Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="kaomera" data-source="post: 5538490" data-attributes="member: 38357">If you're playing just with the first three books you don't need to worry about the &quot;'math' fix&quot;. They where introduced because a number of players complained that PC bonuses did not scale at exactly the same rate as monster bonuses, resulting in differences in expected results at different tiers. IMO expecting different tiers to actually work differently is entirely reasonable. These are also the same feats that get labeled as &quot;feat tax&quot;: they are so desirable that players want them more than any other feats so you'll see them on just about every character sheet at some point if you allow them. The big question becomes &quot;when&quot; and not &quot;if&quot;.Now, if you're using any newer material (specifically MM3 or the Monster Vault and upcoming products I'd assume) the assumption is that these feats are in play and that pretty much every character has them. Lower monster damage (often lower than the standards in the DMG for creating your own monsters) etc. meant that things tended to work out. However, the newer monsters are generally just better designed and IMO more fun. So while the feat taxes where not absolutely needed, the new stuff that takes them into account is better, so they're worth bothering with on that account.If you want to implement them as a blanket bonus, I'd suggest maybe making them +0/+1/+2 by tier. This would allow PCs to &quot;keep up&quot; by other means, making the expertise feats themselves less of an auto-take (although a flat +1 attack is still very nice, especially with the extra bonuses from the ones in HoWS). Simply giving expertise feats out as a bonus IME does not do anything but give the PCs a flat power bonus. (And complicating things slightly there are some attacks, such as some racial powers, that are neither implement or weapon and therefore do not benefit from the expertise feats. Some of them now get a comprable scaling bonus and others do now, with no real explanation of why / why not...)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="kaomera, post: 5538490, member: 38357"] If you're playing just with the first three books you don't need to worry about the "'math' fix". They where introduced because a number of players complained that PC bonuses did not scale at exactly the same rate as monster bonuses, resulting in differences in expected results at different tiers. IMO expecting different tiers to actually work differently is entirely reasonable. These are also the same feats that get labeled as "feat tax": they are [i]so[/i] desirable that players want them more than any other feats so you'll see them on just about every character sheet at some point if you allow them. The big question becomes "when" and not "if". Now, if you're using any newer material (specifically MM3 or the Monster Vault and upcoming products I'd assume) the assumption is that these feats are in play and that pretty much every character has them. Lower monster damage (often lower than the standards in the DMG for creating your own monsters) etc. meant that things tended to work out. However, the newer monsters are generally just better designed and IMO more fun. So while the feat taxes where not absolutely needed, the new stuff that takes them into account is better, so they're worth bothering with on that account. If you want to implement them as a blanket bonus, I'd suggest maybe making them +0/+1/+2 by tier. This would allow PCs to "keep up" by other means, making the expertise feats themselves less of an auto-take (although a flat +1 attack is still very nice, especially with the extra bonuses from the ones in HoWS). Simply giving expertise feats out as a bonus IME does not do anything but give the PCs a flat power bonus. (And complicating things slightly there are some attacks, such as some racial powers, that are neither implement or weapon and therefore do not benefit from the expertise feats. Some of them now get a comprable scaling bonus and others do now, with no real explanation of why / why not...) [/QUOTE]

Verification