Does Expertise "Feat Tax" even matter?

[keterys]

because they are the ones who have this imaginary idea about how the "math should work"

Actually, many people who dislike Expertise and call it a tax don't necessarily subscribe to that.

But for the rest of us?... quite honestly negligible for 95% of us playing the game. They are there if we want them, but we don't in any way feel as though we need them.

I play or DM in several different groups of folks... about 40 or so people overall. Many, many of them do not care about the math, absolutely, but very, very few don't take Expertise at some point. Perhaps 5%. If that.

So your statistic may not be particularly representative.

Also, once again it is worth note that any discussion of Expertise should mostly worry about it for 15th level or later.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I play or DM in several different groups of folks... about 40 or so people overall. Many, many of them do not care about the math, absolutely, but very, very few don't take Expertise at some point. Perhaps 5%. If that.

But are they taking the feat because they just think it's useful to them and a good choice, or are they taking it because "OMG, IF I DON'T HAVE THIS FEAT I'M NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO TAKE ON DEMOGORGON, SO GOODBYE LONG JUMPER, I WISH I COULD HAVE YOU, BUT I HAAAAAAAAAVE TO HAVE EXPERTISE, OTHERWISE I'M SCREWED!!!"?

My guess is, it's the former. And in that case, its identity as a "tax" is negligible... because they weren't forced to pay it... they decided for themselves that "hey, this is a good feat, I think it's be a good choice for my character". Just like the decision they make for any of the feats they take.

 

[keterys]

But are they taking the feat because they just think it's useful to them and a good choice, or are they taking it because "OMG, IF I DON'T HAVE THIS FEAT I'M NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO TAKE ON DEMOGORGON, SO GOODBYE LONG JUMPER, I WISH I COULD HAVE YOU, BUT I HAAAAAAAAAVE TO HAVE EXPERTISE, OTHERWISE I'M SCREWED!!!"?

My guess is, it's the former. And in that case, its identity as a "tax" is negligible... because they weren't forced to pay it... they decided for themselves that "hey, this is a good feat, I think it's be a good choice for my character". Just like the decision they make for any of the feats they take.

I imagine it doesn't matter _why_ they took it, so much that they took it, instead of some other feat. I think you're splitting that particular hair a little fine.

 

[catsclaw227]

Only if they use a singular type of weapon and implement, such as a 'longsword'. Good for swordmages, less good for paladins, artificers, etc.

Ahh yes. You are right. I think there are some items or feats that let you convert your weapon into an implement as well, like a Songblade for bards, right?

I am digging around, but I swear that I saw a feat or something that let a paladin or artificer use their weapon as an implement.

Also, once again it is worth note that any discussion of Expertise should mostly worry about it for 15th level or later.

This is important to note.

I wonder how many people have played or plan to play their PCs out to 25th level? I have seen some one-shot or mini-campaigns in epic, but I don't know many groups that will end up going 1-30. That's a lot of gaming and an unfortunate fact is that some groups don't stay together or play the same campaign that long.

 

[Nifft]

Ahh yes. You are right. I think there are some items or feats that let you convert your weapon into an implement as well, like a Songblade for bards, right?

There are certain types of magic weapons that can be used as both by Paladins (e.g. Holy Avengers).

I wonder how many people have played or plan to play their PCs out to 25th level? I have seen some one-shot or mini-campaigns in epic, but I don't know many groups that will end up going 1-30. That's a lot of gaming and an unfortunate fact is that some groups don't stay together or play the same campaign that long.

I'm not seeing the logic here. Could you spell out what you mean by this?

Cheers, -- N

 

[DEFCON 1]

I imagine it doesn't matter _why_ they took it, so much that they took it, instead of some other feat. I think you're splitting that particular hair a little fine.

On the contrary... this is EXACTLY the point upon which all the discussion and complaints are hinged. The only people who are complaining about this being a "feat tax" are the ones that keep saying they HAVE to take it. It is not a choice. There is a definitive progression of useful feats and Expertise is at the top. If you don't select it, then you "are not doing your job". (Their words, not mine. Go check out some of the other threads if you don't believe me.)

THOSE are the people who are feeling PUNISHED by the feat's very existance. They are LOSING a valuable feat slot because they have to take Expertise instead. Do any of your 40 players feel like they are being punished... like WotC is slapping them in the face... because these feats exist? Because believe me... there are plenty of people on these boards who feel as though they are.

And those are the people who just won't be satisfied regardless of the steps WotC takes, or the explanations they give.

 

[Nifft]

On the contrary... this is EXACTLY the point upon which all the discussion and complaints are hinged. The only people who are complaining about this being a "feat tax" are the ones that keep saying they HAVE to take it. It is not a choice. There is a definitive progression of useful feats and Expertise is at the top. If you don't select it, then you "are not doing your job". (Their words, not mine. Go check out some of the other threads if you don't believe me.)

THOSE are the people who are feeling PUNISHED by the feat's very existance. They are LOSING a valuable feat slot because they have to take Expertise instead. Do any of your 40 players feel like they are being punished... like WotC is slapping them in the face... because these feats exist? Because believe me... there are plenty of people on these boards who feel as though they are.

And those are the people who just won't be satisfied regardless of the steps WotC takes, or the explanations they give.

I'm sure "THOSE people" appreciate your characterization.

- - -

@ catsclaw227: From the other thread, here is how the "math gap" conversation went before the Expertise feats appeared, and some hints as to why those of us who don't like them feel they were a bad idea:

1. WotC: Hey guys! We did a ton of work to make sure 4e plays just like the sweet spot of 3e, all the way from level 1 through level 30! We did a lot of math! We even hired some math dudes who can model combat outcomes using reverse binomial distributions!

2. Fans: Hooray!

3. WotC: *publishes PHB1 and MM1*

4. Fans: Hoor-- wait a second! The math is somewhat wonky! This guy ran the numbers on monster defenses, and this other guy ran the math for expected loot, and when you put the numbers side by side, they don't match! It's 15% easier to hit level-appropriate foes at 1st than it is at 30th!

5. Fans (a): Maybe that's because your PCs have more options at high level, and more magic item uses, and your Leaders give higher bonuses and this is okay because blah blah blah ...

6. Fans (b): No way, monsters inflict more & harsher conditions, and monsters have a VERY easy time hitting your lowest defense (which you will have because you can only raise two stats) and this is bad because blah blah blah...

7. WotC: Oh hey guys, buy this new book! *publishes PHB2*

8. Fans (a) and (b): Well I'll be damned. They were wrong about having the math all worked out, and their fix is lame.

9. Fans (c): So my dual-wielding sword/dagger Paladin/Warlock has to take Expertise four times? That sucks.

10. Fans (a) and (b): Shut up, Fans (c). Everyone else hates Paladins.

11. WotC: Hey guys, in PHB3 there's a better Expertise! We put it in for the Monk, because otherwise he'd have to take Expertise twice!

12. Fans (c): ... like my Paladin, you mean?

13. WotC: Shut up, Fans (c). We hate Paladins too. *publishes Divine Power* Wait, actually we love Paladins.

- - -

The important part there is step 8. Pretty much everyone who was aware of the mathematical disconnect -- be they group (a) or group (b) -- agrees that the fix is poor. Some of us think it wasn't necessary, others think that WotC should have just fixed the monster stats: not hard to do since they have total control over the DDI Compendium and the Monster Builder.

Cheers, -- N

 

[catsclaw227]

I wonder how many people have played or plan to play their PCs out to 25th level? I have seen some one-shot or mini-campaigns in epic, but I don't know many groups that will end up going 1-30. That's a lot of gaming and an unfortunate fact is that some groups don't stay together or play the same campaign that long.

I'm not seeing the logic here. Could you spell out what you mean by this?

Sure. I am sorta all over the board on this topic, but the gist of my posts have been, essentially, how much value does a single feat have?

And, if the value of the Expertise feat is most important at 25th level, how often will it come into play?

My point was, if the math was fixed from the beginning granting each character a +1/+2/+3 at 5/15/25 levels, but the PCs were given one less feat during their progression, would anyone have even noticed the one less feat? If I was only given 9 feats by 16th level instead of 10 feats, would I even notice?

 

[Cadfan]

1. Its not the feat's existence that grates. Its the flaw that the feat exists to correct. Note that if there is in fact no flaw, then the feat is incredibly, incredibly broken- which is itself a flaw.

2. The amount of the feat tax isn't that high. But its still annoying. And its doubly annoying because of the way it double hits you if you try to create a character outside of the box. For example, want to make a dragonborn fighter/sorcerer? Congrats, now you have a weapon and a separate implement. Pay the tax twice. And then you still won't get the benefit with your breath weapon.

3. Things are particularly bad for people who are bad at math, or who, in an excess of fervor, refuse to acknowledge math so as to not give in to people who they feel are preaching to them about the importance of optimization.

4. The views expressed in this thread vis a vis coercion version compulsion would be refined with a bit of time in a freshman philosophy class debating the means by which the existence of free will does or does not negate the importance of influences and consequences imposed on you as a result of your decisions.

 

[catsclaw227]

@ catsclaw227: From the other thread, here is how the "math gap" conversation went before the Expertise feats appeared, and some hints as to why those of us who don't like them feel they were a bad idea:

<snip DM-Player conversation>

The important part there is step 8. Pretty much everyone who was aware of the mathematical disconnect -- be they group (a) or group (b) -- agrees that the fix is poor. Some of us think it wasn't necessary, others think that WotC should have just fixed the monster stats: not hard to do since they have total control over the DDI Compendium and the Monster Builder.

Yes, I read this in the "fixed math" thread.

I didn't agree that the fix was poor (or even necessary), but that the monsters were just more difficult at 25th level, relatively speaking, to kill than the ones we fought at 2nd level.

I see it as a math fix, yes, but I didn't see a need to fix it in the first place. Now that they have added in these feats, I am looking at it from a different angle.

Is the cost of a single feat enough to justify all the teeth gnashing or are we simply spoiled by the number of feats we got? Without the Expertise class of feats, is there a mathematical significance between 10 feats at 16th or 9 feats at 16th?