You feel sorry for others for being annoyed that WotC did not fix the math, but merely bandaged it with a virtually must take feat (assuming people play using RAW)?
I'm one of the minority here who doesn't see the need for a patch to the math and believes that the game currently works fine and situational modifiers to hit can fully compensate for the scaling difference between monsters defenses and PC to-hit bonuses.
Everyone is allowed their own priorities. Just because they are different than yours does not make their priorities less valid. Fun is fun and everyone is entitled to their own idea of fun.
Absolutely. And when their priorities reduce their enjoyment of the game, they can choose to re-evaluate them or not. Or house rule what's bothering them. It's a choice based on their priorities.
I don't consider it fun to have to take a feat to compensate for the math. To me, a feat should be fun because it is cool, not because several of the players at the table think they have to take it, just to stay competitive. That's not fun, that's annoying (or as you put it, a feat tax).
I've already expressed my disagreement that there really is a math problem. I'm willing to accept that the designers think there is, but the game has worked for me (both published modules and my own stuff) since it's been published.
I think the "staying competitive" thing is also a matter of player priorities. Right now players can choose to start with a 16 in their primary attack stat and not fail to pull their weight next to the rogue with the 18 (or even 20) dex who uses a dagger to attack reflex defense as an at-will. They can blast away with a +3 at first level while the rogue gets a +8/9 against the same defense and not be failing to pull their own weight. An 18 in their stat would be better ofcourse, but people make 16s work.
For some people though, 16 isn't good enough and they prioritize the extra combat effectiveness such that they always take an 18-20 at level 1. Players should feel free to take the stats and feats that give them a chance to hit that satisfies them (and some could argue that party optimization means satisfying your fellow player's demands for your character as well, but that's a larger social contract issue).
If the person then feels they have to burn a feat on expertise in an attempt to keep up with something like the rogue, they can. Feats are chosen-- no one has a gun to anyone's head. The feat tax is a lot like the lottery-- you have to choose to pay it. And everyone makes that choice based on their priorities and their own situation. If it ruins the fun, then is it really worth it? And if someone with a higher bonus ruins the fun for a given player, then that player has given away control over their own enjoyment.
One area where I completely agree with you is that feats should let you do cool stuff and a bonus to hit is less cool than what a lot of other feats already do. It is certainly a less interesting choice. Once again, I think it comes back to priorities. How much do value a different interesting feat choice over a bonus to hit?
Apparently for a lot of people, it's agonizingly close. Interesting is valued highly and a +1 to hit is valued highly as well (apparently slightly more so and people talk about being forced to pay a feat tax).
If your priorities are such that the expertise feats force you to make an agonizing choice where you dislike both options, talk to your group about a house rule.
I'm also willing to concede that if such an agonizing decision is foisted upon as many people as represenative of the participants in the thread, then WotC made a bad move in terms of pleasing their target audience. I suspect, however, that most people won't be so torn.
If WotC would have worked harder on the math from day one or would be better about writing good errata, that feat would not be needed or in PHB II.
That's certainly a possibility. Had PHB2 or WotC's website had an errata simply saying that all characters get a +1 to hit at levels 5, 15 and 25, I'd have been like "okay... I guess." One thing I like about the expertise feats is that it allows those who feel they're not hitting enough to address it but doesn't force everyone to take it*. If someone
feels forced to take something that is by definition something you have to choose (ie a feat), theres another dynamic at play.
*EDIT - just wanted to say that I understand the position that no one should have to take a feat if the feat is actually a math patch but I disagree with the idea that everyone should get a +1 to hit regardless of how they currently evaluate their contribution to the game. I think a house rule that gets rid of expertise is perfectly fine, but like the expertise feat approach better as it allows different players in the same group to decide if they want the bonus or not.
