So, about Expertise...

[Mengu]

I've spent over ten years on the game store floor, half in the mid 80's, and half after the tech bubble popped. I've seen books literally sold before my very eyes by a single powerful feat, prestige class, spell, or ability. While the Player Handbook +2 certainly will sell a lot of copies just on the basis of the new classes alone, regardless of the quality of that work, Expertise will make the book almost mandatory for groups.

You may be right, I don't have as much experience in the rpg book market, but know how this goes in the miniature game market where power creep will sell a model much faster than a nice sculpt.

However in the case of D&D books, it seems pretty foolish for people to just buy the book for one feat which they already know about. They can just put it on their character sheets and move on. I would sincerely hope people have more sense in deciding why they should spend $30 on a book. The average min-maxer should know how to maximize his to hit, and minimize his expenses, right the feat down, and wait for the next big thing.

 

[grickherder]

I figured out what the problem is. In the DMG, you'll find on pages 8 through 10 a list of player types/motivations. Though not an exhaustive list, they include:

Actor
Explorer
Instigator
Power Gamer
Slayer
Storyteller
Thinker
Watcher

Different people approach the game with different motivations. These motivations impact the choices they make when playing and building their characters-- including selecting feats.

The problem is that many, many people in this thread and similar ones elsewhere assume that there is only one player type/motivation. Power Gamer. That the only proper/real/true motivation for choosing a feat is to enchance the characters in-game potency and that any choice made out of a different motivation or from the stance of a different player type is somehow sub-optimal, will produce a "terrible build" or is just generally the wrong way to go.

The problem isn't the expertise feat, the problem is that everyone seems to think that if you don't take the thing that gives you the most combat potency that you're somehow doing it wrong. Even to the point where people are thinking about those who opt not to take an optional feat as being penalized because they're not taking it.

It's not the end of the world. It's a feat that you don't have to take if you don't like it. It'll be okay. You can make a character without bending to the demands of the power gamer mindset and find it completely viable and satisfying.

 

[Jhaelen]

How about looking at the positive effect of having a feat like Expertise?

Let's assume that currently a lot of a character's effectiveness in combat requires a careful choice of starting attributes, powers and feats. Haven't some people been complaining that all characters of a certain class/build look the same?

Now, with the advent of this feat you can actually be effective with a (slightly) suboptimal choice of starting attributes.

Of course, a player who's chosen the 'optimal' starting attributes AND picked the Expertise feat will have a better chance to hit with his character than a player who's didn't start with the 'optimal' choice.
But if both are now in the comfortable range of hitting with a chance of, say 50+ percentage, wouldn't they both be happy?

I.e. isn't this feat creating a win-win situation?

 

[Smeelbo]

How would you feel about "Challenge Expertise?"

I must admit that I find what you're saying to be well... sad.

I didn't say your build sucked, I said that if it was true that PMC was bad because it is a feat sink, then then it's no surprise that a sub-par feat sink build has no room for Expertise. I know nothing about your build, except it is a PMC, which is a feat sink, for good or ill.

In the games I run and play in, there isn't a drive towards eeking out every ounce of combat potency out of the builds. A solid third of the PCs started with 16s in their primary attack stats.

Same here. My first and only actively played character has a 16 in his attack stat, because that is what the character concept requires. You don't have to be an optimizer to see that Expertise is an extremely good feat. That same character will absolutely be taking Weapon Expertise: Axes at 6th level, since at that point he will have all his important heroic "capability" feats, and will be looking to improve his effectiveness.

However in the case of D&D books, it seems pretty foolish for people to just buy the book for one feat which they already know about.

As I've said, every group I've been in, the DM won't allow a character to use a feat, power, or ability, unless the DM has access to the book. That's not farfetched. It's a simple matter of practicality. If the DM does not have access to the exact text of the feat, power, or item, how can the DM adjudicate it properly.

And how do you get the exact wording? By having access to the book. How do you get access to the book? Where I come from, you buy it. I've heard all kinds of crazy BS "quoted" on the web which happens to be wrong. Show me the book, or choose a different power.

As a sales person, being able to quickly open the PHB2 up to Expertise, and show the customer, is a great way to help close that sale.

I figured out what the problem is. In the DMG, you'll find on pages 8 through 10 a list of player types/motivations.

The problem with that theory is that no player operates with a single motivation. Every actual player in the real world operates with a mix of motivations, which are reflected in his character and play style.

For example, I subscribe to almost all those motivations, to greater or lesser degrees. While I am not predominately a power gamer, I do believe in having the combat part of my character optimized well enough to support the rest of my character concept. I always want a balanced character, viable both in and out of combat. I can optimize well enough to realize how good Expertise is, and it bothers me. I have many motivations in playing, but I'm sure not going to pass up +1 to hit, and I believe the vast majority of players optimize enough to reach the same conclusion.

The problem isn't that Expertise is "eeking out every ounce of combat potency," rather that Expertise will become the first choice to improve combat potency.

"Oooh, I've got a great character concept" means squat in D&D if the character hasn't got the chops to to hold up in combat. If Expertise takers are hitting 50% of the time, while non-Expertise takers are hitting 35-40% of the time, or worse, you and your friends are going to notice the difference. You might aim your build towards having all kinds of cool stuff you can do, but most of that ultimately involves hitting an opponent in combat.

You don't need to be an optimizer, you only need to understand how combat works to realize how good Expertise is, and how much better it is than all the alternative feats for improving combat ability.

As a thought experiment, let's try putting the shoe on the other foot. Imagine the PHB III contained the following feat:[quote="Challenge Expertise, PHB III]You gain a +2 bonus to all skill checks except during combat.[/quote]Now, it is pretty obvious that if a character wants to be good at skill challenges and other skill checks outside combat, once that character is trained in the skills they want, Challenge Expertise will absolutely be their first choice for improving their character's capabilities outside combat. It is better than Skill Focus and stacks with it. It is better than every other feat choice for non-combat.

You wouldn't have to be a min-maxer or a power gamer. Anyone who understood the basic mechanics of 4E should immediately recognize how good this feat was, and take it first, after they have taken their requisite "capability" feats.

Challenge Expertise is practically the mirror image of Weapon Expertise, and would be bad for the same reason.

I suppose you could argue that you can simply ignore probabilities, and that 4E allows you to do so. Perhaps it does. After all, 4E is designed to appeal to a broad audience.

Smeelbo

 

[grickherder]

I didn't say your build sucked, I said that if it was true that PMC was bad because it is a feat sink, then then it's no surprise that a sub-par feat sink build has no room for Expertise. I know nothing about your build, except it is a PMC, which is a feat sink, for good or ill.

In your use of "feat sink" you're demonstrating certain priorities again (specifically of the power gamer variety). By what criteria do we consider spending so many feats on multiclassing to be a "feat sink"? That one can get more combat potency out of not spending those feats and taking a paragon path? That there are better choices if one's goal to combat potency? Such criteria are meaningless for those who are not prioritizing power gaming or min-maxing to the degree you are. If my goal is to make a truly multiclass warlock/wizard gnome then it's not a feat sink at all, but feats spent to get the effect I want. For someone who emphasizes powergaming less, spending all these feats on combat potency can be called a feat sink.

The problem with that theory is that no player operates with a single motivation. Every actual player in the real world operates with a mix of motivations, which are reflected in his character and play style.

That actually supports what I'm saying rather than being a "problem with that theory." See below:

I have many motivations in playing, but I'm sure not going to pass up +1 to hit, and I believe the vast majority of players optimize enough to reach the same conclusion.

However you might rank your various motivations in terms of their importance to you, the power gaming one is sufficiently high to motivating factor when assessing Expertise. If it was lower, you might be willing to pass up the +1, but you're not. You're assuming that the mix of motivations that players have automatically places power gaming high on the priority list. It doesn't have to be that way.

If Expertise takers are hitting 50% of the time, while non-Expertise takers are hitting 35-40% of the time, or worse, you and your friends are going to notice the difference.

Is this really the case though? Perhaps after level 25, but a +1 to hit through level 14 isn't exactly the difference between hitting 50% of the time and 35-40% of the time.

You don't need to be an optimizer, you only need to understand how combat works to realize how good Expertise is, and how much better it is than all the alternative feats for improving combat ability.

I'm not convinced it's better than all the alternative feats. For example, a 1st level wizard might be better off with leather armour proficiency. Expertise is certainly good (especially at 15th and 25th level), but I'm just not buying this "it's better than all the other combat feats" idea. At level 1, there are other better feats when it comes to improving combat ability. However, Expertise certainly becomes attractive once someone works through their short list of other stuff (Action Surge, DWT, Eladrin Soldier, Toughness, superior weapon proficiencies, melee training, lethal hunter, improved warlock curse feats, backstabber, and many others depending on the race/class combo).

At level 15, it becomes very attractive though. And at 25, even more so. I don't think that something you'll probably want to include by half way through the advancement cycle is somehow a "must have" though. I don't think that qualifies it as better than all the other combat related feats.

Challenge Expertise

will absolutely be their first choice for improving their character's capabilities outside combat. It is better than Skill Focus and stacks with it. It is better than every other feat choice for non-combat.

If you're going to make an analogous feat to weapon/implement expertise, why not actually make it analogous? +1, +2 at 15th and +3 at 25th?

If that was the case, I could see myself taking it at around 15th or 25th just like with weapon/implement expertise. And subsequently, I don't consider something I get half way through the character's advancement cycle to be somehow better than all other non-combat feats.

Jhaelen really made a good point above:

How about looking at the positive effect of having a feat like Expertise?

Let's assume that currently a lot of a character's effectiveness in combat requires a careful choice of starting attributes, powers and feats. Haven't some people been complaining that all characters of a certain class/build look the same?

Now, with the advent of this feat you can actually be effective with a (slightly) suboptimal choice of starting attributes.

Of course, a player who's chosen the 'optimal' starting attributes AND picked the Expertise feat will have a better chance to hit with his character than a player who's didn't start with the 'optimal' choice.
But if both are now in the comfortable range of hitting with a chance of, say 50+ percentage, wouldn't they both be happy?

I.e. isn't this feat creating a win-win situation?

Yes! Absolutely. It allows those who want to make a MAD build more viable in combat. It allows more race/class combinations to be effective in combat. It allows the players to compensate for DMs who pack their encounters with monsters of higher level than the party.

While I may rank power gaming lower in terms of my own priorities, I can appreciate the good that a feat like Weapon/Implement Expertise does for those who rank it more highly. Especially those who would like to be able to make a sub-optimal build work in combat. It seems to only be a problem feat for those who see a +1 to hit as being so important they have no choice but to take it.

My first 4e character was a half-elf cleric with no stat higher than a 15. But now I can spend a feat and get a +1 to hit. Maybe some of the 15 attack stat builds I had considered in the past are more viable after all.

Allows a greater number of class/race combinations to be viable? Yep.
Allows those who feel they are not hitting enough to get a bonus? Yep.
Allows one to compensate for a sub optimal build so you can prioritize things other than power gaming builds? Yep.

I certainly see a lot of good about this feat.

 

[Fedifensor]

You have one daily until level 5. Getting +3 to hit with that daily > +1 to hit with that daily. In other encounters, you have 1 or 2 encounter powers, again giving you very few options to add the +3 to. Having the most important powers be even more accurate can at least be comparable to having all your powers more accurate. This depends on whether you want higher damage output on average per round, or want to hit with your daily/encounter power.

Well, with an average of 3 combat encounters a day, and about 2 skill challenges in that same day (which I would say is the average in my 4E experience), you have a total of 3 action points to spend. Each combat generally takes between 5 and 10 rounds. If we average things out to 7.5 rounds per combat with one extra action per combat from action points, that's about 25 attacks per day, of which Action Surge will affect 3. That seems like a pretty poor rate of return, even if you get an extra +2 with the daily.

Now, if you're just killing time with your at-will powers until you're ready to use your encounter and/or daily, then the return seems much better - 3 attacks out of 4 encounter/daily attacks at 1st, or 3 out of 7 at 3rd (not counting racial encounter powers like Dragon Breath or Earthshock which aren't affected by Expertise, daily powers from magic items, etc). However, for many classes, those at-wills are quite powerful. Scorching Burst can hit multiple foes, as can Sword Burst or Twin Strike. Righteous Brand can provide as much or more of a boost than Action Surge, and Sacred Flame can offer a significant buffer of temporary HP to a character.

Regardless, the higher level you are, the lower the payoff of Action Surge relative to a constant to hit bonus. By the top of the Heroic tier, that's 3 out of 12 encounter/daily powers...only 25% of the big powers. Daily powers have a larger effect...but they also have an effect if you miss, so the overall increase in effectiveness from a to hit bonus is the same between encounter and daily. Overall, you get more of a bonus from the +1 to everything than the +3 when an AP is used, even before adding in at-will powers.

There are going to be feats that will likely be best to pick first amongst it's peers. Few of the feats are obsoleted by the expertise feats ... most would just get pushed back a bit as they work well with expertise. It's not replacing so much as delaying. Now, for people that wouldn't be taking those feats in the first place, it's harder to argue that expertise is the correct choice.

You have less total feats with Expertise in the mix, especially if you use both Weapons and Implements. It's a "feat tax"...and a completely unnecessary one. Either the math for the game was fine before, which means the Expertise feats are unbalanced, or the math wasn't fine, and the Expertise feat is the wrong way to fix the game. It doesn't affect non-Weapon, non-Implement powers like the Dragonborn or Genasi racial feats, and it reduces choice by reducing options. As many have said, the feat is good right from level 1, flat-out superior by level 15, and a game-changer by level 25.

 

[Eldorian]

In your use of "feat sink" you're demonstrating certain priorities again (specifically of the power gamer variety). By what criteria do we consider spending so many feats on multiclassing to be a "feat sink"? That one can get more combat potency out of not spending those feats and taking a paragon path? That there are better choices if one's goal to combat potency? Such criteria are meaningless for those who are not prioritizing power gaming or min-maxing to the degree you are. If my goal is to make a truly multiclass warlock/wizard gnome then it's not a feat sink at all, but feats spent to get the effect I want. For someone who emphasizes powergaming less, spending all these feats on combat potency can be called a feat sink.

A feat sink eats feats. A heat sink eats heat. A kitchen sink eats




water. Gotcha! Thought I was gonna say kitchens, didn't ya?

I won't argue the rest of the post. I do not believe you can be convinced otherwise.

 

[Smeelbo]

Playing a game by rationally considering the consequences of choices is hardly power gaming. Most players of any game will consider the rules, and devise strategies that are both fun, and adequately rational.

I predict that in practice most players will be sufficiently motivated by the rational pursuit of advantage that their characters will take Expertise by 6th level.

A better analogy for the feat vs. fix would have been page 42 of the the DMG, the table Difficulty Class by Level. Suppose instead of issuing the errata as was done, they offered a new feat in a new book, call it:

You gain a +5 bonus to skill checks during skill challenges.

That would have "fixed" the skill challenge bug for those characters who took the feat, and the feat is so good, all characters would take it eventually, unless all they care about is combat.

I'm not a min-maxer. I'm certainly capable of it: I have the background in games, mathematics, and logic. But I do like to consider my alternatives rationally, and be rational enough that I can play the game and not burden my fellow players.

Rationally, I would be hard pressed not to take Expertise as soon as I can afford it, regardless of character concept.

Smeelbo

 

[grickherder]

D&D is definitely about combat. Even with quests and skill challenges, the majority of what you are rewarded for is combat. And you're rewarded with more combat potency. So I'm totally on the same page as you regarding everyone needing an appreciation of the combat system. I disagree that everyone needs to prioritize effectiveness in that combat system above other considerations.

Expertise is a combat feat and it is certainly a good one. I don't agree that it's somehow a no brainer choice that everyone should take as soon as they can. I believe it becomes that good of a choice perhaps at 15th level and for sure at 25th. But, as I said before, I don't consider a heroic tier feat chosen half way through the paragon tier to be indispensable.

I'll concede that you likely have your hand to the pulse of the typical D&Der more than I do and it's entirely possible that the majority of them will pick expertise by 6th level. I think that it's a mistake to be so hungry for bonuses to hit with one major exception-- DMs that put monsters of higher level than the PCs in their encounters. I know LFR modules are pretty bad for this. I think every DM should read the grindspace thread, but if they don't, I can definitely see players clamour for every +1 to hit they can get.

I see only good sides of having expertise feats available. I don't consider them no brainer/must have choices unless the DM is designing grindy encounters. As well, there's not a lot of actual play posts where people are complaining about missing in the epic tier. Mostly people complain that epic combats are too easy. The disparity between PC to hit bonus progresion and monster defense progression can be overcome by things like combat advantage and power bonuses to hit. So I don't buy that it's a disguised patch either.

 

[grickherder]

A feat sink eats feats.

Right. According to what criteria does once consider the feat "eaten"? People take feats to accomplish things with their characters. If those feats accomplish those things, then it doesn't matter if some guy on the internet says it's sub-par or a poor build because it doesn't give the best bang for the buck for what the guy prioritizes. If I don't care about prioritizing combat potency and am happy with my character's baseline abilities, attack stat, etc., and I sacrifice feats that would give me an effect I want to take combat feats, than those combat feats are a feat sink.

I won't argue the rest of the post. I do not believe you can be convinced otherwise.

No, I don't think I can be convinced to join the "Expertise! Oh no! It's the end of the world!" crowd. You're right about that.

I like weapon/implement expertise. It accomplishes a lot of good things for a lot of different players with different goals.

It makes taking a class with a race that doesn't have a bonus to the primary attack stat more viable.

It can compensate for bad DM encounter design (monsters with too high defenses for the PCs-- see the only you can prevent grindspace thread).

It makes more class/race combinations/builds viable.

It makes more attribute distributions viable.

It can be used to make a weapon specialist (lots of people dig their characters having signature weapons)

It can allow for a +1 to hit when a player who's new to the game didn't make optimal choices during character creation.

Quite frankly, the upsides to these feats are staggering. And the downsides? That some power gamers are going to consider it an auto-include? I think I'll live.