poll on Expertise...Forked Thread: Expertise justification?
eriktheguy
First Post
This is the main issue with marketing DnD versus DDI. I was hoping that DDI would work as a rules patching system similar to what you get when you buy and Blizzard game. Instead, rules issues are fixed by printing and selling more books. It's just better business.
It would have been bad business for Blizzard to release 'Brood War' and 'Lord of Destruction' as free patches for Starcraft and Diablo respectively. But at least Blizzard used their patching service to fix bugs, glitches and imbalances.
Wizards had the power to fix the math issues through DDI (and release these rules changes in sourcebooks such as PHB II for non-subscribers). They have a powerful tool with DDI, but they don't seem to know how to use it. It's like buying an expensive repair kit for your car, but then paying to send it to the shop when it breaks.
eriktheguy
First Post
Even if they were not implemented as a fix, how can you look at them and say they were a good idea. The expertise feats:
-discourage characters to use builds which use more than one weapon/implement
-are very good at heroic tier, and incomparable to other feats at higher tiers
-offer a boring, static, flavorless bonus that is far better than other feats which offer interesting, challenging situational bonuses.
The reason you don't see 'I believe these feats are fine' as an option is because there is no rational argument to support these feats as being balanced with respect to other feats. What possible logical reason validates putting in a feat that is strictly more powerful than most other feats but less interesting?
You are correct that a DM should never penalize a player for creating a non-optimal interesting character. Many DMs were probably already implementing your suggestion (even subconsciously) in their campaigns before the advent of the expertise feats.
The issue of the expertise feats is that they increase the difference between the min/maxers and the fun players. Suddenly the multi-classing bard is at -3 to attack relative to the longsword only fighter, because he couldn't afford to take expertise for his two implements and his weapon.
Now the monsters you send after the weaker players are going to be 4 levels lower than those you send after the strongest one (rather than 1 level) and the players are going to notice. And when your higher level monsters end up fighting the wrong PCs, that bard is going to miss with two dailies and an encounter power and be very upset.
Thundershield
First Post
Indeed, any feat you're expected to take, from Toughness to Weapon Expertise, devalues the feat system. Feats were designed to be character options - ways for you to define your character. As soon as certain feats become something you're expected to take, they're no longer options.
Sure you have the option of not taking them, but you're expected to, so it's a rhetorical choice.
I what campaigns I've run or played in, Toughness hasn't been so much a necessity, so I'm fine with that. It's good for making a character feel tougher, but if you want a character that doesn't feel all that tough, not taking the feat isn't a death sentence.
The Expertise feats, however, immediately became so mandatory among my gaming groups and fellow players that they revised their builds or retrained as soon as they leveled up, making it obvious how these feats were no-brainers. I've subsequently given players a +1 bonus to all attacks at levels 5, 15, and 25 and removed the Expertise feats, freeing up that feat slot for the players again.
Anyway, what I wanted to say, I guess, is that implementing "math fixes" like this should not be at the cost of the optional elements of character design. If it's a general flaw in the math of the game, make a general errata that affects all characters regardless of character design or concept, not something you need to be aware of as a player and then pick the right feat to compensate.
Sure you have the option of not taking them, but you're expected to, so it's a rhetorical choice.
I what campaigns I've run or played in, Toughness hasn't been so much a necessity, so I'm fine with that. It's good for making a character feel tougher, but if you want a character that doesn't feel all that tough, not taking the feat isn't a death sentence.
The Expertise feats, however, immediately became so mandatory among my gaming groups and fellow players that they revised their builds or retrained as soon as they leveled up, making it obvious how these feats were no-brainers. I've subsequently given players a +1 bonus to all attacks at levels 5, 15, and 25 and removed the Expertise feats, freeing up that feat slot for the players again.
Anyway, what I wanted to say, I guess, is that implementing "math fixes" like this should not be at the cost of the optional elements of character design. If it's a general flaw in the math of the game, make a general errata that affects all characters regardless of character design or concept, not something you need to be aware of as a player and then pick the right feat to compensate.
Tequila Sunrise
Adventurer
They Are Broken
Obviously Expertise and Defense boosters were intended to be a math fix for paragon and epic levels, but they just don't work right. The missing math is:
4 lost from attacks,
4 lostfrom NADs by 30th level and
2 lost from AC by 30th level.
So Expertise doesn't do quite enough for attacks, and the NAD boosters have the potential to actually overcompensate for the lost math. And AC is still left out in the cold, even if you consider Armor Spec. Frankly, I'm still amazed at how many DMs seem content to accept these feats as-is, or even argue for this particular aspect of RAW.
Obviously Expertise and Defense boosters were intended to be a math fix for paragon and epic levels, but they just don't work right. The missing math is:
4 lost from attacks,
4 lostfrom NADs by 30th level and
2 lost from AC by 30th level.
So Expertise doesn't do quite enough for attacks, and the NAD boosters have the potential to actually overcompensate for the lost math. And AC is still left out in the cold, even if you consider Armor Spec. Frankly, I'm still amazed at how many DMs seem content to accept these feats as-is, or even argue for this particular aspect of RAW.
Intense_Interest
First Post
Yes, those strange, strange people who believe the game should get harder as you go up in levels instead of hitting Vecna on a 8.
keterys
First Post
You may have misread his statement... people who object to Vecna being hit on an 8 would argue _against_ the feats.
Flipguarder
First Post
So you have a ruleset for bringing vecna to level 30 or bringing the characters to 35?
Because thats the only way anyone is going to hit vecna on an 8 without severe min/maxing.
Because thats the only way anyone is going to hit vecna on an 8 without severe min/maxing.
The reason some people think that +3 to attacks, +0 to AC, and +3 to NADs (and even +1 to a 3rd ability score on levels 4, 8, 14, 18, 24, and 28 for the 3 lost to weakest NAD) is sufficient is because of other synergies:
+1 to AC due to various feat specializations
+2 to NADs due to feats
+x to additional buff and debuff powers that do not exist at lower levels
+1 to various buffs due to Paragon Path
It seems reasonable for a fix to make up most of the 4 drop, but not all of it. Most players will not notice a 5% dip, especially when other PCs are throwing out buffs and debuffs and when they do not know the level of the monsters they are facing. They will notice a 20% dip when it occurs every encounter.
keterys
First Post
Eh, getting your base hit there is extremely difficult as I covered in an earlier post, but combined with any power that either adds an ability score to hit or subtracts an ability score from defense, it's not _that_ hard.
Granted, I think people overestimate how many rounds such powers are actually up.
