Particle_Man
Explorer
I keep hearing about this feat Expertise in 4e. What book is it in and what does it do?
Expertise
It is from Players Handbook 2, and it Alters Game Balance! (Quick description)
As a more detailed description: +1 Bonus to Attack at lvls 5/15/25 (I.e. +3 at lvl 25)
Q&A
Do people exclude it from their games: No, they just whine (Like me)
Is it imbalanced: YEs, Must have feat.
Enjoy
As a more detailed description: +1 Bonus to Attack at lvls 5/15/25 (I.e. +3 at lvl 25)
Q&A
Do people exclude it from their games: No, they just whine (Like me)
Is it imbalanced: YEs, Must have feat.
Enjoy
Particle_Man
Explorer
Wow. I see no reason not to take that feat.
mach1.9pants
Hero
...unless you are not a min/maxer 
But even in our (non min/maxer) party 2 PCs (of 4) have taken it, just cos the lack of relevant feats (Wiz and Clr)
But even in our (non min/maxer) party 2 PCs (of 4) have taken it, just cos the lack of relevant feats (Wiz and Clr)
Expertise is screwing up my feat decisions in other ways. I don't take Expertise because it's boring, but after making that decision I don't take other attack-boosting feats because they're not as good as Expertise, and if I wanted an attack boost I should take Expertise in that feat slot instead of something else. Which means that now that Weapon/Implement Expertise has been introduced, my character's attack bonus has become lower than it would have been without it.
This is silly.
This is silly.
Obryn
Hero
I just give everyone an extra +1/+2/+3 to-hit at 5th, 15th, and 25th level. The feat doesn't exist. It takes away the must-have-ness of it, and opens the field for other feats.
For Character Builder, it's easy enough to just add a houseruled feat for everything they use. We still need to manually add the bonus to non-weapon, non-implement attacks, but otherwise it's fine.
I've heard similar complaints about the Defenses feats, but frankly I see my players ignoring those in favor of other stuff.
-O
For Character Builder, it's easy enough to just add a houseruled feat for everything they use. We still need to manually add the bonus to non-weapon, non-implement attacks, but otherwise it's fine.
I've heard similar complaints about the Defenses feats, but frankly I see my players ignoring those in favor of other stuff.
-O
Lord Ernie
First Post
This, although I also added a +1/Tier defense bonus (above Heroic, that is), and banned the respective defense feats. It's a hassle, yes, and I'd rather they'd released a 'math patch' than this, but implementing it as one works well enough.
Nail
First Post
Yeah.........unless you are not a min/maxer
See, "missing" isn't much fun, so....
Take the &^$@#!*! feat! 
Hmm. Shouldn't this be a +3/tier defense bonus (for NADs)? Unless you're figuring the players are going to deal with -some- of the shortfall via items, at least (in which case you'd want to make up...er, +4, I think, as it's pretty easy to get +2 to every NAD via items if you're dedicated enough). Or are you just banning the "+1 to all defenses" and +2 to all defense" feats, and figuring the players can take the "+4 to 1 defense, stacks with paragon defenses" if they want to concentrate on a defense or three?
I'd be tempted to give them +2 per teir above Heroic, actually, and houserule the +4 feats down to +3 (which -should- be less signficiant at paragon levels if the players already have +4 built into defenses--a player -should- be nigh-unassailable in one defense at paragon if they're willing to concentrate on it; the range shouldn't widen as much as it does in 3.x, but it should be larger than at heroic levels).
