Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Smeelbo" data-source="post: 4701632" data-attributes="member: 81898">Expertise probably taken by almost all characters by 6th levelI've sold dozens of books in a single store on the basis of a single feat or class feature. Books are often bought on a group basis, i.e. the DM will only allow the feat or feature if he has access to the book, so the player who wants the feat or feature buys the book to show the DM. As for Character Builder, I don't use it, no one in our group uses it, and I'm not the least bit interested in it. This coming release day, I plan on selling as many copies of PHB2 as I can.Upon further consideration, I've come to nearly the same conclusion. If it's a "feat tax," then it's a tax on the paragon and epic tiers, although I think a lot of characters will take it mid to late heroic.I understand what you're saying. I was suggesting that it would have been more fun to have something to do other than just take a feat, but you're right, it would impose a larger burden than a single feat. Unless, of course, it had been done correctly in the first place, and most all the various high level powers were part of various viable gap closing strategies. In any case, if the intent were simply to fix the gap, applying a tier penalty to monster defenses would be simpler and leave more feat choices available to characters.Put me in that camp. The first D&D game I ever played I went to 12th level and died the first day (this was OD&D in the 70's). Our next two campaigns ended at 28th level after 3 years and 15th level after ten years. Since then, I've played 1st to 12th level over and over again, the game just seems to become unplayable much beyond that. Perhaps 4E has figured out how to make late paragon and epic playable, but then again, maybe not. I can easily see myself satisfied playing heroic to mid paragon again and again.Every campaign I've ever been in, someone in the group had to provide access to the book to the DM if they wanted their character to use a specific feat, class, spell, race, item and so on. The group needs access to the book, not the player using the book.Once a character has the feats that provide capabilities necessary for their character concept, they will take this feat. For example, Axam the Dwarf Ranger requires Quick Draw, Dwarven Weapon Training, and Sneak of Shadows to be what he is supposed to be. But come 6th level, I will be taking Weapon Expertise: Axes. I suspect that will be true for most characters, they will take Expertise by mid-heroic.But the claim is that the tier gap is too much for existing encounters, and that Expertise will change these encounters from tedious and challenging to reasonable and challenging.I don't think it'd be a problem in low heroic, by late heroic most characters will have Expertise, and by mid-paragon, all characters will have it. I think you'd only see a practical difference in late heroic to mid paragon.These are very telling objections, and one reason I'd consider applying a tier penalty to monsters instead.Most character concepts require at most 3-4 "capability" feats. By late heroic, almost all characters will be looking for feats that improve what they already do, rather than adding new capabilities. Since attack rolls outnumber all other checks by an order of magnitude or two, Expertise will improve that character more than any other feat. That's why optimizers study combat so much, because in most games, that's most of the die rolls. Outside of combat, once I have my framework of abilities, ingenuity and role play will have a bigger impact on group success than any feat. Back to opportunity costs. If outside combat, a feat that marginally improves my skill checks is not as effective as a good scheme or good character interaction, then giving up that non-combat feat is not much of a loss. In contrast, clever scheming in combat quickly plateaus in value, as there is only so much terrain and so many combinations of powers available, and in that case, bonuses help more. If skill challenges worked better in practice, there would be more incentive to "game the numbers" outside of combat. But combat is a numbers game.I think Keterys is absolutely correct here. Optimizers will take Expertise low to mid heroic, and everyone will take it by mid-paragon.I think once most characters have 3-4 feats under their belt, they will be hard pressed to find anything nearly as good as Expertise.Every D&D campaign I've ever been in, no matter how much roleplaying was going on, has turned on the meat of combat. D&D is distinguished by being very combat centered. For pure roleplayers, there are much more appropriate games than D&D.Preach it, brother!I've heard some claim that Nimble Blade is too good, and Expertise is way better.This is exactly right.The problem with that, I think, is that as tier rises, combats last many more rounds, and at-wills become a more significant fraction of your total damage output. If it only applies to encounters and dailies, the gap effectively remains.It's not that those other feats are better than Expertise, it's that they're necessary for the character concept to function adequately. For example, because I am making an axe throwing dwarven ranger, I need Quick Draw to throw multiple axes and switch more easily between battle axe and hand axe. Because my group initially lacked a rogue, I needed to take Sneak of Shadows. If almost every character should have it by 6th level, regardless of their build type, then that's certainly a problem. If almost every character ought to have it by 16th, that may or may not be.Paragon multi-classing is considered sub-par for exactly this reason: it takes up way too many feats. Almost no one will Paragon Multi-class instead of taking a Paragon Path. If Paragon Multi-Classing is really as bad as they say it is (and I haven't found a PMC build I like yet), then you're essentially arguing that your proposed awful character build has no use for Expertise, and we'd agree. Smeelbo</blockquote>

Verification