Even Steven Array

[Jhaelen]

In combat, D&D is finely balanced. There's a real expectation that a certain level party can deal with a certain level threat regardless of party composition and threat (only an expectation, not a guarantee, of course). This creates a frame of reference within which we can judge power. A small power shift can still be statistically significant because the rest is fairly precisely balanced.

On the other hand, out-of-combat, even if the DM has a phenomenal sense of balance and honesty, there simply is much much more inherent variability. It's very hard to find an effect that matters significantly due to this noise - and this noise pretty much forces a DM to tailor the story somewhat to the PC's. Not that this is bad thing, but it means that the notion of balance is entirely different in combat than out of combat - so different that you are encouraged not to mix the two.

This is an explanation I can agree with!

I also noticed that the skill system isn't nearly as well balanced as the combat system is. There's an incredible variance between skill bonuses even at level one.

I also agree that it falls into the DM's responsibility to tailor adventures to the party. As Nifft noted: if players pick non-combat feats it's an indication that they're interested in non-combat encounters.

Imho, unless a group is interested in nothing besides combat (something I've luckily never seen in my DM career) the DM should make sure there is a balance between combat encounters, skill challenges and roleplaying encounters.

Even if a group _was_ only interested in combat and were min-maxing the hell out of their characters, I'd confront them with situations from time to time that cannot be solved by combat alone.

 

[Herschel]

Herchel. You said '"feat tax" garbage.' and Nifft said name-calling wasn't helpful. You didn't call him a name, but you did call something a name.

And not in a particularly helpful way. You're also accusing someone of trolling, as far as I can tell because they don't agree with you.

You don't have to believe it's a feat tax. It bugs me when people talk about music or software "piracy" when I'm pretty sure it's not "robbery on the high sea" but people pick names for new concepts that resonate with their argument and somehow "feat tax" was chosen. You can't really make an argument against the language because tax doesn't fit - I mean, what, that'll make it switch to feat theft? Or possibly feat decimation - another word that no longer bears resemblance to its intention.

So if you want a counterexample to Nifft, you need to show feats (and more than 3 for any one particular character) that are more valuable than Expertise in a mathematically demonstrable way. I actually listed several above that are comparable, though I imagine no character will have more than three of them. But it's a start, hmm?

You make a good point, yes, I should not have used the word "garbage". However, just because you agree with him does not mean he's not pulling his passive/aggressive schtick.

All that aside, my assertion was never that it wasn't powerful, even very powerful, but that it's not some sort of "tax" but a build choice and characters can be viable without it even if not ultimately "optimised" to an arbitrary set of conditions set up in a vacuum.

Nifft and others have acknowledged in various threads that you can have a viable character with a 16 (post-racial) in their primary attack stat. That's a +2 swing between that and a 20 starting stat. Proficiency bonuses can make it another +1 difference. My assertion is the expertise feat gives players the option of building viable, flavorful characters not based soley on racial stat bonuses. A Stormsoul Genasi Sorcerer or Eladrin Elite Fighter can be iconic characters except their racial stat bonuses don't line up mechanically within the game. The expertise feats allow these characters to be viable.

That doesn't mean the math is broken, it just means there's a contingency plan so that everyone who wants a viable character doesn't simply have to choose their race/class combos based on the stat bonuses.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

All that aside, my assertion was never that it wasn't powerful, even very powerful, but that it's not some sort of "tax" but a build choice and characters can be viable without it even if not ultimately "optimised" to an arbitrary set of conditions set up in a vacuum.

Nifft and others have acknowledged in various threads that you can have a viable character with a 16 (post-racial) in their primary attack stat. That's a +2 swing between that and a 20 starting stat. Proficiency bonuses can make it another +1 difference. My assertion is the expertise feat gives players the option of building viable, flavorful characters not based soley on racial stat bonuses. A Stormsoul Genasi Sorcerer or Eladrin Elite Fighter can be iconic characters except their racial stat bonuses don't line up mechanically within the game. The expertise feats allow these characters to be viable.

That doesn't mean the math is broken, it just means there's a contingency plan so that everyone who wants a viable character doesn't simply have to choose their race/class combos based on the stat bonuses.

Well, the problem people have constantly run into with this logic is that Expertise is available to both the 18 starting primary guy and the 20 starting primary guy. Yes, the feat will equalize the two if the 18 starting guy takes it, but why wouldn't the 20 starting guy also take it? In practice its no equalizer. Its just a +1 to-hit that most everyone has and the DM's response to that is to give you tougher monsters to fight. If by some chance one party member doesn't take an Expertise feat, then they're just relatively weaker than everyone else. It may be true that they aren't absolutely weaker than some other characters due to ability score allocation differences etc. but they still aren't as strong in combat as they easily could be.

So yes, its an option, and in a well run campaign where the DM pays attention to the utility of other non-combat options it may not even be better than Skill Training, Linguist, Skill Focus, etc. Since for a given PC there are probably other options in heroic tier to compete with Expertise it may not even be an option that is exercised right away, but at some point every player is going to look over the feats and say to themselves "hmmm, I need a feat to up my combat ability a bit more" and bingo Expertise is going to pop up as the hands-down best choice they have available to them. This is pretty much certain to happen sometime in mid-paragon when the bonus becomes +2 and its now absolutely better than any other combat feat.

Really it isn't so much about "broken math" as it is about a relatively overpowered feat. Even if you believe the math is perfectly fine (and I have my own views on that whole argument) Expertise feats are still overpowered. Any improvement in the situation either means making them free feats or just removing them from the game or nerfing them down to a static non-scaling +1 or something.

It does make sense to call it a "feat tax" too. Its an analogy. By creating an overpowered feat (and overpowered for ALL PCs at that) the designers have essentially created a choice that every player must exercise at some point in the game or else fall behind the rest. What ends up happening is everyone has at least one Expertise feat and thus loses out on taking some more interesting choice.

 

[Herschel]

You're basing the point on a false assumption that all players are in an arms race. It's the simplest way to make non-optimal race characters work. Sure, they could have a whole slew of feats that let you swap one racial stat bonus for another stat, but that would be needlessly messy. The expertise feats basically are old school Weapon Specialization without the damage boost.

Yes, the fact it works for all characters regardless of race is a bit of a conundrum but is likely the easiest way to deal with the whole thing. By just giving characters the bonus, DMs essentially re-limit the the desire to use non-standard race/class combinations also.

I'm not claiming it was a perfect solution, just that it makes sense why they did it.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

as long as you find the right weapon...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

You're basing the point on a false assumption that all players are in an arms race. It's the simplest way to make non-optimal race characters work. Sure, they could have a whole slew of feats that let you swap one racial stat bonus for another stat, but that would be needlessly messy. The expertise feats basically are old school Weapon Specialization without the damage boost.

Yes, the fact it works for all characters regardless of race is a bit of a conundrum but is likely the easiest way to deal with the whole thing. By just giving characters the bonus, DMs essentially re-limit the the desire to use non-standard race/class combinations also.

I'm not claiming it was a perfect solution, just that it makes sense why they did it.

But the point I think personally you're missing is that Expertise doesn't add to the viability of marginal builds at all. The viability, or just general power level, of a character in a combat context is only measurable against that of other characters. Monsters are a sliding scale, their power levels don't mean anything. The party will always face creatures that challenge them to roughly the same degree and it really doesn't matter if those happen to be Level+0 creatures or Level+3 creatures. All that matters is "can my character contribute to the battle to roughly the same degree as the other player's characters can?" Expertise doesn't help with that because everyone will have it, and if they don't have it its only because they made some other equally good choice. It does nothing for the game except take away one feat slot from virtually every PC and give them a +1/+2/+3 to hit instead. Its a terrible feat and it accomplishes nothing except encouraging everyone to make characters that are even more similar than before the feat existed.

As an aside: The fact that monster power is scale which slides relative to the PCs is the reason I don't even consider the concept of "broken math" to make sense. Math is broken why? Because you face something you can't defeat? Well, that isn't broken math, that's broken DM...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I agree with AbdulalHazred. Expertise doesn´t add anything if everyone takes it. It is redundant then. But it is nice for a character who specialized on a certain weapon.

In games I play and run (from level 1) there will never be the possibility to constantly find the right weapon. In my personal and humble opinion it is more fun to adapt to the flow of the game as a player. The DM runs monsters and non monster encounters which do challenge everyone the same in and out of combat.
And every player can chose to take the challenge or pass it to someone more competent.

And just for the record: a difference of +4 to hit is nothing compared to older editions. It only matters if you encounter monsters which have a) much hp and b) AC which can only be hit at 16 or more. And a DM worth its money will make sure that such things don´t happen (too often).

Expertise feats are a math fix. But only for DM´s which are inexperenced or (very very) lazy. And a good DM has to say NO sometimes.

p.s.: And in my games you won´t find language reading glasses whenever you need them. And argumenting that an item easily saves a feat i counter with: get a better weapon...

 

[eamon]

In games I play and run (from level 1) there will never be the possibility to constantly find the right weapon. In my personal and humble opinion it is more fun to adapt to the flow of the game as a player. The DM runs monsters and non monster encounters which do challenge everyone the same in and out of combat.
And every player can chose to take the challenge or pass it to someone more competent.

I'm not sure what you mean by "right weapon" - if you're suggesting that it not be possible for a daggermaster to find a dagger and wand-wizard to find a wand, nor a sword-wielder to find a heavy blade over the course of 5 levels (the span over which you'd expect to find a weapon/implement with a +1 higher enchantment), nor to find some other weapon or implement and simply transfer the enchanment with the appropriate (low-level, open to all) ritual, then you're playing in a vastly different game than I've ever played in.

I expect PCs to find weapon and/or implement they're specialized in without much difficulty and in fact to find (or enchant or buy) one with an enchantment that's actually specifically useful to that character most of the time with only a little more effort. That doesn't mean you can find everything everywhere regardless of common sense and game balance; that just means following the DMG guidelines (which suggest that's what the type of treasure a PC should find in the first place) and maintaining balance with the wealth by level of a new character. Since a new character can select items that fit the character, even if only few items, balance suggests to me that long-term characters shouldn't fall behind this basic standard.

Barring very low levels and specific broken items and campaign-issues, I'd expect all characters should have at least 4 times the value of an item of their level in magic items (or gold), freely chosen. If they don't, even a new character outshines them - and that's not good.

I agree that it's fun to adapt to the circumstances. However; there's a framework within which such adaptation should stay. The treasure parcel system and the new-character creation guidelines define the framework within which characters are expected to grow. No more that you give your 1st level characters +6 Vorpal scimitars do you limit your epic characters from acquiring low level items.

You can play the game differently and certain have a lot of fun - I'm not disputing that. But these basics are described in the DMG and PHB and pervade all published adventures. There is a general expectation about what kind of equipment is available and what not in D&D, and though you can deviate however much you wish from that, doing so will also change balance and render comparisons moot. Different rules lead to different games; it's almost tautological.

p.s.: And in my games you won´t find language reading glasses whenever you need them. And argumenting that an item easily saves a feat i counter with: get a better weapon...

The glasses (and various other language-comprehension items) are trivially made by a high-level caster, or presumably available for purchase to the interested PC should he look for them (this assumption by balance with new characters). By contrast, the feat "saved" by just getting a better weapon would require more gold than the entire character's wealth in all likelihood - just a +1 better weapon makes it 5 times as expensive. You can replicate linguist for some usages with a cheap item, but you can't replicate expertise with a cheap item.

 

[keterys]

So, if a 10th level wizard wanted to make level 2 reading glasses with Enchant Item, you'd deny them? Or a 20th wizard make some level 6 Polyglot gems?

Fwiw, arguing that a +4 variance is nothing compared to what came before is... not a very good argument. Though, now I wonder if a lawyer for a murderer has ever done something like 'Look, it was just a little girl, it's not like the Holocaust' as a defending argument

 

[eamon]

But the point I think personally you're missing is that Expertise doesn't add to the viability of marginal builds at all. The viability, or just general power level, of a character in a combat context is only measurable against that of other characters. Monsters are a sliding scale, their power levels don't mean anything. The party will always face creatures that challenge them to roughly the same degree and it really doesn't matter if those happen to be Level+0 creatures or Level+3 creatures. All that matters is "can my character contribute to the battle to roughly the same degree as the other player's characters can?" Expertise doesn't help with that because everyone will have it, and if they don't have it its only because they made some other equally good choice. It does nothing for the game except take away one feat slot from virtually every PC and give them a +1/+2/+3 to hit instead. Its a terrible feat and it accomplishes nothing except encouraging everyone to make characters that are even more similar than before the feat existed.

Yeah, that's definitely a problem with the expertise "solution".

As an aside: The fact that monster power is scale which slides relative to the PCs is the reason I don't even consider the concept of "broken math" to make sense. Math is broken why? Because you face something you can't defeat? Well, that isn't broken math, that's broken DM...

What you say holds some truth. But I don't think it's a sufficient quality bar for the game. A DM can compensate - but he shouldn't have to. There are guidelines for encounter design, and these are level independant. The entire game is designed around the idea that things scale with level in such a way that fighting a level+X encounter should be roughtly equally hard for any given X regardless of what your level happens to be. Sure, powers change, and the kind of nasty things done or out-of-combat coolness achieved may reach new levels. But a level-equivalent encounter should always be about the same challenge.

So, there is a math problem if these guidelines don't hold. Yes, a DM can work around it - but I certainly prefer a system where I don't need to constantly do the same boilerplate workarounds. 4e has much simpler encounter balance than 3e, and that's a good thing; and these kind of details matter here.

So, you're obviously right in saying that the math "fix" or "problem" applies to all characters universally and can thus be applied by the DM. But I don't think that it therefore follows that each DM should have to make that fix independently in an ad-hoc fashion when it could easily be fixed in the rules themselves.