Does Expertise "Feat Tax" even matter?

[Tequila Sunrise]

Well, they could have done:

1,3,5,7,9 at Heroic
11,13,15,17,19,20 at Paragon
21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 30 at Epic

Then we'd be wondering why they omitted the 10th level feat.

 

[kaomera]

Measuring PC to-hit against monster defenses I can get, whatever my opinion of Expertise, that argument makes sense. But comparing all illusionists to one particular combo and claiming you get a -6 so you need "to have a compelling role playing reason NOT to choose it" is getting onto a dangerous path.

Isn't Expertise the same thing, tho? If you can get a +1/+2/+3 attack bonus, then you must get it? The "sweet spot" in 3.x wasn't a single point, or a percentage to-hit, it was a spread of levels. I don't think simply getting PC bonuses equal to monster bonuses is the point, or else we wouldn't have the idea that PCs and monsters work differently, they'd all just get +level and be done with it...

 

[CapnZapp]

It's not one eighteenth to begin with, because you feel the tax way before level 30.

But even if the tax was just 5.6% (1/18) it'd still be a tax.

The comparison to a game with 17 feats and a built-in expertise bonus simply isn't relevant.

The game was designed to have 18 feat slots. Taxing one to fix something that isn't "there are too many feats" is simply wrong.

In summary: yes, there is a tax, and yes, it does matter.

 

[DEFCON 1]

What I do when I run 4e is:
1/ Ban Expertise. All of them.
2/ Lower all monster defenses by -1 when the PCs hit 11th level, and by another -1 (for a total of -2) when the PCs hit 21st level.

Well that's just great Nifft... now why don't you tell me what *WOTC* should have done?

Because they could not lower all monster defenses by -1 at paragon or -2 at epic. Because that would involve having to re-edit and reprint the entire first Monster Manual. And there's absolutely no way they were going to do that, because it was not financially sound, especially not just to please the few of you who are all up in arms about this.

Do you actually have a solution that WotC could have done to fix the "problem" that didn't involve adding feats? Because if you don't... then you're basically telling us you're complaining for the sake of complaining.

You: "There's a problem with the game!"
WotC: "We don't consider this much of a problem."
You: "You should!"
WotC: "Fine. Have it your way. Here's a solution."
You: "I don't like that solution!"
WotC: "Then don't use it."
You: "You shouldn't have made this solution in the first place! It's not elegant!"
WotC: "Some people wanted a solution, we gave it to you. We don't care if you do or don't use it, or if you make up your own. But for some people, the solution is fine."
You: "You did a bad job!"
WotC: "Okay. Your opinion is noted."
You: "You did a bad job!"
WotC: "Right, you said that."
You: "You did a bad job!"
WotC: "I heard you. But it's too late to do anything about it now."
You: "You did a bad job!"
The rest of us: "Is there a point to all of this?"

 

[Nifft]

Well that's just great Nifft... now why don't you tell me what *WOTC* should have done?

Because they could not lower all monster defenses by -1 at paragon or -2 at epic. Because that would involve having to re-edit and reprint the entire first Monster Manual. And there's absolutely no way they were going to do that, because it was not financially sound, especially not just to please the few of you who are all up in arms about this.

Dude, I'm pointing out rocks.
Stop pretending that I'm throwing them.

Getting tired of this crap, -- N

 

[keterys]

Making sure you are average or above average, sure. Using Pun-Pun as your measuring stick, not so much.

I'm pretty sure 'Gnome Illusionist' is a pretty standard build concept, whereas Pun-Pun was far, far, far, far from it. No comparison.

 

[Cadfan]

DEFCON- This is what I actually see.

Nifft: There's a problem here.
You: No there isn't.
Nifft: Yes there is.
You: No, there isn't. Also here is an assortment of snide remarks, presented for your perusal.
Nifft: Here's an exhaustive explanation of the problem, presented in my trademark extremely short sentences followed by italicized text.
You: Well, unless you have a solution, you're just complaining to complain!
Nifft: Here's my solution.
You: That solution isn't good enough. It has to be one that WotC could implement.
Nifft: I haven't got a solution like that.
You: Then you're just complaining to complain!

Two notes about this. First, you've shifted the topic of conversation pretty significantly. Second, while it hasn't happened yet, I'll note that the usual second act to the goalpost-moving ballet is to shift the goalposts back in subsequent posts, and proclaim that you won the original point. Maybe we can just preempt that part?

 

[Ourph]

Because they could not lower all monster defenses by -1 at paragon or -2 at epic.

Nope, but unlike Nifft's group (who can't edit the Character Builder) it would have been vanishingly easy for WotC to just declare all PCs get a +1/+2/+3 attack bonus at 5th/15th/25th level and then edit the CB software to add those bonuses in where appropriate.

Or they could have left all the math as-is and just recommended in DMG2 that Paragon and Epic level fights would benefit from having a larger number of monsters of slightly lower level.

 

[keterys]

I would love to have a button in the character builder, like the one that gives you automatic +1 to attack & defenses every 5 levels, that stripped out Expertise and added +1 at 5/15/25.

I would extra love if that was adopted by LFR.

 

[Nifft]

Nifft: Here's an exhaustive explanation of the problem, presented in my trademark extremely short sentences followed by italicized text.

Trademark, eh?

"Patent Pending", -- N