Expertise justification?

[keterys]

All groups get the result whether it costs feats or not.

DMs can just as easily disallow rules changes as feat options in a player's handbook.

And it's more likely to be viewed as an intentional balancing of the system, rather than simply completely overpowered feats, if you do it that way, which will lead to at least less arguments over intentions.

Then again, the illusionist/dragon elementalist feats in Arcane Power (that stack with Expertise) might lead one to believe it was not an intentional and well reasoned change, but that some important people in WotC have forgotten how hit chance and defenses scale completely.

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

Who said that?

In which thread and post?

Just because this change, regardless of whether it comes from a feat or from a house rule, fixes part of the math issues does not mean that it is required.

It means that many players and evidently WotC recognized a gaming mechanical need for their games.

If you do not recognize that need, no worries. Your similar encounters will be slightly more grindy at higher levels and slightly more prone to TPKs than people who do recognize it, but that's ok. It's your game and your players.

Have fun with that.

But, if your purpose here is to argue that it is not needed for anyone else's game, there are many people who see you as mistaken. Your own n+4 Paragon level encounter illustrated that to some extent (in all fairness, you did pick the epitome DND monster that has a plethora of abilities that synergize well with each other for a solo, in other words, you picked poorly to illustrate your point).

Just because you do not see it as needed for your game (or see it as needed only if the player decides to take the feat) does not mean that others do not see it as needed for theirs. So, arguing that it is not needed for theirs is the same, but opposite, argument that you are claiming that they are making, that it is needed for your game.

Kind of pointless, eh?

Each group will have to determine whether they want or need the fix on their own, regardless of how they decide to implement it if they do take it.

 

[tiornys]

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...

Then I believe you are misunderstanding the argument. When I say "Expertise is a non-option", or something similar, I'm not saying "every character in every group must take Expertise". What I'm saying is: "Expertise is too powerful when compared with other feats". That's one of WotC's criteria for potential errata.

The following issues might merit updates:

• Statistics that are significantly underpowered or overpowered compared to others of a similar level. This includes but is not limited to monster attack and damage numbers, power damage numbers, check bonuses or penalties, etc. For example, the fighter power, dance of steel, is a 3rd level encounter power but is less power than the fighter’s 1st level encounter power, steel serpent strike.

I see Expertise as meeting this criteria.

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

LFR and other sanctioned RPGA games don't use house rules. Since I play in these games, if I believe there is a problem with the basic system, it is important to me to ask WotC to evaluate the potential problem, because errata is the only way to fix that problem in a sanctioned game.

Then again, the illusionist/dragon elementalist feats in Arcane Power (that stack with Expertise) might lead one to believe it was not an intentional and well reasoned change, but that some important people in WotC have forgotten how hit chance and defenses scale completely.

Agreed. I think these feats were modeled after Expertise; IMO that's the worst consequence so far of the Expertise feats.

t~

 

[UngeheuerLich]

ok, 2 bonuses that scale this way and stack looks very very wrong... no doubt there...

 

[Old Gumphrey]

I'm at work, what do those arcane power feats do again?

 

[Lauberfen]

One of the key signs that expertise is out is that it scales- chance to hit should clearly stay steady over levels, so bonusses to hit should not scale in the same way that damage should. I think the increases at 15th and 25th are the things which make it clearly overpowered, and a maths fix. Before then it's just bad power creep.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

LFR and other sanctioned RPGA games don't use house rules. Since I play in these games, if I believe there is a problem with the basic system, it is important to me to ask WotC to evaluate the potential problem, because errata is the only way to fix that problem in a sanctioned game.

I play and run LFR too...so we both pllay without house rules...I don't want to be forceed to add +1 per tier to att and defs if I don't take the feat...

edit: so now lets assume for the moment both of our playstyles are vailid, and represent atleast some group of LFR players...Group 1 wants things as is...group 2 wants better attack and defence...other then new feats that group 2 can take that group 1 dosn't please tell me how to keep both happy... that was the orginal poitn I have been trying to make aafter all...

As wotc how do you keep BOTH of our groups playing LFR no house rules??

 

[tiornys]

I'm at work, what do those arcane power feats do again?

Draconic Spellcaster

Heroic Tier
Prerequisite: Dragonborn, any arcane class
Benefit: You gain a +1 feat bonus to attack rolls when you use an arcane power that deals the same damage type as your breath weapon. The bonus increases to +2 at 15th level and to +3 at 25th level.​

There's a similar feat for Gnomes/Eladrin and arcane charm powers that also grants a +1 bonus to a couple of skills

Draconic Spellcaster can be combined with a Rod of the Dragonborn to apply to all implement powers:

Property: When you use a power with this implement, the damage you deal with the power is of the same damage type as the damage dealt by your dragon breath.​

GMforPowergamers: I want Expertise eliminated or at least changed so it doesn't scale; it's simply too powerful to be balanced as a feat. If Expertise represents a math fix, then I think they should actually fix the math rather than patching it with something that is supposed to be an option. Another superior option to the current state would be to patch things in a way that completely fixes it in a single feat for all characters. I'd rather have no Expertise and no fix than the current state.

t~

 

[keterys]

I am totally prepared to laugh at level 25+ LFR players who don't have expertise.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

Draconic Spellcaster

Heroic Tier
Prerequisite: Dragonborn, any arcane class
Benefit: You gain a +1 feat bonus to attack rolls when you use an arcane power that deals the same damage type as your breath weapon. The bonus increases to +2 at 15th level and to +3 at 25th level.​

There's a similar feat for Gnomes/Eladrin and arcane charm powers that also grants a +1 bonus to a couple of skills

Draconic Spellcaster can be combined with a Rod of the Dragonborn to apply to all implement powers:

Property: When you use a power with this implement, the damage you deal with the power is of the same damage type as the damage dealt by your dragon breath.​

GMforPowergamers: I want Expertise eliminated or at least changed so it doesn't scale; it's simply too powerful to be balanced as a feat. If Expertise represents a math fix, then I think they should actually fix the math rather than patching it with something that is supposed to be an option. Another superior option to the current state would be to patch things in a way that completely fixes it in a single feat for all characters. I'd rather have no Expertise and no fix than the current state.

t~

Wow...that's...wow. I mean, it doesn't affect much in my home games, but I play Delve nights and other RPGA events. They need to fix that a lot. I know this has been said, but expertise feats are terribad not only because they're too good, but you have to take them more than once if you're something like a paladin who uses different weapons and implements. And then they don't apply to anything but your main attacks, so nobody will try anything like Bull Rush...but people stop doing that as soon as they get a +1 weapon...