So, about Expertise...

[WalterKovacs]

It's probably worth note that a lot of DMs don't do a ton of changes to encounter difficulties based on their parties. They run their module or their thrown together encounters and don't necessarily worry that person A missed 2/3 of the time, or whatever. In fact, in a party of 6 if 3 are contributing exceptionally and 3 are not contributing very well, they might not care at all because the party is still getting through the challenges fine.

This is especially true in a campaign like Living Forgotten Realms... since I'm the primary DM for our home games, my play opportunities are pretty much LFR and pity games by one of my players where he runs level-appropriate mods. He doesn't make any changes, at all, so they'll either be too easy or too hard, or we'll have some people far behind or far ahead, as falls.

Sad, but true.

Admitedly that is the same stuff that I'm both running and playing in. Not LFR, but the modules like Thunderspire and such.

One thing about that ... the difference between characters doesn't matter as much. If the worst player gets a +1 to hit ... or the best person gets a +1 to hit, the defences don't change. So even though the gap between them hasn't changed, they both improve their chances against the monsters.

It doesn't have to do with how much worse you are than the best player ... it's whether or not you are above or below the "average" expected to fight against the people involved in the encounter/adventure. This feat can help people get up to the average or it can help them exceed it. It doesn't make anyone below average in and of itself (until people begin designing encounters assuming that people have this feat). Until 15th level, the feat replaces bonuses you might have had. You could have had a 20 instead of an 18 (or an 18 instead of a 16, you could have a +3 prof item instead of a +2, you could have gotten a higher level magic item earlier, etc). So it can fill in a gap of +1 that might have been expected by the time you reached that point ... or it can be another +1 on top of everything you have putting you farther ahead of the curve. However, the existence of a character far ahead of the curve doesn't break the curve for everyone else.

 

[keterys]

Quite honestly... other than the annoyance of further focus on specialization in specific weapons/implements (which I don't find particularly fun as a design element), I'm really not worried about the feat before level 15.

But, at 15th or 25th, much more so. Like, if we're doing a 25th dungeon delve and it's a 16 base stat char with a +2 prof weapon without the feat compared to a 20 base stat demigod with a +4 prof weapon (rogue or fighter) with the feat, that's a difference of 8 points of attack. So one guy needs a 6, and the other needs a 14? Ick.

 

[Mengu]

However, the existence of a character far ahead of the curve doesn't break the curve for everyone else.

So if I have a group of players around level 4 and 5, and one player comes in and wants to play a 9th level character, it's ok because it doesn't break the curve?

Preserving balance among characters to a certain extent is necessary so everyone feels useful in some manner. When you have someone far ahead of the curve, it can create a lot of frustration for the rest.

But that's probably not the biggest issue with this feat. It's simply *better* than most other feats. It's impossible to speak in absolutes, but in our 2 groups, almost everyone would take this feat. And that's pretty much feat tax. Seems like something all players should just have for free, if it's to be a part of the game. Let the more colorful feats be the defining parts of their characters.

 

[WalterKovacs]

Quite honestly... other than the annoyance of further focus on specialization in specific weapons/implements (which I don't find particularly fun as a design element), I'm really not worried about the feat before level 15.

But, at 15th or 25th, much more so. Like, if we're doing a 25th dungeon delve and it's a 16 base stat char with a +2 prof weapon without the feat compared to a 20 base stat demigod with a +4 prof weapon (rogue or fighter) with the feat, that's a difference of 8 points of attack. So one guy needs a 6, and the other needs a 14? Ick.

Yes in the world of the most extreme examples possible, you can get a large gap.

Again someone that is going into level 25 for a dungeon delve is there really that many other feats they want that they deliberately would avoid taking this feat?

If the do take the feat, suddenly they are hitting on 11. That's 50%.

So, before this feat you'd have one guy hitting on a 9 and the other hitting on a 14.

With the feat and giving the feat to the other unoptimized character you have one hitting on a 6 and the other hitting on an 11.

 

[grickherder]

About the whole relative to the performance of other PCs thing:

If the guy to your right hits more than you, that doesn't mean you suck. D&D isn't about PvP, so it doesn't matter that another character has a big lead on your in to-hit bonsues as long as you are performing adequately against the monsters.

If anyone feels inadequate because someone else is hitting more often than them, but they're still doing just fine against the monsters, then the issue is likely with the player. Some people just aren't capable of enjoying themselves if someone else is doing better than them.

Another thing that DMs need to realize is that challenging players by using monsters that are hard to hit is a bad idea. It's boring. It' grindy. You're far better off having more, lower level monsters than few monsters of higher level with greater defenses. An excellent post about this:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4t...you-can-prevent-grindspace-4.html#post4605836

I feel for those who play a lot of LFR. From what I hear, there are a lot of high defense, high level monsters in there. There's nothing worse than fighting soldiers of 4 levels higher than the party. Boring! In such a situation, definitley take expertise. The root problem is bad encounter design though.

I consider a properly designed encounter to be party level +2 for the xp budget and monsters that are all equal to or lower than the party level, with one or two maybe being a level or so higher (especially if they're controllers/leaders). It's challenging, people can hit often, monsters die, characters still get dropped. The most optimized characters will be challenged while the sub par won't necessarily be overwhelmed. Compare that to a party level -2 encounter made up of monsters of higher than party level. Ugh. I certainly feel for those who have to take a feat to compensate for bad encounter design.

 

[Pickles JG]

Quite honestly... other than the annoyance of further focus on specialization in specific weapons/implements (which I don't find particularly fun as a design element), I'm really not worried about the feat before level 15.

This is my issue too. My hybrid bow/scimitar ranger who was already a feat sink to be slightly below par in two roles now has to find 2 feats to keep up. TBH the Iron Armbands of Power, another boring item, knackered him already, as he cannot have these & Bracers of archery so falls behind the dedicated classes.

This & the defence boosts feats that kick in at higher tiers (& noone has mentioned here) will be free bonuses in any games I DM. Sadly I only play LFR so will have to put up with the reduced real choices there.

 

[WalterKovacs]

So if I have a group of players around level 4 and 5, and one player comes in and wants to play a 9th level character, it's ok because it doesn't break the curve?

There is a huge difference between a character that has a better chance of hitting than everyone else and a character that has that AND has higher defenses, more hit points, more powers, more feats, more items, etc, etc, etc.

Preserving balance among characters to a certain extent is necessary so everyone feels useful in some manner. When you have someone far ahead of the curve, it can create a lot of frustration for the rest.

Players are more likely to be frustrated at being unable to hit the monster as they are to be frustrated that someone else in the party is hitting more often than they are. The defenders have AC that will often be "far ahead of the curve" of the rest of the party. The striker will have damage that is "far ahead of the curve" of the rest of the party. Heck, many strikers have accuracy that is quite high. A rogue has his dagger and an at-will that goes after reflex. The ranger has twin-strike. Warlocks can attack will, the lowest defense for tons of monsters.

More to the point though. If a player is playing a sub-optimal character because of concept/flavor reasons, they are probably going to be frustrated by being ineffective against monsters, but are unlikely to be frustrated that their suboptimal character is suboptimal compared to an optimized character. If they were actually that upset ... they'd likely be trying to do things to optimize their character and close the gap, etc ... in which case there wouldn't be a problem.

But that's probably not the biggest issue with this feat. It's simply *better* than most other feats. It's impossible to speak in absolutes, but in our 2 groups, almost everyone would take this feat. And that's pretty much feat tax. Seems like something all players should just have for free, if it's to be a part of the game. Let the more colorful feats be the defining parts of their characters.

It's a feat that everyone should and probably will eventually take. However ... when you take it is like when you pick up your magic items. Everyone is expected to get magic items as they level. However some characters may want to get the neck slot item first because they are often attacked in the NADs, and they are lagging. Or they might want the armor first because they are up front and need all the AC they can get. Or maybe they are delaying because they want some of the properties on the higher end like a flaming weapon.

Eventually everyon takes it, but when they take it becomes the customization question. It may be a feat tax, but I know a lot of characters that were running out of feat options in the heroic tier before they got to paragon tier. Now maybe with the martial power/arcane power/PHBII/etc books there will be enough feats that the feat tax becomes a real sting ... but arguably a lot of people will take that feat at the point where they are running out of interesting feats.

 

[Pickles JG]

If anyone feels inadequate because someone else is hitting more often than them, but they're still doing just fine against the monsters, then the issue is likely with the player. Some people just aren't capable of enjoying themselves if someone else is doing better than them.

Another thing that DMs need to realize is that challenging players by using monsters that are hard to hit is a bad idea....snip....
Ugh. I certainly feel for those who have to take a feat to compensate for bad encounter design.

It's the ceaseless mockery that irks me.

Though really it's slightly more of feeling that you are not meaningfully contributing to a team. Also an issue with role especially for strikers who can be out damaged by other roles if they do not hit often enough (hmm maybe this is more my issue with tempests )

The snipped encounter design analysis is spot on IME. I can live with an end level boss every 3-4 levels who breaks the rules but that's about as much grind as I want (The end of KOTS was epic when I ran it).

 

[mlund]

If the Expertise only worked with non-At-Will powers I'd be quite satisfied with it.

By the time you get into mid-Paragon up to Epic the bonus would be helping patch up the gap where it counts, since at that level you are running around with a stack of Encounter and Daily Powers and missing with them too much is a major producer of grindspace.

Meanwhile it could also help make your Encounter and Daily powers work just a bit better in Heroic Tier, where missing with them is more frustrating because you have so many fewer opportunities to use them.

A flat bonus to your At-Will spam attacks, however, isn't something this Feat really needed to do, IMO.

- Marty Lund

 

[grickherder]

It's the ceaseless mockery that irks me.

Sorry, but it wasn't mockery. Some people really can't enjoy themselves if someone else is better than they are. They'll have to take expertise to "keep up" with everyone else. No different that getting a big screen tv you don't need to keep up with the Joneses. It's part of human nature.

This idea that you have to compete with the other PCs for the spot light isn't helpful. Allowing our own accomplishments to seem small because of the accomplishments of others isn't a virtue.

Though really it's slightly more of feeling that you are not meaningfully contributing to a team.

Absolutely. But if you are contributing meaningfully but someone having a +1 to hit on you makes it feel like you're not anymore, what's really changed? Even without expertise, you can have this exact situation with rogues. In the first game I ran when 4e came out, the warlock player didn't like how the rogue had such a massive bonus to hit and could even target reflex. The player let the rogue player's success devalue his own contribution when, in fact, the warlock was very valuable to the team.

I'm happy with my attack rolls. I'm happy with the rogue's attack rolls being higher than mine. If someone takes expertise, I'll be happy they're rolling higher too. Someone else succeeding doesn't diminish my contribution.

Now if I was playing LFR or with a DM that loved high defense monsters, I'd groan and accept expertise as treating the symptom while leaving the the root cause unaddressed. And I'd be happy that the expertise feat is coming to help address the problem. It's ability to compensate for bad encounter design is a feature, even if the real solution is to not design bad encounters.