Does Expertise "Feat Tax" even matter?

[kenmarable]

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...

I thought the math problem behind all of the Expertise discussion was that at Epic levels monster defenses outpace PC to-hits? At least that's how I've seen it explained. By level 30, monster defenses outpace standard PC attack bonuses by 3 or 4, and this is "the flaw in the math".

Did I misinterpret it or was it explained to me wrong?

(Oh, and I actually have the same issue with Expertise - the presumption that you *must* take it even though thousands of people played quite happily without and continue to do so, yet we're labeled as "bad at math" or have some "excess fervor to prove the mathematicians wrong" or "aren't doing our job". How many people played Epic levels and *actually noticed the problem in play* as opposed to how many looked at a 30th level PC vs a 30th level monster and noticed the numbers didn't line up?)

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

I have no problem with gnome illusionists. My problem was with the line of reasoning that "there's a combo that gives a bigger plus, so why would anyone possibly want to do something different?" Making sure you meet or exceed the assumed power curve is one thing. Chasing bonuses beyond that point at all costs is an entirely different matter, and is what I was referencing.

"Why would anyone not want the biggest plus they possibly get?" isn't a philosophy everyone ascribes to, even if the mathematicians can't grasp that. Not every illusionist will be a gnome. Not every PC will take Expertise. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised to see a few really interesting (and still capable) dragonborn illusionists without Expertise.

 

[keterys]

Of course. You could also have a fighter in 3e who spent all their base feats on Toughness and their bonus feats on Weapon Focus in every weapon, so they could be a Weapon Master like in the Wishsong of Shannara...

Or in one game where someone started doing magic item creation and between one adventure and the next upped two of the ACs in the party by 16 each (luck, animated shield, etc).

Which is a failure of the system to create a situation in which a player, knowingly or not, either shoots themselves in the foot to such a large extent -or- can vastly outstrip someone not looking for the best combination.

 

[kenmarable]

Of course. You could also have a fighter in 3e who spent all their base feats on Toughness and their bonus feats on Weapon Focus in every weapon, so they could be a Weapon Master like in the Wishsong of Shannara...

Or in one game where someone started doing magic item creation and between one adventure and the next upped two of the ACs in the party by 16 each (luck, animated shield, etc).

Which is a failure of the system to create a situation in which a player, knowingly or not, either shoots themselves in the foot to such a large extent -or- can vastly outstrip someone not looking for the best combination.

Yep, and from what I hear and can tell so far, 4e balances all that out to a great deal. Of course, it's a practically impossible task to completely eliminate the issue while still allowing a great deal of variation, but I really like how 4e has narrowed that gap between "shooting in the foot" and "completely outstripping the party". The power range from strongest PC to weakest doesn't feel as noticeable as before (and as better balanced 3.5 was over 2e, we definitely had some variation among PCs that was noticeable and did indeed impact the fun. With 4e nothing yet.).

In fact, because 4e does a good job of narrowing the power range, I would think there would be less proscribing "you have to take this combo or you're no good". For some reason, however, I see a heck of a lot more of that with 4e than I have with any previous edition. It's not statements like "combo X is great", but statements to the effect of "why the heck would anyone not use combo X?" or "every single PC of this class will automatically be this race with these feats". If it's much harder to shoot yourself in the foot with 4e, who cares if people don't take Expertise? Who cares is someone makes an illusionist that isn't a gnome? Maybe being "good enough" matters more than waving around a to-hit bonus that's bigger than everyone else's.

In my mind, Expertise is not a feat tax, because you don't *need* to take it. For various reasons*, in actual play experience the math gap probably isn't noticeable. And having a gnome illusionist or dragonborn illusionist probably isn't going to make the game noticeably any more or less fun.


* (That's a whole other discussion I might blog about or something. But at the very least many people who have played Epic have claimed to never have actually felt the math gap.)

 

[Herschel]

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.

I still think they simply tried to make a feat choice to make non-standard race/class combos viable. Unfortunately, it opened a can of worms for those who try to tweak the numbers. A series of racial or class feats would likely have been better from that standpoint, but somewhat more........"complex", for lack of a better term.

However, of the two, I definitely can understand seeing it as #1. It is extremely powerful when epic hits. I'm okay with making a tough choice between boosts in accuracy, damage, or defense. For myself, accuracy and defense usually win. That's why I don't play crit-fishing characters. I don't think I would have a character without it.

I can also agree with what you wrote in another thread about that can of worms inserting a piece of system mastery in a game where they had done a nice job of getting away from those requirements.

So I can see why people have an issue with it and I would not give out the bonus for "free" in a game. Had the feat simply been a +1 across the board instead of scaling it may have not opened the can of worms, but not really helped non-standard race/class combos enough either.

I'm of the thought that the game should get "tougher" as you get in to paragon and especially epic. You've developed a character from early levels and generally played along side the rest of the party. One should understand better how to work together and how to tactically operate. The bad guys should be bigger and badder. That's why it's "Epic".

 

[Nifft]

I still think they simply tried to make a feat choice to make non-standard race/class combos viable.

No, because then it would be open to only those combos, like Hellfire Blood is only open to Tieflings (and it does a decent job at making them tolerable Con-based Warlocks).

They can make (and have made) race + class specific feats. These feats are also a good revenue sources, since they keep publishing new races & classes, so the number of combinations is only going to increase over time.

So: if you are right about their intent, they've failed, and they've shot their profits in the foot.

Cheers, -- N

 

[kaomera]

I thought the math problem behind all of the Expertise discussion was that at Epic levels monster defenses outpace PC to-hits? At least that's how I've seen it explained. By level 30, monster defenses outpace standard PC attack bonuses by 3 or 4, and this is "the flaw in the math".

I think that's the root of it, I just don't think it qualifies as a flaw. I think an even progression, where PC attacks always scaled at exactly the same rate as monster defenses would be boring.

I also think that if WotC produced Expertise feats as a "fix", then the fact that it's an option and not an automatic effect (as if the bonus was introduced via errata), maybe they did that on purpose. Maybe they didn't believe that every group / player had a problem with the math as it originally existed. Maybe they where responding to the fans who wanted a "fix", but didn't want to force it on anyone.

I guess it doesn't (or at least shouldn't) matter that much to me. I asked my players what they wanted to do and they said they'd like to get Expertise as a bonus feat. Of course, subsequently three of them (out of five) had trouble finding anything good to fill all of their feat choices at 8th level, but one of those did eventually come up with some really cool, flavorful spin on things. And I don't really want anyone to fall into the trap of either a) not taking the feats and falling behind other players in the same group who did (at least assuming it would become noticeable / game-affecting), or b) thinking the feats are actually mandatory... But I guess I really should not be assuming that they would, in the first place.

 

[ppaladin123]

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

Yup. Unlike the pun-pun build you get this huge advantage (+6, +30% hit rate) simply by taking two feats; there are no system breaking munchkin shenanigans required. Should such a huge gap really exist in a balanced system? This is not a minor cosmetic change like a +1 bonus to damage or some tiny action point boon; this is giant hit to your effectiveness. This falls into the realm of harshly penalizing a player for having the temerity to play the wrong concept*.

If you care about being the (mechanically) best illusionist you can be then your race choice is obvious. If you designed your character to be, "bob the half-witted half-orc hedge wizard whose spells only work 1/3 of the time," then that's fine too. I personally have trouble though reconciling many heroic character concepts with the mechanical reality of their low hit rate. "I am the master of space and time, reality itself bends before me!" That's hard to take seriously when most of your spells fizzle; the cognitive dissonance is too great.

The groups I play with would likely yell at me if I made a non-gnome illusionist. After all, I'm putting their characters lives in danger in return for flavor. Their characters would most likely "fire" me and hire a gnomish mercenary to take my place.

*I'm perfectly happy with (and indeed desire) racial feats that provide boosts to certain classes or builds as long as these are relatively minor AND flavorful. "You are a gnome so you get a +3 bonus to hit with illusion spells," does not fulfill either criterion.

I am also aware that this particular feat is limited to one wizard build as opposed to the entire class. That makes it less egregious though still not acceptable.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

If you care about being the (mechanically) best illusionist you can be then your race choice is obvious. If you designed your character to be, "bob the half-witted half-orc hedge wizard whose spells only work 1/3 of the time," then that's fine too.

wait...you don't see a diffrence, that you use the two extremes forgetting about everything inbetween... what about the teifling illusionist (+2 int +2 cha) who starts with 2 18's (after race), and who is still a bad ass caster???

I personally have trouble though reconciling many heroic character concepts with the mechanical reality of their low hit rate. "I am the master of space and time, reality itself bends before me!" That's hard to take seriously when most of your spells fizzle; the cognitive dissonance is too great.

yes but again you seam to compair 20 Int, Expertise, every advantage to 14 Int, and 5 buys of linguestics... middle ground...

The groups I play with would likely yell at me if I made a non-gnome illusionist. After all, I'm putting their characters lives in danger in return for flavor. Their characters would most likely "fire" me and hire a gnomish mercenary to take my place.

please tell me this is a joke...

what would they do if someone showed up with a half elf fighter with a 16 str??

what about a Dwarven cleric who started with a 16 str, 16 Con, 16 Wis and took powers from both builds evenly??

or is every class only alloud to be X... with X being the best numarical possbilities???



by the way since the other thread died, an no one responded to this let me quote it here...

here are 4 PHB1 only melee characters:

hafling Rouge level 26 (all except 1 at will attack a nad...) dagger master/ deadly trickster +13 (level) +8 (dex) +6 (magic dagger) +2 (95%+ CA) +3 (prof) +1 (rouge talent)= +33 vs Nads...

Dragon born Fighter level 26 Kensi Demi god +13 (level) +9 (str) +6 (magic sword) +2 (flanking with above CA) +3 (prof) +1 (fighter talent) +1 (kensi)= +35 Vs AC

Dwarven Paliden level 26 Hospitol Demi god +13 (level) +7 (str or cha) +6 (Magic axe) +2 (come on everyone gets CA for this) +2 (prof)= +30 Vs AC

Elf Ranger Level 26 Storm warden Eternal Seeker +13 (level) +8 (str or Dex) +5 (magic scimitar x2, and magic bow) +2 (can't leave him out of CA) +2 (prof)= +30 Vs AC

Now then lets look at a level 30 soldier...a hard fight to be sure
AC=46 NADs= 42

so the paliden is in the worst shape... he needs 16's to hit and only his dailyies have miss effects

the Ranger is up next he needs 16's as well BUT he does auto damage, and even twin strike does guarantee of 2xdex mod (16 damage) when he misses...he also has multi attack rolls... his elven accuracy helps too.

The fighter needs 11's to hit (op attacks are easier thanks to wis) so he is at 50/50 and is doing well

the Rogue is blowing everyone out of the water...he has an 18+ crit range and is hitting on 9+...and thanks to arcane trickster he has 3 rerolls per day...

Now if they had a 5th player (a leader) they would all be perfectly viable not only without expertise, but with out ___ Power books, or any other add ons.

 

[keterys]

I think that's the root of it, I just don't think it qualifies as a flaw. I think an even progression, where PC attacks always scaled at exactly the same rate as monster defenses would be boring.

And, yet, that number semi-randomly fluctuating by small dips over the course of 30 levels to end up slightly off mark is... fun? exciting?

The trick about relative math is that it mostly blends into the background. Sure, you know that a 5 mostly misses and a 15 mostly hits... and vice versa from an enemy, but it's far more about 'Well, now I send that guy into the depths of Hell for the next 3 turns, teleport 10 squares over to here, action point recovering a power, and hurl flaming infernal spears into this blast, hurling my enemies 11 squares away.' as a sign of difference for gaining levels (along with 'And its eye rays touch you, giving you ongoing 20, and let me know if you fail a save cause you'll die - you used your return from death ability yet today?'), rather than 'Err, that 15 missed? And he hit me on a 5, eh?' as some form of excitement.

 

[rjdafoe]

(along with 'And its eye rays touch you, giving you ongoing 20, and let me know if you fail a save cause you'll die - you used your return from death ability yet today?'), rather than 'Err, that 15 missed? And he hit me on a 5, eh?' as some form of excitement.

Yes, becuase what your fighting is better and tougher than you.

And there is nothing wrong with that.

Part of the challenge is to survive the attacks - a kill or be killed type of senario. It is up to the DM to make adjust the encounter for his group.