Feat Taxes, or, It's That Time of the Week Again

[TheUltramark]

so here is a question
how do you "fix it"

It hasn't come up at my table yet, but my first thoughts are to suggest a home rule that expertise isn't available until you are an expert - say level 11 ???
-or- add expertise to all soldiers, brutes, lurkers and leaders????

these aren't even in the idea phase yet, how do/will all of you handle this 'problem'

 

[TheUltramark]

All expected static modifiers are taken into account. Other things are intended to be bonuses on top of the minimum, not intended to bring you up to the minimum.

Yes, NAD = Not Armor Defense.

Well, monsters range from 95% hit to 5% hit, depending on the PC, in practical terms (a monster attacking a Str/Con Warden's Will who hasn't taken Improved Defenses and doesn't have any item bonuses to defenses, can basically hit on a 2+). Simultaneously, in the same group, a Cha-primary class with Superior Will and an Item bonus to Will the monster might need a 16-17+. However monsters attack gain a bonus of +1 per level (rather then 1/2 level+stuff), so they never have this scaling issue of not being at their intended hit%. The monsters relative attack bonus is static. Since, without investment, PCs lose defenses as they level and in some cases to the point where it just isn't ever possible to catch up to where they were, relatively, at level 1, monster hit% isn't an issue in the current dynamic.

my philosophy in the past (earlier ed's) has been that when the players start hitting more frequently, find a way for the bad guys to hit more frequently. All in an effort to continue the same threat of death, that at our table keeps things interesting

 

[Aulirophile]

so here is a question
how do you "fix it"

It hasn't come up at my table yet, but my first thoughts are to suggest a home rule that expertise isn't available until you are an expert - say level 11 ???
-or- add expertise to all soldiers, brutes, lurkers and leaders????

these aren't even in the idea phase yet, how do/will all of you handle this 'problem'

Well actually reasonable people disagree about how to fix it (unreasonable people disagree it is an even an issue, but they can't do math).

Some people think the Devs fix is fine, particular with Essentials Expertise feats adding a second feat basically rolled in. Though the power level of those extras is not consistent and not all options have an expertise feat like that, which causes issues, and it penalizes MID classes (Multiple Item Dependent, think someone who casts through a Holy Symbol and hits things with a sword).

You don't need to do anything to monsters. Again, they don't have a scaling issue. This is purely on the PC side of things.

The issue doesn't really exist for most of Heroic (you lose 1 hit at 5+, relatively), so there is nothing inherently wrong with restricting Expertise to 11+, though I wouldn't do it personally as actually level 9 is one of the toughest levels in a general sense.

The most common houserule fix, including the one that devs use in their home games, is giving out Versatile Expertise free at level 5.

 

[Herschel]

Well actually reasonable people disagree about how to fix it (unreasonable people disagree it is an even an issue, but they can't do math).

See, here you go again. It's not people "can't" do the math it's that they don't let the math rule them or care enough to micromanage it when they're having fun.

 

[Herschel]

my philosophy in the past (earlier ed's) has been that when the players start hitting more frequently, find a way for the bad guys to hit more frequently. All in an effort to continue the same threat of death, that at our table keeps things interesting

This is a good philosophy. As long as the game is fun for you, don't sweat it. People like Aulirophile just don't get it because they're too concerned about "the math" and the only way to play is their way.

 

[MrMyth]

1. It's exactly as accurate as claiming people who don't take expertise feats are ineffective because of it and that people who don't optimize are playing the game wrong. When I build a character, I'm probably around maybe 75% "optimized". I do well in combat, but I leave some stuff "on the table" in lieu of other things and actually play with a party instead of only looking at my own character. I also enjoy the tactical side of the game. These give me a lot of bonuses.

It really depends on the game. But if the expectation is that Expertise is the norm, a character without it will remain that much farther behind the curve. I noted above how the gap between optimized and average widened from +6 to +9 with the presence of Expertise. So, at Epic levels, prior to Expertise the DM could present an enemy with 36 AC. The average character hits it on a 13, the optimized character hits it on an 7.

The optimized character is a bit ahead of the curve, but hardly hitting it all the time. The average character is a bit behind the curve, but still hits enough to feel effective.

Expertise enters the picture. Now, the optimized character hits it on a 4. What happens then? Now, maybe the DM is of Aulirophile's mindset, and figures that a PC hitting on as low as a 2+ is a perfectly reasonable expectation for the game. On the other hand, maybe the start bringing in tougher monsters to compensate - meaning the average PC is now hitting even less. Even if the adjustment doesn't take place, having an enemy you hit 1/3 of the time, while your ally hits almost all the time, may start to get frustrating.

Basically, if the expectation is built into the system - either due to the base math itself, or due to a DM compensating for the power creep caused by Expertise - then having the 'choice' of taking or not taking Expertise is a trap for the non-optimized character. That is simply way too much impact for one single feat to have.

2. Ideal is a paradigm that can't be met because of the sliding scale of customer expectations. Sure you want to account for optimization but you can't let it rule you.

Even if the ideal can't be achieved, that isn't any reason not to aim for it. And trying to keep feats at an equivalent power level in the game, as well as trying to preserve a reasonable balance between average and optimized PCs, doesn't seem like "letting optimization rule you".

4. The postential is always there, I agree, but only when people aren't mature enough to handle it. In that case, some issue will always come up and if expertise is off the table, they'll move on to the next issue du jour.

I don't think that is true or fair. Maybe some groups will always find something to bother them. But in my group, being bothered by a flaw in the game doesn't mean there is an issue in the group, it means there is a flaw in the game.

Saying that a player should just 'suck it up' and be mature about having the game discouraging non-optimized characters is, in my opinion, unreasonable. As I said before regarding the DM 'fixing' things - sure, you can get around a problem by a DM fixing it. Sure, you can get around it by having players ignore their growing frustraton and just keep playing. But wouldn't it be best if the problem didn't exist in the first place?

It's no different than you always telling people they are wrong if they don't build characters your way. That was the point: to see how the people bashing non-optimizers like being put on the other end of it.

This is what I especially don't get. I am trying to argue for a system that better supports the ability for players to not optimize if they don't want to - as 4E set out to do from the start - and your response is to unleash a string of invective ranting about powergaming.

We're trying to push for a system that allows for both the average PC and the optimized PC to each contribute and be able to function at the same table, and your response is to claim that powergamers are the filth of the earth and WotC shouldn't even acknowledge their existence.

Well actually reasonable people disagree about how to fix it (unreasonable people disagree it is an even an issue, but they can't do math).

Well, count me in as one of those unreasonable people. I've said from the start that Expertise was not needed despite the math, due to all the other factors typically ignored when focusing on the math in isolation from the rest of the game. My experience since that has pretty much supported that.

I'm not going to claim that I have absolute truth on my side, but I do think that casually dismissing any other point of view is the same sort of behavior that Herschel is doing that you are objecting to.

 

[DEFCON 1]

We're trying to push for a system that allows for both the average PC and the optimized PC to each contribute and be able to function at the same table, and your response is to claim that powergamers are the filth of the earth and WotC shouldn't even acknowledge their existence.

There's no point in pushing for anything. Expertise already exists. The genie is out of the bottle. Until 5E is released, your choice is either use Expertise as-is or you houserule your game and "fix it" like Herschel's been trying to point out all along.

 

[MrMyth]

There's no point in pushing for anything. Expertise already exists. The genie is out of the bottle. Until 5E is released, your choice is either use Expertise as-is or you houserule your game and "fix it" like Herschel's been trying to point out all along.

That's pretty much I've done - handled it via one house rule or another. I'm not disagreeing with that being pretty much the option we have at this point - that doesn't mean we shouldn't offer our opinions on what we think would make for a better game.

In any case, as mentioned above, I was pretty much content to leave the topic alone until a post specifically started poking fun at those who felt there was a problem with expertise, and I felt I could address whatever misunderstandings led to that post. And, since then, have largely been defending my reasoning where it has been disagreed with.

 

[Herschel]

1. It really depends on the game. But if the expectation is that Expertise is the norm, a character without it will remain that much farther behind the curve.

2. Even if the adjustment doesn't take place, having an enemy you hit 1/3 of the time, while your ally hits almost all the time, may start to get frustrating.

3. I am trying to argue for a system that better supports the ability for players to not optimize if they don't want to - as 4E set out to do from the start -

4. Well, count me in as one of those unreasonable people. I've said from the start that Expertise was not needed despite the math, due to all the other factors typically ignored when focusing on the math in isolation from the rest of the game. My experience since that has pretty much supported that.

1. But again, this is basing on a personal expectation. It's not the game itself. The "issue" is when expectations within the group are too widely spread.

2. I agree with you but again it depends on the player. Many simply don't care to pay enough attention to how often they hit compared to someone else. I know if I'm feeling like I'm hitting a little less than I want to I do look more for tactical things like combat advantage, charging, wait for leader/controller bonuses, etc.

3. I think you're asbolutely right on the first part, I just disgaree that D&D no longer fits that mold. It's got a lot of versatility built in, especially when you factor in a DM.

4. I'm in complete agreement with you on this. The place I differ is in opening up the game for characters like Dwarf Barbarians, for example (pre-second stat split). For Dwarves, a 16 strength/+2 weapon could be felt as kind of harsh and I find buying pre-racial 18s a really heavy cost. I would have preferred Expertise would have been a straight +1 bonus with the rider myself but it is what it is.

 

[Aulirophile]

Well, count me in as one of those unreasonable people. I've said from the start that Expertise was not needed despite the math, due to all the other factors typically ignored when focusing on the math in isolation from the rest of the game. My experience since that has pretty much supported that.

I'm not going to claim that I have absolute truth on my side, but I do think that casually dismissing any other point of view is the same sort of behavior that Herschel is doing that you are objecting to.

OK.

Math > your anecdotal experience, sorry. I've played epic games without Expertise. The built-in system assumptions don't hold up without Expertise. And that was with MM1 monsters, I shudder to think what it'd be like now. But that is also anecdotal, so moving along...

1.) We know the intentions and assumptions behind the scaling. This is not a debateable point, we know exactly what the intentions were and why.
2.) We know that those aren't met without Expertise.
3.) Expertise is a patch to make the system work as intended.

None of that is debatable. Period.

For 4e to work as intended you need Expertise. That is an objective fact and not subject to debate. The idea that you can compensate for the system failure by ignoring the feat and adjusting all your encounters is true, but if you're houseruling the system you're just proving the point: it doesn't work as intended without Expertise (assuming, of course, it was intended to work).

I'm not casually dismissing anyone. I am dismissing people who have not done the math, know the intended point of the math, or know the history and therefore feel qualified to have an opinion. They aren't. I treat them like they aren't. If they happen to feel insulted that is their problem, dismissing the opinions of the uninformed is a privilege of the informed in any given area of knowledge.