Expertise justification?

[GMforPowergamers]

ok lets try it at epic

25th level party (I only did 3 memebers not all 5 I got lazy)

edit... I dune messed up (thanks for the PM)

I miss did base, and prof, and ability mods...and I used MM2 monster that is diffrent...so I withdraw this epic fail post...(I should have known when I saw rouge hit on a 4 I was wrong...)

 

[Lauberfen]

First of all, this thread is developing lots of posts way too long for me to bother reading them. So sorry in advance.

ok, lets settle this.

I hope we agree that if a dwarf with 16 strength and a Waraxe with dwarven weapon training (average damage 11.5) will benefit more from expertise than the 18 strength dragonborn with a longsword. (average damage 8.5) which is a realistic example.

Well first I'd like to point out that a waraxe with strength 16 and training equals 5.5+3+2=10.5, not 11.5

Then I should highlight the fact that you've given the dwarf an extra feat.

Then I'd like to suggest that a 16 strength dwarf is not very underpowered, and an 18 strength dragonborn could be more optimised yet.

However, I do agree that someone who does more damage, regardless of bonus to hit, gains more from expertise than someone who does less damage. I don't think less optimised characters do more damage though, rather the opposite.

A more fair version of your example might be strength 20 dragonborn with a bastard sword (average damage 10.5) vs your strength 16 dwarf with trainining (average damage 10.5). Both do equally well from expertise.

However weapon training is specific tom certain races, and becomes pointless at 15th level, when weapon focus is just as good, but for better weapons such as the longsword.

And i hope we agree, that expertise is superior to some other feats which appeared before...
but I believe, if nimble blade and expertise would swap places in PHB 1 and 2, noone had complained, most uf us would accept, that nimble blade is for those people who want to be even more specialised (and need combat advantage for powers and features)

I don't really agree- expertise is a bonus to hitm which stages over levels- this is clearly wrong, as it makes sense to maintain a constant bonus to hit as the levels go by. A heroic tier feat shouldn't get way better at paragon and epic tiers.

Also expertise is not a feat bonus- I probably would have missed this, but if I noticed, I would have assumed it was a mistake, and ruled it as a feat bonus (what possible reason is there for it not being a feat bonus.

Also, if they released further conditional +1 feats I would have laughed, and wondered what they were playing at.

So I agree we're in the same ballpark, but I'm yet to be convinced by your examples.

 

[tiornys]

Out of interest, who here has a PC at 16th level who could take expertise and hasn't, and who has a pc who has taken it?

I have a level 18 PC, a Dragonborn Tactical Warlord. He doesn't have Expertise because our DM has adopted the +1 at 5/+2 at 15/+3 at 25 house rule. When the PHB2 was released, we were all leveling at a non-feat level. The DM and the rules-savvy players had a discussion about whether Expertise would be allowed because all three of those players (myself included) planned to retrain to Expertise if it was available and not free.

GMforPowergamers: you're using a literal definition of "required", which clearly doesn't apply. However, that definition applies to no option in the game. In effect, you are making a straw-man argument.

The correct definition of "required" is that the feat is a requirement in an optimized build (assuming that the character is going to be in combat). If you would like to make an actual argument against the term, you need to present an optimized build of level 15 or above, without Expertise, that cannot be improved by Expertise.

t~

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Expertise boosts your chance to hit by 5% per tier. So unless your heroic PC only misses on a natural 1, your paragon PC only misses on a 1-2 or your epic PC only misses on 1-3, Expertise is just as useful for you than any other character.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

@ Lauberfen

I had those example characters by purpose:

I don´t want to compare overoptimized and gimped chars. I want to compare two characters which have spent the same 22 points on their attributes who tried to build a viable char. One focussed more on damage, one focussed more on to hit.

A 20 in your main stat is very good. But not always worth its cost. Even a righteous brand cleric should ask himself if its worth the cost. Maybe 2 points of wisdom and a bit constitution will do him more favour (more hp to stand in melee, better healing powers and better ranged powers)

comparing a halfling fighter´s damage output with a halfork fighters damage output would not be fair if the halfork rolled an 18 for strength but the halfling only rolled a 16. Especially worse if the halfling insist on using daggers for flavour reasons...

but maybe he takes sneak of shadows, uses his bow and daggers on ranged attacks, multiclasses a bit and has still a flavourful character...

@tequila sunrise:
yes and no: the chances you notice that you took expertise is 5% each round. On average you notice expertise every 20th round. Beacaus you hit most of the time, the fight for your char will be over very fast. If you however only hit on a 20 without expertise you will have a bigger chance to see expertise in effect this fight.

If you compare the numbers of rounds saved by having expertise, you have to look at effective HP. (which depends on relative damage)

 

[Lauberfen]

The problem with expertise is characters in the same party with varying power- different groups will just fight different stuff because the DMs will tweak the game.

If you have the less powerful and more powerful characters in the same party, they each get the same number of rolls. So it will make just the same difference. Except that in general the more optimised character will do more damage.

But what you're getting at with the example is broadly correct- a character aimed at damage will benefit more from expertise than one who does less damage. Just as a warlord might benefit less well. It is not most powerful feat for every build, at every level. But it is very close, even at heroic tier.

One further note- as you reach higher levels, you have more powers. By about 10th level one uses at-will only a few times per encounter. This further increases the utility of a bonus to hit. Also in your 'weaker character, longer combat' model, you'd run out of powers more quickly, and therefore the bonus to hit would be less useful as you'd have less damage and riders.

 

[tiornys]

But what you're getting at with the example is broadly correct- a character aimed at damage will benefit more from expertise than one who does less damage. Just as a warlord might benefit less well. It is not most powerful feat for every build, at every level. But it is very close, even at heroic tier.

I strongly disagree that characters aimed at damage benefit more from Expertise than those who aren't. If you aren't focused on doing damage with your powers, then what are you doing with them? Generally, you're applying debuffs to your targets, forcibly moving your targets, or granting bonuses to your allies. You usually need to hit to get these juicy riders, and even when you get some benefit on a miss, you usually get a much better benefit on a hit.

The Warlord I referenced above is either the worst or second worst at (directly) dealing damage in his party (behind the Ranger, Fighter, and Paladin, and maybe the Wizard). Despite that, I find it incredibly important to optimize his attack bonus because the of the potency of the bonuses he can only grant to the party if his powers hit.

IMO, attack bonuses are most valuable in the hands of Leaders and Controllers, the two roles that are generally worst at dealing damage, because those roles tend to have the most potent riders on their powers.

t~

 

[Lauberfen]

I strongly disagree that characters aimed at damage benefit more from Expertise than those who aren't. If you aren't focused on doing damage with your powers, then what are you doing with them? Generally, you're applying debuffs to your targets, forcibly moving your targets, or granting bonuses to your allies. You usually need to hit to get these juicy riders, and even when you get some benefit on a miss, you usually get a much better benefit on a hit.
t~

I'm afraid I must have misled you, as you've misunderstood the discussion at hand (we've been discussion this point for a good few pages).

I was simply stating that in terms of damage per round, the value of expertise is directly proportional to the average damage dealt on a hit- so characters who deal more damage benefit more from the bonus to hit, in terms of DPR.

I entirely agree with your post otherwise- all of the reasons you've stated make expertise a massively good feat regardless of how your character is designed, even if odd feats (such as focus or weapon training) are occasionally better for DPR with an at will.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

jep, I agree too.

@ Lauberfen:Yes, running out of encounter and daily powers actually lessens the effect of expertise. Which means that if you have not once hit the exact AC, which is more unlikely the less encounter powers you have, expertise is getting weaker and weaker...

reasoning: a situational bonus which you can use when you need it most (like action surge to fire off a daily) is better than a less powerful always on +1 bonus. (yes, always on +2 or 3 bonuses are a bit much IMHO)

@ less and more powerful chars: i still believe if both chars are built with the same system, there can´t be more and less powerful chars, but differently balanced...

e.g.: a dwarf can make up the one barely missed hit, by attacking another time when his companion uses second wind or is busy making his death saves...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

GMforPowergamers: you're using a literal definition of "required", which clearly doesn't apply. However, that definition applies to no option in the game. In effect, you are making a straw-man argument.

The correct definition of "required" is that the feat is a requirement in an optimized build (assuming that the character is going to be in combat). If you would like to make an actual argument against the term, you need to present an optimized build of level 15 or above, without Expertise, that cannot be improved by Expertise.

t~

It is not I who is useing the word wrong... you see I agree it is required to be the best optimized build...I just feel 80+% of us players don't play the optimized best characters, that viable and good enough, and fun are just as likely...

If you look for the best feats and do it out there are many 'required' feats for optimaxation...every thing in 4e comes in good, better, best groups. My problem is IF you go out of your way to look for the best of everything, you should not complain you found it...

I don't need to post an optimized build to prove something is not requared for everyone...I only neet to post a viable build to prove that...witch I have here and on RPGnet, and on Wotc Board, and in person when people make this claim.

example 1:

That's too good not to take, making it for all appearances to be a 'mandatory' feat if your character wants to keep hitting like the Joneses.

notice no use of optimized, just to be at normal he feels you need a extra + to hit

example 2

The general consensus is that this feat was created to fix an issue that Wizards originally made in designing 4e. Monsters gain attack and AC faster than players, making higher level monsters imbalanced compared to the same level players.

see again talking about everyone needing it, infact he goes on to suggest:

I would suggest banning them in your campaign, and using one of the fixes from that thread.

please see no use of optimazation here

I am sure that there are more examples, but I gave up looking...

see my main problem is there is a group of players and DMs who think there house rules are a better fit for MY and OTHERS games then what WotC has provided...I disagree, so do others. As long as people claim that you NEED a +3 at level 25 I will argue against it.


Also not only has no one yet answered my math challenge of showing a monster that without expertise the fight is impposble becuse of the math, but no one has responded to may main point...

We have seen and herd form group who played through all three teirs of play H,P,E and never found themselves in this slump of "I can't hit" lets call them group A
We have seen and herd from groups who played to paragon and felt the defences went up to much and the game watered down...lets call them group B
We have seen and herd form groups who in epci felt the monsters got to tough. we will call them group C.
We have seen people complain (I may be bias but I give this group the least amount of slack) that right from day one 1st level the game is too hard. we will call them group D.


I have no dubt WotC has herd from all 4 of these groups, and heck they might even have people in office in diffrent groups.

So now lets say they errata +1 to NADS and Attack at 5,15,and 25then...group A will feel it is too easy, group B will feel 5 levesl are too easy, group C will think 20 levels are too easy...group D will most likely prefer this...or they might complain it is still to 'late in the game'
So put yourself in there shoes...how do you work with the most number of people...make it a choice...infact break it down to a few choices.

So again if you house rule it, and you like it that way fine...but don't ask WotC to errata, or change the system to suit your play style...becuse that is NOT what everyone wants