Expertise justification?

[Zsig]

I don't think the real issue is with tresure parcels, but instead it's how the DM builds encounters.


I recently DMed a campaign that got from lvl 1 to lvl 12.

They had:
-Human ranger (twf), non-optmised
-eladrin swordmage, optimised (well, sorta)
-dwarf paladin, non optimised
-human wizard, optimised (sorta)

At level 6 it became obvious that something was wrong, as the paladin could only hit certain key villains on a 17+, while the swordmage could still hit on a 12 or so.


One thing that, as a DM, I can see becoming an issue, is that as the campaign unfolds more and more encounters becomes much more "meaningful" and I throw away easy/trivial encounters much less often, which means, I'll make less encounters, though, more difficult ones, and that means, higher level monsters. If as a DM I could keep the monsters at the same level as the PCs even if while doing so increasing the overall number of monsters, then the problem would be solved.

At low-to-mid heroic tier levels, PCs can beat up a nasty solo that is up to 4 levels higher than they are with some trouble, but still quite "epic" and viable. If you try to do the same at, say, late heroic, you'll see a whole bunch of frustrated people.

When my campaign hit lvl 11 I decided to give Weapon/Implement Expertise for free to those who'd keep their characters for the next chapter of the campaign, it was pretty nice seeing the dwarf hitting stuff again. The ranger also enjoyed it, though, the difference was more subtle for him. The others changed their characters for highly optimised ones, and they didn't care at all about it.

I still got to see how Epic Tier plays, but I'm not really that much into it, so I probably will never see it and thus will never be able to form an opinion about it.

Anyways, I guess, botom line is: if you're missing alot, or if the encounter feels like a grind, it's probably your DM's fault (well, at least partly).

I think I learned my lesson.

Examples:
-For a group of lvl 8 PCs, if you want to give them a difficult encounter (lvl+2), instead of placing higher level foes, try adding a couple extras of the same level as the PCs.
-Against solos, try using a lower level one (up to PCs lvl +1) and then add some hazards and/or lower level foes to support the BBEG.

 

[CapnZapp]

Imagine it were a feat bonus and you had already spent a couple of feats on circumstantial +1 attack boons. Boy would you be mad...

Well, with the retraining rule, 4E can now obsolete existing features without anyone getting more than mildly miffed.

Not that this is the case here, of course.

 

[Nail]

If you doubt that the game will get to level 15 anytime soon, then you're only talking about +1 to hit. Previous editions of D&D also gave players the ability to focus on a single weapon to gain +1 to hit. There have always been some players that are willing to specialize at the expense of versatility, and some that don't. Why not let them figure that out for themselves?

Very true! Well said.

It's really, really, really unlikely we'll ever get to 15th level. We ain't teenagers playing 14 hours a week. This feat gives a measly +1 to hit...just like weapon focus of 3.xe...what's the big deal? Jus' allow it already!

 

[Intense_Interest]

Put simply, the game is about choices. If there's a feat so good that everyone will take it (as expertise certainly is at 15th onwards, and probably is at heroic too), then that is not a choice- everyone has the feat, and thus one less feat spare to make interesting characters.

So it's much like a real tax- you have less resources left to do what you want. Note that D&D does not contain any of the compelling reasons for taxation, such as the fact that public healthcare simply provides more cost effective treatment than private healthcare.

Alright, but what about the case player that really, really wants to make a "Quick Draw" character, mostly for reasons of Role-playing (or other feat-covered possible aspect of a character, such as dual-wielding Wands or having an off-hand Shortsword). Is it a "Feat Tax" because he feels it necessary to spend a feat on a choice to do something specific, and that it is better than all other feats?

Because that is what the Expertise-class feats are- a choice to be pretty darn good at a certain aspect of your character. The single feat "tax" isn't out-and-out better to choose for a character that mixes-and-matches power selection, such as a Cleric or Bard or even a Dragonborn Bullrush specialist.

The problem with the math is, and here is the shocker, that the game gets harder as you go up in levels. And the Tax is there because if you really want to, you can reduce the difficulty hitting with your Signature Cool Moves at a cost of not having more "Cool" aspects of your character through feats. Yes, I understand that this is a value-judgement based on how the game can be more challenging as you go through the tiers without being less fun, but there it is- a philosophical disagreement to the idea of the Math and related Feat Tax being a "flaw" rather than a patch for certain groups of players.

Due diligence here: I DM a campaign where I instituted the "+1 to hit at 5th level, scales at 15/25" house-rule. However, I found it necessary because 5 out of 7 players aren't even half optimized, and won't be able to power through some of the higher-level rounds without being frustrated by missing their flashy Daily powers.

I don't think I'm in the wrong, or even contridict my philosphy, because currently I have, with their "worst" feat in parenthesis:

• 16 STR 18 DEX Eladrin fighter with a Longsword (Eladrin Fighting Style)

• 18 INT 15 DEX 14 CON Eladrin Staff Wizard focused on Cold spells (Bitter Blizzard)

• 17 STR dwarf fighter wielding a Fullblade (Quick Draw)

• Optimal-stated Elf "Swashbuckler" Rogue (Superior Profiency: Rapier)

• Optimal-stated Halfing Sorcerer, suicidal (no Leather Proficency)

and

• Optimal-stated Half-Elf Valorus Bard (the Extra Group Diplomacy Bonus feat)

• Lucky-Rolled (DM sighted) Dragonborn Paladin that swapped out from a badly-rolled Goliath Barbarian. 3 17s, 13, 14, 15. Not getting tailor-dropped magical items, pretty much.

 

[Lauberfen]

Alright, but what about the case player that really, really wants to make a "Quick Draw" character, mostly for reasons of Role-playing (or other feat-covered possible aspect of a character, such as dual-wielding Wands or having an off-hand Shortsword). Is it a "Feat Tax" because he feels it necessary to spend a feat on a choice to do something specific, and that it is better than all other feats?

Because that is what the Expertise-class feats are- a choice to be pretty darn good at a certain aspect of your character.

Now I presume your being facetious. Quick draw is about as different from expertise as a feat can get. Quick draw allows you to do something that you could not do before, by changing the actions required. Only some people will choose quickdraw, and significanlty, most people would be no better with it.

On the other hand, expertise does not allow you to do anything new. Most people will choose expertise within Heroic tier (certainly this is the case in my group). Expertise makes any character better at what they already do. "Hitting" is hardly a specialist ability- characters in 4E basically equal powers, and using powers is almost always better when you hit more. In fact the numerical advantage of expertise is so great that it is almost always superior to other feats such as power attack, weapon focus and of course all conditional bonusses to hit.

Back to the tax analogy- quick draw is like someone bying a car- they now can do something they couldn't before, namely drive.

Expertise is like a tax which creates an extra hour in the day- everyone can do just what they did before, but 5% better.

 

[CapnZapp]

Expertise is like a tax which creates an extra hour in the day- everyone can do just what they did before, but 5% better.

Actually that would be more like 4% better, but point still taken.

 

[Intense_Interest]

Now I presume your being facetious. Quick draw is about as different from expertise as a feat can get. Quick draw allows you to do something that you could not do before, by changing the actions required. Only some people will choose quickdraw, and significanlty, most people would be no better with it.

Quickdraw McGee without Quickdraw is a "bad" character. The Feat is incredibly Good for that player, actually nigh-necessary. And because the Feat is necessary for that player to have a Good character, instead of requiring him to pay Gold for a specialist scabbard, or train his Skill in "quick-drawing", he pays a "feat tax" to play that character.

On the other hand, expertise does not allow you to do anything new. Most people will choose expertise within Heroic tier (certainly this is the case in my group). Expertise makes any character better at what they already do. "Hitting" is hardly a specialist ability- characters in 4E basically equal powers, and using powers is almost always better when you hit more. In fact the numerical advantage of expertise is so great that it is almost always superior to other feats such as power attack, weapon focus and of course all conditional bonuses to hit.

Back to the tax analogy- quick draw is like someone bying a car- they now can do something they couldn't before, namely drive.

Expertise is like a tax which creates an extra hour in the day- everyone can do just what they did before, but 5% better.

While I enjoy your ability to re-define Feat Tax post-to-post, it impinges your ability to define your arguement. You can't say that just because a Feat is boring and utilitarian- instead of focused, interesting, and unique- that the definition now means that it is a "Tax" to play the game.

For example, say you had a no requirement Paragon-teir Feat that gave you the 1/Week ability to be raised from the dead instantly at no cost- a power type that is reserved for certain Epic-Teir destinies. This would be universally heralded as powerful and necessary for most builds because of its ability to give you an Epic-level power at level 11.

Under your first definition, this suggestion would be so Good and Powerful as to be a Feat Tax for characters that could possibly die. However, under your second definition, this suggestion is too conditional, unique, and something a character didn't do before, and is not a Feat Tax.

What this shows, sadly, is that Feat Tax as you use it is a pejorative, not an actual design philosophy.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Less personal comments needed, methinks, think Newcastle:

 

[Lauberfen]

Hmm, well you do seem to have identified two strands to my thoughts about feat taxes.

I think the first is more important, as it's the bottom line- if a feat is so good that everyone will take it, regardless of build then it ends up like a feat tax.

Expertise is clearly more of a feat tax than quickdraw, as outlined above, because it is not build specific. The issue with it providing no extra utility is an added point, one which I let get in the way because it also annoys me.

However you seem to have provided another poor example- I would never take the feat you've mentioned, because it is really not very useful. I also think no-one in my group would take it. Characters die so rarely that I wouldn't sacrifice another feat in my build for it.

I accept that people may not take expertise- I certainly won't, but only because I'm boycotting it. People are different, and have the right to make different characters. however for almost all builds, expertise is one of the best feats you can have. Not taking it does not change this- underpowering a character for RP reasons (as much as I respect it) in no way changes how powerful the options are.

Ultimately the proof is in the pudding, or whatever the phrase was before I murdered it. By 15th level I think 90+% of characters will have expertise. That, my friend, is a feat tax.

 

[KarinsDad]

Due diligence here: I DM a campaign where I instituted the "+1 to hit at 5th level, scales at 15/25" house-rule. However, I found it necessary because 5 out of 7 players aren't even half optimized, and won't be able to power through some of the higher-level rounds without being frustrated by missing their flashy Daily powers.

I don't think I'm in the wrong, or even contridict my philosphy

Actually, this paragraph of yours strongly supports the opposing POV.

What if a DM only uses the core books? What if the players never see those feats?

If the challenge is so great and the encounters so lengthy because of the decreased chance to hit, how much worse is it going to be for sub-optimized PCs in a game where they do not use the new books?

By definition, that's flawed. The game should be fun and enjoyable and playable right out of the box at all levels without the players being game experts or being forced to use expansion books. If not, it's flawed.