General consensus on expertise feats

[Holy Bovine]

Pretty much anything that allows PCs to hit more often, doing more damage and thereby shortening combat is good. Does nobody else notice that monsters have 100's of hps nowadays? If the PCs hit 15% more often that is just fine with me, I can build encounters that are still dynamic and exciting even with all of the PCs hitting every round (not that that has ever happened of course).

 

[Blackbrrd]

That's not accurate.

Theoretical optimizers noticed the discrepancy long before the feats came out, and opinions were divided on whether the discrepancy was an actual problem or not. Many of us pointed to the benefits of more & better Utility buffs, and the exponential damage increase from the growth of Leader power bonuses -- since back then, the iconic Leader bonus powers were Righteous Brand and Furious Smash, and those scale with ability, which scales with level.

- - -

However, pretty much nobody likes the feats.

Those who think the discrepancy was a problem think the feats are a "feat tax".
Those who don't think the discrepancy was a problem think the feats are needless power creep.

Cheers, -- N

I agree a 100% with this post.

My current stance is that it's power creep, but I have only played until level 9, so I may change over to the feat-tax camp. If I do I will give the feats or something equivalent at no cost.

 

[Mengu]

I gave my group free expertise at level 5 for any conceivable weapon or implement they might want to use (if there was a way in CB to apply this to racial attack powers and the like, I'd do that too). Players don't like it when they miss, I don't like it when they miss. I prefer an overall higher hit rate, and I can adjust encounter difficulty with that in mind. So for my game, they are neither a feat tax, nor power creep. Just another one of those knobs and dials I can play with. Really if the feat didn't exist, I don't think it would make that much of a difference. I'd just be using more lower level creatures in combat to keep hit rate about where I want it.

But for the average game, where DM is not making such house rules, or is running modules or LFR, Expertise trumps so many of the conditional attack bonus feats, that every character is likely to get it at some point. And a feat everyone has, doesn't help the individuality of a character any. One person with Plate proficiency, another with Toughness, and another with Human Perseverance have all spent a feat for a defensive purpose, but they do it in different ways. Bow expertise, heavy blade expertise, holy symbol expertise, and staff expertise don't really add a new dimension to a character. It merely pigeonholes them into a lack of versatility. A paladin or cleric who wants to use a weapon and a holy symbol is taxed even more. A warlord who uses a heavy blade, but wants to also throw javelins is taking a handicap.

Actually a similar problem exists with magic weapons and implements,a nd characters who like to remain versatile and keep around a melee and a ranged weapon. As DM, rather than going by your typical treasure guides, I try to make sure everyone's attack option slots have a similar bonus at each half-tier or so. I rather wish items did not have +X bonuses, but only had properties. The +X could easily have been built into the system.

I'm drifting off topic here, but back on Expertise, I don't think there is a consensus, since every game is likely to have different dynamics, different degrees of optimization from players, etc. It's just one of those things the DM has to decide whether it will be allowed, disallowed, or free. "Allowed" is probably my least favorite option. I'd rather be disallowed to get it in a game, or get it free.

 

[xXElaDriNDrizZztXx]

Non-AC Defenses, got it. Thanks for the definition.

I'm always surprised to hear how the math is broken in 4E in small ways, especially in the skill challenges. I remember reading Wizards hired MATHEMAGICIANS to ensure a solid MATHEMAGICAL foundation for the game's system. Are these issues often blown out of proportion? I know in the case of the skill challenges it just didn't work at first, and has been treated at length in DDI and DMG2.

FTFY

Admin here, breaking into the post. There's a whole lot of problems here; we don't allow "FIFY", the post is all noise and no signal, and it's overly sarcastic. AND you spelled "your" wrong! Good thing "stinky and loaded with danger" was funny... Point is, please review the Rules before posting further. Thanks, and PM me with any questions. Folks, please don't respond to this post.

~ Piratecat

Well, I think that MATHEMAGICAL elegance is highly overrated.

People get more concerned with the pattern of the numbers being perfect into Epic rather than 'Is epic actually difficult?'

Playtesting is far more important, and I think the 'number spread' was highly playtested.

Perhaps, but why would Mathemagicians be playing DnD rather than I don't know... Crunching probability?

That's not accurate.

Theoretical optimizers noticed the discrepancy long before the feats came out, and opinions were divided on whether the discrepancy was an actual problem or not. Many of us pointed to the benefits of more & better Utility buffs, and the exponential damage increase from the growth of Leader power bonuses -- since back then, the iconic Leader bonus powers were Righteous Brand and Furious Smash, and those scale with ability, which scales with level.

- - -

However, pretty much nobody likes the feats.

Those who think the discrepancy was a problem think the feats are a "feat tax".
Those who don't think the discrepancy was a problem think the feats are needless power creep.

Cheers, -- N

Powercreeping in a non-competitive game is so awful. I hate being good.

It's really dependent on the group, including the DM.

There are several factors involved:

1) PC design.

My wife was playing a Ranger and even with Twin Strike,.

You're kidding! A Ranger with Twin-Strike?

The essential consensus probably is that everyone will agree on.
The feats are very powerful.

Most people don't like them, because they are too powerful and either create a problem by being so strong, or they are an attempt to fix a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place.

Again, I don't like having something I enjoy being optimized. Makes sense.

Pretty much anything that allows PCs to hit more often, doing more damage and thereby shortening combat is good. Does nobody else notice that monsters have 100's of hps nowadays? If the PCs hit 15% more often that is just fine with me, I can build encounters that are still dynamic and exciting even with all of the PCs hitting every round (not that that has ever happened of course).

I agree a 100% with this post.

My current stance is that it's power creep, but I have only played until level 9, so I may change over to the feat-tax camp. If I do I will give the feats or something equivalent at no cost.

You're agreeance is like my lower intestine, stinky, and loaded with danger.

 

[tiornys]

The essential consensus probably is that everyone will agree on.
The feats are very powerful.

Most people don't like them, because they are too powerful and either create a problem by being so strong, or they are an attempt to fix a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place.

This. The feats are probably intended as a mathematical "fix", simply because they are so obviously above the power curve (from a game development standpoint) that it's difficult to believe they would print these feats if they weren't trying to fix something. That said, others have advanced somewhat reasonable theories to compete with the "math fix" theory, so some doubt exists here.

Regardless, the feats are certainly overpowered, in a clear and easy to demonstrate fashion.

My recommendations: if you are DM'ing and believe that the feats are needed to fix the math, then fix the math the way Mengu did, don't charge any feats for it, and move on. If you are DM'ing and think the math was fine, ban the feats. If you are playing in a game where you can't convince the DM to take one of these alternatives, plan to take an Expertise feat per primary attack weapon/implement by level 15.

t~

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

There seem to be four basic stances on the Expertise feats:

The Clueless Gamer: Expertise, what's that? Oh, that's a neat feat. (A poster on WotC actually suggested that Expertise was printed for those players who missed the Weapon Focus of 3e.)

The Min/Maxer: Suhweet! More hitting more damage yay!!!

The Coalition Against Power Creep: It's #1 on the blacklist, ban it.

The Coalition for Consistent Math: It's a system fix, build it into the game.

Savvy gamers who read the forums tend to fall into the second two groups, while casual gamers who don't care about forums tend to fall into the first two. Unfortunately I think the second two groups are the minority. Out of my group of five, I'm the only one who isn't happy with RAW -- everyone else seems complacent to run the game by RAW and take Expertise as players. *sigh*

My recommendations: if you are DM'ing and believe that the feats are needed to fix the math, then fix the math the way Mengu did, don't charge any feats for it, and move on. If you are DM'ing and think the math was fine, ban the feats. If you are playing in a game where you can't convince the DM to take one of these alternatives, plan to take an Expertise feat per primary attack weapon/implement by level 15.

+1. Heck, in a RAW game, I don't have a first level feat -- I have Expertise.

 

[Jhaelen]

+1. Heck, in a RAW game, I don't have a first level feat -- I have Expertise.

I guess, I'm in the faction seeing them as unnecessary powercreep.
I haven't banned them (yet), though. One of my players even took the feat at level one - and after the first session asked if he was allowed to swap it for something more useful...

The thing is: If you're hitting every time, anyway, the feat's completely wasted. I'm wary of banning it because it _might_ be a useful choice for PCs that actually have trouble hitting, e.g. because they've built 'sub-optimal' characters.

Then again, maybe it would be better to just create a new char in that case.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I guess, I'm in the faction seeing them as unnecessary powercreep.
I haven't banned them (yet), though. One of my players even took the feat at level one - and after the first session asked if he was allowed to swap it for something more useful...

The thing is: If you're hitting every time, anyway, the feat's completely wasted. I'm wary of banning it because it _might_ be a useful choice for PCs that actually have trouble hitting, e.g. because they've built 'sub-optimal' characters.

Unless there's some serious munchkinry, rules-neglect or bad dice juju going on, nobody hits all the time.

Then again, maybe it would be better to just create a new char in that case.

Depends on the player. We have a guy in my group who refuses to optimize even to the casual level that the game expects. He's been known to put a 12 in his prime stat and throw stat boosts around his character sheet like he's throwing seeds to pigeons.

I'm a fan of retraining, even retraining stuff the rules don't normally allow like ability scores. If a player wants it bad enough to ask me, I'd rather let them respec rather than encourage Bob the Second Fighter with Better Stats.

 

[Stalker0]

I guess, I'm in the faction seeing them as unnecessary powercreep.
I haven't banned them (yet), though. One of my players even took the feat at level one - and after the first session asked if he was allowed to swap it for something more useful...

This is when the perception angle of the game schews the math. A player who starts out rolling great might think attack bonuses aren't that important. A player who rolls badly might think they are extrememly important...when the truth is usually somewhere in between.

 

[Jhaelen]

Unless there's some serious munchkinry, rules-neglect or bad dice juju going on, nobody hits all the time.

Of course not. Even taking the Expertise feat won't make you hit every time, though.

Said player was hitting every time during that session.

However, it's definitely the case that there are diminishing returns. If the player is already putting everything into increasing his character's to hit chance, there's a point when it would simply be better to pick a different feat.

This is true for every super-specialized character, e.g. a cleric boosting his ability to heal in every imaginable way. At some points it's no longer the optimal choice.

Or take one other character in my group: The player of the changeling warlock put every resouce into boosting his Bluff skill. I already told him, that I think it's pretty pointless to boost a skill through the roof, but he still wants to get skill focus as his next feat.
Apparently, he just likes the idea of automatically succeeding at every disguise check even against epic npcs...
I think he's still stuck thinking in 3e terms.

And all of this doesn't take into account that a DM might choose to adapt encounters to the pcs power level: If the party's breezing through every encounter because they're over-optimized, they'll get increasingly difficult encounters until it's no longer a breeze.

Trying to win an arms-race against the DM is an exercise in futility. The only thing over-optimization achieves is making everyone's life more difficult.