Proposal: Replace Expertise Related House Rule with Feat Slot
- Thread starter elecgraystone
- Start date
Velmont
First Post
Expertise feat have been created by WotC to correct a math problem that show up in the evolution of the character, which doesn't necessarily show at level 1 yet.
Also, in L4W, we have 25 point buy and not 22 point buy. In the end, if we don't want things to get too easy for players or give more job to the DM to balance the encounter, we want to wait at level 5. That's why we gave the static +1 at level 5 in the first time.
Also, in L4W, we have 25 point buy and not 22 point buy. In the end, if we don't want things to get too easy for players or give more job to the DM to balance the encounter, we want to wait at level 5. That's why we gave the static +1 at level 5 in the first time.
TwoHeadsBarking
First Post
Yes to 10, no to the others. The point (in my mind) isn't to give more feats; it's to correct the design error.
Regarding the 25 point buy, I don't feel that having a 14 rather than a 12 in my tertiary stat is really wrecking the curve. I know that some builds are able to use it better than others, but those extra 3 points aren't making everyone a powerhouse.
Regarding the 25 point buy, I don't feel that having a 14 rather than a 12 in my tertiary stat is really wrecking the curve. I know that some builds are able to use it better than others, but those extra 3 points aren't making everyone a powerhouse.
evilbob
Adventurer
I do think it's funny that somehow according to "the chart" giving out a free feat at level 5 will lead to more diverse characters, but giving out that same feat at level 1 will lead to less diverse characters. It's the same feat, just taken later. "Level of diversity" will be unchanged. If we all had level 10 PCs, I just don't think anyone would even care about that. I still believe the problem with "diversity" is the math issue / feat solution, not when you take the feat.
Not that this seems to matter at the moment, as the judges seem to be in agreement that expertise feats before level 5 is not going to happen regardless.
Not that this seems to matter at the moment, as the judges seem to be in agreement that expertise feats before level 5 is not going to happen regardless.
covaithe
Explorer
No, I wasn't intending to vote no to anything. I don't really mind any of the alternatives, so long as there's some level of consensus. I was (tacitly) agreeing with your suggestion that if more than one passes, we adopt the one with a wider margin of support.
In practice, what those extra three points do is one of two things:
It allows you to take an array of 18/16/10/10/10/8, which with racial bonuses turns into 20/18 in primary and secondary stats. With a 22 point buy, you can only get to 18/14/11/10/10/8. That 2 points in your secondary stat isn't game-breaking, IMO.
The other thing it allows is that it makes it much easier to get to feats or powers that have a requirement of 13 or 15 in a stat that isn't your primary or secondary. E.g., Rain of Blows for a fighter, or most of the multiclass feats. With 22pb, you have to pay a bigger price to get those off stats up. Again, not gamebreaking IMO.
Yeah, I wasn't sure about that cell. I can see your point.
elecgraystone
First Post
Wow. I'm away for a day and this thread explodes. 
If both 6 and 10 pass, I'd say revote and everyone vote for just 6 or 10. If not, the yes/no voters votes count more than the yes/yes voters. (Only Kal, Ozy and THB's votes would really count)
May I ask what you see as the downside of letting the slot be unlimited? IMO I can't see anything lost by it and we'll gain a bit more diversity if some people don't pick an expertise. I can't be the only one that'd pick a non-expertise feat.
If both 6 and 10 pass, I'd say revote and everyone vote for just 6 or 10. If not, the yes/no voters votes count more than the yes/yes voters. (Only Kal, Ozy and THB's votes would really count)
However, not all characters are affected by this math/design error or the character may be happier with another feat. As I showed above, the 20 dex cunning sneak dagger rogue doesn't need more bonuses to hit as he's above the curve as/is. Why force him to be even higher above the norm when he might want something a little more exciting than a plain old +1 to hit?
However you are voting on just that; you're just debating on what feats qualify for the free slot. I'd rather have the option to not take an expertise feat if I wish. I have better things to spend it on than a +1 to hit and it's not like that +1 would matter THAT much the way IC rolls. As someone noted above, nn extra +1 when you roll a 1 or 2 on your D20 doesn't help much.
May I ask what you see as the downside of letting the slot be unlimited? IMO I can't see anything lost by it and we'll gain a bit more diversity if some people don't pick an expertise. I can't be the only one that'd pick a non-expertise feat.
TwoHeadsBarking
First Post
Who doesn't want to hit on a 2? Seriously though, I don't feel like I'm taking anything away from people. Before the proposal, at level 5 you got a +1 to hit. If #10 passes, then after the proposal, at level 5 you will get a +1 to hit with the majority of your attacks.
Yes. I can't deny that I am voting to give people a feat. I'd rather not. I'd rather have #4 win, with some modifications. I liked the old house rule, but I see that it's going to cause problems down the line. So I voted for the choice that a) is most like what we have right now, and b) has a chance of passing.
I don't vote for third parties in politics either
.By the way, personal experiences mean very little to me with regards to probability. For example, I know of at least three times when Haruka has missed an attack by exactly 1, and two of those were with encounter powers (yes, I finally missed with Vampiric Embrace. Hurray for Sacrifice to Caiphon). So if I were using that as my only sample, I would say that a +1 to hit would in fact be extremely useful. However, I still believe that IC is random, and that some people are rather unlucky. If you believe IC is out to get you, why not use a different roller?
The downside is that it doesn't solve the problem as I see it. By the time you hit level 5, you've already chosen a few feats. Expertise isn't going to ruin diversity at that point. That being said, I wouldn't take Expertise at level 5. If given a choice, I wouldn't take it until it jumps to a +2 to hit, even though my "empirical evidence" shows that +1 to hit would be super good. I'd rather have a familiar, or Bravo, or the d8 curse feat.
But the problem, in my view, isn't that characters don't get enough feats. It's the attacks not properly scaling with defenses issue. I think #10 solves it better than #6. I think #6 also solves the issue, don't get me wrong. I just like #10 more. As a judge. As a player, I'd prefer the restriction-less feat.
Argh, I feel like I'm splitting hairs for no reason. They both solve the problem, what does it matter. Yes to #6. And #10. Now #6 is winning. Yay #6.
Similar Threads
D&D 3E/3.5
Homebrew Content
