Expertise

[Particle_Man]

I keep hearing about this feat Expertise in 4e. What book is it in and what does it do?

 

[Mort_Q]

http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/251816-so-about-expertise.html

 

[Goolpsy]

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

 

[Particle_Man]

Wow. I see no reason not to take that feat.

 

[mach1.9pants]

...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)

 

[NMcCoy]

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.

 

[Obryn]

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

 

[Lord Ernie]

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.

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]

Wow. I see no reason not to take that feat.

...unless you are not a min/maxer

Yeah......

See, "missing" isn't much fun, so.... Take the &^$@#!*! feat!

 

[mneme]

This, although I also added a +1/Tier defense bonus (above Heroic, that is)

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).