Expertise justification?

[KarinsDad]

I believe that the Expertise feats were made for these cases...

That example is way too skewed.

In reality, what will happen at epic level is that instead of "two characters that hit same level average enemies on a 12, one who hits those same enemies on a 13, and two who hit the same enemies on a 14", it will become "two characters that hit same level average enemies on a 9, one who hits those same enemies on a 10, and two who hit the same enemies on a 11" because all 5 PCs will take the feat.

These feats have nothing to do with sub-optimal PCs (who tend to be sub-optimal for a total of 1) and instead have to do with the -4 math bug at Epic level.

 

[Mephistopheles]

The thing to note with the expertise feats is that, unlike most feats that scale with level, they scale at level 15 and 25 rather than 11 and 21. If levels 15 and 25 are the points at which the alleged hole in the math appears it would seem to be a strong indicator that these feats are a patch.

After a quick scan of the of the Compendium I found only five feats available at level one that scale at levels 15 and 25 instead of 11 and 21: the two expertise feats, and three from arcane power that also provide bonuses to hit when using powers with particular keywords in the same pattern as the expertise feats.

 

[jasin]

We right now have atleast 4 diffrent ways to boost attack (Gnome illussion feat, Fey charm feat, Dragon born arcane feat, and the expertise feats) we have a few diffrent Nads boosting feats (some to all three some to just one but more...or those epic ones) So what does that do...
It means every player now gets to decide "What do I want to focus on?" I have a PC in my tuesday night game who is a swordmage going for maxed out defences, and took toughness. He seams to hit just fine at paragon levels with out expertise, so he will save his feats for the ones he wants...on the other hand our warlord can't hit to save his life, and is very rearly hit, so expertise was a good choice for him, but the NADs uppers not so much.

people who claim they are non choices fail to realize that they are the ultimate choice. (I even have a post in the errata board to up Helfire blood to +1, +2 at 15, +3 at 25th to give another option and another choice to the group)

The ultimate choice indeed, and that's exactly the problem. Where does that leave feats like Combat Reflexes, Nimble Blade, Sure Climber?

Why would you take +1 to attacks in a tiny subset of situations when you can get +1 (or more) to attacks in a vast majority of situations? Why would you take something of such vague, situational utility as being able to climb really well, when you could take something of such obvious, crucial utility as being able to hit really well?

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

In reality, what will happen at epic level is that instead of "two characters that hit same level average enemies on a 12, one who hits those same enemies on a 13, and two who hit the same enemies on a 14", it will become "two characters that hit same level average enemies on a 9, one who hits those same enemies on a 10, and two who hit the same enemies on a 11" because all 5 PCs will take the feat.

Well, I know this might not be useful to you, but I have found that restricting the expertise feats to the suboptimal or MAD builds is a good fix for my campaign.

Of course my campaign remains in heroic level, and I may change my mind and give everyone a +X to attacks if we do find this alleged "math hole" in paragon or epic... But right now, we are comfortable.

 

[KarinsDad]

Well, I know this might not be useful to you, but I have found that restricting the expertise feats to the suboptimal or MAD builds is a good fix for my campaign.

What's your definition of a sub-optimal build? A PC that starts with a 16 main ability score? Something else? How do you tell one player that his PC sucks and he can take it and another player, well, you PC does not suck enough, so you cannot take it?

 

[Regicide]

If levels 15 and 25 are the points at which the alleged hole in the math appears it would seem to be a strong indicator that these feats are a patch.

Would a mandatory feat not be a bigger indicator that it's a patch for them giving players too many feats?

 

[KarinsDad]

Would a mandatory feat not be a bigger indicator that it's a patch for them giving players too many feats?

Boy, that's a serious stretch.

 

[Nail]

Well, I know this might not be useful to you, but I have found that restricting the expertise feats to the suboptimal or MAD builds is a good fix for my campaign.

Wow.

I had to pick up my jaw off the floor after I read this.

Uhmm....how do you (the DM) select the PCs that are "sub-optimal", and how do the other players react to this selection? (I know how I'd react.....)

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

Wow.

I had to pick up my jaw off the floor after I read this.

Uhmm....how do you (the DM) select the PCs that are "sub-optimal", and how do the other players react to this selection? (I know how I'd react.....)

I don't see anything wrong with it, everybody in my gaming group suggests feats or powers to each other all the time (we rotate DM duties). No one is offended, since we all realize that an RPG campaign is a story we all make together...

Currently no one in the group has even shown an interest on the expertise feats (none of them read EnWorld or other RPG forums), but I already mentioned in session that those feats were "banned until further analysis"

...actually I got a bigger response from the fact that I am "discouraging" the use of Devas, Goliaths and Shifters in my game, for stylistic reasons

However, I would probably do an exception and suggest the feat to a player whose character had consistent problems hitting... I am sure everybody realizes that if one of the characters in the party can seemingly never hit, it is less fun for everyone, right?

We don't want to go back to the "Angel Summoner and BMX bandit" days of third edition, right?

 

[Old Gumphrey]

the fact that I am "discouraging" the use of Devas, Goliaths and Shifters in my game, for stylistic reasons.

Meh.