Proposal: Alter Expertise Related House Rule

[elecgraystone]

Still not sure I follow. What feat only grants a +1 to hit on fire spells?

I was talking about draconic spellcasting. If we change the 5th level bonus to feat, then it becomes a more restricted form of focus.

Who's stopping you from taking axe feats for said ranger? Is it really that flavourful selecting Weapon Expertise (axes) vs the L4W expertise?

WOTC rewards people for specializing. A feat bonus to everything rewards not specializing.

Axe only had 1 non-style heroic feat for a ranger, though nothing is stopping his from picking it up. Since it quite possible that you don't have the at will that goes with the style and since the other feat adds Con to OA's, it's quite possible that you don't have a con bonus to add.

So to answer your question, WOTC might be the one stopping you from having axe feats.

Really, what PC's here in L4W have switched weapons whenever they feel like it? Most players specialize in one weapon and stick with that type. Just because someone can do something doesn't mean they will.

We have had DM'd here say that the wish list is only a suggestion. That means that you might end up seeing a one handed axe drop and you use one handed swords. If you have the generic expertise and no (or less plus) magic weapon why not use it at least for the adventure? With individual expertise it might be better to use your non-magic weapon. If wishlist where always followed then this wouldn't be an issue.

Re: Wotc future products we also don't know for sure that they will be offering extra feats, etc. for racials so why should we alter what we're doing for the chance that they are producing feats that may affect us?

Why wouldn't keeping as much as we can unchanged be for the best? The reason for putting as little houserules in is the fact that we don't know what's going to happen. I think it's better to not phase anything out we don't have to in case it's needed in the future. IMO expertise feats aren't something we NEED to phase out and we can keep them around with little issue (extra feat slot at 5th just for one of those feats).

This would be nice as a separate proposal to not get lost here in this discussion.

Since I'm offering it as a solution to some of the issue brought up by a vote, I think this should be here. If the bonus doesn't change or we agree to an empty feat slot then there isn't a need for it. In effect I'd putting forth 'we could make it a feat bonus AND alter the racial feats'. I think this could make everyone happy but I don't think changing the bonus and maybe altering the feats will.

 

[Oni]

Re: Wotc future products we also don't know for sure that they will be offering extra feats, etc. for racials so why should we alter what we're doing for the chance that they are producing feats that may affect us?

We already have things that are not interacting as well as they should because of the house rule put into place.

Draconic Spellcaster
Feyborn Charm
Brawler Fighter

These are all post expertise additions, I see no reason why we shouldn't expect more such things. So why not alter the rule in such a way that you don't have to worry about what they do in the future. It seems odd to me to keep the flat bonus and then just hope there aren't any more rules additions that interact poorly with it, when a simple change would solve it from here on out.

I just don't see how trying to cover a few corner cases that probably haven't and won't come up outweighs the rules functioning as intended by WotC and smoothly integrating with future releases in a way the current implementation just doesn't.

 

[elecgraystone]

You should add Gnome Phantasmist to the list.

 

[Velmont]

I agree with renau1g and cie about the fact that the Expertise feat have been introduce in first place to correct a math error. It need to be corrected.

But I also agree that you have some flavor feet that become not interesting anymore if they don't stack with our house rule, and maybe too strong is they stack with our house rules.

Why taking Draconic Spellcaster over Weapon Focus(Dagger) for a DragonbornSorcerer with the house rule? Flavor.

Why taking Draconic Spellcaster over Weapon Focus(Dagger) for a DragonbornSorcerer without the house rule (Or with an extra feat)? Flavor and save a feat, because you don't need Expertise (Dagger) and Weapon Focus (Dagger) for the same effect.

I think the extra feat could become an interesting option, but at the condition to wait for PHB3, as it gives more option, like Expertise Versatility (I am curious to know what the exact effect of that feat).

I would probably in favor of the change finally, but I would postpone the vote after PHB3 out and look at the new option. If we have a wide array of option, an extra feat might it might just be as good as a +1.

After all, we want to correct the math error without taxing all player from having to take an expertise feat among the few feat they have at low level.

Some might decide to take none, others might decide to take 2 to adapt to there concept.

 

[Fragsie]

Wouldn't a simple way to deal with this be to (when PHB3 is allowed) offer a bonus feat instead of the flat bonus, but say that that feat has to be chosen from a specific list (incl. all the expertise feats and the racial ones), and then add new feats to the list if and when WotC releases them? This way the maths issue is addressed, the more flavourful feats aren't nerfed and there's less chance of our houserule unbalancing the game (as a free feat chosen from anywhere could).

(sorry if I'm repeating anyone without realising)

 

[weldon]

Seems to me that the simplest way to deal with the math problem would be to nix the house rules altogether and just advise DM's to keep an eye on the AC of the monsters/enemies in their adventures.

 

[elecgraystone]

Yeah, I'll agree with Fragsie and Velmont that this should be tabled until PHB3's out and we've had a chance to look it over. While I'm pretty sure what's in it (since I've read posts from people that have it already), I haven't actually seen it myself.

And velmont is quite right that some people aren't really in need of a math correction (at least in heroic). If you have a tiefling swordmage with hellfire blood, a 20 Int and using only fire attacks with a +3 prof longsword you're 2 better to hit than a Orc fighter with an 18 Str and a +2 prof maul. The tiefling, not needing expertise, might want an extra feat instead of an expertise. He'll still be 1 better to hit even after the dwarf takes expertise.

 

[renau1g]

Seems to me that the simplest way to deal with the math problem would be to nix the house rules altogether and just advise DM's to keep an eye on the AC of the monsters/enemies in their adventures.

I must respectfully disagree, the DM's have enough going on to worry about this.

Yeah, I'll agree with Fragsie and Velmont that this should be tabled until PHB3's out and we've had a chance to look it over. While I'm pretty sure what's in it (since I've read posts from people that have it already), I haven't actually seen it myself.

Well, it's in a deadlock right now, so I don't think that's a problem.

 

[elecgraystone]

I must respectfully disagree, the DM's have enough going on to worry about this.

Yeah I agree. The DM's shouldn't have to do extra tweaking. I'm all for making the DM's job as easy as possible.

 

[Velmont]

I second renau1g et elec on the 'give no more job to DM'. They have enough like it.