Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
Playing the Game
Play by Post
Living Worlds
Living Eberron
Proposal: Modify the Expertise House Rule (E.g., give bonus feat)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 5381286" data-attributes="member: 2011"><p>The reason Gnome Phantasmist is even in the game system at all is because WotC wanted some feats to both fix the math bug AND give the players something for their feat. They did the same with the Essentials feats. Both of these types of feats came out after PHB 2 when they tried to fix the math bug with just the Expertise feats and they immediately got complaints that the Expertise feats were a feat tax.</p><p></p><p>I'm not arguing from both sides of the "Math Error" argument, that's just your spin on what I wrote. Do you honestly think it is fair and balanced for a Gnome Phantasmist PC to have +1 to hit and +1 damage over everyone else with a single feat? Or was the original intent of this feat just a way to have someone get more than just the Expertise feat by WotC? Heck, WotC even got rid of Weapon Focus for many spellcasters because it was too easy to stack too many different bonuses for damage. That's the same problem with to hit and the LEB house rule.</p><p></p><p>You not considering the fact the the normal WotC rules do not have the free LEB feat. Here at LEB, we have that. Here at LEB, the math bug is fixed. Because it is fixed here, it interfers with some of the WotC feats where it is not fixed. Gnome Expertise is balanced if one does not have a house rule fix (i.e. like the core rules), especially against other feats like the new Essentials feats. Gnome Expertise is overly potent, almost to the point of being broken, if you have a house rule fix.</p><p></p><p>That's why we are even discussing this. We have a fix that the normal rules do not and hence, it interfers with some of those feats, especially the new Essentials feats. The LEB fix now has an interference problem in that WotC is now introducing Expertise+ feats: Expertise feats that have an additional benefit that makes Expertise+ feats less useful here.</p><p></p><p>As stewards of balance here at LEB, the judges shouldn't allow the LEB house rule to stack with Gnome Phantasmist although technically today, it does. Nor should we allow it to stack with the Expertise+ feats.</p><p></p><p>WotC doesn't have this issue. By creating Expertise+ feats, they have found their solution. Give out Expertise to everyone AND give everyone a little extra bennie so that it is perceived as not so much a feat tax. Problem solved for WotC.</p><p></p><p>I am not married to the "make the LEB bonus a feat bonus" solution. If you have a better solution, I am willing to hear it. I just see nothing better yet. The suggestion to give everyone a free feat and they can use it for whatever they want, though, is a power creep. The purpose of such a suggestion is not solely to fix the math bug.</p><p></p><p>And the only reason to make the LEB bonus a feat bonus is so that we do not have to modify the house rule, every single time an Expertise-like rule comes out.</p><p></p><p>If WotC had a lot of Expertise+ feats floating around, we might even be able to get rid of the LEB house rule. But for now, I don't think they have enough of those, it's still a feat tax, and so I think we still need the LEB house rule. But if we could find a more elegant solution that just fixes the math, I'd vote to get rid of the LEB house rule.</p><p></p><p>In the meantime, I think we need to do something so that the LEB house rule does not stack with the Expertise+ feats.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="KarinsDad, post: 5381286, member: 2011"] The reason Gnome Phantasmist is even in the game system at all is because WotC wanted some feats to both fix the math bug AND give the players something for their feat. They did the same with the Essentials feats. Both of these types of feats came out after PHB 2 when they tried to fix the math bug with just the Expertise feats and they immediately got complaints that the Expertise feats were a feat tax. I'm not arguing from both sides of the "Math Error" argument, that's just your spin on what I wrote. Do you honestly think it is fair and balanced for a Gnome Phantasmist PC to have +1 to hit and +1 damage over everyone else with a single feat? Or was the original intent of this feat just a way to have someone get more than just the Expertise feat by WotC? Heck, WotC even got rid of Weapon Focus for many spellcasters because it was too easy to stack too many different bonuses for damage. That's the same problem with to hit and the LEB house rule. You not considering the fact the the normal WotC rules do not have the free LEB feat. Here at LEB, we have that. Here at LEB, the math bug is fixed. Because it is fixed here, it interfers with some of the WotC feats where it is not fixed. Gnome Expertise is balanced if one does not have a house rule fix (i.e. like the core rules), especially against other feats like the new Essentials feats. Gnome Expertise is overly potent, almost to the point of being broken, if you have a house rule fix. That's why we are even discussing this. We have a fix that the normal rules do not and hence, it interfers with some of those feats, especially the new Essentials feats. The LEB fix now has an interference problem in that WotC is now introducing Expertise+ feats: Expertise feats that have an additional benefit that makes Expertise+ feats less useful here. As stewards of balance here at LEB, the judges shouldn't allow the LEB house rule to stack with Gnome Phantasmist although technically today, it does. Nor should we allow it to stack with the Expertise+ feats. WotC doesn't have this issue. By creating Expertise+ feats, they have found their solution. Give out Expertise to everyone AND give everyone a little extra bennie so that it is perceived as not so much a feat tax. Problem solved for WotC. I am not married to the "make the LEB bonus a feat bonus" solution. If you have a better solution, I am willing to hear it. I just see nothing better yet. The suggestion to give everyone a free feat and they can use it for whatever they want, though, is a power creep. The purpose of such a suggestion is not solely to fix the math bug. And the only reason to make the LEB bonus a feat bonus is so that we do not have to modify the house rule, every single time an Expertise-like rule comes out. If WotC had a lot of Expertise+ feats floating around, we might even be able to get rid of the LEB house rule. But for now, I don't think they have enough of those, it's still a feat tax, and so I think we still need the LEB house rule. But if we could find a more elegant solution that just fixes the math, I'd vote to get rid of the LEB house rule. In the meantime, I think we need to do something so that the LEB house rule does not stack with the Expertise+ feats. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
Playing the Game
Play by Post
Living Worlds
Living Eberron
Proposal: Modify the Expertise House Rule (E.g., give bonus feat)
Top