Even Steven Array

[keterys]

There are a few feats that can reasonably compete with (low level) Expertise for a build, such as Hero of the Faith (or many multiclass, realistically, since it gives a skill trained, a secondary benefit, and opens up more options), * Weapon Training, Backstabber, Dual Implement Spellcaster... or where expertise must take a backseat to feats vital to a character concept, such as a CD feat (... Righteous Rage and Solar Enemy meet both categories), Reaper's Touch... and if you're planning on going PMC you may be so feat starved that you can't fit it until paragon. And at paragon things like Versatile Master, Twofold Pact, etc may be more important to you...

But yeah, mathematically speaking, it should show up before that. Lots of people disdain mathematical choices, but it's there nonetheless. Just like a staff wizard should take weapon focus over +1 with just fire damage, sometimes the solution is in fact obvious, even if not flavorful or interesting.

Though somewhat astray from stat arrays.

 

[Jhaelen]

At +1 to attacks, it's better than every other published feat.

Really? How do think it compares against any of the multiclassing feats, or ritual caster, or linguist?

 

[eamon]

Really? How do think it compares against any of the multiclassing feats, or ritual caster, or linguist?

In terms of power? None of these compare even remotely. I think the best best for a potentially comparable feat is something like Dwarven Weapon Training or Eladrin Soldier or the like. Action Surge certainly wouldn't cut it, and that counts as good. +2 to damage only would be dubious, but the +2 and the weapon proficiencies might push it over the edge...

Multiclassing feats and Ritual Caster aren't all that great at low level. There's just too many other great feats, and the extra flexibility matters more once your character has more options in general. You don't have the money for many rituals anyhow before 4th - let alone actually using them. You're so strapped for options in low levels, you absolutely must rely on your allies to fill some of your skill gaps anyhow. The only reason to invest in flexibility at low levels is if your party is lopsided.

The most convincing reason not to take expertise before 4th is that it is often fun to stake out your characters core competence - and that might depend on a particular ability that costs a feat or two, even if it is technically more optimal to start with expertise and slowly retrain in your key feats. E.g. a two-blade ranger might consider taking proficiency in bastard swords before expertise if that's his signature weapon.

 

[Joshua Randall]

Hey, man, it's your game: do whatever you want. I'm just some idiot arguing on the Internet.

I have my PCs use an array (or, actually, a choice of 3 mostly identical arrays) because I wanted characters with a single stat focus to be as strong as characters with MAD.

So what your'e saying is that you don't trust that Wizards designed the game to achieve exactly this result? Because if the game is designed 'correctly', then characters built with a single stat focus should be equal to characters with (so-called) MAD.

Besides, what if a player wants to build a character who is singlemindedly focused on one aspect at the expense of other aspects? If I really want to build a character with 20 Str and 16 Con (using a Str/Con race and an 18/14/11 array), why stop me?

 

[Herschel]

Again, I'm open to counterexamples.

Name-calling doesn't qualify as an argument, let alone a counterexample.

Good luck, -- N

Where have I called you a name? My point is you seem to be denying that +2 = +2 if they come from different sources when you acknowledged above that some times a 18(20) is a justified build. They are all build options to be used in whichever way is wanted and all can work just fine, especially when certain stats are wanted (high or low) for RP purposes.

Arrays are just pre-made point buys. Some like them, some don't. I prefer the 17/15 pre-racial (if the race has primary & secondary boosts for teh class) in part because it's powerful but also because 4th level is like Christmas with the boost.

 

[Nifft]

Where have I called you a name?

Where have I accused you of calling me a name?

My point is you seem to be denying that +2 = +2 if they come from different sources

No, you have failed to understand the argument.

Also, you've (once again) failed to come up with a viable counterexample. Feel free to read the CharOp board for some free clues on what "viable" means.

Good luck, -- N

 

[UngeheuerLich]

In terms of power? None of these compare even remotely. I think the best best for a potentially comparable feat is something like Dwarven Weapon Training or Eladrin Soldier or the like. Action Surge certainly wouldn't cut it, and that counts as good. +2 to damage only would be dubious, but the +2 and the weapon proficiencies might push it over the edge...

Multiclassing feats and Ritual Caster aren't all that great at low level. There's just too many other great feats, and the extra flexibility matters more once your character has more options in general. You don't have the money for many rituals anyhow before 4th - let alone actually using them. You're so strapped for options in low levels, you absolutely must rely on your allies to fill some of your skill gaps anyhow. The only reason to invest in flexibility at low levels is if your party is lopsided.

The most convincing reason not to take expertise before 4th is that it is often fun to stake out your characters core competence - and that might depend on a particular ability that costs a feat or two, even if it is technically more optimal to start with expertise and slowly retrain in your key feats. E.g. a two-blade ranger might consider taking proficiency in bastard swords before expertise if that's his signature weapon.

I would refrain from speaking in absolutes:

Linguist can actually be much more powerful than any combat related feat.

Imagine you encounter some monstrous humanoids. The look at you and shout:

"djskfgj gshvuby fsakfhjkdbgnfdbgndbhuts"

You say: i attack them...

I answer "djhajdbfsj djanfjdnsm,fgb" and then perform the cure disease ritual (which i could learn because of ritual caster feat and multiclassing skill train healing) on the chieftain and live.

You die. No save.

Do you want more examples of powerful feats which more than compare to expertise?


p.s.: don´t think i don´t look at feats like expertise and such, when building characters for fun. But actually played characters usually end up with feats that are useful in context of the game you play. And if your game is combat focussed with high AC monsters, i would not hesitate to take expertise.

 

[Herschel]

Where have I accused you of calling me a name?

No, you have failed to understand the argument.

Also, you've (once again) failed to come up with a viable counterexample. Feel free to read the CharOp board for some free clues on what "viable" means.

Good luck, -- N

You accused me of it in the last quote I made.

It's obvious you won't listen to anyone who doesn't agree with you as you don't even acknowledge/understand what "viable" means. Char-Op makes assumptions in a vacuum on characters optimized for a certain set of variables. Optimized for that set is not the same as viable.

Viable:
capable of being done with means at hand and circumstances as they are
capable of being done in a practical and useful way
capable of success or ongoing effectiveness

Char-Op assumptions are not the be-all/end-all of successful character building. For one, they don't take in to account role playing desires. For another, with humans and dice involved, variables galore are possible. In this way, D&D is a lot like poker: The math is only part of it. You play your opponent, not your cards. I've played with DMs who like low AC/big damage melee beasties who sets them up 11-13 (many times with reach) spaces away from our melee characters. In that game, attack bonuses are generally less important than speed.

 

[Nifft]

You accused me of it in the last quote I made.

Nope.

It's obvious you won't listen to anyone who doesn't agree with you

Excellent counter-argument, you're clearly worth my attention.

Char-Op assumptions are not the be-all/end-all of successful character building.

Nobody said they were. I'm trying to help you figure out a counter-example, because I'm a sporting sort of guy.

Once more: good luck.

-- N

 

[eamon]

I would refrain from speaking in absolutes:

Linguist can actually be much more powerful than any combat related feat.

Imagine you encounter some monstrous humanoids. The look at you and shout:[...]

That's a great game! I like that kind of stuff. The issue is, you're not really giving up much or anything thereof by playing a combat-focused character. There are several low-level items in AV alone (for instance) that pretty much make linguist superfluous. For that matter, many characters get to pick a free language; you can often cover most languages without linguist.

Any DM I know, if you dramatically try to save the day by communicating and roleplaying, they're going to let you do that regardless of minor details like feats that you have. A good bit of roleplaying is going to be worth more that any stat on paper - and you can get those stats cheaply too.

Finally in which game would failing to know the language be "you die (no save)?" Seriously, that's just a pretty killer DM.

I'm not saying roleplaying's worthless and combat is all that counts, I'm just trying to be honest here and my impression is that for roleplay stats&feats rarely matter, and so you should pick most stats&feats for combat purposes. It's an intentional design choice to make it hard to trade-off combat prowess for role-playing skill. WotC succeeded; it's generally unwise to try and gain out-of-combat advantage with combat-oriented stats and vice versa.

This isn't an absolute, but it's common enough to conclude a general principle.

Linguist is a trap ;-).