Expertise justification?

[Nail]

In one of my gaming groups we're discussing the Expertise line of feats. The DM is leary of allowing them, and would like to see some justification. Help would be appreciated.

Additionally, I have a related question: "Has WotC released any official justification for the feats?" Has there been a design article in DDI that's discussed what their thinking was? In Dragon, mayhap? Is this just errata wrapped around a feat, or is it an honest choice, meant to be balanced with other feats?

 

[Ltheb Silverfrond]

I don't believe there has been any official word as to their origin. (I would guess any such article would get a lot of discussion, as others like your DM would be curious)

Expertise is a feat for those who don't like to miss. 4E is a team game, and the party needs to work together to accomplish things. Expertise seems, to me, to be a feat for those who don't want to, or can't rely on team effort. I've done some 30th level playtests, and none of the sample characters I threw together had any problems hitting when they worked together and used their resources intelligently.

If your group is good at strategizing, and combining their resources in efficient combinations, then Expertise might be icing on the cake for your group. If your group just has difficulty with every encounter (grinding, or just plain hitting is difficult) expertise is a very nice feat to pick up.

My advice? Talk to your DM. There have been a couple threads about Expertise that show the to-hit math at each level and how expertise 'plugs the holes'. Talk to your group. If hitting isn't an issue for anyone, then just don't take it. If your DM is leary that the feat is too powerful and thinks it's cheesy, ask why. Odds are, anyone who takes the expertise feat would rather be more effective than pick up other neat feats. (When making a Wizard, I really had to push myself to not take expertise over Expanded Spellbook or Arcane Familiar, two very useful and cool feats)

 

[Regicide]

In one of my gaming groups we're discussing the Expertise line of feats. The DM is leary of allowing them, and would like to see some justification. Help would be appreciated.

It's a published, errated feat in a main book, arguably a core book. They made the game, they should know it better than you, and one of the goals of 4E was balance. Why wouldn't you allow it? What is the DM's reasoning?

 

[ForbidenMaster]

In one of my gaming groups we're discussing the Expertise line of feats. The DM is leary of allowing them, and would like to see some justification. Help would be appreciated.

Additionally, I have a related question: "Has WotC released any official justification for the feats?" Has there been a design article in DDI that's discussed what their thinking was? In Dragon, mayhap? Is this just errata wrapped around a feat, or is it an honest choice, meant to be balanced with other feats?

EDITED As per Nails post below

Just some math:

Average Monster AC = 14+Level
Average PC Attack Bonus = Mod+Proficiency+1/2 level+Magic

Assumed PC attack vs average monster AC at level 1:

4+2+0+0=6 vs. 15=14+1

Chance to hit = 60%

Assumed PC attack vs average monster AC at level 15:

6+2+7+3=18 vs 29=14+15

Chance to hit = 50%

Assumed PC attack vs average monster AC at level 25:

7+2+12+6=27 vs 39=14+25

Chance to hit = 45%

Assumed PC attack vs average monster AC at level 30:

8+2+15+6=31 vs 44=14+30

Chance to hit = 40%

Now with expertise:

Average Monster AC = 14+Level
Average PC Attack Bonus = Mod+Proficiency+1/2 level+Magic+Expertise

Assumed PC attack vs average monster AC at level 1:

4+2+0+0+1=7 vs. 15=14+1

Chance to hit = 65%

Assumed PC attack vs average monster AC at level 15:

6+2+7+3+2=20 vs 29=14+15

Chance to hit = 60%

Assumed PC attack vs average monster AC at level 25:

7+2+12+6=30 vs 39=14+25

Chance to hit = 60%

Assumed PC attack vs average monster AC at level 30:

8+2+15+6+3=34 vs 44=14+30

Chance to hit = 55%

Now as as far as I understand it, the initial intent was that bonuses from a leader/bonuses from advanced powers would make up the difference in attack vs AC, but they apparently didnt think that was enough.

 

[Victim]

Now as as far as I understand it, the initial intent was that bonuses from a leader/bonuses from advanced powers would make up the difference in attack vs AC, but they apparently didnt think that was enough.

One issue there is that if initial leader powers don't hit (low hit chance), then the other people don't get the bonus. Hit chances are low, so leader powers that boost hit chance don't hit, so hit chances are low...

And if limited use powers are being used up, then the group is in some trouble.

 

[Legildur]

One issue there is that if initial leader powers don't hit (low hit chance), then the other people don't get the bonus. Hit chances are low, so leader powers that boost hit chance don't hit, so hit chances are low...

And if limited use powers are being used up, then the group is in some trouble.

Yes, our TacLord has come to that conclusion.... Lead the Attack Daily power is not much use if you can't land it..... Expertise is definitely a feat he will be taking at the first opportunity.

 

[jasin]

It's a published, errated feat in a main book, arguably a core book. They made the game, they should know it better than you, and one of the goals of 4E was balance. Why wouldn't you allow it? What is the DM's reasoning?

Combat Reflexes is also a published feat in the core book. It provides a lower bonus that only applies to a subset of situations and has a prerequisite, making it obviously, undeniably weaker.

And one of the goals of 4E was balance. So what's up? Is Combat Reflexes hopelessly useless? Is Weapon Expertise grossly overpowered? Is this a feature, with Combat Reflexes providing diminishing returns for those who really want to boost their opportunity attacks, after they've already taken Weapon Expertise? If so, why is this additional feat published a year before the more basic one?

That's the reasoning. Lack of faith in the designers' decisions since, whether through incompetence or policy, they suggest an abandonment of balance through playtesting and thinking out implications ahead in favour of balance thourgh in-flight compensation by the next supplment (v. Focused Expertise in the monk preview).

 

[Starfox]

I'm also guessing that people are playing leaders much less than anticipated. And I can see why - they still have some of the "cleric stand back, heal, and shut up" syndrome.

 

[jasin]

I'm also guessing that people are playing leaders much less than anticipated. And I can see why - they still have some of the "cleric stand back, heal, and shut up" syndrome.

I was impressed at how fun the warlord's Commander's Strike was, despite being basically "I don't do anything, but you get to go again, yay!" I think the key is that it's an active power that you have to choose to use in each instance, rather than something like the (3E) bard's inspire courage.

But it still got annoying when other players changed their characters to a barbarian and a druid and none of my 2d8 + Str + special effect Encounter powers seemed to be really worth using anymore compared to barbarian's 1d12 + barbarian's Str + my Int, or druid's 1d10 + druid's Wis + my Int + special effect.

 

[CapnZapp]

I too am of the opinion WotC really need to break the silence on the Expertise feats.

In particular, they need to offer up some really compelling reasons why they chose the solution they did, and specifically and openly address the two main concerns; "feat tax" and "stealth errata".

If the real reason is "sell more books" they need to be honest about it.