Does Expertise "Feat Tax" even matter?
- Thread starter catsclaw227
- Start date
catsclaw227
First Post
In a sideways way, this is part of my point. The Expertise bonuses only really start to "matter" at 15th level and get critical at 25th level.
A lot of groups never even get that high. I know mine haven't in a long time.
Nifft save yourself some headache my man. Just give the players +1(+2) bonus to their attack rolls. They update their sheets once, you have to do it for every monsters.
Players are lazy, make them work!
samursus
Explorer
Nifft save yourself some headache my man. Just give the players +1(+2) bonus to their attack rolls. They update their sheets once, you have to do it for every monsters.
Players are lazy, make them work!
On this.... is there any way to do this in CB?? Without changing attributes... and such... a truly universal +1 to all attacks?
catsclaw227
First Post
Not as far as I know, and the Inherent Bonuses are an all-or-none proposition.
Herremann the Wise
First Post
Dungeons & Dragons 4.5! Now that Scott and his promise are out of the way, a revised edition can be made to fix up all the mistakes.
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
Nifft
Penguin Herder
Well... see...
... yeah. PCs are complex in 4e, while monsters are dead simple.
Also, if a mistake slips through on a PC's sheet, it'll affect every encounter forever. If a mistake slips through on a monster's sheet, it'll be crumpled up and thrown away in 10 minutes anyway, so who cares.
So I prefer to see the CB "legal" characters (with no Expertise feats). I like that the CB does the hard work for us. I frequently reskin or tweak monsters anyway, so it's really not a big deal. Monster stats are easy in 4e.
Cheers, -- N
kaomera
Explorer
I've been thinking about this myself, and I'm largely with you on this one.
First of all, yes it matters. If it didn't you wouldn't see so many threads about it. Expertise is the cream of the crop in feats, it's the first non-concept-oriented feat I'll take, pretty much every character I build (and I don't think I can build a character who uses up even 5 feat slots with just flavorful options). My daily and encounter (and sometimes even at-will) powers are pretty much the most interesting thing on my character sheet, and so hitting more often with them is just plain more interesting than pretty much anything another feat can give me. IME if Expertise is available every character is going to going to have it (and if one character has it then every character should, at least by mid-Paragon, in the significant majority of cases), and having that same (or nearly-same) line on every character sheet is just less cool than having something there that would differentiate one character from another. Heck, I could pretty casually fit a second expertise feat in by Paragon (where it matters more, anyway).
It's probably true that if there where no Expertise feats you'd see the same level of discussion regarding some other feat. But Expertise feats are there, and so they are an issue. Feats aren't supposed to be overly powerful in 4e, so I think that concerns about the "best" feats are going to be par for the course.
Secondly, it depends on who's game you are talking about. "The Math" isn't actually broken for everyone, some people played 4e perfectly fine before the PHB2 was released. And there are just so many variables in the game that a +3 bonus is really pretty trivial, overall. But I really, vehemently, feel that there should have been a sidebar discussing the feat and it's implications. (Including a non-feat bonus as an optional rule should have worked as well, but IMO that could well have led to even more arguments and it was reasonable design not to do so.) Unless you're just not playing with the PHB2 someone is bound to have issues with Expertise, one way or another.
First of all, yes it matters. If it didn't you wouldn't see so many threads about it. Expertise is the cream of the crop in feats, it's the first non-concept-oriented feat I'll take, pretty much every character I build (and I don't think I can build a character who uses up even 5 feat slots with just flavorful options). My daily and encounter (and sometimes even at-will) powers are pretty much the most interesting thing on my character sheet, and so hitting more often with them is just plain more interesting than pretty much anything another feat can give me. IME if Expertise is available every character is going to going to have it (and if one character has it then every character should, at least by mid-Paragon, in the significant majority of cases), and having that same (or nearly-same) line on every character sheet is just less cool than having something there that would differentiate one character from another. Heck, I could pretty casually fit a second expertise feat in by Paragon (where it matters more, anyway).
It's probably true that if there where no Expertise feats you'd see the same level of discussion regarding some other feat. But Expertise feats are there, and so they are an issue. Feats aren't supposed to be overly powerful in 4e, so I think that concerns about the "best" feats are going to be par for the course.
Secondly, it depends on who's game you are talking about. "The Math" isn't actually broken for everyone, some people played 4e perfectly fine before the PHB2 was released. And there are just so many variables in the game that a +3 bonus is really pretty trivial, overall. But I really, vehemently, feel that there should have been a sidebar discussing the feat and it's implications. (Including a non-feat bonus as an optional rule should have worked as well, but IMO that could well have led to even more arguments and it was reasonable design not to do so.) Unless you're just not playing with the PHB2 someone is bound to have issues with Expertise, one way or another.
ppaladin123
Adventurer
I'm a bit irked by expertise's racial cousins: feyborn charm, gnome phantasmist, and draconic spellcaster.
Take, "Gnome Phantasmist," for example: +3 bonus to hit with illusion powers if you are a gnome, stacks with expertise. Result: all illusionists are gnomes. Should one feat make a race so much better at a class that you have to have a compelling role playing reason NOT to choose it?
Imagine a poor eladrin illusionist without expertise at level 30.....-6 (!) to hit relative to the optimized gnome.
Take, "Gnome Phantasmist," for example: +3 bonus to hit with illusion powers if you are a gnome, stacks with expertise. Result: all illusionists are gnomes. Should one feat make a race so much better at a class that you have to have a compelling role playing reason NOT to choose it?
Imagine a poor eladrin illusionist without expertise at level 30.....-6 (!) to hit relative to the optimized gnome.
kenmarable
Hero
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.I'm a bit irked by expertise's racial cousins: feyborn charm, gnome phantasmist, and draconic spellcaster.
Take, "Gnome Phantasmist," for example: +3 bonus to hit with illusion powers if you are a gnome, stacks with expertise. Result: all illusionists are gnomes. Should one feat make a race so much better at a class that you have to have a compelling role playing reason NOT to choose it?
Imagine a poor eladrin illusionist without expertise at level 30.....-6 (!) to hit relative to the optimized gnome.
Comparing builds to the average power curve or to monsters makes sense.
Comparing builds to the upper limits and claiming nothing but the most compelling of role playing reasons should prevent that doesn't make sense. Along that path eventually lies "If your 3.5 PCs can't keep up with Pun-Pun, you better have compelling role playing reasons not to!" I don't think a lot of people play that way.
Making sure you are average or above average, sure. Using Pun-Pun as your measuring stick, not so much.
