D&D 4E What I want from 4E DnD in 3 simple steps.

[Aegeri]

I think the goal with the expertise feat taxes was to make it so the extra benefit was the attractive part. So you take your feat tax and something a bit extra onto it, which usually is worth a feat (usually, not always). It makes them more palatable to me, even if I think it's the more silly of the possible solutions when you have themes in the game.

I can't emphasize enough how much I wish themes were introduced earlier into 4E and accounted for things like expertise at the time. It could have been such an elegant and brilliant solution.

 

[Herschel]

Well, the big issue I see is the expertise feats. When they came out I argued that they where feats, and not simply an errata of some sort, for a reason and it wasn't just a goof-up on WotC's part. Well, even if that was true it did turn out to be a goof-up, because they've become mandatory, and now the second round of them in essentials has just mucked things up even more.

This is flat out WRONG. Expertise feats are in no way mandatory unless you're too emotionally fragile to have a character that isn't "optimal". It's been proven time and again the game works fine without them but they are a nice option if you start a weapon user with a 16 strength and +2 proficiency weapon, for example. They're nice feats, but can easily be bumped in favor of flavor and the game keeps right on ticking.

 

[Fifth Element]

My thought: WotC is gearing up for a 5E.

Hey, it must be Thursday! Or any day of the week, really.

 

[P1NBACK]

Hey, it must be Thursday! Or any day of the week, really.

Doesn't make it any less valid (as far as speculation goes)!

 

[Incenjucar]

While I don't believe they're "gearing up" for 5E - and I find the notion frankly absurd - I do hope they're taking notes. 4E is amazing, but definately could use a clean rewrite to deal with feat taxes, trap options, and so on. When it comes, assuming it's not turned into Essentials 2.0, it should be fantastic.

I don't mind expertise feats as designed these days, especially since they have that one for multiple weapons. I certainly would have preffered a direct math fix, but things are at least reasonable now - or will be once they have expertise feats for all weapons and all implements. I just hope they're taking good notes - I don't want to be dealing with feat taxes and other silliness past 2020.

 

[delericho]

This is flat out WRONG. Expertise feats are in no way mandatory unless you're too emotionally fragile to have a character that isn't "optimal".

Designing the game such that some options are clearly superior (or, conversely, such that characters who don't take those options are clearly suboptimal) is a bad idea. Perfect balance cannot be attained, but acknowledging this does not excuse the designers from at least getting it fairly close.

The rule of thumb used in 3e was this: "If it is so weak that no-one will use it, or if it is so powerful that everyone will use it, then it is unbalanced and should be redesigned." That was a good principle to abide by, and may apply in this case.

(I will also note that there have been threads here in the past where some posters have argued that it is unacceptable for other players to design their characters with anything less than an 18 in the primary stat. The logic here was that in doing so they weren't "pulling their weight" for the group. By that same logic, the Expertise feat-tax ceases to be an option, which is hardly a good thing.)

 

[P1NBACK]

This is flat out WRONG. Expertise feats are in no way mandatory...

...unless you want the game to work as intended mathematically.

 

[Herschel]

...unless you want the game to work as intended mathematically.

There. Fixed that for you.

Which has been proven wrong time and again. Just because some interweb geeks glom on to a sentence fragment and twist it in to some sort of justification for a conspiratorial point-of-view does not make it fact. The game has been proven to work just fine without them. It's not badwrongfun to not use them, hit just fine and enjoy the game.

I suppose if you're a selfish, tactically-inept player, yeah, they do "even things out" but teamwork, controllers, leaders, status effects, etc. are more powerful factors and were built in to the game from the start. They expanded the character design space for the "button mashers" who just want "moar damage" as well as the casual and the "okay, he just gave the baddie -2 AC, she'll provide flank and if I move diagonally this way I can then charge in to combat advantage" types.

 

[Umbran]

Expertise feats are in no way mandatory unless you're too emotionally fragile to have a character that isn't "optimal".

Herschel - Arguments of the form, "You have to have something psychologically wrong with you to disagree with me" are extremely rude. Don't do that again, please.

Fixed that for you.

P1NBACK - You're free to disagree, but please refrain from using the "FIFY" trope - it is rude and dismissive.

Folks, in general, please enhance your cool, and treat each other well. Thanks.

 

[P1NBACK]

...some interweb geeks glom on to a sentence fragment... ...selfish, tactically-inept player... ..."button mashers" who just want "moar damage"...

I guess Robert J. Schwalb (one of the key contributors to 4E right now) should be considered all of these things:

Math Feats: These feats correct the game’s underlying, shoring up the gaps created when monster defenses and accuracy (which is determined by level) outstrip PC defenses and accuracy (which is determined by half-level). Expertise feats and defenses feats are must-take feats. If every character has to have these feats, why require them at all? Why not build them into the game directly?