So, about Expertise...

[catsclaw227]

Roleplaying in DND is the small amount of glue between encounters. It's the tool used to set the stage for the next set of combat adventures.

And this is where we agree to disagree.

I have had many sessions were there was NO combat for the whole session, and most sessions are split about 50-50 combat-RP in terms of real-time spent at the table.

D&D is most emphatically a roleplaying game. Read the cover of the PHB.

 

[grickherder]

Absolutely. D&D has always been a combat game with free-form roleplaying tacked on. How much emphasis you spend on the free-form roleplaying varies by player and group.

...and has next to nothing to do with what feats you have.

That doesn't have to be true. Every time you have a capability in the combat system, you have another key on your role-playing piano that you can play a new note with.

Right, which is essentially the problem with the expertise feats - they make you better at protecting or controlling than other options.

I should have given a specific example here. I was contrasting expertise with feats that let you do more. For example, the feat that lets paladins add in their charisma modifier to their lay on hands. When that feat comes up you can pop in all sorts of characterization related dialogue, soliloquy and flashbacks about *why* the character is better at healing, why the person healed is important to them and whatnot. Contrast that with expertise, which is far more limited in it's use in characterization-- it basically just communicates "I'm accurate." Expertise is a less useful piano key than a variety of other feats.

I'll admit, I am so glad that you were here to let us know that it's possible to RP in combat. Up until now I'd actually been completely unaware

Sadly your position that feat choices don't interact with the free from roleplaying that goes on makes me think that while you're being sarcastic here, you might also be telling the truth about how you play.

My suggestion would be to find an action movie that you like where you actually care about the characters. Watch what the director does during the action scenes. Watch how it's tied in with the non-action scenes. Take a good look at the character's motivations and then look at how those motivations are expressed through their capabilities during the action scenes.

I'd also recommend running some one shots of some smaller press RPGs where the mechanics are directly related to the character's priorities rather than their capabilities. Where die rolls are based on what's important to their story rather than what they can do. Dogs in the Vineyard and In a Wicked Age from lumpley.com are good examples. So are these:

http://www.indiepressrevolution.com/xcart/home.php?cat=290
http://lumpley.com/wicked.html
http://lumpley.com/games/dogsources.html

 

[keterys]

That's good for you, but maybe for others it's different. I can see waiting until level 15 (when you get a +2 instead), but there are feats that are available until then that might be better for others from a character concept standpoint (and possibly, therefore an RP standpoint).

Yes, my standpoint is still that it's not nearly as important until that 15th level mark. I'm just noting that I've since been somewhat horrified to discover that it's been pervasive even at low levels... to the extent that I no longer consider it as harmless since it's still having a detrimental effect on the game of making it have less variety by limiting feat selections.

No holier-than-thou intended. Just that you said you would RATHER take other feats, but this +1 was more mathematically prudent.

Yep - basically that I'd rather be more effective for my team rather than have a feat that might make me giggle once a session or two, or _maybe_ stop an attack once every couple sessions. All the characters have their critical feats already and they're onto the 'What minor improvements to the core concept can I improve' feats.

My thoughts one how feats can translate into RP are stated above, so we sorta disagree here, but no harm, no foul. Our styles are different.

Perhaps if there were a wider selection of feats available to these characters, I might agree. But after the first 2 or 3, I'm just not seeing it... that said, none of the characters took Expertise as their 1st level feat (nor would have)

 

[catsclaw227]

[roleplaying]...and has next to nothing to do with what feats you have.

Right, which is essentially the problem with the expertise feats - they make you better at protecting or controlling than other options. This is particularly true for controllers. They're _boring_ but they're the most effective options for doing what you want to be doing - so, they let you pull off the stopping movement with your fighter (yay, cool defender) and landing daze on the solo (yay, cool controller) or pull off the cool two-shot kill (yay, cool striker) or land the hit that lets your side save against the enemy's attack (yay, cool leader) better than almost all the rest of the feats.

And they're _still_ boring.

Hence, the term 'feat tax'.

Here's an unscientific example:

When I get a +1 to hit, that extra hit 1 out of 20 times could be an at will, an encounter, or a daily. Who knows where it will land? So if I roll a to-hit maybe 8-10 times a combat, I am likely (at heroic) to get that extra hit in every other encounter, maybe less, maybe more. So each combat encounter I might do an average of maybe 8 (16 damage, halved for every other combat encounter) extra damage and maybe land an effect that will last for one round (MAYBE). But if I take a feat that does something else. Something that I WANTED to have, but didn't want to be mathematically imprudent, I would lose out on that extra 8 damage per combat.

Does that extra 8 damage even matter in the grand scheme of the game? Maybe to some, I guess. I am just not one of them.

In actual practice, I don't see the problem rearing it's head that often. It is a really nice feat, yes. But essential? Not really, not at least until level 15 where its a +2 and your average damage output is higher and your effects are more dangerous.

 

[keterys]

I should have given a specific example here. I was contrasting expertise with feats that let you do more. For example, the feat that lets paladins add in their charisma modifier to their lay on hands. When that feat comes up you can pop in all sorts of characterization related dialogue, soliloquy and flashbacks about *why* the character is better at healing, why the person healed is important to them and whatnot. Contrast that with expertise, which is far more limited in it's use in characterization-- it basically just communicates "I'm accurate." Expertise is a less useful piano key than a variety of other feats.

You really believe that? That's... somewhat hilarious. They're both minor improvements that you can choose to RP or not. The paladin can just as easily be guided by their god to more easily land the attack that let them slay the monster and prevent their friend from dying.

They're both incremental improvements on a base that already exists.

Sadly your position that feat choices don't interact with the free from roleplaying that goes on makes me think that while you're being sarcastic here, you might also be telling the truth about how you play.

By the end of the night, my arms are really tired from the hasty writing and lifting, but maybe someday I'll build up enough muscles to go on to be a contender in something.

My suggestion would be to find an action movie that you like where you actually care about the characters. Watch what the director does during the action scenes. Watch how it's tied in with the non-action scenes. Take a good look at the character's motivations and then look at how those motivations are expressed through their capabilities during the action scenes.

And these will show how weapon focus is more RP-worthy than weapon expertise?

 

[catsclaw227]

Yes, my standpoint is still that it's not nearly as important until that 15th level mark. I'm just noting that I've since been somewhat horrified to discover that it's been pervasive even at low levels... to the extent that I no longer consider it as harmless since it's still having a detrimental effect on the game of making it have less variety by limiting feat selections.

I agree at 15th level, it becomes pretty darn important (and this where the "feat tax" argument may apply), but I am just not noticing it at lower levels.

We have 2 players that swapped out an expertise feat when the book came out (3rd level), and the Mintaur Barbarian (who doesn't have the feat), still seems like he hits a lot more often, but his dice luck is disgusting.

One guy got his +8 to +9, but some PCs can get a good to hit in other ways that makes the feat less important.

 

[grickherder]

TThese things can help shape your PC and can help you add to the concept you might be going for. Yes, these concepts can convert into roleplaying opportunities.

This is what I'm getting at. Every element of game play, combat mechanics, feat choices, are things you can riff off of to create role-playing opportunities. Some are better than others. Subsequently, some players and groups will de-prioritize expertise.

And it's okay if the group doesn't. It's just a different style. But if your play priorities are forcing you into a dichotomy which leaves you torn between choosing expertise and a feat you find more interesting, you need to do something about it. Whether that's instituting a house rule or revisting your play priorities is up to you.

 

[keterys]

In actual practice, I don't see the problem rearing it's head that often. It is a really nice feat, yes. But essential? Not really, not at least until level 15 where its a +2 and your average damage output is higher and your effects are more dangerous.

It's not essential before 15th, totally agree and I've said as much many times.

I still think it's bad design even before that, however.

 

[grickherder]

You really believe that? That's... somewhat hilarious. They're both minor improvements that you can choose to RP or not. The paladin can just as easily be guided by their god to more easily land the attack that let them slay the monster and prevent their friend from dying.

All I'm saying is that some feats make better piano keys to play off of than others. It's not always an absolute though, as it often has to do with how the nature of the feat relates to the character's concept, history, goals, etc.,.

What I'm trying to communicate here is that play priorities exist which make expertise a less desirable feat. You don't have to be stuck where you are where you feel you have to choose expertise over more interesting feats. You are doing that to yourself.

And I'd _definitely_ rather have other feats on all three of those characters, but it's mathematically imprudent

See?

And these will show how weapon focus is more RP-worthy than weapon expertise?

Not necessarily weapon focus, but perhaps other feats-- depending on how they relate to the character's goals, concept, history, etc., and what themes the player may want to explore with their character.

 

[tiornys]

Excellent point. I never thought about it in terms of group dynamics. I think you're absolutely correct about this.

EDIT -- atleast after 15th level when expertise starts scaling. Looking at the heroic tier character sheet files for the PCs in my primary gaming group, I see that they are not incompetent. They haven't had to make weak characters to make interesting characters. I see mostly 18s for starting stats in their primary attack stat. One 20 (the wizard). They're using intelligent weapon choices and have distributed magic items in an intelligent fashion.

Right. At +1 to hit, it's overpowered in comparison with other feats because it's so much less situational than any feat that does something comparable, but it's not so powerful that it's problematic. At +2 though, it's like having permanent combat advantage, except that it stacks with combat advantage (and doesn't let a rogue sneak attack, etc.).

At level 15 and higher, this feat is far too powerful. At level 15 and higher, the disparity between character hit rate growth and monster defense growth has reached the point where it's noticeable. Add in various comments made by designers and hopefully you can see why several of us think these feats were created to patch the hit rate growth.

In any case, we'll hopefully have an article soon that will explain WotC's thinking on the feats.

t~