Does Expertise "Feat Tax" even matter?

[MrMyth]

I'm part of the camp that doesn't think a fix was particularly needed in the first place, and is especially disappointed in the one they ended up with. On the other hand, feats are plentiful, and I can usually live with one less.

It did bug me when I was looking at a character who wanted to dual-wield two different weapon types (axe and sword, maybe?) and realizing that Expertise was really obnoxious for what would already be a feat-heavy build.

 

[catsclaw227]

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.

In the absence of a flaw, yes the feat is really powerful all by itself.

I am not debating the way the power curve works and there's a clear "hop" in monster defenses in Paragon and Epic. I see and acknowledge it.

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.

Taking the "pay-twice" issue into consideration, I agree the Expertise class of feats were a short-sighted design. But maybe it is the separation of weapon and implement that is the design flaw. Maybe a weapon/implement distinction and the classes that depend upon both are the flaw instead.

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.

Bad at math and ignorance of the newer feat fixes (because there isn't a DDI sub or new books in the gaming group) are an understandable concern.

Maybe the overly vociferous statements by people saying math isn't broken are a reaction to feeling like they are told their PCs suck if they don't take the feat(s).

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.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, but I am simply musing about the idea of whether, in the absence of Expertise feats if a single feat makes that much of a difference.

 

[Nifft]

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?

Losing one feat at 15th level is irrelevant. You're right about that.

But that's not the right way to look at this, because that's not the only effect.

1/ Expertise kicks puppies: those classes / concepts / builds which are already penalized in loot by needing to buy two different weapons, or two different implements, or one implement and one weapon, are further penalized by now needing to spend two different Expertise feats. Rangers excepted, of course.

2/ Expertise gives kittens the finger: racial powers and non-weapon / non-implement attacks (like Bull Rush) get the shaft even harder. It always sucked that they did nothing special on a crit, but now they're -1/-2/-3 behind the curve.

3/ Expertise is bad design: and this is the important one. It doesn't matter if you lose one feat, but it sure as hell matters if you end up paying an ever-increasing number of feats patching holes in their design. For example, Con-based Barbarians were notably easy to hit. What did WotC do in Primal Power? They added a feat which lets a Con-based Barbarian use his Con instead of his Dex for AC.

- - -

Bad design matters. Spending one extra feat ever wouldn't matter, but that's not how the system is shaping up. I guess you could look at this as a "slippery slope" issue, or as the poster child for a whole family of poor mechanics. But it's not the feat itself that I'm are objecting to, it's the bad design, and the growing trend to which it is visibly contributing.

Cheers, -- N

 

[DEFCON 1]

So what exactly was your solution then, Nifft?

And it has to be one that does not include "rewriting" entire books... because WotC can't do that.

 

[catsclaw227]

Losing one feat at 15th level is irrelevant. You're right about that.

But that's not the right way to look at this, because that's not the only effect.

<snip some examples>

- - -

Bad design matters. Spending one extra feat ever wouldn't matter, but that's not how the system is shaping up. I guess you could look at this as a "slippery slope" issue, or as the poster child for a whole family of poor mechanics. But it's not the feat itself that I'm are objecting to, it's the bad design, and the growing trend to which it is visibly contributing.

I wonder why they didn't just create a simple "Combat Expertise" feat that grants +1/+2/+3 at 5/15/25? None of this silly weapon/implement dependent stuff, but then they would be acknowledging the perceived flaw in the monster defense progression.

I still say that the monster defenses were fine, and bringing in the whole Expertise thing was a terrible can of worms.

Now it seems they are obsessed with fixing every minor math-like tweak they can with feats.

(And, IMHO, the reason the CON barbarian was easy to hit was because they can do dish some massive damage. Man, the barbarian in our party last session was a beast. Something to counter the hurt he puts on my poor monsters.... )

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

If the math had been smoothed over from the very start (with a built in +1/+2/+3 at 5/15/25) and there was one less feat gained on the leveling chart, would people be complaining? I doubt it. Having seventeen feats is really quite a lot, and I believe that very few would have batted an eyelash.

Wouldn't have happened, had the math been fixed from the start. 4e is very regimented: you get a feat at the first level of each tier and a feat at every even level. But for the sake of outlandish argument, if the first level feat had been omitted, half of us would be saying 'WTH, no feat at first level?' And adding a first level feat to the game would be as common as the Free Expertise house rule.

Is it really a tax?

If the government charges you $1 for your high school diploma, is it really a tax? It's only a dollar; you'll make a bunch more throughout your life. Besides, you don't really need to be recognized as an intelligent educated person -- you can choose to do without a diplomac. It'll make your life a little harder but you might have other qualifications, even if they're not nearly as productive.

If that can be quantified, we might begin to understand why some people just don't care about the feat tax.

I already know why some players don't mind the feat tax:

1. They rarely play beyond the heroic tier so they never experience the potential issues,

2. They're not math inclined so even if they have the issue explained to them it's too abstract,

3. They're fundamentally trusting, and have faith that WotC designed the best game possible,

4. They have faith in their DM to take care of the issue, if WotC somehow messed up,

5. Or they like optional bonuses, even if they'd be better off getting those bonuses for free.

 

[Nifft]

I wonder why they didn't just create a simple "Combat Expertise" feat that grants +1/+2/+3 at 5/15/25? None of this silly weapon/implement dependent stuff, but then they would be acknowledging the perceived flaw in the monster defense progression.

I'll bet that exact feat will be in PHB4, since PHB3 has "Focused Expertise" -- which is like two Expertise feats in one.

I still say that the monster defenses were fine, and bringing in the whole Expertise thing was a terrible can of worms.

Exactly. One of two things is true:
1/ The feat was unnecessary, and introducing it was bad because it's overpowered.
2/ The feat was necessary because of the math, but it's still bad because it is a bad way to fix the math.

There's no scenario where the feat is a better idea than the alternatives.

Now it seems they are obsessed with fixing every minor math-like tweak they can with feats.

(And, IMHO, the reason the CON barbarian was easy to hit was because they can do dish some massive damage. Man, the barbarian in our party last session was a beast. Something to counter the hurt he puts on my poor monsters.... )

Personally, I had though the Con Barbarian used his Temp HP as ablative defense: he didn't much care if you hit him, since he could take that hit and more.

If anything, I'd give him some advantage in saving throws, because save-ends stuff is the other downside of being hit a lot. But I didn't dislike the low AC.

Eh, going off-topic.

Cheers, -- N

 

[DEFCON 1]

Exactly. One of two things is true:
1/ The feat was unnecessary, and introducing it was bad because it's overpowered.
2/ The feat was necessary because of the math, but it's still bad because it is a bad way to fix the math.

So what's your solution, Nifft?

 

[catsclaw227]

Wouldn't have happened, had the math been fixed from the start. 4e is very regimented: you get a feat at the first level of each tier and a feat at every even level. But for the sake of outlandish argument, if the first level feat had been omitted, half of us would be saying 'WTH, no feat at first level?' And adding a first level feat to the game would be as common as the Free Expertise house rule.

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

Yes, it would have given you a string of feats at 19,20,21, but that's a good place to stack an extra feat (20th) because that's on the crux of being EPIC. and getting a bonus feat at 20th sounds like an EPIC good time.

Obviously, they would have had to slightly change the levels of the power progression, but it could have worked. I came up with the revised feat progression in about 10 seconds, and I imagine that a couple of days with some smart designers and developers would have been able to make it work.

The key here is that WOTC didn't see that there was problem (sensing that the monster defenses were just fine as they were). Once they got pressured to fix it by their math-wizard fans, I think that's when the spiral occurred.

They couldn't reprint the PHB (or the MM1 if they simply reduced the defenses of paragon and epic monsters) so they ended up fixing it with feats.

 

[Nifft]

So what's your solution, Nifft?

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.

It's dead simple, and I usually reformat / tweak monsters while laying their stats out on my "encounter" page anyway, so it's not much extra work for me.

Cheers, -- N