epic feats. Additionally, most feats add situational modifiers rather than solid modifiers so those feats probably give you less of a bonus than expertise could.

What I'm saying is, it would be very hard to argue that traditional feats make characters so powerful that they need to be limited. You could probably give a group of paragon or epic characters a handful more heroic feats for free without upsetting the balance much. It's like giving them more at-wills, it would only give them more options, not make their current attacks more powerful.

The only situation I can think of where feats stack for a bonus to a single number is for a caster with no armor proficiency to become proficient with hide and heavy shields (5 feats). I don't think that this needs nerfing though.

 

[KarinsDad]

What I'm saying is, it would be very hard to argue that traditional feats make characters so powerful that they need to be limited.

Yup. Even harder to argue that they needed to be limited by giving them the most potent feat the game system has ever seen.