# So, about Expertise...



## Obryn

Well, assuming the RPG.net thread is correct, Weapon Expertise works something like the following:

* +1 to attacks with all At-Will, Encounter, and Daily powers with the Weapon Keyword,
* with 1 weapon group,
* and it increases to +2 at 15th level and +3 at 25th level

There's also an Implement Mastery feat which I'll assume is the same thing for Implement-based powers.

I am also assuming that the +1 to attacks is a named feat bonus, rather than an unnamed bonus like (for example) Nimble Blade.

And, now that it's upon us, I'd like to share & hear some thoughts.

Mine so far - I'm still a bit tentative about it.  It's a little on the boring side, and not letting it apply to basic attacks seems kind of random.  It's also clearly one of the best feats in the game.  Finally, I don't really like how it has no prerequisites.  I think every character will get it - maybe not at first, but eventually.

On the other hand...  well, like I said, I still don't think it will be an automatic first-level feat choice for everyone.  For example, I think several feats - namely Superior Weapon Proficiency and any racial feat that gives weapon bonuses, like Dwarven Weapon Training and Eladrin soldier - are a bit better.  I also think Toughness is right about on par, at least with how my games have gone so far.

I also have much less of a problem with Implement Expertise than I do with Weapon Expertise.  Casters need _something_ to hit more often.

Finally, I appreciate that this helps the math of the game at higher levels, and appreciate that it's one of those feats which is more valuable to characters with lower attack bonuses than higher ones.  (It's a few % better for a character with a 16 attack stat than it is for a character with a 20.)

I'm still a little divided, but now that there are plenty of other solid feat choices, too, I'm not _completely_ unhappy.

Thoughts?

-O


----------



## Abisashi

This feat looks like errata disguised as crunch (and poorly done, as it hurts characters who rely on both an implement and a weapon compared to those who use only one). I'm just going to give every player the attack bonus for free.


----------



## keterys

Abisashi said:


> This feat looks like errata disguised as crunch -  and poorly done, as it hurts characters who rely on both an implement and a weapon. I'm just going to give every player the attack bonus for free.




Agreed. Frustrating for LFR, where it basically just means you have one less feat... or two, for certain character types (like Swordmage).


----------



## tanj

Obryn said:


> It's a little on the boring side, and not letting it apply to basic attacks seems kind of random.



Basic attack is an at-will power.


----------



## infocynic

A quick glance at the expected curve, assuming a +1 item at level 3, a +2 at level 8, etc., means if you added +1 at 5, 15, and 25, you'd smooth the curve very nicely, so that seems like why they've put it at the levels they did, and just figured (correctly, I'd argue) that you're not behind enough in heroic or gaining enough if you take it later or earlier than level 5. In my home games, it will probably wind up free at those levels.


----------



## jgsugden

If every character takes this as a feat, it basically becomes a core character ability and every PC loses a feat. If that is the case, then this implementation is a mistake. There should be no feats that every PC takes. In fact, if there is a feat that more than 50% of the PCs are taking, I think there is a problem that needs to be addressed. I certainly see these feats (really the same 1 feat masked as 2 feats) as exceeding the 50% mark very quickly.  I'll retrain my characters to gain them as soon as I can.

I'd love to hear designers comment on why the feat was made, what they think of everyone assuming it is a must have feat, and what builds might find this feat to be a suboptimal choice.


----------



## Squizzle

As worded, if you have a two-group weapon (e.g. khopesh, most [all?] polearms), you can take the feat twice--once for each group--and it will stack with itself. This would be remedied immediately by making the bonus a feat bonus, which would also cut down on the power of the feat. I cannot rightly see why this wasn't done.


----------



## keterys

Possibly because of the Tiefling feat that gives them a feat bonus to attack with fire...


----------



## Solodan

This is a huge boost to Human as a racial choice.  I'm a bit surprised to see that Bonus Feat racial becoming a big deal this early, but now the only one stat boost is quickly remedied by the +1 to hit feat anyway.

Overall, I'm disappointed, and about to be REALLY disappointed if it is a feat bonus.  

If it only worked with encounter and daily powers, I think it would be right on.  But as is, lame.  Not interesting, but overly useful.


----------



## Kzach

Can someone with a math bent and an obsessive compulsive personality please analyse the averages of all defences in the MM and all average attack bonuses with weapons and implements and then tell me if there is a problem with the math or not?

If there is, then this feat is errata disguised as crunch and I'll happily just add bonuses to hit at appropriate levels as freebies.

If there isn't, then I'd like everyone to stop complaining.

Wishful thinking?


----------



## RefinedBean

My halberd-wielding beastmaster ranger is going to take this feat twice.  Bad idea making it applicable to weapon GROUPS, WotC.  

This feat will also benefit smaller parties, who don't have as many characters (and therefore powers) to work with when trying to work things out tactically.  Especially relevant at higher levels, or so I hear.


----------



## infocynic

Without the specific averages, but using the DMG guide that a monster's AC goes up by 1 every level, and assuming the PC's get a +1 (wpn/impl) starting at 3, 8, 13, etc., and boost their primary attack stat at every opportunity, and started with an even stat (go away silly 17 or 19 builds, but 16 or 18 or 20 doesn't matter, you improve at the same RATE as everyone else even if you started behind)...

Between attributes, magic items, and half-level attack bonuses, you stay even except:
Level 5: Behind by 1
Level 11: Behind by 2 (total)
Level 19: Behind by 3 (total) (you can ignore this if you're taking Demigod, etc. at 21)
Level 25: Behind by 4 (3 with Demigod)

So Level 5 / 15 / 25 is a reasonable compromise, spllitting the difference between Level 11 and Level 19. If you do take Demigod (it's still really good), you actually come out slightly ahead of the curve, which is OK consider some crazy defenses and the fact that there are Level 33+ monsters (solos, at that) to be challenged.

Now if you want to actually take the averages, well, knock yourself out, but that's a lot of work unless you have it already in an analyzable form (see the Monster Stats thread).


----------



## Ryujin

RefinedBean said:


> My halberd-wielding beastmaster ranger is going to take this feat twice.  Bad idea making it applicable to weapon GROUPS, WotC.




You mean to double up on the attack bonus? Feat bonuses don't stack


----------



## keterys

Kzach said:


> Can someone with a math bent and an obsessive compulsive personality please analyse the averages of all defences in the MM and all average attack bonuses with weapons and implements and then tell me if there is a problem with the math or not?




There are several posts on the subject on this board, but for an easy example - monsters at level 30 have Defense of around 42, while a level 1 has around 13 (the huge math thread from back in the day of all MM monsters supports this). A caster who starts with an 18 stat, adds 1 every opportunity and does not take demigod ends up with (15 + 6 (enh) + 8 (stat) = +29) or needing a 13, while a 1st level character has +4 so needs a 9, or a difference of 4.

That said, it is easier as you get higher level to inflict penalties to AC and defenses, or gain bonuses to your own attacks (combat advantage in particular), so the ongoing debate has been whether attack bonuses were screwed up or intentionally allowed to slip several points to make those other powers required to catch up.

The answer is apparently now available.

The real problem I have is that as a feat it's _ridiculously_ good. If you're 26th level and don't have this, you're crazy. Doesn't matter what class you are (16th and you're just foolish, 6th and you might have more interesting other options even if likely not better ones).


----------



## keterys

Ryujin said:


> You mean to double up on the attack bonus? Feat bonuses don't stack




It's not a feat bonus.

Mind you, it's also pretty clearly not intended to work that way, but infinite oregano shall indeed commence


----------



## RefinedBean

keterys said:


> It's not a feat bonus.
> 
> Mind you, it's also pretty clearly not intended to work that way, but infinite oregano shall indeed commence




Commence, and taste DELICIOUS.


----------



## infocynic

I haven't seen a good confirmation of whether it is or isn't a feat bonus, but you say that pretty confidently so I'll take your word for it. I wouldn't expect it to be. 

As said above, in my home games this will be handled by giving everyone the ability passively; for LFR games, unless the feat specifically SAYS you can take it multiple times, even if it does apply to weapon groups, you can't take it multiple times. I wouldn't be surprised to see an update later removing the ability to take it multiple times if it comes down to it. On the other hand, only a very few builds really benefit from taking it multiple times (tempest fighters using double swords... great. just great.)


----------



## AngryPurpleCyclops

tanj said:


> Basic attack is an at-will power.



The only at will that counts as a basic attack is magic missile as far as I know.  Basic attacks are melee/ranged attacks made without use of a power.  The attack at the end of a charge, some attacks granted by warlord powers, and opportunity attacks being the only examples of basic attacks in the game I can think of. (oops there's a quickness sword in the campaign I'm in that allows the rogue to take a basic attack as a daily item power).



jgsugden said:


> If every character takes this as a feat, it basically becomes a core character ability and every PC loses a feat. If that is the case, then this implementation is a mistake. There should be no feats that every PC takes. In fact, if there is a feat that more than 50% of the PCs are taking, I think there is a problem that needs to be addressed. I certainly see these feats (really the same 1 feat masked as 2 feats) as exceeding the 50% mark very quickly.  I'll retrain my characters to gain them as soon as I can.



great point. I never considered this point of view but I have to say I agree.  I wonder what percentage of pc's take improved init by level 6.



jgsugden said:


> I'd love to hear designers comment on why the feat was made, what they think of everyone assuming it is a must have feat, and what builds might find this feat to be a suboptimal choice.



Certainly at high levels it's impossible to ignore +3 to ATT.  Hard to imagine a different feat that increases the effectiveness of all attacks and conditions created by those attacks by 15%.



keterys said:


> Possibly because of the Tiefling feat that gives them a feat bonus to attack with fire...



Quite possibly the most unbalance feat in the game.  Compared to astral fire, this feat is unbelievably powerful with NO prereq's beyond race.



keterys said:


> It's not a feat bonus.
> 
> Mind you, it's also pretty clearly not intended to work that way, but infinite oregano shall indeed commence



unfamiliar with infinite oregano, how will you be able to gain stacking with this bonus?


----------



## Nightson

AngryPurpleCyclops said:


> The only at will that counts as a basic attack is magic missile as far as I know.  Basic attacks are melee/ranged attacks made without use of a power.  The attack at the end of a charge, some attacks granted by warlord powers, and opportunity attacks being the only examples of basic attacks in the game I can think of. (oops there's a quickness sword in the campaign I'm in that allows the rogue to take a basic attack as a daily item power).




PHB pg. 287

Basic Attacks are at-wills


----------



## keterys

Well, in response to the question of whether it was a feat bonus, the following answer was given elsewhere, the full text of the feat in question:

*Weapon Expertise*
*Benefit:* Choose a weapon group. You gain +1 bonus to attack rolls with any weapon power you use with a weapon from that group. The bonus increases to +2 at 15th lvl and to +3 at 25th lvl.
*Special:* You can take this feat more than once. Each time you select this feat, choose another weapon group.

I'll admit that I don't have the book to confirm, personally, so there is some measure of faith going on, but...


----------



## keterys

The google has this to say on Infinite Oregano and I heartily recommend anyone who has not read it, do so, as it's great 

As it's an unnamed bonus, by default it stacks, so the theory is that someone using a polearm heavy blade like a glaive would take expertise polearm and expertise heavy blade, stacking two unnamed bonuses for up to a +6 bonus to attack. I don't support or condone that interpretation, but have fun disproving it


----------



## AngryPurpleCyclops

Nightson said:


> PHB pg. 287
> 
> Basic Attacks are at-wills



This is not the same as at-wills are basic attacks. A basic attack is a particular at-will.  At-wills are not basic attacks, and thus when it says "make a basic attack" you can only make a basic attack not use a different at will power with the exception of magic missile (and eldritch blast if memory serves me).

Oops my bad,  I misread, the inference I gleaned was that you could use an at-will when it said make a basic attack. Upon rereading I see what you were saying (the feat does apply it's bonus to basic attacks because they are at-wills).


----------



## Obryn

As a thought experiment... If this were in PHB1, would everyone have the same opinions?

I've been trying to figure that one out in my own head.  I think it would have given me the "OMG everyone's getting this one!" vibe, but like I said, I get that from Superior Weapon Proficiency, too.

-O


----------



## AngryPurpleCyclops

keterys said:


> The google has this to say on Infinite Oregano and I heartily recommend anyone who has not read it, do so, as it's great
> 
> As it's an unnamed bonus, by default it stacks, so the theory is that someone using a polearm heavy blade like a glaive would take expertise polearm and expertise heavy blade, stacking two unnamed bonuses for up to a +6 bonus to attack. I don't support or condone that interpretation, but have fun disproving it



ahhh, I see said the blind man.  Obviously not the intent, and clearly not going to be allowed by many DM's.  I'm sure the errata will eventually pick this up in any event.

Thanks for the link.

B


----------



## keterys

Obryn said:


> As a thought experiment... If this were in PHB1, would everyone have the same opinions?




I would. It's far better than superior weapon proficiency. I literally can't imagine any character I make not taking it, and I hate that kind of feat.


----------



## ppaladin123

Kzach said:


> Can someone with a math bent and an obsessive compulsive personality please analyse the averages of all defences in the MM and all average attack bonuses with weapons and implements and then tell me if there is a problem with the math or not?
> 
> If there is, then this feat is errata disguised as crunch and I'll happily just add bonuses to hit at appropriate levels as freebies.
> 
> If there isn't, then I'd like everyone to stop complaining.
> 
> Wishful thinking?




Kzach, there is a thread about this on the WotC character optimization forums:

Hitting things at really high levels - Wizards Community

From the general discussion I get the impression that this is, indeed, disguised errata. Judge for yourself.


----------



## Stalker0

Chalk up another vote for disguised errata.

If it was +1 to attack rolls straight up, I could possibly buy it. Still an amazing feat, but not necessarily the absolute must have.

+3 at high levels is beyond good, its automatic.


----------



## Mr. Wilson

Yeah, I'm just gonna hard bake this into the game at appropriate levels, as it looks this is a basic math fix on WoTC's part.  

+1 to hit at 5, 15, and 25 for everyone.


----------



## AngryPurpleCyclops

Especially as it's an untyped bonus it appears obvious that it's designed to fix the math flaw.


----------



## Eldorian

It's disappointing is what it is.  I'll have to convince my DM to just give everyone a +1 to hit at 5, 15, 25.  Or maybe 1, 11, 21.  I also think it might be a good idea to add in +1 to all stats at 4, 8, 11, 14, 18, 21, 24, 28, to change the non ac defenses to scale properly.  Also helps certain classes like paladins, clerics, melee rangers, star pact warlocks.

WotC should just man up and say that they were off a bit in the math.  

I think the idea is that at higher levels, you were supposed to have miscellaneous bonuses to hit at pretty much all times due to buff type powers, e.g. a plus 6 to hit every other turn, but in practice you don't have these bonuses so they put the feat in to fix this problem.  This is the difference between playtesting and actual play.  Actual play is much more though.


----------



## Mengu

I really dislike this feat. Why couldn't they just issue errata if they thought there was something wrong with the attack bonuses? A +1 at levels 5, 15, and 25 would solve the problem. Now I feel like they are shorting everyone a feat.

This feat literally beats:

Warforged Tactics
Lolth's Meat
Purifying Light
Bracing Breath
Halfling Stalwart
Offensive Resilience
Prime Strike
Combat Reflexes
Nimble Blade
Hawkeye Warrior
Improved Prime Shot
Prime Hunter

All these feats give a conditional +1 bonus, while expertise is unconditional (or may as well be since you typically use the same weapon or implement). How do they even pretend this feat is balanced against other feats of a similar nature?

This is also a feat that continues to widen the gap between optimized and non-optimized characters. At first level, when you put the 16 charisma dwarf paladin with waraxe next to the 20 strength human fighter with bastard sword and expertise, the difference in attack bonuses are +5 with Enfeebling Strike vs +12 with Brash Strike. If these two characters were in the same party, the dwarf player would understandably be highly frustrated.

I have a feeling many platesters and possibly even some designers have passionately fought against this feat, but lost the battle in the end. I just am curious to hear the other side of the argument.


----------



## Branduil

I have a hard time believing this was playtested. It's obviously a math fix and its implementation as a feat is full of problems.


----------



## Kzach

keterys said:


> The answer is apparently now available.



I guess it'd be too much to ask for a consensus 

Will giving a +1 each tier for free imbalance or rebalance things?

I'd hate to think people are forced to spend a feat slot just to rebalance things.

As disappointing as it would be to realise that the designers screwed up the math (again, ie. skill challenges), I see no problem with having a default rule that says everyone gets a bonus to hit (on everything) at 5th, 15th and 25th-levels IF it's rebalancing the system.


----------



## Kzach

Eldorian said:


> It's disappointing is what it is.  I'll have to convince my DM to just give everyone a +1 to hit at 5, 15, 25.  Or maybe 1, 11, 21.  I also think it might be a good idea to add in +1 to all stats at 4, 8, 11, 14, 18, 21, 24, 28, to change the non ac defenses to scale properly.  Also helps certain classes like paladins, clerics, melee rangers, star pact warlocks.




Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait...

I was just starting to understand the math here and then you throw this spanner in my brain!

Are we only talking about AC as being imbalanced? If so, why not just make the +1 bonus only affect attacks against AC?


----------



## Mr. Wilson

Kzach said:


> Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait...
> 
> I was just starting to understand the math here and then you throw this spanner in my brain!
> 
> Are we only talking about AC as being imbalanced? If so, why not just make the +1 bonus only affect attacks against AC?




He's talking about player defenses there, which is a seperate issue.  

The problem is every character needs an additional +1 per tier to match the scaling monster defenses at certain points in that tier.


----------



## Branduil

How about this feat instead:

MATH EXPERTISE
Prereq: You don't want to suck.
Benefit: You get a +1 bonus to attack rolls at level 5. At 15th level, this bonus increases to +2. At 25th level, this bonus increases to +3. 
You get a +1 bonus to non-AC defenses at level 5. At 15th level, this bonus increases to +2. At 25th level, this bonus increases to +3. 
Special: You get this feat for free at 5th level.


----------



## Wepwawet

Where is this feat published??


----------



## Mr. Wilson

Branduil said:


> How about this feat instead:
> 
> MATH EXPERTISE
> Prereq: You don't want to suck.
> Benefit: You get a +1 bonus to attack rolls at level 5. At 15th level, this bonus increases to +2. At 25th level, this bonus increases to +3.
> You get a +1 bonus to non-AC defenses at level 5. At 15th level, this bonus increases to +2. At 25th level, this bonus increases to +3.
> Special: You get this feat for free at 5th level.




Lols.

Wepwawet, the feat we're talking about is from PHB2, which is currently not out yet in the States, but is out in Japan thanks to Amazon.


----------



## Oompa

Well.. I leave the feat at it.. if my players take it, they take it.. if they leave it.. they leave it..


----------



## infocynic

Oompa said:


> Well.. I leave the feat at it.. if my players take it, they take it.. if they leave it.. they leave it..



And if they don't take it by mid-paragon, they're obviously not thinking clearly. As stated before, I could easily live without this for most of heroic. My TWF Ranger is desperate for feats... even with the DM granting a bonus feat for backstory, my Level 5 ranger has taken:
Double Sword (how else am I going to afford two weapons?)
TWF
TWD
Chain

I'd still really like to take weapon focus, but I'm finally at the point where I can probably pick this up. If not for the DM bonus feat, I'd need to wait until level 8. And at 10, I want to pick up Scale so I can get Scale spec right away at 11th, and it's not like any of these are really retrainable.  

But given the choice between weapon focus and this? It's really a no-brainer.


----------



## sfedi

Abisashi said:


> This feat looks like errata disguised as crunch (and poorly done, as it hurts characters who rely on both an implement and a weapon compared to those who use only one). I'm just going to give every player the attack bonus for free.



I COMPLETELY agree with this.

If our assumptions are correct, I´ll give it for free as well.


----------



## Eldorian

Mr. Wilson said:


> He's talking about player defenses there, which is a seperate issue.
> 
> The problem is every character needs an additional +1 per tier to match the scaling monster defenses at certain points in that tier.




Actually, that's a separate issue.  I'm not so worried about your non AC defenses not increasing when light armor increases due to masterwork, mostly because there are paragon tier feats which add to them.

No, the issue I was pointing out is that at 4, 8, 14, 18, 24, 28 you increase only 2 stats, affecting at maximum only two non AC defenses.  For example, my barbarian is a 18 str and 18 con warforged.  His fort defense is 4 higher than his will, and his reflex is 1 lower than the will.  And this gap will widen as he levels due to never putting a point into dex or wis at the 4, 8, etc levels.


OK, so 3 issues with DnD math as you level.

1.  Attack bonus falls behind, compared to the rate monster defenses increase, at about 1 point per mid tier.

2.  Maximum non AC defenses fall behind by 1 point at paragon, 2 at Epic, but there are feats to increase these at paragon.

3.  Minimum non AC defenses (everyone has at least one) fall behind at 8, 14, 28, due to lack of increases to all stats at these levels.

Solutions?  

1.  Add 1 to hit at 5, 15, 25 or something.

2.  Do nothing, or perhaps add 1 to them at 15, 25.

3.  Increase all stats instead of just two at 4, 8, 14, etc.

Implementation?  WotC:  Supergood Feats!  (sweep those last two under the table)


----------



## Mengu

How about add +2 to all stats at level 11 and 21? Ditch weapon expertise. Add two new feats:

Combat Expertise: +1 to attack rolls with encounter attack powers.
Power Expertise: +1 to attack rolls with daily attack powers.

The latter two are there for those people who get frustrated with missing their encounter or daily powers too frequently. The two could be combined into one feat also, but I wouldn't want to make it more powerful than certain other conditional feats.

The +2 to all stats will address both the attack bonus issue, and the NAD issue.


----------



## Lab_Monkey

Interesting feat.  Funny that attack bonuses were so hard to come by until this feat with no prereqs that stacks with everything.

In regards to the non-AC defenses- did anyone notice the Boots of Quickness, Belt of Vim, and Circlet of something or other that add to your Reflex, Fort, and Will?  All three are in the Adventurer's  Vault.  Now that these are out, it seems like all my players want for their foot, waist and head slot items are these three items.  I'm bummed as it makes for less interesting magic item selection and basically kills three item slots to shore up defenses.


----------



## Walking Dad

Lab_Monkey said:


> Interesting feat.  Funny that attack bonuses were so hard to come by until this feat with no prereqs that stacks with everything.
> 
> In regards to the non-AC defenses- did anyone notice the Boots of Quickness, Belt of Vim, and Circlet of something or other that add to your Reflex, Fort, and Will?  All three are in the Adventurer's  Vault.  Now that these are out, it seems like all my players want for their foot, waist and head slot items are these three items.  I'm bummed as it makes for less interesting magic item selection and basically kills three item slots to shore up defenses.



Yes, mandatory magic items 
Good that we left the ability boosters, deflection rings etc with the old edition 

-------------

Hm, I would like to read the implement variant, Magic Missle and Eldritch blast counting as base attacks.


----------



## noeticist

Walking Dad said:


> -------------
> 
> Hm, I would like to read the implement variant, Magic Missle and Eldritch blast counting as base attacks.




Just because I'm tired of reading this in this thread.

Please view page 287 of the PHB.  Notice the fancy power-card like setup and fancy green at-will headings of the two basic attacks.  Then read the actual description of basic attacks:

"A basic attack is an at-will attack power that everyone possesses, regardless of class."

Basic attacks are powers, it's quite explicit.

Thanks,

Nick


----------



## Smeelbo

*A kludge, by any other name...*

As written, this is a kludge, plain and simple. Everyone will take this feat, they'd have to be insane not to. Essentially, characters will pay a _"feat tax,"_ to cover _Hasbro_'s poor development methodology, while us players pay $34.95, plus discounts, sales tax, shipping and handling _(operators are standing by)._

Indeed, the worst part is that the fix is probably not even necessary. Not that I've played beyond low heroic, but when I heard about the _"tier gap"_ between player offenses and monster defenses, my immediate conclusion was that was no problem, that groups were to intended to make up the difference by applying penalties to their opponent's defenses, with powers like _Splintering Shot_. Since penalties stack while bonuses don't, this is a perfectly reasonable response.

If _Hasbro_ has actually sent this to the printer as worded, it is a clear sign that they have given up on thoughtfully maintaining the game, and have surrendered to the cheap fix and the fast buck. That feat alone will sell tens of thousands of PHB2's.

If the developers had been looking for a more thoughtful solution, they would have looked towards powers that apply a penalty to defense. End of gap, end of problem, and players could then strategize about how to best go about applying those penalties, instead of simply pressing the _BUY IT NOW_ button.

When I first read 4E after its release, I immediately predicted that _Hasbro_ would wind up selling us _The Book of +2s_. I would not have predicted that they would be selling that less than a year after 4E's initial release.

Very disappointed,
*Smeelbo*


----------



## Runestar

> they would have looked towards powers that apply a penalty to defense.




But won't you need to hit to apply those penalties? Which brings us back to the attack/AC disparity...


----------



## Obryn

Smeelbo said:


> As written, this is a kludge, plain and simple. Everyone will take this feat, they'd have to be insane not to. Essentially, characters will pay a _"feat tax,"_ to cover _Hasbro_'s poor development methodology, while us players pay $34.95, plus discounts, sales tax, shipping and handling _(operators are standing by)._



Ummm...  I think that's on the excessively paranoid side of things.

It's in PHB2, but I think it's kinda silly to think anyone will buy this book specifically so their character can take this feat...  No D&D game I've ever run has worked like this.

-O


----------



## Smeelbo

_Splintering Shot_ applies a penalty even on a miss. I don't know the other classes' powers as well as I do rangers'. There are various ways to get a bonus for a specific attack, such as _Aid Another_ or _Furious Smash_, so with some team work, you could get that penalty to stick.

In any case, the point is they could have chosen to add new powers that apply penalties to defenses in a way that gave rise to interesting tactics, but instead they have literally taken the cheap way out _(fewer developer hours)._

New book, I dub thee, _"The Player's Handbook +2."_

*Smeelbo*

*EDIT:*


			
				RuneStar said:
			
		

> It's in PHB2, but I think it's kinda silly to think anyone will buy this book specifically so their character can take this feat... No D&D game I've ever run has worked like this.



I've sold well over a thousand D&D books, probably closer to two thousand, and yes, I've seen this all the time.  For example, I've sold 3.5's _Complete Divine_ simply on the basis of the feat that allows a cleric to burn a turn check to spontaneously cast a domain spell.

Don't kid yourself.  Whether it's _Magic the Gathering_ or _Dungeons and Dragons_, power creep is in no small part intended to increase _Hasbro_'s sales volume.


----------



## Jhaelen

Smeelbo said:


> That feat alone will sell tens of thousands of PHB2's.



Lol. Hyperbole, much? A feat will sell exactly nothing, since it'll just appear in the Character Builder for everyone.

Additionally, the feat isn't even particularly good at the beginning of an adventurer's career. I couldn't see myself taking it before paragon level.

But it is slightly annoying since it's a terribly BORING feat.


----------



## Runestar

> In any case, the point is they could have chosen to add new powers that apply penalties to defenses in a way that gave rise to interesting tactics, but instead they have literally taken the cheap way out _(fewer developer hours)._




I don't see how it would necessarily be any better. In your case, we would then "have" to take and use those powers just to retain parity in hitting at higher levels. Which would pigeon-hole builds further because everyone now finds themselves taking the same few powers. 

It would be like arguing that the attack disparity is negated by using a taclord. It means that every epic party must have a taclord. Regardless of whether anyone wants to play one or not.

In such a case, it seems like the lesser of 2 evils. The loss of a feat will hardly be felt. Players will likely just end up taking the feat and forgetting it was even there to begin with.


----------



## Mistwell

I still think an awful lot of people never play games much beyond the heroic tier.  Saying this feat is so mandatory it will result in books being sold seems a bit silly, given it's not even that good a feat in the heroic tier.  Nor do I know many DMs who have some rule that if you do not personally own the book you cannot take the feat.  If the feat is so good, people will take it regardless of owning the book.


----------



## Fedifensor

Well, my opinion has been posted on the WotC boards, but to repeat it here...

As many others have pointed out, this is a must-have feat that harms the game as a whole.  Here's the reasons:


Bonus to hit is more powerful than other feats.  It is _always_ better than the "situational +1" feats,  even at level 1.  It is _much_ better than the feats that offer +1 damage with a specific weapon group or damage type.
Scales up to +3 to hit.  At 15th level, it is the best feat in the game.  At 25th level, I'd rather have this even if I was burning two or three feat slots to get it.
Because it is so much more powerful, it becomes essential for every build, effectively reducing the number of feats a character gets.
Encounters are designed to challenge the players.  An Epic encounter designed without taking this feat into account goes from a challenge to a cakewalk, because it doesn't account for the extra +3 to hit.
In a group where some players have the feat and others don't, the characters who don't have the feat will be at a disadvantage, contributing less to the group.  
Characters who use both weapons and implements lose two feats instead of one for the same increase in overall effectiveness.
The feat discourages characters that use multiple weapons or multiple implements, because of the extra cost.
If intended as a math fix, it's errata that costs around $30 (though it comes with other benefits).


----------



## ObsidianCrane

Hmm I'll wait to see the actual book (or a picture of the page of an actual book) before making final judgement. The feat listing typically leaves types and conditions out when describing feats.

However that said it seems to me in reading this thread that a number of people want to negate any weakness their character might have. These weaknesses are (hopefully) intentional design. You can choose how to apply stat bonuses, you have to choose optimal core stats, or secondary or even tertiary stats for example. Each choice has benefits and deficits and you should be considering and weighing, not automatically discarding the secondary and tertiary options.

This is something 4E exploits a lot in its design - opportunity cost. Feats are where this is most apparent, each one is an opportunity and some (like Astral Fire etc) impose opportunity cost when you build your attributes as well. 

This feat is a long way from an auto-pick for my characters with 18+ starting attack stat. It is however a feat characters with 14 - 16 in an attack stat can really benefit from, and the availability of the Feat makes these lower attack stat characters far more viable, and thus allows for greater build options.

Of every character I have built at the moment I have 2 that want this feat, and thats because the characters' counter to low defence is higher hit and damage. So I'm trading the opportunity to have a higher defence, for the higher attack. (This is a key advantage of Rogues, primary attack and defence stat are the same so they have lower opportunity cost, its also why Sneak Attack needs CA (hopefully).)

Yes it looks like a very good choice, but its nowhere near the must have feat that it was in 3.X. Its not like people are rushing to take Sure Strike and its ilk.


----------



## Fedifensor

Cailte said:


> This is something 4E exploits a lot in its design - opportunity cost. Feats are where this is most apparent, each one is an opportunity and some (like Astral Fire etc) impose opportunity cost when you build your attributes as well.



The problem is, there isn't much of an opportunity cost.  Many feats in 4E are flavor feats - not a major factor in the character's effectiveness, but they add something cool, or some area of specialty.  Weapon Expertise (or Implement Expertise for the casters) is a flat +1 bonus regardless of the situation that you are in.



> Yes it looks like a very good choice, but its nowhere near the must have feat that it was in 3.X. Its not like people are rushing to take Sure Strike and its ilk.



Sure Strike gives a +2 to hit at the expense of damage, and no other effect.  One of the reasons everyone looks for to hit bonuses is the need to connect with Encounter and Daily powers. which do more damage and/or have a secondary effect that only works when you hit.  I can't even count the number of times I've missed with an Encounter power, burning it for the encounter with no gain.  It's especially frustrating at 1st and 2nd level, where you only have one class Encounter power.

Of course, if this feat doesn't interest you, then there's no reason to take any of the following feats in the Heroic tier:

Action Surge
Astral Fire
Blade Opportunist
Burning Blizzard
Combat Reflexes
Dark Fury
Dragonborn Frenzy
Dwarven Weapon Training
Eladrin Soldier
Elven Precision
Hellfire Blood
Nimble Blade
Power Attack
Powerful Charge
Precise Hunter
Raging Storm
Two Weapon Fighting
Weapon Focus
All of the above feats give a conditional bonus to hit and/or (usually 'or') damage.  All are mechanically inferior to Weapon Expertise, even before 15th level.  That's a pretty large selection of feats marginalized by a single feat in the PHB 2.

To use your statement above, the opportunity cost of taking any of the feats I listed is too high, when the alternative is a flat +1 to hit in all situations with your primary weapon.


----------



## keterys

> This feat is a long way from an auto-pick for my characters with 18+ starting attack stat.



While this is mathematially untrue at mid heroic through low paragon, there are certainly other options that may be more fun or are extremely close. From mid paragon on, you are blatantly mistaken.


----------



## vermilion

keterys said:


> While this is mathematially untrue at mid heroic through low paragon, there are certainly other options that may be more fun or are extremely close. From mid paragon on, you are blatantly mistaken.




He's blatantly mistaken that his characters won't auto-pick it?  What, are you gonna Jedi mind-trick him into taking it every time he hits level 16?


----------



## ObsidianCrane

Thanks Vermilion. 



Fedifensor said:


> The problem is, there isn't much of an opportunity cost.  Many feats in 4E are flavor feats - not a major factor in the character's effectiveness, but they add something cool, or some area of specialty.  Weapon Expertise (or Implement Expertise for the casters) is a flat +1 bonus regardless of the situation that you are in.




Cool so that +1 to hit with my weapon its really going to rock my world when I'm sneaking past the guards... oh wait there's a situation it doesn't matter in. You know when factoring the opportunity cost of something you need to look beyond the proverbial end of your sword.

BTW this is a problem I have with the "Math Gurus" lots of time is spent crunching numbers and comming to the conclusion that there should be an extra +1 at x-level or whatever. Many of my characters played in actual game player are needing <10 normally to hit. Rarely a 10-11. The monster's AC going up will not significantly impact the game, and frankly the DM should be looking at the typical attacks of the party and determining monsters appropriately.



Fedifensor said:


> Sure Strike gives a +2 to hit at the expense of damage, and no other effect.  One of the reasons everyone looks for to hit bonuses is the need to connect with Encounter and Daily powers. which do more damage and/or have a secondary effect that only works when you hit.  I can't even count the number of times I've missed with an Encounter power, burning it for the encounter with no gain.  It's especially frustrating at 1st and 2nd level, where you only have one class Encounter power.




Hey I hate blowing that encounter power as well.. is there anyone who doesn't?

But if the argument is that +1 hit is worth sacrificing all other options at x-level (lets say 5 as you can retrain a 4th level feat to Expertise when you supposedly need this pip the first time) then the trend would be that powers that give +2 attack would be premium powers and you would be taking ways to increase their damage or other effects with your feats religously.

But in Char Op land that isn't the case.

The rigid mindset that the "best way" is to get that +1 is why we end up with people complaining that they cannot get their defences high enough - they burnt all that resource to eek out that extra +1 to attack and damage without properly considering that it would have long term negative impacts on their character.

Sure my 20 Int Wizard hits more than my 18 Int one... but my 18 Int one has far more options and the same or better defences at the same level with the same equipment. Hence the opportunity cost of that extra +1 to hit and damage from my 20 Int was higher than it might appear on the surface.




Fedifensor said:


> Of course, if this feat doesn't interest you, then there's no reason to take any of the following feats in the Heroic tier




I actually gave examples of 2 characters it interests me for, so you are barking up the wrong tree.

My point is that the feat is not absolutely a must have feat. Its a good feat worth using a slot up on to improve the hit chance of your character if needed.



Fedifensor said:


> To use your statement above, the opportunity cost of taking any of the feats I listed is too high, when the alternative is a flat +1 to hit in all situations with your primary weapon.




The feat is clearly better than a conditional +1 to hit that does nothing else - duh.

Its not clearly better at first level than a feat that gives +1 to hit and damage with an at-will, your encounter and daily. (Tieflings only)

Its not clearly better than feats that have nothing to do with combat that I need for my character to develop as I see them.

Its not clearly better than Muti-class feats that add additional options and give skill training.

Yes its better than conditional attack bonuses, and I understand the basic math crunch of why its better than damage bonuses (you hit more so you damage more), but I suspect that isn't as absolutely true as the maths gurus want us to believe in actual game play (if only for fun factor - its hard to say as its moving into subjective realms). 

When talking "opportunity cost" one needs to look at the whole picture, not just a little part of it.


----------



## Branduil

This is reminding me of 3.x arguments like "the Cleric isn't overpowered because I can still have fun playing a fighter." Well, sure, but that's not what people are arguing. The point is that any character without this feat simply won't be as efficient as those that do. That's all that needs to be considered when judging its power.


----------



## keterys

vermilion said:


> He's blatantly mistaken that his characters won't auto-pick it?  What, are you gonna Jedi mind-trick him into taking it every time he hits level 16?




Actually, I missed the 'my'  and read it as 'characters with a starting stat of 18+'.

So, he's not mistaken in it being autopick for him, perhaps. It _should_ logically and mathematically be autopick for any character of any stat once it hits +2 at level 15. 

Not taking it once it's +2 attack is most likely either being stubborn (well, it's broken so I won't take it - actually it doesn't even fit my RP concept to hit more often so there's no way I could take it), uninformed (What feat? Oh, haven't seen that), foolish (huh, +2 attack is no big deal, why would I want to hit more, I enjoy complaining about missing), or crazy (Yah, man, can't take expertise man, cause then the man is gonna know what I'm doing yeah, can't let that happen, yeah). Of the 9 feats someone has at 16th, I'd be surprised if even two of them are better than it. Even completely support-focused Leaders have to hit a lot of the time.

Like, let's take a rogue who only needs a 4 to hit usually, does ~40 damage on average and compare dropping Backstabber (3 damage per hit, and 6 extra 5% of the time, one of his better feats) to +2 attack (which he hardly needs if he's hitting on 4s).
Backstabber: ~34 DPR (40 * .85)
Expertise: ~34.865 DPR (36.7 * .95)

Hardly a huge increase, but that's dropping one of the "must have" rogue feats (3d6->3d8 on SA) - and still increasing... but damage is not just what expertise does. It makes it more likely for his stun, daze, knockout, slide, etc attacks to land. If anything, that's probably more valuable than the damage increase - the damage is practically free at that point.

You can do the same test with Hammer Rhythm, Superior Weapon Proficiency, etc. Even Dwarven Weapon Training for many characters, which is already better than two feats put together for effect. And that's even before it hits +3 attack.


----------



## keterys

Well, I suppose if your dnd games have no combat or the combats are all against enemies four or more levels lower than you, it's possible it wouldn't make sense. The latter really shouldn't happen, but it could, so carry right on if that's your groups' shtick.

For non-combat games... with 9 feats to spend on skill training, focus, etc... you might be running out of noncombat options _anyways_ which would still make this a viable choice at 16th for your Sleep or Curse of the Golden Mist or other attack power that only incapacitates, making it possible to use in negotations


----------



## ObsidianCrane

Branduil said:


> This is reminding me of 3.x arguments like "the Cleric isn't overpowered because I can still have fun playing a fighter." Well, sure, but that's not what people are arguing. The point is that any character without this feat simply won't be as efficient as those that do. That's all that needs to be considered when judging its power.




*sigh* The "I can have fun without it" is not the argument I'm making at all.

I'm saying that there are  anumber of reasons not to take this feat, and your character may in fact not be worse of mechanically across the *whole spectrum* of the game because you don't have this feat.

Put 2 characters with the same equipment and the same attack stat and attacks side by side and the one with this feat will be marginally better at hitting in combat. The size of that margin will depend on the value of the defences the monsters they are fighting have.

However taking this feat necassarily limits your other options by a single feat (as does taking any other feat) and that might not be enough of a difference.

Consider the argument that this feat is better than say Astral Fire. If we have 2 characters with the same attack bonuses aside from this feat (or its implement equivalent), and one has this feat and the other Astral Fire and all their strongest (not just damage but conditions etc) attacks are fire or radiant. When these characters are fighting Creature X with no resistance to Radiant or Fire, the one with this feat will hit more often and do slightly more damage etc across a number of battles. Now take the same two characters and pit them against a creature with resistance to their attack type (ie fire or radiant) the one who has more raw damage will come out slightly in front.

Now mathematically it is entirely likely that the PC with the feat is better, but every time "number of hits" matters less than "effectiveness of hits" the other PC comes out better. If the margin between "number of hits" is small I'm not that worried about it - its still a viable build option not to have the feat. Once the margin starts becoming large (say they had at least 3 difference in their stats before the higher one took the feat) then it matters more.

I contend that for characters with 18 or 20 in their attack stat this feat will remain an attractive option to improve general effectiveness, but will not be a must have. For characters with 16 (or lower!) in their attack stat this feat is a godsend, its not necassarily the first feat they take but its going to be on the list in a big way.


----------



## keterys

Cailte said:


> Consider the argument that this feat is better than say Astral Fire. If we have 2 characters with the same attack bonuses aside from this feat (or its implement equivalent), and one has this feat and the other Astral Fire and all their strongest (not just damage but conditions etc) attacks are fire or radiant. When these characters are fighting Creature X with no resistance to Radiant or Fire, the one with this feat will hit more often and do slightly more damage etc across a number of battles. Now take the same two characters and pit them against a creature with resistance to their attack type (ie fire or radiant) the one who has more raw damage will come out slightly in front.




As the resistance makes their damage without Astral Fire approach 0, the feat definitely becomes less useful - though the status effects still trigger on hits, so you're comparing doing, say, 5 damage instead of 3 when you do hit, to say dazing more often... and the status effect might still win. That said, if they encounter resistance with such frequency as to make Astral Fire more useful than Implement Expertise, they should not be using such attacks at all (or possibly their DM has it out to get them and the DM should rejigger things)



> its still a viable build option not to have the feat.




4e is remarkably good at not having people just suck because of build options, it's true. You could indeed have a rogue whose feats are entirely spent on weapon proficiencies in weapons he didn't use and compare to one who had weapon expertise, weapon focus, backstabber, etc... and the differences would be notable but not game breaking. I'm not sure I'd consider the first build to be "viable" just because it was still hitting pretty often and doing decent damage, even if it were... let's call it half as effective. I mean, half a rogue is still nice to have around.



> I contend that for characters with 18 or 20 in their attack stat this feat will remain an attractive option to improve general effectiveness, but will not be a must have.




Could you clarify your definition of must have? For example, I'm not sure I could make a list of more than 2 feats per race/class/build for level 16 that were higher priority. I consider that must have. If the definition for must have is more like 'You gain an extra standard action every round' or 'Your basic attacks that cause damage also stun (save ends)', that would explain the disagreement.


----------



## Fedifensor

Cailte said:


> Cool so that +1 to hit with my weapon its really going to rock my world when I'm sneaking past the guards... oh wait there's a situation it doesn't matter in. You know when factoring the opportunity cost of something you need to look beyond the proverbial end of your sword.



4E can be used for many things.  However, as evidenced both by published modules and the guidelines for LFR module creation, 4E is primarily a combat game.  Heck, the LFR guidelines recommend a minimum of two combats in a four hour module - with the average being 3 to 4.  Trust me, I like feats like Skill Training...but it's not going to come up nearly as often as that +1 or more to hit.



> BTW this is a problem I have with the "Math Gurus" lots of time is spent crunching numbers and comming to the conclusion that there should be an extra +1 at x-level or whatever. Many of my characters played in actual game player are needing <10 normally to hit. Rarely a 10-11.



There are people on both ends of the spectrum.  For every super-optimized character that needs less than a 10 to hit, there's the unoptimized character (like the 14 STR Warlord I gamed with not too long ago) that is behind the curve.  Furthermore, there's a lot of situations where imposed penalties will make it so you need a high roll to hit.  Goblin Hexers are a great example of this in the Heroic tier, able to impose an effective -4 to hit.



> The monster's AC going up will not significantly impact the game, and frankly the DM should be looking at the typical attacks of the party and determining monsters appropriately.



Which you can do in a home game, but not published modules and LFR modules.  People buy a published module in part because WotC has supposedly done the balancing work for the DM.  If the math behind the progression is problematic, then the module will have a different difficulty than is intended...and a feat (which by its nature is optional) is not the way to fix this problem.



> But if the argument is that +1 hit is worth sacrificing all other options at x-level (lets say 5 as you can retrain a 4th level feat to Expertise when you supposedly need this pip the first time) then the trend would be that powers that give +2 attack would be premium powers and you would be taking ways to increase their damage or other effects with your feats religously.



Powers are used for two things - delivering damage, and delivering effects.  Those that have a built-in bonus to hit have the trade off of lower damage and/or a lack of effects.  The reason people want bonuses to hit, besides the frustration of missing an attack and having it do nothing, is to hit with the powers that deliver high damage and/or powerful status effects.



> Sure my 20 Int Wizard hits more than my 18 Int one... but my 18 Int one has far more options and the same or better defences at the same level with the same equipment. Hence the opportunity cost of that extra +1 to hit and damage from my 20 Int was higher than it might appear on the surface.



Given that one of my first 4E experiments was the Iron Mage, I don't think that's a good example to prove your point.



> My point is that the feat is not absolutely a must have feat. Its a good feat worth using a slot up on to improve the hit chance of your character if needed.



While 4E is flexible, the game is primarily designed for combat.  The core of the combat system is a tiering of powers where the less often you can use them, the greater their effect.  In such a system, a flat +1 to hit with all of your powers is very powerful.



> The feat is clearly better than a conditional +1 to hit that does nothing else - duh.
> 
> Its not clearly better at first level than a feat that gives +1 to hit and damage with an at-will, your encounter and daily. (Tieflings only)
> 
> Its not clearly better than feats that have nothing to do with combat that I need for my character to develop as I see them.
> 
> Its not clearly better than Muti-class feats that add additional options and give skill training.



For combat, it's better than the first two options you list above.  Yes, a Tiefling can theoretically do better if *all* of his attacks have the fire and/or fear keywords.  Which is great until you encounter one of the more common resistances - fire resistance.  Taking Hellfire Blood and building your entire character around it specializes you in such a way that you will be marginalized in some combats because of a lack of diversity in damage types.  I don't consider +1 damage worth hamstringing a character against foes with fire resistance.

If your DM focuses on out-of-combat situations (and bravo for him if he does), then a +1 on attacks won't come up as often...but it still will come up frequently.  If the DM avoids combat situations like the plague...why in the heck are you playing D&D?  You should be playing a story-based game instead...and there are plenty on the market these days.




> Yes its better than conditional attack bonuses, and I understand the basic math crunch of why its better than damage bonuses (you hit more so you damage more), but I suspect that isn't as absolutely true as the maths gurus want us to believe in actual game play (if only for fun factor - its hard to say as its moving into subjective realms).



You say "math gurus" like it's an insult.  I'm certainly not a guru, but it doesn't take a lot of math skills to realize the essential points of their argument:

Combat is the most common situation for a character in a typical D&D game.
The game-changing powers are limited in their use (1/encounter or 1/day)
It becomes harder to hit as your level increases.
A flat +1 to hit means you're less likely to waste a limited resource.
The game offers many feats that give situational bonuses, that are less valuable than an all-the-time bonus.
By mid-heroic tier, a character has enough feats to cover their essentials, and should look at taking a feat that will improve their effectiveness in the most common situation in the game.



> When talking "opportunity cost" one needs to look at the whole picture, not just a little part of it.



I have.  You may not agree with my conclusion, but I have.


----------



## 77IM

The worst thing about this feat is that it penalizes players who aren't into math.  Our boy Noob McRoleplay, who doesn't understand why attack bonus is important so he plays an eladrin starlock with a 15 in both Con and Ch, might skip this feat because it's boring.  But his fellow player Minmax McMunchkin, who is a halfling rogue with Dex 20 and rogue weapon talent (daggers) and who basically sneak attacks constantly, is going to snatch up this feat very early on.  This makes the power-gap between the two characters even worse.  This is the epitome of imbalance.

Fortunately this particular feat is not the end of the world (there are numerous ways to easily fix this imbalance) but it represents to me the sort of broken rule that I was hoping 4e would be moving away from.

 -- 77IM


----------



## keterys

I'm going to just give it as a bonus to my players effectively, and for the home game I'm in it's possible the DM will follow suit since he's one of my players. For LFR games, though... it's frustrating cause it's basically further forcing weapon specialization and it's a tax that I need to figure out a point in all of my character's progressions that I'll take it.

I feel especially bad for my friend playing the swordmage - two feats for him.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

An easy fix came to my mind:

it seems, the bonus is primarily needed to get the power bonuses stick on the target... what about making weapon expertise a *power* bonus?

it sounds strange, but this could be wha is needed...
this could help players in parties without leaders or for the leader himself...

or you could just make weapon expertise giving you an at-will power as a free or minor action to invoke this bonus...


----------



## Mengu

I keep thinking about this, but even if this is not the first feat you get, after 2-3 feats you need to take to enforce your role, this is going to be the feat to take. Let's take a look at a few stereotypes.

If you are a striker, you might start out with a feat or two to boost your damage like backstabber or racial weapon training. But by the time you are thinking about nimble blade, you're simply better off with weapon expertise.

If you are a defender, you might want to start with something to bbost your defenses, maybe toughness, maybe an upgrade in armor. But when you start thinking about a boost to your combat challenge attacks or opportunity attacks, you are again simply better off taking weapon expertise.

For a leader, you might want to start with some boost to your healing, if you are front line maybe a boost to your defense. And again shortly after 
you hit 3rd or 5th level when you have enough encounter and daily powers you really want to hit with, weapon or implement expertise becomes your immediate priority.

For a controller, I can see many of them wanting to start out with implement mastery right out of the gate. Their "control" role is directly proportional to how well they can hit.

I think however much you want to resist, this feat is just a matter of "when" you want your +1 (or +2). At this point, I'm inclined to just make the feat free at 5th level. I don't see much point in making my players feel like they are getting docked a feat.


----------



## jasin

Cailte said:


> Consider the argument that this feat is better than say Astral Fire. If we have 2 characters with the same attack bonuses aside from this feat (or its implement equivalent), and one has this feat and the other Astral Fire and all their strongest (not just damage but conditions etc) attacks are fire or radiant. When these characters are fighting Creature X with no resistance to Radiant or Fire, the one with this feat will hit more often and do slightly more damage etc across a number of battles. Now take the same two characters and pit them against a creature with resistance to their attack type (ie fire or radiant) the one who has more raw damage will come out slightly in front.



That depends on the amount of the resistance.

Now take into account that creatures without resistance to radiant or fire are more common than creatures with such resistance; that Astral Fire requires Dex 13, Cha 13 while Implement Expertise (reputedly) requires nothing; that Implement Expertise also works on any non-radiant, non-fire power you might have in store for just this occasion; and your argument seems to lose momentum.


----------



## Iron Sky

What about changing it so it only effects encounter and daily powers (which is what I originally thought it was anyway)?

It would make it useful for connecting with the powers you really want to connect with, but not _quite_ a no-brainer.  It would still probably become a must-have at paragon (when you have at least 4 encounters and 3 dailies), but may not trump the circumstantial +1 to-hits that apply to all attacks...


----------



## Hypersmurf

Fedifensor said:


> Goblin Hexers...










-Hyp.


----------



## Jhaelen

Fedifensor said:


> Of course, if this feat doesn't interest you, then there's no reason to take any of the following feats in the Heroic tier:



So?
Personally, I'm always looking first for feats that will allow me to do something I couldn't have done without the feat.
Feats that allow me to be better at the things I can already do, are always the second choice. Imho, the single best feat you can take will always be the first multiclassing feat.

Following your line of reasoning a player would be stupid if he didn't put an 18 into her character's main attack stat. But actually that's far from the optimal choice in most cases.


----------



## keterys

Jhaelen said:


> Following your line of reasoning a player would be stupid if he didn't put an 18 into her character's main attack stat. But actually that's far from the optimal choice in most cases.




This argument is not logical.

Getting a stat from 16 to 18 takes 7 build points, which could easily net you 4 or so points in other stats (and almost certainly net you a +1 in an important secondary stat)... and only gives you +1 attack, when all is said to done.

This feat gives +2 or +3 attack and costs you... a feat. Which you have several of and we have an established cost/benefit for... do any of the feats give you '+2 to your primary stat' or '+2 to your secondary stat and a tertiary stat'? No, that'd be way too good. And this feat gives even more than +2 to the primary stat, at higher tier.

How about this - were people taking the conditional +1 attack feats, before expertise (nimble blade, hellfire blood, etc), since this is more than twice as good? No? Okay, it's blown the cost/benefit ratio. It's power creep. Period. Can we at least agree with that, and that it's not desirable? If you have no use for attack on a character, that's totally separate from whether it's bad design, right?

Next question is - why would it be so extremely good? Well, we have lots of discussions about how character attack bonuses didn't scale well over tiers, and the +3 makes up that difference. Great, we have a reason! Just a lousy solution to that problem.  Inherent math problems can be fixed, but doing so with feats and equipment that limit choices and create distance between optimized and unoptimized play is a sad thing.


----------



## ObsidianCrane

Fedifensor said:


> Which you can do in a home game, but not published modules and LFR modules.  People buy a published module in part because WotC has supposedly done the balancing work for the DM.  If the math behind the progression is problematic, then the module will have a different difficulty than is intended...and a feat (which by its nature is optional) is not the way to fix this problem.




Firstly you can tweak LFR modules - it says it right there at the start of each module and is the default position for LFR, they call it "DM Empowerment"

Secondly WotC modules typically follow the DMG recomendations for "Standard" encounters, that's like playing on Easy mode for most players. 

So far I've yet to find a problem with the Math progression in actual play at either Heroic or Paragon tier, time will tell.




Fedifensor said:


> Given that one of my first 4E experiments was the Iron Mage, I don't think that's a good example to prove your point.



OMG you built a staff wizard with uber defence... I bow before your awesomeness for not actually understanding what I'm talking about at all.




Fedifensor said:


> While 4E is flexible, the game is primarily designed for combat.  The core of the combat system is a tiering of powers where the less often you can use them, the greater their effect.  In such a system, a flat +1 to hit with all of your powers is very powerful.




Not disputing that its a powerful feat... I'm disputing the contention that its a "must have" feat.

Your DMs need to use skill challenges more if you think Combat is the be all and end all of the game. Maybe then the hyper combat optimisation of characters would be less of a focus. (I know my combat orientated characters are really boring to have in a skill challenge.)



Fedifensor said:


> You say "math gurus" like it's an insult.




And others hold up the maths like its the only factor in the evaluation of feats, powers and game play, its not.

I have issues with the feat, which have been happily addressed by other posters, but I also have issues with people acting like the feat will automatically appear on every character ever made.


----------



## Fedifensor

Cailte said:


> Firstly you can tweak LFR modules - it says it right there at the start of each module and is the default position for LFR, they call it "DM Empowerment"



A process that will receive clarification in the next few months, due to the abuse of the system.  It also requires a DM skilled enough to make adjustments on the fly.



> Secondly WotC modules typically follow the DMG recomendations for "Standard" encounters, that's like playing on Easy mode for most players.



Tell that to players of Scalegloom Hall, or Keep on the Shadowfell.  Or, to use a LFR example, Beneath Haunted Halls.  None of those qualify as Easy mode.



> So far I've yet to find a problem with the Math progression in actual play at either Heroic or Paragon tier, time will tell.



At Heroic, the problem isn't as bad.  It's a 4 point difference over 30 levels, so the difference in the first 10 levels is 1, maybe 2 points.



> OMG you built a staff wizard with uber defence... I bow before your awesomeness for not actually understanding what I'm talking about at all.



About as on-topic as you citing your own wizard as _proof_ that an 18 (before stat modifiers) is always going to limit you.  Clearly, it doesn't.



> Not disputing that its a powerful feat... I'm disputing the contention that its a "must have" feat.



The definition of "must-have", in my eyes, is a measure of effectiveness.  There's always going to be people that ignore the effective option, for one reason or another.  Maybe it doesn't fit their character conception, or they want a greater challenge, or they're simply not aware that the feat is better...but that doesn't change the fact that anyone skipping Weapon/Implement Expertise through the Heroic tier (when they have 5 other feats to round their character out) is choosing to lower their combat effectiveness relative to those who do take the feat.



> Your DMs need to use skill challenges more if you think Combat is the be all and end all of the game. Maybe then the hyper combat optimisation of characters would be less of a focus. (I know my combat orientated characters are really boring to have in a skill challenge.)



Most of my play opportunities of late have been LFR, where even "DM empowerment" doesn't allow a DM to make up new encounters from whole cloth.  The default writing style for WotC modules, whether for purchase or from the LFR campaign, is to have a lot of combat.  Specifically, the LFR module guidelines recommend 2-5 combat encounters per 4-hour module.  Apparently, WotC feels combat *is* the be all and end all of the game.



> I have issues with the feat, which have been happily addressed by other posters, but I also have issues with people acting like the feat will automatically appear on every character ever made.



Only on the characters created by players that value effectiveness.  There will always be people who choose not to take an option no matter how good it is.


----------



## keterys

Actually, I think part of the problem that some of us are feeling is that people _won't_ take it, and they're effectively being penalized (or their group is, depending how you think of it, but that's a little less fair). 

Fwiw, skill challenges are very much a part of LFR modules, but even if half of the game is skill challenges and half combat, I've never found that I needed more than 2 feats spent on skills to contribute to every skill challenge I've played in. It would certainly be possible to spend, say, 5 - multiclass, 2 skill trainings, 2 skill focuses, say... at that point I'd imagine you'd have -something- to do in every skill challenge that came up, or at least have covered the skills that could possibly make sense for your character... but you have 9 feats at 16th level. 5 for skill challenges, 4 for combat still means you can pick up 3 'cool' combat feats as well as the effective expertise option. 

No, it won't be used by 100% of the playerbase by 16th level. Yes, it should be used by 100% of the playerbase by 16th level - when it's just +1 though, especially at low level, it's a lot less of a big deal.


----------



## grickherder

Say we multiplied the races by the classes (and their sub builds) and came up with a number of rough builds that one could make.  What do you suppose the choice number would be for this feat for most of the builds?  At what choice would it have to be in order for it to be considered a "must have" or "broken" or "a patch disguised as a feat"?  First choice?  Second?  Fifth?  Tenth?  Fourteenth?

My opinion is that if it's not first or second in the majority of the builds, it's not a must have/broken/disguised patch.  Because if it's 3rd, or 5th or 8th or whatever, that's an awful lot of feats that beat it out.  Even if 99% of characters out there end up with it by level 26 that means that up to 15 other feats beat it out for a player's choice before that +3 just became too tempting.

Another thing to remember is that feats are tied to concept.  I want to play a warlock/wizard gnome, for example.  If I start off with expertise, I don't have the concept at all because I don't have the multiclass feat.  I guess I could take it at second level, but then I have to wait on taking Fey Trickster to get the rest of the cantrips.  I guess I could take it at fourth, but then I have to wait on Improved Misty Step.  I guess 6th then, but then I can't take either Melee Training or Reaper's Touch so I can fight up close as well.  Oh, 8th then.  But wait a minute!  I haven't even taken any power swap feats yet!  And since I want to paragon multiclass, I need to take my 6th, 8th and 10th level feats as power swap feats.

Must have  right...


----------



## Smeelbo

*Expertise probably taken by almost all characters by 6th level*



			
				Jhalen said:
			
		

> Lol. Hyperbole, much? A feat will sell exactly nothing, since it'll just appear in the Character Builder for everyone.



I'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.







			
				Jhaelen said:
			
		

> Additionally, the feat isn't even particularly good at the beginning of an adventurer's career. I couldn't see myself taking it before paragon level.



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 don't see how it would necessarily be any better. In your case, we would then "have" to take and use those powers just to retain parity in hitting at higher levels. Which would pigeon-hole builds further because everyone now finds themselves taking the same few powers.



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.







			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> I still think an awful lot of people never play games much beyond the heroic tier.



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.







			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> Nor do I know many DMs who have some rule that if you do not personally own the book you cannot take the feat.



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.







			
				Fedifensor said:
			
		

> Bonus to hit is more powerful than other feats. It is always better than the "situational +1" feats, even at level 1. It is much better than the feats that offer +1 damage with a specific weapon group or damage type.



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.







			
				Fedifensor said:
			
		

> Encounters are designed to challenge the players. An Epic encounter designed without taking this feat into account goes from a challenge to a cakewalk, because it doesn't account for the extra +3 to hit.



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.







			
				Fedifensor said:
			
		

> In a group where some players have the feat and others don't, the characters who don't have the feat will be at a disadvantage, contributing less to the group.



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.







			
				Fedifensor said:
			
		

> Characters who use both weapons and implements lose two feats instead of one for the same increase in overall effectiveness.
> The feat discourages characters that use multiple weapons or multiple implements, because of the extra cost.



These are very telling objections, and one reason I'd consider applying a tier penalty to monsters instead.







			
				Cailte said:
			
		

> Its not clearly better than feats that have nothing to do with combat that I need for my character to develop as I see them.
> Its not clearly better than Muti-class feats that add additional options and give skill training....When talking "opportunity cost" one needs to look at the whole picture, not just a little part of it.



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.







			
				Keterys said:
			
		

> Not taking it once it's +2 attack is most likely either being stubborn (well, it's broken so I won't take it - actually it doesn't even fit my RP concept to hit more often so there's no way I could take it), uninformed (What feat? Oh, haven't seen that), foolish (huh, +2 attack is no big deal, why would I want to hit more, I enjoy complaining about missing), or crazy (Yah, man, can't take expertise man, cause then the man is gonna know what I'm doing yeah, can't let that happen, yeah). Of the 9 feats someone has at 16th, I'd be surprised if even two of them are better than it. Even completely support-focused Leaders have to hit a lot of the time.



I think _Keterys_ is absolutely correct here. Optimizers will take _Expertise_ low to mid heroic, and everyone will take it by mid-paragon.







			
				Cailte said:
			
		

> However taking this feat necassarily limits your other options by a single feat (as does taking any other feat) and that might not be enough of a difference.



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_.







			
				Fedifensor said:
			
		

> 4E can be used for many things. However, as evidenced both by published modules and the guidelines for LFR module creation, 4E is primarily a combat game. Heck, the LFR guidelines recommend a minimum of two combats in a four hour module - with the average being 3 to 4. Trust me, I like feats like Skill Training...but it's not going to come up nearly as often as that +1 or more to hit.



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.







			
				Fedifensor said:
			
		

> If the math behind the progression is problematic, then the module will have a different difficulty than is intended...and a feat (which by its nature is optional) is not the way to fix this problem.



Preach it, brother!







			
				Mengu said:
			
		

> But by the time you are thinking about nimble blade, you're simply better off with weapon expertise.



I've heard some claim that _Nimble Blade_ is too good, and _Expertise_ is way better.







			
				Mengu said:
			
		

> I think however much you want to resist, this feat is just a matter of "when" you want your +1 (or +2).



This is exactly right.







			
				Iron Sky said:
			
		

> What about changing it so it only effects encounter and daily powers (which is what I originally thought it was anyway)?



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.







			
				grickherder said:
			
		

> My opinion is that if it's not first or second in the majority of the builds, it's not a must have/broken/disguised patch. Because if it's 3rd, or 5th or 8th or whatever, that's an awful lot of feats that beat it out.



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.







			
				grickherder said:
			
		

> Another thing to remember is that feats are tied to concept....And since I want to paragon multiclass, I need to take my 6th, 8th and 10th level feats as power swap feats.



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*


----------



## Jack99

Personally, I think I am going to strike those feats from PHB2 and hardwiring them into the system. Everyone gets +1 to hit at 5th, 15th and 25th with both weapon and implements. 

Anyone sees any problem with that?


----------



## Styracosaurus

Jack99 said:


> Personally, I think I am going to strike those feats from PHB2 and hardwiring them into the system. Everyone gets +1 to hit at 5th, 15th and 25th with both weapon and implements.
> 
> Anyone sees any problem with that?





It is easier to just disallow the feat and not worry about it.


----------



## Jack99

Styracosaurus said:


> It is easier to just disallow the feat and not worry about it.




It would be even easier if I stopped playing D&D, but the chances of that aren't really big


----------



## WalterKovacs

Fedifensor said:


> Action Surge





You have one daily until level 5. Getting +3 to hit with that daily > +1 to hit with that daily. In other encounters, you have 1 or 2 encounter powers, again giving you very few options to add the +3 to. Having the most important powers be even more accurate can at least be comparable to having all your powers more accurate. This depends on whether you want higher damage output on average per round, or want to hit with your daily/encounter power.



> Dwarven Weapon Training
> Eladrin Soldier




For eladrin soldier, you gain access to the greatspear, giving you reach without losing proficiency bonus compared to your longsword, and a damage increase. With d8 becoming d10 and +2 to your damage, it is going to likely increase the damage per round compared to a simple +1 to hit. This depends on the accuracy you already have. The dwarf is in a similar position, gaining damage from both the fixed +2, and the higher damage dice of superior weaponry. 



> Two Weapon Fighting




TWF is already inferior to weapon focus, and is either (a) an addition to weapon focus or (b) a prerequisite to two weapon defense. The latter is often the main reason to take TWF ... the damage boost is secondary.



> All of the above feats give a conditional bonus to hit and/or (usually 'or') damage. All are mechanically inferior to Weapon Expertise, even before 15th level. That's a pretty large selection of feats marginalized by a single feat in the PHB 2.
> 
> 
> To use your statement above, the opportunity cost of taking any of the feats I listed is too high, when the alternative is a flat +1 to hit in all situations with your primary weapon.




(a) You get more than one feat option so the option of "this is better than that" is only relevant at the earliest levels. At best the list is "if you liked these feats, you'll be interested in expertise". 
(b) Some, not all, but some, have benefits that weapon expertise cannot offer (such as heavy thrown, reach or defensive properties of the superior weapons; the ability to get two weapon defense).
(c) Some of them are not mechanically inferior to Weapon Expertise. Action Surge, for example, gives a greater bonus than Weapon Expertise until level 25. If the goal is "hit with daily powers" then it does that job better. More so, the extra damage from the racial weapon specializations will arguably give more damage per round than a slight increase in accuracy.
(d) There already exists feat that overlap each other and some feats that are purely better than others (in some situations). For example a multiclass feat gives a skill AND an additional power. Two Weapon Fighting gives a +1 to only one of the weapons, compared to weapon focus, etc.

There are going to be feats that will likely be best to pick first amongst it's peers. Few of the feats are obsoleted by the expertise feats ... most would just get pushed back a bit as they work well _with_ expertise. It's not replacing so much as delaying. Now, for people that wouldn't be taking those feats in the first place, it's harder to argue that expertise is the correct choice.


----------



## 77IM

grickherder said:


> Another thing to remember is that feats are tied to concept.  I want to play a warlock/wizard gnome, for example.  If I start off with expertise, I don't have the concept at all because I don't have the multiclass feat.  I guess I could take it at second level, but then I have to wait on taking Fey Trickster to get the rest of the cantrips.  I guess I could take it at fourth, but then I have to wait on Improved Misty Step.  I guess 6th then, but then I can't take either Melee Training or Reaper's Touch so I can fight up close as well.  Oh, 8th then.  But wait a minute!  I haven't even taken any power swap feats yet!  And since I want to paragon multiclass, I need to take my 6th, 8th and 10th level feats as power swap feats.




This is a great example, actually.  That's a really interesting and appropriate concept.  You've taken feats that seem like they support that concept.  You're also being overshadowed by the elf ranger with 18 Dex and Weapon Expertise (bow) and the human laser cleric with 18 Wis and Implement Expertise (holy symbol) because they're just hitting noticeably more often than you.  How does that make you feel?  How would you feel if the DM kept encouraging you to take the boring +1 attack feat so that you can keep up with the rest of the group?

The existence of this feat isn't the end of the world, but I think it creates more problems than it solves.

 -- 77IM


----------



## Styracosaurus

Jack99 said:


> It would be even easier if I stopped playing D&D, but the chances of that aren't really big




Dude, you've got almost 3,000 posts.  You ain't gonna stop playing DnD. 

 I just meant that it is super easy to ban one little feat rather than try and fit it into the system.  It is even more work to fit the system to the feat.


----------



## sfedi

Styracosaurus said:


> I just meant that it is super easy to ban one little feat rather than try and fit it into the system.  It is even more work to fit the system to the feat.



Of course it´s easy to ban a troublesome feat. That´s not the point.

The point is if this feat is errata under disguise, or a truly bad feat.

If it´s errata, then you don´t want to ban it, on the contrary, you want to bring in the fix, but not in this crappy form. Just give out the bonus to everyone.

If it´s not errata, then ban it, as you said.

But what happens if you don´t know which of the two is?

You discuss it here


----------



## Eldorian

sfedi said:


> Of course it´s easy to ban a troublesome feat. That´s not the point.
> 
> The point is if this feat is errata under disguise, or a truly bad feat.
> 
> If it´s errata, then you don´t want to ban it, on the contrary, you want to bring in the fix, but not in this crappy form. Just give out the bonus to everyone.
> 
> If it´s not errata, then ban it, as you said.
> 
> But what happens if you don´t know which of the two is?
> 
> You discuss it here




I'm gonna go with errata in disguise, and it should be instead worked into the default leveling system instead  of as a feat.

There are a few feats which help your character's offensive power more than expertise.  Backstabber for example, or dwarven weapon training, or Mordenkrad proficiency, but after those, which are race/class specific, I'd go with expertise.  And the big deal about expertise is that EVERY class/race combo is going to want it, pretty much before they hit paragon, as smeelbo was saying.

I mean, my warfroged barbarian took warforged tactics as his 3rd feat, after chain and scale proficiency, because hitting is that important, and that's a situational bonus to hit.  It was my first choice of offensive feat, before mordenkrad proficiency.


----------



## Smeelbo

*Power creep as a successful marketing*

If _Expertise_ really is a fix to the tier gap, then addressing the tier gap directly by tweaking the system, say by issuing an _Errata_ to the _Monster Manual_ with a -1 penalty to monster defense per each mid-tier would have been much cleaner and fairer to the player base.

However, a paragraph of errata to a book that we have already bought and paid for will not generate much additional revenue, while a feat that is probably better than any feat already in print absolutely will have a measurable impact on sales.

I've spent over ten years on the game store floor, half in the mid 80's, and half after the tech bubble popped. I've seen books literally sold before my very eyes by a single powerful feat, prestige class, spell, or ability. While the _Player Handbook +2_ certainly will sell a lot of copies just on the basis of the new classes alone, regardless of the quality of that work,_ Expertise_ will make the book almost mandatory for groups.

The developers hand this in mind when they announced that the _"fix"_ for the tier gap would be in the PHB2. If it had been done properly, as an _Errata_ to the _DMG_ or _MM_, or perhaps in a _DMG II_, then it wouldn't have had nearly the same impact on sales.

You can be sure that every game store clerk who has it on the ball will show the customer _Expertise_ when trying to close the sale.

*Smeelbo*


----------



## grickherder

77IM said:


> You're also being overshadowed by the elf ranger with 18 Dex and Weapon Expertise (bow) and the human laser cleric with 18 Wis and Implement Expertise (holy symbol) because they're just hitting noticeably more often than you.




The gnome in question has an 18 in both INT and CHA, so the only difference is an extra +1 to hit from the feat.  I've played in games where I had an 18 in my primary attack stat.  I didn't feel overshadowed by the fighter or wizard with a 20 in their primary attack stat.  +1 to hit?  Big deal.  Expertise starts to become obviously good at level 15 and especially at level 25.  I'm okay with a feat being good enough that one might want to pick it up by level 25.  That's hardly game breaking or evidence of a secret patch.



> How does that make you feel?  How would you feel if the DM kept encouraging you to take the boring +1 attack feat so that you can keep up with the rest of the group?




Keep up with the group because you're short a measly +1?  Really?   I guess in your group no one takes the +2 prof bonus weapons and everyone sticks to the +3?  After all, that +1 suddenly makes everyone overshadow those who didn't take it...


----------



## grickherder

Smeelbo said:


> 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*




I must admit that I find what you're saying to be well... sad.  In the games I run and play in, there isn't a drive towards eeking out every ounce of combat potency out of the builds.  A solid third of the PCs started with 16s in their primary attack stats.  Everyone does fine with the combats in the published adventures as well as encounters designed as per the DMG.  I would find it sad as a DM and a player if I suddenly found myself in a group that would consider a character with an 18 in two attack stats to be an "awful character build."


----------



## Mengu

Smeelbo said:


> I've spent over ten years on the game store floor, half in the mid 80's, and half after the tech bubble popped. I've seen books literally sold before my very eyes by a single powerful feat, prestige class, spell, or ability. While the _Player Handbook +2_ certainly will sell a lot of copies just on the basis of the new classes alone, regardless of the quality of that work,_ Expertise_ will make the book almost mandatory for groups.




You may be right, I don't have as much experience in the rpg book market, but know how this goes in the miniature game market where power creep will sell a model much faster than a nice sculpt.

However in the case of D&D books, it seems pretty foolish for people to just buy the book for one feat which they already know about. They can just put it on their character sheets and move on. I would sincerely hope people have more sense in deciding why they should spend $30 on a book. The average min-maxer should know how to maximize his to hit, and minimize his expenses, right the feat down, and wait for the next big thing.


----------



## grickherder

I figured out what the problem is.  In the DMG, you'll find on pages 8 through 10 a list of player types/motivations.  Though not an exhaustive list, they include:

Actor
Explorer
Instigator
Power Gamer
Slayer
Storyteller
Thinker
Watcher

Different people approach the game with different motivations.  These motivations impact the choices they make when playing and building their characters-- including selecting feats.

The problem is that many, many people in this thread and similar ones elsewhere assume that there is only one player type/motivation.  Power Gamer.  That the only proper/real/true motivation for choosing a feat is to enchance the characters in-game potency and that any choice made out of a different motivation or from the stance of a different player type is somehow sub-optimal, will produce a "terrible build" or is just generally the wrong way to go.

The problem isn't the expertise feat, the problem is that everyone seems to think that if you don't take the thing that gives you the most combat potency that you're somehow doing it wrong.  Even to the point where people are thinking about those who opt not to take an optional feat as being penalized because they're not taking it.

It's not the end of the world.  It's a feat that you don't have to take if you don't like it.  It'll be okay.  You can make a character without bending to the demands of the power gamer mindset and find it completely viable and satisfying.


----------



## Jhaelen

How about looking at the positive effect of having a feat like Expertise?

Let's assume that currently a lot of a character's effectiveness in combat requires a careful choice of starting attributes, powers and feats. Haven't some people been complaining that all characters of a certain class/build look the same?

Now, with the advent of this feat you can actually be effective with a (slightly) suboptimal choice of starting attributes.

Of course, a player who's chosen the 'optimal' starting attributes AND picked the Expertise feat will have a better chance to hit with his character than a player who's didn't start with the 'optimal' choice.
But if both are now in the comfortable range of hitting with a chance of, say 50+ percentage, wouldn't they both be happy?

I.e. isn't this feat creating a win-win situation?


----------



## Smeelbo

*How would you feel about "Challenge Expertise?"*



			
				grickherder said:
			
		

> I must admit that I find what you're saying to be well... sad.



I didn't say your build sucked, I said that if it was true that PMC was bad because it is a feat sink, then then it's no surprise that a sub-par feat sink build has no room for _Expertise_. I know nothing about your build, except it is a PMC, which is a feat sink, for good or ill.







			
				grickherder said:
			
		

> In the games I run and play in, there isn't a drive towards eeking out every ounce of combat potency out of the builds. A solid third of the PCs started with 16s in their primary attack stats.



Same here. My first and only actively played character has a 16 in his attack stat, because that is what the character concept requires. You don't have to be an optimizer to see that _Expertise_ is an extremely good feat. That same character will absolutely be taking _Weapon Expertise: Axes_ at 6th level, since at that point he will have all his important heroic _"capability"_ feats, and will be looking to improve his effectiveness.







			
				Mengu said:
			
		

> However in the case of D&D books, it seems pretty foolish for people to just buy the book for one feat which they already know about.



As I've said, every group I've been in, the DM won't allow a character to use a feat, power, or ability, unless the DM has access to the book. That's not farfetched. It's a simple matter of practicality. If the DM does not have access to the exact text of the feat, power, or item, how can the DM adjudicate it properly. 

And how do you get the exact wording? By having access to the book. How do you get access to the book? Where I come from, you buy it. I've heard all kinds of crazy BS _"quoted"_ on the web which happens to be wrong. Show me the book, or choose a different power.

As a sales person, being able to quickly open the PHB2 up to _Expertise_, and show the customer, is a great way to help close that sale.







			
				grickherder said:
			
		

> I figured out what the problem is. In the DMG, you'll find on pages 8 through 10 a list of player types/motivations.



The problem with that theory is that no player operates with a single motivation. Every actual player in the real world operates with a mix of motivations, which are reflected in his character and play style.

For example, I subscribe to almost all those motivations, to greater or lesser degrees. While I am not predominately a power gamer, I do believe in having the combat part of my character optimized well enough to support the rest of my character concept. I always want a balanced character, viable both in and out of combat. I can optimize well enough to realize how good _Expertise_ is, and it bothers me. I have many motivations in playing, but I'm sure not going to pass up +1 to hit, and I believe the vast majority of players optimize enough to reach the same conclusion.

The problem isn't that _Expertise _is _"eeking out every ounce of combat potency,"_ rather that _Expertise_ will become the first choice to improve combat potency.

_"Oooh, I've got a great character concept"_ means squat in D&D if the character hasn't got the chops to to hold up in combat. If _Expertise_ takers are hitting 50% of the time, while non-_Expertise_ takers are hitting 35-40% of the time, or worse, you and your friends are going to notice the difference. You might aim your build towards having all kinds of cool stuff you can do, but most of that ultimately involves hitting an opponent in combat.

You don't need to be an optimizer, you only need to understand how combat works to realize how good _Expertise_ is, and how much better it is than all the alternative feats for improving combat ability.

As a thought experiment, let's try putting the shoe on the other foot. Imagine the _PHB III_ contained the following feat:[quote="Challenge Expertise, PHB III]You gain a +2 bonus to all skill checks except during combat.[/quote]Now, it is pretty obvious that if a character wants to be good at skill challenges and other skill checks outside combat, once that character is trained in the skills they want, _Challenge Expertise_ will absolutely be their first choice for improving their character's capabilities outside combat. It is better than _Skill Focus_ and stacks with it. It is better than every other feat choice for non-combat.

You wouldn't have to be a min-maxer or a power gamer. Anyone who understood the basic mechanics of 4E should immediately recognize how good this feat was, and take it first, after they have taken their requisite _"capability"_ feats.

_Challenge Expertise_ is practically the mirror image of _Weapon Expertise_, and would be bad for the same reason.

I suppose you could argue that you can simply ignore probabilities, and that 4E allows you to do so. Perhaps it does. After all, 4E is designed to appeal to a broad audience. 

*Smeelbo*


----------



## grickherder

Smeelbo said:


> I didn't say your build sucked, I said that if it was true that PMC was bad because it is a feat sink, then then it's no surprise that a sub-par feat sink build has no room for _Expertise_. I know nothing about your build, except it is a PMC, which is a feat sink, for good or ill.




In your use of "feat sink" you're demonstrating certain priorities again (specifically of the power gamer variety).  By what criteria do we consider spending so many feats on multiclassing to be a "feat sink"?  That one can get more combat potency out of not spending those feats and taking a paragon path?  That there are better choices if one's goal to combat potency?  Such criteria are meaningless for those who are not prioritizing power gaming or min-maxing to the degree you are.  If my goal is to make a truly multiclass warlock/wizard gnome then it's not a feat sink at all, but feats spent to get the effect I want.  For someone who emphasizes powergaming less, spending all these feats on combat potency can be called a feat sink.




> The problem with that theory is that no player operates with a single motivation. Every actual player in the real world operates with a mix of motivations, which are reflected in his character and play style.



That actually supports what I'm saying rather than being a "problem with that theory."  See below:



> I have many motivations in playing, but I'm sure not going to pass up +1 to hit, and I believe the vast majority of players optimize enough to reach the same conclusion.



However you might rank your various motivations in terms of their importance to you, the power gaming one is sufficiently high to motivating factor when assessing Expertise.  If it was lower, you might be willing to pass up the +1, but you're not.  You're assuming that the mix of motivations that players have automatically places power gaming high on the priority list.  It doesn't have to be that way.



> If _Expertise_ takers are hitting 50% of the time, while non-_Expertise_ takers are hitting 35-40% of the time, or worse, you and your friends are going to notice the difference.



Is this really the case though?  Perhaps after level 25, but a +1 to hit through level 14 isn't exactly the difference between hitting 50% of the time and 35-40% of the time.



> You don't need to be an optimizer, you only need to understand how combat works to realize how good _Expertise_ is, and how much better it is than all the alternative feats for improving combat ability.



I'm not convinced it's better than all the alternative feats.  For example, a 1st level wizard might be better off with leather armour proficiency.  Expertise is certainly good (especially at 15th and 25th level), but I'm just not buying this "it's better than all the other combat feats" idea.  At level 1, there are other better feats when it comes to improving combat ability.  However, Expertise certainly becomes attractive once someone works through their short list of other stuff (Action Surge, DWT, Eladrin Soldier, Toughness, superior weapon proficiencies, melee training, lethal hunter, improved warlock curse feats, backstabber, and many others depending on the race/class combo).

At level 15, it becomes very attractive though.  And at 25, even more so.  I don't think that something you'll probably want to include by half way through the advancement cycle is somehow a "must have" though.  I don't think that qualifies it as better than all the other combat related feats.

_



			Challenge Expertise
		
Click to expand...


_


> will absolutely be their first choice for improving their character's capabilities outside combat. It is better than _Skill Focus_ and stacks with it. It is better than every other feat choice for non-combat.



If you're going to make an analogous feat to weapon/implement expertise, why not actually make it analogous?  +1, +2 at 15th and +3 at 25th?

If that was the case, I could see myself taking it at around 15th or 25th just like with weapon/implement expertise.  And subsequently, I don't consider something I get half way through the character's advancement cycle to be somehow better than all other non-combat feats.

Jhaelen really made a good point above:



Jhaelen said:


> How about looking at the positive effect of having a feat like Expertise?
> 
> Let's assume that currently a lot of a character's effectiveness in combat requires a careful choice of starting attributes, powers and feats. Haven't some people been complaining that all characters of a certain class/build look the same?
> 
> Now, with the advent of this feat you can actually be effective with a (slightly) suboptimal choice of starting attributes.
> 
> Of course, a player who's chosen the 'optimal' starting attributes AND picked the Expertise feat will have a better chance to hit with his character than a player who's didn't start with the 'optimal' choice.
> But if both are now in the comfortable range of hitting with a chance of, say 50+ percentage, wouldn't they both be happy?
> 
> I.e. isn't this feat creating a win-win situation?




Yes!  Absolutely.  It allows those who want to make a MAD build more viable in combat.  It allows more race/class combinations to be effective in combat.  It allows the players to compensate for DMs who pack their encounters with monsters of higher level than the party.

While I may rank power gaming lower in terms of my own priorities, I can appreciate the good that a feat like Weapon/Implement Expertise does for those who rank it more highly.  Especially those who would like to be able to make a sub-optimal build work in combat.  It seems to only be a problem feat for those who see a +1 to hit as being so important they have no choice but to take it.

My first 4e character was a half-elf cleric with no stat higher than a 15.  But now I can spend a feat and get a +1 to hit.  Maybe some of the 15 attack stat builds I had considered in the past are more viable after all.

Allows a greater number of class/race combinations to be viable?  Yep.
Allows those who feel they are not hitting enough to get a bonus?  Yep.
Allows one to compensate for a sub optimal build so you can prioritize things other than power gaming builds?  Yep.

I certainly see a lot of good about this feat.


----------



## Fedifensor

WalterKovacs said:


> You have one daily until level 5. Getting +3 to hit with that daily > +1 to hit with that daily. In other encounters, you have 1 or 2 encounter powers, again giving you very few options to add the +3 to. Having the most important powers be even more accurate can at least be comparable to having all your powers more accurate. This depends on whether you want higher damage output on average per round, or want to hit with your daily/encounter power.



Well, with an average of 3 combat encounters a day, and about 2 skill challenges in that same day (which I would say is the average in my 4E experience), you have a total of 3 action points to spend.  Each combat generally takes between 5 and 10 rounds.  If we average things out to 7.5 rounds per combat with one extra action per combat from action points, that's about 25 attacks per day, of which Action Surge will affect 3.  That seems like a pretty poor rate of return, even if you get an extra +2 with the daily.

Now, if you're just killing time with your at-will powers until you're ready to use your encounter and/or daily, then the return seems much better - 3 attacks out of 4 encounter/daily attacks at 1st, or 3 out of 7 at 3rd (not counting racial encounter powers like Dragon Breath or Earthshock which aren't affected by Expertise, daily powers from magic items, etc).  However, for many classes, those at-wills are quite powerful.  Scorching Burst can hit multiple foes, as can Sword Burst or Twin Strike.  Righteous Brand can provide as much or more of a boost than Action Surge, and Sacred Flame can offer a significant buffer of temporary HP to a character.  

Regardless, the higher level you are, the lower the payoff of Action Surge relative to a constant to hit bonus.  By the top of the Heroic tier, that's 3 out of 12 encounter/daily powers...only 25% of the big powers.  Daily powers have a larger effect...but they also have an effect if you miss, so the overall increase in effectiveness from a to hit bonus is the same between encounter and daily.  Overall, you get more of a bonus from the +1 to everything than the +3 when an AP is used, even before adding in at-will powers.



> There are going to be feats that will likely be best to pick first amongst it's peers. Few of the feats are obsoleted by the expertise feats ... most would just get pushed back a bit as they work well _with_ expertise. It's not replacing so much as delaying. Now, for people that wouldn't be taking those feats in the first place, it's harder to argue that expertise is the correct choice.



You have less total feats with Expertise in the mix, especially if you use both Weapons and Implements.  It's a "feat tax"...and a completely unnecessary one.  Either the math for the game was fine before, which means the Expertise feats are unbalanced, or the math wasn't fine, and the Expertise feat is the wrong way to fix the game.  It doesn't affect non-Weapon, non-Implement powers like the Dragonborn or Genasi racial feats, and it reduces choice by reducing options.  As many have said, the feat is good right from level 1, flat-out superior by level 15, and a game-changer by level 25.


----------



## Eldorian

grickherder said:


> In your use of "feat sink" you're demonstrating certain priorities again (specifically of the power gamer variety).  By what criteria do we consider spending so many feats on multiclassing to be a "feat sink"?  That one can get more combat potency out of not spending those feats and taking a paragon path?  That there are better choices if one's goal to combat potency?  Such criteria are meaningless for those who are not prioritizing power gaming or min-maxing to the degree you are.  If my goal is to make a truly multiclass warlock/wizard gnome then it's not a feat sink at all, but feats spent to get the effect I want.  For someone who emphasizes powergaming less, spending all these feats on combat potency can be called a feat sink.




A feat sink eats feats.  A heat sink eats heat.  A kitchen sink eats 




water.  Gotcha!  Thought I was gonna say kitchens, didn't ya?

I won't argue the rest of the post.  I do not believe you can be convinced otherwise.


----------



## Smeelbo

Playing a game by rationally considering the consequences of choices is hardly power gaming. Most players of any game will consider the rules, and devise strategies that are both fun, and adequately rational.

I predict that in practice most players will be sufficiently motivated by the rational pursuit of advantage that their characters will take _Expertise_ by 6th level.

A better analogy for the feat vs. fix would have been page 42 of the the DMG, the table _Difficulty Class by Level_. Suppose instead of issuing the errata as was done, they offered a new feat in a new book, call it:







			
				Heroic Tier Feat: Challenger said:
			
		

> You gain a +5 bonus to skill checks during skill challenges.



That would have _"fixed"_ the skill challenge bug for those characters who took the feat, and the feat is so good, all characters would take it eventually, unless all they care about is combat.

I'm not a min-maxer. I'm certainly capable of it: I have the background in games, mathematics, and logic. But I do like to consider my alternatives rationally, and be rational enough that I can play the game and not burden my fellow players.

Rationally, I would be hard pressed not to take _Expertise_ as soon as I can afford it, regardless of character concept.

*Smeelbo*


----------



## grickherder

D&D is definitely *about* combat.  Even with quests and skill challenges, the majority of what you are rewarded for is combat.  And you're rewarded with more combat potency.  So I'm totally on the same page as you regarding everyone needing an appreciation of the combat system.  I disagree that everyone needs to prioritize effectiveness in that combat system above other considerations.

Expertise is a combat feat and it is certainly a good one.  I don't agree that it's somehow a no brainer choice that everyone should take as soon as they can.  I believe it becomes that good of a choice perhaps at 15th level and for sure at 25th.  But, as I said before, I don't consider a heroic tier feat chosen half way through the paragon tier to be indispensable.

I'll concede that you likely have your hand to the pulse of the typical D&Der more than I do and it's entirely possible that the majority of them will pick expertise by 6th level.  I think that it's a mistake to be so hungry for bonuses to hit with one major exception-- DMs that put monsters of higher level than the PCs in their encounters.  I know LFR modules are pretty bad for this.  I think every DM should read the grindspace thread, but if they don't, I can definitely see players clamour for every +1 to hit they can get.

I see only good sides of having expertise feats available.  I don't consider them no brainer/must have choices unless the DM is designing grindy encounters.  As well, there's not a lot of actual play posts where people are complaining about missing in the epic tier.  Mostly people complain that epic combats are too easy.  The disparity between PC to hit bonus progresion and monster defense progression can be overcome by things like combat advantage and power bonuses to hit.  So I don't buy that it's a disguised patch either.


----------



## grickherder

Eldorian said:


> A feat sink eats feats.




Right.  According to what criteria does once consider the feat "eaten"?  People take feats to accomplish things with their characters.  If those feats accomplish those things, then it doesn't matter if some guy on the internet says it's sub-par or a poor build because it doesn't give the best bang for the buck for what the guy prioritizes.  If I don't care about prioritizing combat potency and am happy with my character's baseline abilities, attack stat, etc., and I sacrifice feats that would give me an effect I want to take combat feats, than those combat feats are a feat sink.



> I won't argue the rest of the post.  I do not believe you can be convinced otherwise.



No, I don't think I can be convinced to join the "Expertise!  Oh no!  It's the end of the world!" crowd.  You're right about that.

I like weapon/implement expertise.  It accomplishes a lot of good things for a lot of different players with different goals.  

It makes taking a class with a race that doesn't have a bonus to the primary attack stat more viable.

It can compensate for bad DM encounter design (monsters with too high defenses for the PCs-- see the only you can prevent grindspace thread).

It makes more class/race combinations/builds viable.

It makes more attribute distributions viable.

It can be used to make a weapon specialist (lots of people dig their characters having signature weapons)

It can allow for a +1 to hit when a player who's new to the game didn't make optimal choices during character creation.

Quite frankly, the upsides to these feats are staggering.  And the downsides?  That some power gamers are going to consider it an auto-include?  I think I'll live.


----------



## keterys

Would there be a downside to just including the bonus automatically? Wouldn't that also solve the problem?

And again, the problem isn't necessarily with the powergamers taking it. It's with some people _not_ taking it.


----------



## grickherder

keterys said:


> Would there be a downside to just including the bonus automatically? Wouldn't that also solve the problem?




Is there really a problem that needs to be solved?  People are only having boring encounters where they feel like nothing they do works when the DM designs a bad encounter and includes monsters of too high a level.  In the epic tier when people are supposedly the most behind in term of monster defenses, there's all sorts of posts about how combats are easy.



> And again, the problem isn't necessarily with the powergamers taking it. It's with some people _not_ taking it.




Really?  If a player is satisfied with how often they are hitting why isn't that good enough for you?


----------



## keterys

As a DM I care a lot about when the system is slowly screwing itself up... I hate when someone can accidentally say, halve their character effectiveness, through lack of attention to feat choice or I can go to run a session and not know if a level 4 will be more effective than a level 7, etc. 

Fwiw, I'd similarly complain about a feat that was 'Gain a +5 bonus in a skill of your choice. Increase that bonus to +10 at 15th and +15 at 25th'. It's a roughly comparable example if you look at existing feats.

Course, more amusing of a comparison might be 'Gain a +3 bonus in all skills you're trained in. Increase that bonus to +6 at 15th and +9 at 25th'.


----------



## Eldorian

You're killing me here.  Fine.  I'll bite.




grickherder said:


> Right.  According to what criteria does once consider the feat "eaten"?  People take feats to accomplish things with their characters.  If those feats accomplish those things, then it doesn't matter if some guy on the internet says it's sub-par or a poor build because it doesn't give the best bang for the buck for what the guy prioritizes.  If I don't care about prioritizing combat potency and am happy with my character's baseline abilities, attack stat, etc., and I sacrifice feats that would give me an effect I want to take combat feats, than those combat feats are a feat sink.




It takes feats to do paragon multiclassing.  That was the point, plain and simple.  Smeelbo was saying that despite the fact he's never seen a paragon multiclass that he likes, even if there is one out there that he would like if he knew it, it's undeniable that paragon multiclassing uses up a lot of feats, i.e. is a feat sink.



> No, I don't think I can be convinced to join the "Expertise!  Oh no!  It's the end of the world!" crowd.  You're right about that.




You strawman the argument that the feat is a bandaid fix for a problem inherit to the math of the system.  NOTHING that happens in DnD is going to make me think it's the end of the world, nor any other sane person.



> I like weapon/implement expertise.  It accomplishes a lot of good things for a lot of different players with different goals.
> 
> It makes taking a class with a race that doesn't have a bonus to the primary attack stat more viable.
> 
> It can compensate for bad DM encounter design (monsters with too high defenses for the PCs-- see the only you can prevent grindspace thread).
> 
> It makes more class/race combinations/builds viable.
> 
> It makes more attribute distributions viable.
> 
> It can be used to make a weapon specialist (lots of people dig their characters having signature weapons)
> 
> It can allow for a +1 to hit when a player who's new to the game didn't make optimal choices during character creation.
> 
> Quite frankly, the upsides to these feats are staggering.  And the downsides?  That some power gamers are going to consider it an auto-include?  I think I'll live.




You seem to lack the concept of "relative".  The character with the 14 in his attack stat that takes expertise is still a crappy character.. relative to a guy with an 18 and the feat.  Crappy as in combat ineffective.  The DM, in order to provide a challenge for the guy who made the obvious choices for combat effectiveness (the PHB tells you which races are good for which classes, and how to allocate your stats in order to function as these classes), will make the game too hard for the character with the crappy attack stat.  If the crappy stat guy can take the feat, then the good stat guy can, and the problem remains.

Every character should be considered relative to the sort of default build.  Make the character with an 18 starting in his primary stat (including racial bonus) pick feats which obviously improve his performance (such as superior weapons, expertise, weapon focus, backstabber or whatever). 

If the system allows you to make a character that is much more effective than that character, the system has failed.  If the system doesn't make it obvious how to make that character, the system has failed.  If the obvious choices are the same for every character, then the system has failed.  If there aren't viable alternative choices to the obvious, the system has failed ME.  EVERY race/class combo benefits from expertise.  It's usually in their top 5 choices for improving combat effectiveness.  

The problem here is that it fails ME.  I don't want to take the same feat with every character I make, because it is such a good feat that I'd be severely limiting myself if I don't take it.  In fact, unless I desperately need an armor feat because I start with cloth or need to move up to heavy armor because my build lacks an AC stat, I'll probably take expertise at first level with 80%+ of my future characters.  I'm basically saying here that the only thing better than +1 to hit, is +2 or more to AC.

And NO ONE should fool themselves into thinking DnD was ever a game that wasn't about killing things and taking their stuff.  There are few things other than combat I need rules about in an RPG.  Most of the rules are for combat, most of the feats too, and most of the feats and powers you choose are going to be for combat.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

sfedi said:


> Of course it´s easy to ban a troublesome feat. That´s not the point.
> 
> The point is if this feat is errata under disguise, or a truly bad feat.
> 
> If it´s errata, then you don´t want to ban it, on the contrary, you want to bring in the fix, but not in this crappy form. Just give out the bonus to everyone.
> 
> If it´s not errata, then ban it, as you said.
> 
> But what happens if you don´t know which of the two is?
> 
> You discuss it here




Or it's not a crappy designed feat nor errata. 
It could be: 
- An Example of what Core Rules means. This feat was always in the design space of 4E feats, but they decided against adding it in the first PHB. (maybe for "nefarious" reasons like "they will buy DDI or PHB 2 like there was no tomorrow!")

- A feat that is as required as getting a good implement or weapon for your character. For example, before 15th level, it actually competes with a feat like "Weapon Proficiency" - because gets you access to superior weapons that can have a higher proficiency bonus, too. (Of course, they stack, but until 15th level, both are an equally good feat choice.) Weapon Proficiency feats taken at 15th level are probably way too late, since you might have already picked all your weapon-related powers and feats by them.
There is of course no similar (at least obvious) example for implement wielders.


----------



## jasin

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Or it's not a crappy designed feat nor errata.
> It could be:
> - An Example of what Core Rules means. [...]
> 
> - A feat that is as required as getting a good implement or weapon for your character. [...]



If either of these are true, it's still a crappily designed feat, since it reduces (reasonable) choice and distinction between characters.


----------



## Mengu

I'm not buying the "there are other useful feats, so this feat is fine" argument. I don't think anybody is saying "you get expertise, you win D&D". Yes, there are plenty of feats that are useful, or character defining. But this feat can very easily create significant discrepency between characters who take it, and characters who don't.

One example is, take someone who wants to play a dwarf charisma paladin with a battleaxe, and they want a balanced spread of stats, starting with a 16 charisma. This character will have a +5 attack with his battleaxe, and does 1d10+5 damage. Now take a human fighter who polarized his stats for a 20 strength and took expertise and bastard sword. This fighter has a +10 attack, and does 1d10+5 damage.

Currently the paladin and fighter in my group have a difference of 3 points of attack bonus, and even that difference seems significant enough that the paladin considers the fighter to be the more important character for the group, and often refuses magic items and offers them to the fighter. I really don't want to deal with any feats that increase the gap, which will become even more significant at mid-paragon tier.


----------



## Wepwawet

Mengu said:


> Currently the paladin and fighter in my group have a difference of 3 points of attack bonus, and even that difference seems significant enough that the paladin considers the fighter to be the more important character for the group, and often refuses magic items and offers them to the fighter.



What? That's stupid! That will only increase the gap between the two even more!
The fighter should be the one giving magic items to the paladin, them keep them both useful and balanced


----------



## Prestidigitalis

I'm late to this melee, but I'd like to put in my two cents anyway.

This notion that it's a bad feat because "everyone takes it" seems strange to me.

1. Not everyone takes it at the same level.
2. Not everyone takes it for the same weapon group or implement.
3. Not everyone takes it for only ONE weapon group or implement.

Therefore, its impact is different for different characters.

If someone wants to house rule it into a static bonus awarded to every character for all weapons and implements, that's fine with me.  But it's not the same thing.

And even if it were...  Is it *really* such a horrible thing to have a feat that everyone takes?  I love feats, I truly do.  I think they were the second best thing about 3e (first was skills).  I wish WotC had granted a new feat every level, just because I love the fun of finding just the right feat.  But you know what?  If I have to give up a feat to get a powerful bonus to my attacks, instead of getting it for free, I'm okay with that.  It's only one feat.


----------



## WalterKovacs

Smeelbo said:


> If _Expertise_ really is a fix to the tier gap, then addressing the tier gap directly by tweaking the system, say by issuing an _Errata_ to the _Monster Manual_ with a -1 penalty to monster defense per each mid-tier would have been much cleaner and fairer to the player base.




Are you honestly suggesting that an errata that applies to nearly _every_ monster (except for those level 1 through 4 basically) is really cleaner? Would new monsters have the errata built or would it use the old math and just have the DM always cut the defenses in all situations.

The feat may not be the best method, but this suggestion is much worse way to fix the issues. It ammounts to errata'ing every monster of level 5 or higher, which requires the DM's change every monster stat block they already have, and requires any _new_ monster stat blocks to specify that they've included the stat changes and therefore not to change them a second time. 

An errata to give the PCs a boost to their attack at each level ending in 5 would be another example that would be a lot easier. It's easier to change a character sheet than a monster stat block.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

jasin said:


> If either of these are true, it's still a crappily designed feat, since it reduces (reasonable) choice and distinction between characters.



In my mental model of "what's good game design", I don't judge the goal on its own, only if it was achieved. 

I'd call it a bad design goal instead.

Well, I am not sure yet. I am coming to think that the feats are okay because it will make some character choices more enjoyable - especially those that have to cover many different statistics or don't start with "optimal" starting options. Even if it improves those that already have good stats, you have to consider the "psychology" of success. It doesn't necessarily mean much to me that the Fighter is hitting 50 % more often then I do - it matters that my Star Pact Warlock only hits 40 % of the time without a way to boost my attacks.


----------



## WalterKovacs

Mengu said:


> I'm not buying the "there are other useful feats, so this feat is fine" argument. I don't think anybody is saying "you get expertise, you win D&D". Yes, there are plenty of feats that are useful, or character defining. But this feat can very easily create significant discrepency between characters who take it, and characters who don't.
> 
> One example is, take someone who wants to play a dwarf charisma paladin with a battleaxe, and they want a balanced spread of stats, starting with a 16 charisma. This character will have a +5 attack with his battleaxe, and does 1d10+5 damage. Now take a human fighter who polarized his stats for a 20 strength and took expertise and bastard sword. This fighter has a +10 attack, and does 1d10+5 damage.
> 
> Currently the paladin and fighter in my group have a difference of 3 points of attack bonus, and even that difference seems significant enough that the paladin considers the fighter to be the more important character for the group, and often refuses magic items and offers them to the fighter. I really don't want to deal with any feats that increase the gap, which will become even more significant at mid-paragon tier.




However the dwarf has apparently spent his dwarven weapon feat but not taken the best weapon option, while the human has spent both of his initial feats on weapon proficiency and weapon expertise. Having the fighter get "first dibs" on the magic items is a silly idea, at least as far as magic weaponry go since increasing the dwarves chances of hitting is a bigger boon to the party to making the fighter hit more frequently. 

And, of course while the fighter hits more often, the fighter is going to likely have bad will (at least the person dominating him will know that he's going to hit te party ) and probably be a bit deficient in the reflex department as well. The dwarf paladin on the other hand will likely be quite solid defensively based on having even stats. Also, they'll be adding healing to the party. In a group with two defenders, it's ok for one to take more of a striker role, and the other a more leaderly roll. Also, unlike the fighter, the paladin's mark based interupt does not require an attack roll.

There is nothing to prevent the dwarven paladin from taking magical weapons, nothing that is preventing the dwarf from eventually taking weapon expertise (although he'd also need to take implement expertise for the implement based powers).

Ultimately in the extreme example, you have a paladin that hits a bit less than expected and a fighter that hits more than expected. The dwarf is probably 1 behind the baseline (18 stat and +2 weapon). The fighter meanwhile is way above the curve (+1 because of the prof, +1 from expertise, +1 for being a fighter, +1 for the 20 to STR). Unless the DM is upping the power of the monsters to challenge the fighter, the Paladin is only a bit behind in terms of "pulling his weight". The paladin isn't going to be missing most of the time, probably hitting at somewhere like a 12. However, the problem of having 16 in your attack stat in addition to a weapon with only a +2 prof existed before weapon expertise. However, because of weapon expertise, it is possible for that person to boost themselves if they find they aren't hitting often enough. It's possible to widen the gap and come up with extreme examples of where a power gaming munchkin and someone who isn't at all into optimizing their character are in the same part. However, one of the greatest features of D&D is the DM and other players at the table. They can see that there is an obvious difference in goals between these two player types, and resolve that.


----------



## WalterKovacs

Eldorian said:


> It takes feats to do paragon multiclassing. That was the point, plain and simple. Smeelbo was saying that despite the fact he's never seen a paragon multiclass that he likes, even if there is one out there that he would like if he knew it, it's undeniable that paragon multiclassing uses up a lot of feats, i.e. is a feat sink.




It requires a lot of feats. However, if you are actually benefitting from all the feats (i.e. you actually use the retraining, you aren't taking it just so you _can_ that the paragon), it's not a "sink". Sink implies your feats are being eaten or wasted. It does mean you have a hefty investment of feats in the heroic tier, however each of those feats does have a benefit on it's own.



> You seem to lack the concept of "relative". The character with the 14 in his attack stat that takes expertise is still a crappy character.. relative to a guy with an 18 and the feat.




Of course, rarely is it player vs. player. Also 14 in attack stat is a bit of a strawman, you can easily have 5 14's with any race, and that involves putting very little into the stats you actually get as racial bonuses.

Ultimately though, what matters is PC compared to the monsters. If someone is hitting 40% and the other is hitting 60% that's one thing, someone is suboptimal and the other is above average. Now, if it was 50% vs. 70%, the relative difference is the same, but the other PC is pulling it's weight, even if they are still outshined by the first.



> Crappy as in combat ineffective. The DM, in order to provide a challenge for the guy who made the obvious choices for combat effectiveness (the PHB tells you which races are good for which classes, and how to allocate your stats in order to function as these classes), will make the game too hard for the character with the crappy attack stat. If the crappy stat guy can take the feat, then the good stat guy can, and the problem remains.




This assumes that the DM ignores the combat ineffective player completely in designing encounters, only concerning himself with "challenging the best guy in the party". After doing nothing about the PC choosing to have 14 to his attack stat, he then designs encounters to challenge the individual and not the party.

If they both take the feat, they both get better at hitting. If the DM immediately increases the monsters defences by an ammount equal to the feats bonus ... then he's just making the feat completely useless (or absolutely necessary since he's punishing everyone that didn't take the feat because one player did take it). 

There are also other ways the DM can help to balance things out, such as giving the suboptimal player the higher level items (namely the 6/11/16, etc items that are the "first" to get the additional +1 to hit). 

Ultimately, if the DM designs encounters so that the person with the best chance of hitting has a 50% of hitting ... they may have a problem. Of course the bigger problem could be one where the people playing in the game seemingly have different goals and aren't really communicating.


----------



## Regicide

Wepwawet said:


> What? That's stupid! That will only increase the gap between the two even more!
> The fighter should be the one giving magic items to the paladin, them keep them both useful and balanced




  So when the zombie apocalypse comes, you'd recommend giving the shotgun to the cheerleader instead of the marine? (Note:  The cheerleader's name is not Buffy.)


----------



## Eldorian

WalterKovacs said:


> It requires a lot of feats. However, if you are actually benefitting from all the feats (i.e. you actually use the retraining, you aren't taking it just so you _can_ that the paragon), it's not a "sink". Sink implies your feats are being eaten or wasted. It does mean you have a hefty investment of feats in the heroic tier, however each of those feats does have a benefit on it's own.




I'm not arguing this anymore.  That isn't what Smeelbo meant, as far as I can tell.  Believe what you want to believe.




> Of course, rarely is it player vs. player. Also 14 in attack stat is a bit of a strawman, you can easily have 5 14's with any race, and that involves putting very little into the stats you actually get as racial bonuses.




16 vs 20 is just as bad as 14 vs 18.  Some people think anything less than 20 is subpar.  I think 20 is too much to spend for most concepts.




> Ultimately though, what matters is PC compared to the monsters. If someone is hitting 40% and the other is hitting 60% that's one thing, someone is suboptimal and the other is above average. Now, if it was 50% vs. 70%, the relative difference is the same, but the other PC is pulling it's weight, even if they are still outshined by the first.




You're not understanding what relative means.  How is 40% hit rate failing, but 50% hit rate pulling your weight, if default sort of optimal character is 50 or 60%?




> This assumes that the DM ignores the combat ineffective player completely in designing encounters, only concerning himself with "challenging the best guy in the party". After doing nothing about the PC choosing to have 14 to his attack stat, he then designs encounters to challenge the individual and not the party.
> 
> If they both take the feat, they both get better at hitting. If the DM immediately increases the monsters defences by an ammount equal to the feats bonus ... then he's just making the feat completely useless (or absolutely necessary since he's punishing everyone that didn't take the feat because one player did take it).
> 
> There are also other ways the DM can help to balance things out, such as giving the suboptimal player the higher level items (namely the 6/11/16, etc items that are the "first" to get the additional +1 to hit).
> 
> Ultimately, if the DM designs encounters so that the person with the best chance of hitting has a 50% of hitting ... they may have a problem. Of course the bigger problem could be one where the people playing in the game seemingly have different goals and aren't really communicating.




Your argument is flawed.  You basically state that it is OK to have major discrepancies in power among the players, as long as the DM compensates by giving better gear to the crappier designed characters.  How is that fair to the player of the better character?  Acquisition of treasure is a longstanding goal of DnD adventurers.

A DM should design encounters to be challenging to the whole party, and if there is a situation where a challenge to the whole party is actually easy for one character's part but annoyingly difficult for another, then there is something wrong with the game.

The point is that this feat does not improve the game.  If it was meant to fix the discrepancy between player attack bonuses and monster defenses as you level up, then the implementation is flawed.  A better method would be to errata the level up chart in the PhB.

It was obviously not meant to bring poorly designed characters up to par with the better ones, as feats aren't really that scarce and the better designed characters can take these feats too.


----------



## keterys

More equivalents (this is fun):

Attack Focus
Choose one of melee, ranged, close, or area. You deal +3 damage with attacks of the appropriate type.
This bonus increases to +6 at Paragon and +9 at Epic.


----------



## grickherder

Eldorian said:


> You seem to lack the concept of "relative".  The character with the 14 in his attack stat that takes expertise is still a crappy character.. relative to a guy with an 18 and the feat.  Crappy as in combat ineffective.  The DM, in order to provide a challenge for the guy who made the obvious choices for combat effectiveness (the PHB tells you which races are good for which classes, and how to allocate your stats in order to function as these classes), will make the game too hard for the character with the crappy attack stat.




This is so less of an issue in 4th edition than it is in previous editions.  In 4e you design encounters for the group.  Even if one guy totally optimized, has a single attack stat build with a 18-20 (at level 1) and took expertise, and another person made a crappy character, the DM can concentrate on challenging the party and it'll work for everyone.  3.x definitely had some problems where one character could be so amazing and another so terrible that you couldn't challenge one withou killing the others.  With the advent of roles and the inability for a party to function as a bunch of individuals who don't work together, 4e has pretty much solved this problem.



> If the crappy stat guy can take the feat, then the good stat guy can, and the problem remains.




Problem?  It's a +1!  Let's take a typical rogue.  We'll say 18 dex, using a dagger.  That's +8 to hit at level 1.  What does it matter if it's +9?  What does it break?  Let's compare that to a sub-optimal guy with 14 in his primary attack stat.  With expertise and a +3 weapon, that's  a +6 to hit at level 1.  +7 if it's a dagger wielding rogue or a weapon talent fighter.  People are more than happy with a +6 to hit at level 1 right now.  This feat becomes available and suddenly it's bad?  Or becomes worse because the rogue goes up to a +9 or +10?

This idea of not being able to challenge an optimized character without overwhelming an unoptimized one is outmoded thinking.



> The problem here is that it fails ME.  I don't want to take the same feat with every character I make, because it is such a good feat that I'd be severely limiting myself if I don't take it.




PHB2 isn't out yet.  Technically, the feat isn't available right now.  Are your games sucking without it?  Are your characters sucking without it?  If everything is working without it, perhaps it's not as much of an auto-include as everyone makes it out to be.  Are you feeling "severly limited" right now because you're not taking it?



> In fact, unless I desperately need an armor feat because I start with cloth or need to move up to heavy armor because my build lacks an AC stat, I'll probably take expertise at first level with 80%+ of my future characters.  I'm basically saying here that the only thing better than +1 to hit, is +2 or more to AC.




Unless you've got a DM who loves monsters with high defenses, I think you'll be wasting a feat at level 1.  When I think of the various builds that interest me, they're all way, way too different for me to say that 80% of them will do X.  I can give you lots of examples where I definitely won't be taking expertise at level 1.  My assessment of expertise is that I can see myself taking it with most builds by level 15 or level 25.  As I've said before, something I take more than half way through a characters advancement cycle is hardly the best thing ever.



> And NO ONE should fool themselves into thinking DnD was ever a game that wasn't about killing things and taking their stuff.  There are few things other than combat I need rules about in an RPG.  Most of the rules are for combat, most of the feats too, and most of the feats and powers you choose are going to be for combat.




Absolutely.  As I said in a previous post, D&D is *about* combat.  That doesn't mean the only way to play it is to min-max your characters for combat effectiveness.  Or that if you don't, you're somehow playing the game wrong.


----------



## WalterKovacs

Eldorian said:


> 16 vs 20 is just as bad as 14 vs 18. Some people think anything less than 20 is subpar. I think 20 is too much to spend for most concepts.




While the difference between 16/20 is the same as 14/18, the difference is that someone with 20 in an attack stat is going to have significant flaws, and someone with a 14 in their attack stat isn't even trying to be significant. With a 16, a player can take steps to increase their accuracy, like taking a weapon with bonus to proficiency. 

The problem comes when you have someone with a 16 that _also_ has a class and weapon choice that do nothing to improve the situation compared to someone that has not only went with a 20, but taken every other option to maximize their attack bonuses, including taking fighter (or rogue), and wielding a +3 prof item (or dagger in the rogue's case). 

However, without taking a 16 vs. 20 and adding elements onto it to make the gap wider, the difference is +2. Combat advantage, cover, marking, etc ... +2 is a swing number that is acceptable in game.



> You're not understanding what relative means. How is 40% hit rate failing, but 50% hit rate pulling your weight, if default sort of optimal character is 50 or 60%?




If the default for an optimal character is 50% than 50% is going to be pulling your weight.

I understand what relative means. I was pointing out that while there is the same gap between say a character with 25 and 50% hit chances vs. 50 and 75% hit chances, in the latter case both players will be contributing in combat, while in the first case, the person with only 1/4 hit chance is going to be a liability.

Being better than average at hitting isn't anywhere as disruptive as a character that doesn't hit often enough. 



> Your argument is flawed. You basically state that it is OK to have major discrepancies in power among the players, as long as the DM compensates by giving better gear to the crappier designed characters. How is that fair to the player of the better character? Acquisition of treasure is a longstanding goal of DnD adventurers.




Not necessarily. The "bad" PC is the first person to get a level 6 item. However, the "good" PC will be the first one getting items like the level 10 item, the "best" of the +2 items. Each player trades off being the "best" item. The "bad" player is rewarded with items that directly improve his characters ability relative to the party, while the well built character gets the high level item that applies the same bonus, but has better secondary characteristics. Not to mention this is ONLY the weapon being talked about. It's possible the optimized attacker is in more need of having his defenses boosted ASAP.

Treasure packages are designed so that a party of 5 will get 4 magic items, plus enough gold to buy another one at each level. A "fair" group will rotate who gets the best item at each level. In this system, the optimized player would be getting the best weapon at level 1 (thus a level 5, top of the line +1 item), and the unoptimized player would get the best weapon at level 2 (thus a level 6, bottom of the line +2 item), and so forth. 



> A DM should design encounters to be challenging to the whole party, and if there is a situation where a challenge to the whole party is actually easy for one character's part but annoyingly difficult for another, then there is something wrong with the game.




First of all, they apparently aren't playing 4e anymore as the challenge isn't just whether or not you hit the monsters. There are monsters that have Reflexes or Fortitude as good as, if not better than, their AC. So, even though by the "math" the wizard and fighter are equally optimized, suddenly the fighter is doing better. Then there are Soldiers, where suddenly people targeting the NADs are doing better. 

For leaders and defenders, there are secondary goals that aren't entirely focused on hitting attacks. Even for a rogue who has ridiculous accuracy, hitting on high numbers (targetting NAD with a dagger and combat advantage, etc, etc, etc) still has to get combat advantage in the first place.

I'm not saying that this means it's less important if you hit or not, but that there are ways of challenging the group other than "make sure the best person in the party has a tough time hitting them, regardless of what the rest of the party looks like". 

Also, a monster that has defences which "challenge" the uber-optimized player may not have attacks that are challenging to the party ... in fact that character may be hitting the party very frequently. On the other hand, a monster that isn't too hard to hit for the non-optimized character may be able to hit the PCs rarely. There is more that goes into an encounter than just "how often do the PCs hit?". And one PC hitting often does not necessarily make the encounter easy for them ... if they get beat up by the monsters, there is only so much that hitting back will help them.



> The point is that this feat does not improve the game. If it was meant to fix the discrepancy between player attack bonuses and monster defenses as you level up, then the implementation is flawed. A better method would be to errata the level up chart in the PhB.




Errata the level up chart to have an arbitrary bonus that is different than anything else they have. Magic items are part of the math as well, and while they do have a level associated with them, the timing of when you get the magic items doesn't have them magically show up at exact points in time. Attaching it to a feat gives players the option of when they wish to get it. Do they want it before level 5 or after. And of course, do they want to take both weapon and implement expertise, or focus their powers on weapons exclusively and take the hit on any implement power they do use, etc. There are options associated with the feat. While it's unlikely anyone would not have it by 15th level, there are still a lot of levels before that where it may or may not be taken. 

One of the problems is the person it will benefit least is also the person most likely to take it, and vice versa. Someone that is already squeezing every bonus to attack rolls as he can find is more likely to take it than someone that didn't concern themselves with maximum optimization, when the lower your initial accuracy is, the more helpful the feat is. Still, the person with the unoptimized character benefits from the feat more than the optimizer does _unless_ the DM decides that the feat is pure powercreep and decides that instead of banning it, he'll up the monsters by an appropriate ammount, which forces everyone to take the feat in order to keep things "as they were".



> It was obviously not meant to bring poorly designed characters up to par with the better ones, as feats aren't really that scarce and the better designed characters can take these feats too.




Feats aren't really that scarce, but they are scarce enough for people to complain about feat taxes.

And, while better designed characters can take these feats just like anyone else can, the difference between 50 and 55% is bigger than the difference between 60 and 65%. This feat does nothing to the defences of the PCs. So, monsters that are balanced against the party's defenses are easier to hit by everyone, and a character that is well balanced defensively is able to improve it's suboptimal attack abilities so that it's able to hit often enough to contribute in combat. It _also_ means that someone that has optimized their ability to hit in combat is even better at it.

EDIT: Since the DM is balancing encounters based on how well the party does, it would be in the optimizers best interest to let the rest of the party "catch up". By making himself better, he has a marginal bonus (if any) as the encounters become harder, and ends up making it harder for the rest of the party that he is relying on. If anything he'd "slow down" so they "catch up" a bit and reduce the relativity so he's not the one doing all the work. Also if the entire party decided not to take the feat than the DM would be changing the encounters accordingly ... so based on the whole relativity thing ... the feat is only mandatory if everyone else is taking it and upping the ante of the encounters as a result.


----------



## keterys

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.


----------



## 77IM

Prestidigitalis said:


> 2. Not everyone takes it for the same weapon group or implement.
> 3. Not everyone takes it for only ONE weapon group or implement.




This makes the house-rule of "everyone gets one Weapon Expertise or Implement Expertise for free" very intriguing.

Concept-based role-players would pick the weapon or implement based on their concept.  Power-gamers would pick the weapon or implement that statistical analysis shows most benefits from a +1 to attack.  The characters would be _different_ yet _equally powerful_ (at least with regards to attack bonus), without having to delay the acquisition of a more interesting feat.  And players who want to be versatile can still spend feat slots to get more Expertise.  I like it!

Problem solved, at least at my table.

 -- 77IM


----------



## WalterKovacs

keterys said:


> 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

WalterKovacs said:


> 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

keterys said:


> 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

keterys said:


> 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

Mengu said:


> 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

grickherder said:


> 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

Pickles JG said:


> 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.


----------



## infocynic

mlund said:


> 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



Except that if you do run out of encounters/dailies, you really don't want to be missing with your at-wills if you're worried about grinding.


----------



## Fedifensor

grickherder said:


> 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.



Now you're telling people how to enjoy the game.  People get enjoyment from different things.  Some focus on playing a role.  Some focus on the enjoyment of winning (or surviving) against tough odds.  Some like to tinker with the mechanics to make an efficient character.  Some like to have their time in the spotlight.  None of these things are 'wrong', as long as the group is having fun.  D&D was built to accommodate all of those styles of play, which is why it has retained a broad appeal.

Furthermore, wanting to contribute to a team effort IS a virtue.  Saying that someone who feels like they didn't contribute is being petty or small is an insult.  We play games to have fun, and if the group's success doesn't hinge on anything your character does, then you're just along for the ride.  For many people, that's not fun - and the point of playing a game is to have fun.  Who are you to judge people for that?

The whole reason roleplaying games have rules is that the experience has evolved beyond the childhood experience of Cops and Robbers, with people arguing things like "I shot you!" "No, you didn't!"  There are rules in the game that provide a structure.  An effort is made to provide a balance between players, and between the group and their foes.  That's why you have levels, XP values, and so forth.  If that's not what you're looking for, there are a ton of story games that offer a different play experience.

What many people in this thread are saying is that Weapon Experience and Implement Experience are so much better than other feats, that it affects the balance of the game.  Unless everyone takes the feats, those who don't take them can't contribute as much as their companions, which can make things less fun for those people.  If everyone _does_ take the feats, the characters that require both (because they use both weapons and implements) are unfairly taxed by needing a second feat.  And even then, those with non-weapon, non-implement powers like Dragon Breath or Earthshock have no way to bring those powers on par with the powers other people are using.  There are entire prestige classes built around such powers...should characters built with those classes be behind the curve for no good reason?


----------



## Bayuer

If you will hit with your encounters and dailies then you will don't need at-wills so much.

Well, be realy honest. Almost all of players will take this feat at some point. I don't belive in that crapy talking about "the flaw, man! DnD is RPG!" Yeah, right. DnD is also a combat game. If ther's an option to hit more offten, why don't take it? It's the best feat i saw so far (like Toughness, Weapon Focus, Mulitfeat (gives you free skill training + sth else), Dwarven Weapon Training, Eladrin Soldier, Armor Profinency and Specializations and Iron Will, Lighting Reflex, Great Fortitude and Backstabber and the same feat for Rangers). Come on. 

So when it comes time to make you char and you just need to take so many feats to don't be weak at combat there is not much room for flavor feats and now its one more taken:/ 

I was playing at 22 lvl now and I see the gap of monsters defense and attack bonuses. It's too large. Your defenses aren't too so great so all 4 incrasing them are almost must have (2-3 for sure) couse when an enemy must roll 3 on die to make you dazed etc. that very frustrating.

Like someone wrote on WoTC forums. Make Masterwork Weapons and add them +x to hit (+1 on magic weapn +2, +2 on magic weapon +4, and +3 on magic weapon +6 or so).


----------



## AngryPurpleCyclops

Smeelbo said:


> Don't kid yourself.  Whether it's _Magic the Gathering_ or _Dungeons and Dragons_, power creep is in no small part intended to increase _Hasbro_'s sales volume.



This really bothers me.  I'm a business owner so I understand the economic realities but power creep as a sales tool destroys the game.  It's really awful if PHB1 classes are made obsolete by future releases.  The ability to retrain feats and powers could also be a slightly underhanded way of tempting players to buy splat books and "power up" their existing pc's. Personally I'll buy a new book for the variety of pc choices, but if I sense that it's an ever increasing creep I'm much more likely to limit the game to books xyz and not allow any outside powers, feats, skills, items.  



Runestar said:


> It would be like arguing that the attack disparity is negated by using a taclord. It means that every epic party must have a taclord. Regardless of whether anyone wants to play one or not.



 taclords are abused on forums as a "modifier" a lot of the benefit from taclords is offset by their personally unimpressive abilities.  If you have a different character not pumping up your striker but doing his own damage your expected average outcome is still probably the same.  The taclord argument fails to subtract the lost utility of 20% of your party in directly contributing to the encounter and just benefits the striker as having higher damage.



Branduil said:


> The point is that any character without this feat simply won't be as efficient as those that do. That's all that needs to be considered when judging its power.



Exactly.  Hard to reasonably argue at all after 16th level about this feat.



Cailte said:


> I'm saying that there are a number of reasons not to take this feat, and your character may in fact not be worse of mechanically across the *whole spectrum* of the game because you don't have this feat.



Define mechanically.  The mechanics remain the same it's your efficiency that's significantly impacted.  Once you reach +2 to hit, you've reached a point where it's impossible to deny the overwhelming superiority of this feat.  It was already superior at +1 but +2 is off the charts.  



Cailte said:


> Put 2 characters with the same equipment and the same attack stat and attacks side by side and the one with this feat will be marginally better at hitting in combat. The size of that margin will depend on the value of the defences the monsters they are fighting have.



 over the life of the character this margin starts widen and the law of large numbers make it increasingly likely that the pc without the bonus will die in a situation where the pc with the bonus would not have.



Fedifensor said:


> The definition of "must-have", in my eyes, is a measure of effectiveness.



The definition of must have is one of the reasons this thread is going on endlessly.  Must have in a utility sense it's obvious that this feat qualifies but must have in a "completes my vision" sense  it's not so cut and dried.  The verbiage "must have" is simply too ambiguous for this forum in this circumstance because it leaves too much room for interpretation. 



Fedifensor said:


> Only on the characters created by players that value effectiveness.  There will always be people who choose not to take an option no matter how good it is.



I agree.  This is a clearer way to say "must have". This feat is probably in the top 3 or 4 in terms of "combat effectiveness" in virtually any build.



grickherder said:


> Say we multiplied the races by the classes (and their sub builds) and came up with a number of rough builds that one could make.  What do you suppose the choice number would be for this feat for most of the builds?  At what choice would it have to be in order for it to be considered a "must have" or "broken" or "a patch disguised as a feat"?  First choice?  Second?  Fifth?  Tenth?  Fourteenth?



this is sort of disingenuous as it leaves room for interpretation. The more intellectually honest question is something like this: if I'm trying to optimize my pc for combat how many feats could I justify taking before this.

The other question allows you to slip in a "concept" as a reason not to take the feat which doesn't really have relevance when deciding if this is a "must have".  Obviously if your concept relies upon a lot of feats then this isn't a must have to meet your "vision".  That argument doesn't change the fact that this feat has more average combat utility than any other.  



grickherder said:


> My opinion is that if it's not first or second in the majority of the builds, it's not a must have/broken/disguised patch.  Because if it's 3rd, or 5th or 8th or whatever, that's an awful lot of feats that beat it out.  Even if 99% of characters out there end up with it by level 26 that means that up to 15 other feats beat it out for a player's choice before that +3 just became too tempting.



While I understand your point this isn't the best angle to view things from.  Take for example the fact that there is no possible way to argue that 10 existing feats are better.  There's a problem with a feat that is better or equal than others in 100% of the possible situations AND it's easier to take (no prereqs) AND it stacks.  You can't make any valid argument to support taking nimble blade before this and nimble blade has a pre req and 2 conditions to gain it's benefit. Precise hunter?  combat reflexes?



grickherder said:


> Another thing to remember is that feats are tied to concept.  I want to play a warlock/wizard gnome, for example.



This deflects away from the discussion.  Your comparing flavor to efficiency.  I can make the choice to golf with left handed clubs because I like the challenge or think it's amusing but it won't make me a better golfer.    



Smeelbo said:


> 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.



or just errata +1 to hit at every tier.  Why correct every page of the monster manual when you can add one correction?



Smeelbo said:


> Put me in that camp.



I too believe most of the best DnD is in the low to mid levels.  Clearly subjective but I would rather be fighting against a band of ogres or a local crime lord than be a demigod slaying orcus, high fantasy save the world stuff and spells like wish kind of break the game in terms of fun and enjoyment IMHO. 



Smeelbo said:


> 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.



 Failing to take it will definitely have a significant impact on your relative value to the party.   



WalterKovacs said:


> You have one daily until level 5. Getting +3 to hit with that daily > +1 to hit with that daily. In other encounters, you have 1 or 2 encounter powers, again giving you very few options to add the +3 to. Having the most important powers be even more accurate can at least be comparable to having all your powers more accurate. This depends on whether you want higher damage output on average per round, or want to hit with your daily/encounter power.



 It's not mathematically accurate to suggest action surge will yield more benefit than expertise.  Not even close in fact.  More importantly, you must be human to take action surge and humans get an extra feat, so if you really felt strongly action surge was the bomb you could take both.  



WalterKovacs said:


> Action Surge, for example, gives a greater bonus than Weapon Expertise until level 25. If the goal is "hit with daily powers" then it does that job better.



 Action surge is usable only once every two encounters and forces you to use your action point on attacking with a daily to gain this benefit. WE is usable on every attack in every combat and this is a factor of about 15 to 1.  Even if you weight the daily as being 3 times as good as any other power this means 15 to 9 advantage for WE.  Forget about the fact that in encounter 2 you might also have a daily to be used.



WalterKovacs said:


> Some of them are not mechanically inferior to Weapon Expertise.  More so, the extra damage from the racial weapon specializations will arguably give more damage per round than a slight increase in accuracy.



this probably isn't even true in heroic tier and certainly isn't true in paragon or epic and ignores the additional benefit of statuses that more hits also create.  Only the dwarven bonuses are likely to be on an optimized character.  Is eladrin the race of choice for sword mages? 



WalterKovacs said:


> For example a multiclass feat gives a skill AND an additional power.



 and thus you can only take one of them.



grickherder said:


> The problem is that many, many people in this thread and similar ones elsewhere assume that there is only one player type/motivation.  Power Gamer.  That the only proper/real/true motivation for choosing a feat is to enchance the characters in-game potency and that any choice made out of a different motivation or from the stance of a different player type is somehow sub-optimal, will produce a "terrible build" or is just generally the wrong way to go.



This is overselling the position with hyperbole.  The point being made here is that WE has an overwhelming combat effect relative to other powers.  This doesn't just pertain to power gamers it it's germane regardless of your style of play because DnD is pretty combat centric.



grickherder said:


> In your use of "feat sink" you're demonstrating certain priorities again (specifically of the power gamer variety).  By what criteria do we consider spending so many feats on multiclassing to be a "feat sink"?



This seems pretty obvious.  It takes 4 feats (3 of which give no benefit other than allowing you to pick a power from an expanded list) to fully multi class.  If we can agree that each feat has an opportunity cost associated with it, then he term feat sink replies to the very large cost of using 4 feats to gain 1 skill, one bonus and allow 3 powers to be swapped for powers of a relatively equivalent power.



grickherder said:


> Such criteria are meaningless for those who are not prioritizing power gaming or min-maxing to the degree you are.



 You're using a straw man argument.  Misrepresenting the position of the other debater in order to attack the modified version.  We're talking about utility not that you have to min max or power game just that this feat is so superior it's impossible to ignore the fact it's superior.  You're obviously free to choose any feats you want within the rules but it's impossible to deny that choosing other most other feats instead of this one doesn't have a significant impact on effectiveness.  



grickherder said:


> I'm not convinced it's better than all the alternative feats.



 What would convince you?  It may not be better than any feat for any build but that doesn't preclude it from being a problem.  If it's in the top 4 combat feats for every build is that not a problem?  Is there another feat that's in the top 4 combat feats for every build?



grickherder said:


> For example, a 1st level wizard might be better off with leather armour proficiency.



I agree with this.  Name 3 other feats that give more combat benefit for a wizard.  My wizard took leather armor at 4th because I wanted to play a fire wizard.  I'm at least part power gamer at heart but I like to have a "vision" of my character too so I took astral fire(though not optimal it's the flavor I wanted and goes with my back story) at 1st and multiclass cleric at 2 (a choice with an eye towards surviving combats)



grickherder said:


> At level 15, it becomes very attractive though.  And at 25, even more so.  I don't think that something you'll probably want to include by half way through the advancement cycle is somehow a "must have" though.  I don't think that qualifies it as better than all the other combat related feats.



two problems with this.  First when you say "probably want to have" that belies the fact that there's simply no other choice that even remotely compares after level 15. Second at level 25 and up this feat is irreplaceable, nothing else is even in the ballpark.  Just because something isn't broken till the upper levels doesn't make it ok.  Characters without it will be attacking at the level of a pc 4-6 levels lower.  If your 7th level pc was hitting like a 1st level pc vs 7th level monsters would you think things were broken?



grickherder said:


> It allows those who want to make a MAD build more viable in combat.



won't the DM have to pump up the encounter difficulty to challenge the pc's who do have this feat thereby keeping the strain on MAD challenged builds?    



Fedifensor said:


> Either the math for the game was fine before, which means the Expertise feats are unbalanced, or the math wasn't fine, and the Expertise feat is the wrong way to fix the game.



Sums it up quite nicely.



grickherder said:


> I disagree that everyone needs to prioritize effectiveness in that combat system above other considerations.



No one said it had to be above all other concerns.  Everything in building a pc has opportunity costs.  The point is this feat is so good that nearly every character will eventually pick it regardless of build or concept.  What other feat has that property? Maybe improved init is close but I would guess it's about 70-80% of all builds will take it.  Expertise has to be above 95% by level 16.



grickherder said:


> DMs that put monsters of higher level than the PCs in their encounters.



 the game is designed for pc's to face monsters of up to 7 levels above their own.  If you're playing builds with a 15 in their primary stat and thinking this feat is not that important I can see why you don't want to be involved with encounters like this, but you're really making our point more than yours here. 



grickherder said:


> I don't consider them no brainer/must have choices unless the DM is designing grindy encounters.  As well, there's not a lot of actual play posts where people are complaining about missing in the epic tier.  Mostly people complain that epic combats are too easy.



You're disparaging encounters that don't fit the mold you prefer as "grindy" but a lot of people are 180 degrees out from you and feel that encounters that don't seem to have a significant chance of pc's dieing are the real grind.  There's a lot of variables not being accounted for when describing people complaining about epic being too easy.  Magic item's are a big problem at the highest levels of DnD.  They always have been.  More importantly is the DM challenging them and running the monsters in an intelligent fashion?   



grickherder said:


> Right.  According to what criteria does once consider the feat "eaten"?  People take feats to accomplish things with their characters.  If those feats accomplish those things, then it doesn't matter if some guy on the internet says it's sub-par or a poor build because it doesn't give the best bang for the buck for what the guy prioritizes.  If I don't care about prioritizing combat potency and am happy with my character's baseline abilities, attack stat, etc., and I sacrifice feats that would give me an effect I want to take combat feats, than those combat feats are a feat sink.
> 
> No, I don't think I can be convinced to join the "Expertise!  Oh no!  It's the end of the world!" crowd.  You're right about that.



This is mostly hyperbole and superfluous fluff.  You seem to be purposely misconstruing the obvious definition of "feat sink" in order to muddy the water.



grickherder said:


> I like weapon/implement expertise.  It accomplishes a lot of good things for a lot of different players with different goals.
> 
> It makes taking a class with a race that doesn't have a bonus to the primary attack stat more viable.



No it doesn't.  



grickherder said:


> It can compensate for bad DM encounter design (monsters with too high defenses for the PCs-- see the only you can prevent grindspace thread).



no it can't. 



grickherder said:


> It makes more class/race combinations/builds viable.



 no, it really doesn't you'll be equally far behind.  In fact it makes less builds viable because it's lowering your feats by 1.



grickherder said:


> It makes more attribute distributions viable.



no, you'll be equally far behind.



grickherder said:


> It can allow for a +1 to hit when a player who's new to the game didn't make optimal choices during character creation.



this proves that introducing the feat to the game only widens the potential gap between optimized and non optimized characters.  That's bad.



grickherder said:


> Quite frankly, the upsides to these feats are staggering.  And the downsides?  That some power gamers are going to consider it an auto-include?  I think I'll live.



Just because you misunderstand a negative doesn't make it a positive it just makes you incorrect.



Eldorian said:


> It takes feats to do paragon multiclassing.  That was the point, plain and simple.  Smeelbo was saying that despite the fact he's never seen a paragon multiclass that he likes, even if there is one out there that he would like if he knew it, it's undeniable that paragon multiclassing uses up a lot of feats, i.e. is a feat sink.



seems pretty straightforward.  this guy is good 



Eldorian said:


> The problem here is that it fails ME.  I don't want to take the same feat with every character I make, because it is such a good feat that I'd be severely limiting myself if I don't take it.  In fact, unless I desperately need an armor feat because I start with cloth or need to move up to heavy armor because my build lacks an AC stat, I'll probably take expertise at first level with 80%+ of my future characters.  I'm basically saying here that the only thing better than +1 to hit, is +2 or more to AC.



Exactly.



Eldorian said:


> And NO ONE should fool themselves into thinking DnD was ever a game that wasn't about killing things and taking their stuff.  There are few things other than combat I need rules about in an RPG.  Most of the rules are for combat, most of the feats too, and most of the feats and powers you choose are going to be for combat.



I would argue that based upon your play style DnD is primarily a combat game set in a fantasy role playing back drop.  The amount of rules devoted to combat in one form or another is probably 3 or 4 to 1 relative to other rules.

On a related note, if you ever read a story from the monsters perspective PC's are effectively a band of thugs raiding and pillaging helpless orc villages   HALO 3 monsters all call the hero "demon". 

Or more simply "good" is us (humanoids) killing/robbing them at every opportunity and "evil" is them killing us...


----------



## grickherder

Fedifensor said:


> Now you're telling people how to enjoy the game.




Umm.  No.  If that's the conclusion you're coming to, you're either misreading me or I'm not being clear.



> People get enjoyment from different things.  Some focus on playing a role.  Some focus on the enjoyment of winning (or surviving) against tough odds.  Some like to tinker with the mechanics to make an efficient character.  Some like to have their time in the spotlight.  None of these things are 'wrong', as long as the group is having fun.  D&D was built to accommodate all of those styles of play, which is why it has retained a broad appeal.




I agree completely.  Your paragraph above is a mirror image of a post I made earlier in this thread.  You said it better than I did.



> Furthermore, wanting to contribute to a team effort IS a virtue.




Once again, I agree completely.



> Saying that someone who feels like they didn't contribute is being petty or small is an insult.




If someone can't enjoy themselves unless they are the best out of everyone there, then they are petty or small.



> We play games to have fun, and if the group's success doesn't hinge on anything your character does, then you're just along for the ride.  For many people, that's not fun - and the point of playing a game is to have fun.  Who are you to judge people for that?




Umm.  I'm not.  I'm not talking about that at all.  I'm not talking about when someone isn't doing anything meaningful, I'm talking about when people are doing something meaningful but don't value it as such because someone else is successful too.

I won't play in a game where I'm along for the ride and what I do doesn't matter.  You're right it's not fun.   I'm obviously not "judging people" for it when I feel the same way.

I'm not saying what you think I'm saying.



> What many people in this thread are saying is that Weapon Experience and Implement Experience are so much better than other feats, that it affects the balance of the game.




I understand that, but I disagree.  Atleast for the first 14 levels.  At level 15 and especially at level 25, I can see it.  But as I've said before, I don't consider something I'm not going to take until half way through the advancement cycle to be a must have.



> Unless everyone takes the feats, those who don't take them can't contribute as much as their companions, which can make things less fun for those people.




Again, I understand that some people feel this way, but I disagree with their conclusion.  The main reason being that as players we usually don't enter conflict that's resolved with the numbers on someone else's character sheet.  The stats we oppose are those of the monsters.  And if my +12 to hit at level 8 is good enough, I don't suddenly stop contributing when it could be a +13.  And if my +12 was good enough, it doesn't suddenly become not good enough because the guy across the table goes up to +14.

Imagine this situation that a lot of people are going to be going through:

There's a group of people playing D&D.  They're having a blast playing the game they like.  The DM is doing  good job with encounters an everyone is having fun, feeling like they are contributing to the team.  Boom, PHB2 is released and expertise is now available.

What's really changed?  The monsters are all still the same.  Everyone is doing fine without the +1.  Then a player takes the feat.  He leaps ahead of his peers by a mighty +1 to hit.  Another player used to hit a given monster on an 11.  But with the first player taking this feat, the second player's contribution has been diminished to the point where he only hits the monster on an 11!  What a jerk, diminishing my contribution to the team effort like that!


----------



## grickherder

AngryPurpleCyclops said:


> won't the DM have to pump up the encounter difficulty to challenge the pc's who do have this feat thereby keeping the strain on MAD challenged builds?




Only if they DM does it wrong. 



> the game is designed for pc's to face monsters of up to 7 levels above their own.




While I am generally a fan of 4e and believe that it meets it's design goals, I would say that it fails to accomplish this.  Others might disagree, but I find that monsters of 7 levels higher cause many problems. 



> If you're playing builds with a 15 in their primary stat and thinking this feat is not that important I can see why you don't want to be involved with encounters like this, but you're really making our point more than yours here.




Challenging players by choosing monsters that are harder to hit is a lazy and boring way for a DM to operate.  Thank God there's an expertise feat available for those poor souls trapped in grindspace.  While it does't address the root problem, it does provide some relief.



> You're disparaging encounters that don't fit the mold you prefer as "grindy" but a lot of people are 180 degrees out from you and feel that encounters that don't seem to have a significant chance of pc's dieing are the real grind.




Encounters that don't seem to have a significant chance of pc's dieing are not the opposite of what I consider grindy.  You can create incredibly lethal encounters using only monsters +/- 1 level of the PCs.  The encounters I disparage as being grindy are the ones where hitting the monsters is hard, there's lots of rounds of nothing happening, often involve a low number of high power monsters and accentuate the whiff factor of 4e.



> No it doesn't.
> no it can't.




Yes it does.  Yes it can.  (that was useful)



> no, it really doesn't you'll be equally far behind.




Behind *whom*?  Just a hint, you're not fighting the other PCs, you're fighting together against the monsters.


----------



## Fedifensor

grickherder said:


> Umm.  No.  If that's the conclusion you're coming to, you're either misreading me or I'm not being clear.



I'm going to vote for the latter, since I'm not the first person to come to that conclusion about your posts.



> If someone can't enjoy themselves unless they are the best out of everyone there, then they are petty or small.



The problem is, you state this like it's not only someone who wants to be the best, but someone who simply wants to be an equal.  The former is a problem, the latter is not.



> Umm.  I'm not.  I'm not talking about that at all.  I'm not talking about when someone isn't doing anything meaningful, I'm talking about when people are doing something meaningful but don't value it as such because someone else is successful too.



Meaningful is relative.  I may land the killing blow on a foe, or give someone else a +2 to hit on an important attack...but that isn't always meaningful.  Most experienced players can sense whether their presence would have made a difference in the group's success.  If it's obvious that the group would have done just as well without their character contributing to the fight, then there is a problem.  I've seen this multiple times in LFR, where combats are scaled to party size.  In multiple cases, a particular player's presence actually made the fight harder instead of easier, because their net contribution was less than the increase in foes from having an extra player.



> I understand that, but I disagree.  Atleast for the first 14 levels.  At level 15 and especially at level 25, I can see it.  But as I've said before, I don't consider something I'm not going to take until half way through the advancement cycle to be a must have.



Or, to turn this around, something that affects 16 out of 30 levels isn't a factor in your opinion.  If WotC had published the PHB in three volumes, one each for Heroic, Paragon, and Epic play, I could agree with that.  But you're ignoring the effect this addition has on over half of the game.  I'd argue it affects those first 14 levels as well...maybe not as much, but the feat is still significantly better than the other feats available.  The whole point of game balance is, well...balance.  Anyone who compares Weapon Expertise to Nimble Blade can see that balance is out of whack...and Nimble Blade is (or was) considered a 5-star feat for rogues.



> Again, I understand that some people feel this way, but I disagree with their conclusion.  The main reason being that as players we usually don't enter conflict that's resolved with the numbers on someone else's character sheet.  The stats we oppose are those of the monsters.  And if my +12 to hit at level 8 is good enough, I don't suddenly stop contributing when it could be a +13.  And if my +12 was good enough, it doesn't suddenly become not good enough because the guy across the table goes up to +14.



You're assuming a certain difficulty level and level range in that answer.  True, a +1 may mean your chance to hit only goes from 10+ to 11+ if you're fighting an even-level foe.  However, that isn't always going to be the case.  The sample adventure in the DMG has a 3rd level solo going up against a group of 1st level characters.  The solo in that adventure happens to be a brute, so the AC is low for its level and the average character without expertise only needs an 11+ to hit.  Replace that with a soldier (same XP value), and suddenly that 11+ becomes 15+.  A +1 becomes very valuable at that point, increasing the chance to hit by 20%.  If we're talking level 15+ or level 25+, the increase in the to hit chance becomes 40% or 60%.



> There's a group of people playing D&D.  They're having a blast playing the game they like.  The DM is doing  good job with encounters an everyone is having fun, feeling like they are contributing to the team.  Boom, PHB2 is released and expertise is now available.
> 
> What's really changed?  The monsters are all still the same.  Everyone is doing fine without the +1.



If we're going to play "imagine this scenario", let me offer a counterexample.

The group of players are going through a published module, and having a difficult time with it.  Then, the PHB 2 comes out, and most of the group uses the retraining rules to take Weapon Expertise or Implement Expertise.  With this new option, they have an easier time, and feel more useful.  Great, right?

However, in the process, one character drops a Skill Training feat, even though it was appropriate for his character.  The swordmage still misses too often with his implement powers, because he could only swap out one feat with retraining.  The dragonborn misses too often with his Dragon Breath, and has no way of correcting this deficit.  Finally, one player feels that retraining is silly, and therefore won't take the feat for his character until a new feat slot becomes available.

In short, while the group is better off from this new feat, there is a disproportionate hardship from taking that feat depending on the character (and the player).  Some are sacrificing character conception, some have to pay more for the same value, some have marginalized abilities because there is no balancing feat for them, and one is marginalized because he won't rewrite his character to add in the feat.  Suddenly, some people aren't feeling like they're contributing their fair share to the group, through no fault of their own.  How is this situation better than simply fixing the core problem, which is the scaling issue?

Personally, I feel they should have given a flat +1 bonus per tier to fix the problem, baking it into the core of the system instead of a book that is designed to be an optional add-on.  People have been saying give the bonus at 5, 15, and 25...I'd go one step further and say it should be given at the beginning of each tier.  When you enter a new tier of play, there's a learning curve because the game introduces new concepts at each tier.  Furthermore, at Heroic, you start out with only one big gun for the encounter (and one bigger gun for the day).  Hitting more often at that early stage before you have multiple powers per encounter or per day is a good thing.


----------



## keterys

> But as I've said before, I don't consider something I'm not going to take until half way through the advancement cycle to be a must have.




Hmm,
Epic Focus
Prereq: Epic tier
Benefit: You gain +10 to attack rolls and +100 to all damage rolls.

Not must have!


----------



## chaotix42

Look at it this way... 

Weapon/Implement Expertise = 3.x Dodge that doesn't suck. 

Dodge was the gateway feat to lots of other good stuff, but the feat itself sucked pretty hard. This is like Dodge, without being a pre-req for all those other feats, except it doesn't suck. It actually rocks. And then, if you feel you're still not hitting enough, you can advance along the tree and get some more feats that increase your chances to hit. I can still see wanting this feat and Action Surge at the same time, for example. 

The only problem I forsee is that my swordmage has to take both feats...


----------



## Regicide

keterys said:


> Hmm,
> Epic Focus
> Prereq: Epic tier
> Benefit: You gain +10 to attack rolls and +100 to all damage rolls.
> 
> Not must have!




  Well since there is already at least one infinite damage per round build at epic, that feat kinda sucks, the +100 damage really doesn't do a lot.


----------



## AngryPurpleCyclops

grickherder said:


> This is so less of an issue in 4th edition than it is in previous editions.  In 4e you design encounters for the group.  Even if one guy totally optimized, has a single attack stat build with a 18-20 (at level 1) and took expertise, and another person made a crappy character, the DM can concentrate on challenging the party and it'll work for everyone.  3.x definitely had some problems where one character could be so amazing and another so terrible that you couldn't challenge one withou killing the others.  With the advent of roles and the inability for a party to function as a bunch of individuals who don't work together, 4e has pretty much solved this problem.



Everything is more homogeneous in 4e so far because we haven't had the power creep and broken combos that inevitably surface once 20 splat books are released.  Don't be surprised if this changes.  Bloodmage combos already had to be errata'd for instance.  You're deceiving yourself that this isn't still a problem.



grickherder said:


> Problem?  It's a +1!  Let's take a typical rogue.  We'll say 18 dex, using a dagger.  That's +8 to hit at level 1.  What does it matter if it's +9?  What does it break?  Let's compare that to a sub-optimal guy with 14 in his primary attack stat.  With expertise and a +3 weapon, that's  a +6 to hit at level 1.  +7 if it's a dagger wielding rogue or a weapon talent fighter.  People are more than happy with a +6 to hit at level 1 right now.  This feat becomes available and suddenly it's bad?  Or becomes worse because the rogue goes up to a +9 or +10?



If everyone gets better at combat, then combats have to get slightly more difficult to remain equally challenging.  To deny this is absurd. The biggest problem here is this feat allows the suboptimal build to potentially drift further from the optimal build.  Thereby severely detracting from the ability of encounters to be fun for all.  You've erroneously blamed this on the DM repeatedly in this thread but combat is fluid and the sub optimal guy will sometimes have to deal with the more challenging creature.  You seem to aspire to the DM should be able to handle this theory but that's a silver bullet fix which is the definition of bad design.



grickherder said:


> This idea of not being able to challenge an optimized character without overwhelming an unoptimized one is outmoded thinking.



no, your perception that it's easy to make an encounter that challenges everyone roughly equally is a pipe dream if the characters are too far apart in ability.  We're playing a game here, by definition games have a risk of negative outcomes.  DnD isn't about winning and losing per say (there's no competition in DnD so there's not necessarily a winner or loser just positive or negative endings) but dieing is sort of the negative outcome equivalent to losing.  If there's no chance of a negative ending then DnD is no longer a game, it's a story being primarily told by the DM with color commentary added by the players.  Since the DM has erased the possibility of a negative outcome then player actions don't really have a significant impact on the story.  It always ends the same.  If you don't believe in playing the "story" version of DnD and would rather have real risks involved in the "game" version, then we agree.  If not then we're not talking about the same game and this argument is moot.  In the "game" version, being sub optimal increases the risks of pc's being killed.  Trading some level of optimization for flavor is fine but at some point the gap gets so wide that one pc is now a liability.  Given that I want to play in a game with real risks of pc death you have to accept that in some encounters the optimized pc is going to roll badly (maybe be stunned for 3 rounds) and the sub optimal build is going to have to shoulder the threat that the DM might have designed to challenge the optimal build.  When you're missing on a roll of 15 you might quickly realize how important being close to optimal is.  This simply the facts.  Your arguments are mostly subjective fluff with questionable mathematical support.



grickherder said:


> Unless you've got a DM who loves monsters with high defenses, I think you'll be wasting a feat at level 1.  When I think of the various builds that interest me, they're all way, way too different for me to say that 80% of them will do X.  I can give you lots of examples where I definitely won't be taking expertise at level 1.  My assessment of expertise is that I can see myself taking it with most builds by level 15 or level 25.  As I've said before, something I take more than half way through a characters advancement cycle is hardly the best thing ever.



There you go blaming the dm again.  If everyone takes a feat by a certain level it may not be the best thing ever, but it's certainly broken.  No feats should be mandatory in order to stay on par with peers.  It's really that simple, feats should offer choices and diverging flavors and any feat that is so valuable that everyone must have it is a horrible game mechanism.  Your inability to grasp the difference between broken mechanic and "best thing ever" is a little tiring.  It's basically another straw man argument.  



grickherder said:


> Or that if you don't, you're somehow playing the game wrong.



No you're simply being ineffective.  This is actually fine if everyone in the party is equally ineffective your DM can easily tailor the encounter level to handle this.  Max encounters at N+3 instead of N+4 and only use monsters up to 5 levels max above party level instead of 7 and the campaign will roll along without a hiccup (perhaps gaining levels a tad slower but hardly noticeable).  It's the wide gap in efficiency that's problematic.



WalterKovacs said:


> However, without taking a 16 vs. 20 and adding elements onto it to make the gap wider, the difference is +2. Combat advantage, cover, marking, etc ... +2 is a swing number that is acceptable in game.



situational +2 and every day +2 are not the same.  Admittedly +2 is not going to destroy the fabric of the game, but this feat could turn a gap of +2 at level 1 into +5 at level 25 and that is broken.



WalterKovacs said:


> I understand what relative means. I was pointing out that while there is the same gap between say a character with 25 and 50% hit chances vs. 50 and 75% hit chances, in the latter case both players will be contributing in combat, while in the first case, the person with only 1/4 hit chance is going to be a liability.



This is true to a certain extent but if the party is not challenged the game is not very fun.  Adding monsters to the encounter to offset the optimized character and challenge the party can blow up in your face when the optimized character gets unlucky early.  Contrary to grickherder's repeated assertions it's the dm's fault it's impossible to build encounters that handle all the possible situations when the pc's aren't relatively equivalent.



WalterKovacs said:


> Not necessarily. The "bad" PC is the first person to get a level 6 item. However, the "good" PC will be the first one getting items like the level 10 item, the "best" of the +2 items. Each player trades off being the "best" item. The "bad" player is rewarded with items that directly improve his characters ability relative to the party, while the well built character gets the high level item that applies the same bonus, but has better secondary characteristics. Not to mention this is ONLY the weapon being talked about. It's possible the optimized attacker is in more need of having his defenses boosted ASAP.



kind of restrictive and sort of a silver bullet.  



WalterKovacs said:


> I'm not saying that this means it's less important if you hit or not, but that there are ways of challenging the group other than "make sure the best person in the party has a tough time hitting them, regardless of what the rest of the party looks like".



Agreed that this isn't the "always" but encounters built according to the dmg are based upon challenging characters built with a nearly optimal combat effectiveness.  18 or a 20 is personal choice and has opportunity costs that probably balance things (having slightly weaker defense for example if you have a 20 attack stat).  having a 14 and a 20 is different.  Having a 20 with this feat and a 14 without only exacerbates the problem.  



WalterKovacs said:


> Feats aren't really that scarce, but they are scarce enough for people to complain about feat taxes.



 and a double feat tax on some classes/builds.



WalterKovacs said:


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



It actually sort of does.



Mengu said:


> 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.



Totally on target with both points.



grickherder said:


> 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.*



It does mean that you will sometimes be unable to pull your weight or the encounters will mostly be a "story" and not a game.  You can't have it both ways, if the encounters are challenging from a game standpoint then being significantly less effective has a very real probability of eventually getting someone killed.



grickherder said:


> 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 straw man.  DnD is about combat to a large extent.  Combat in DnD is tactical, but it also has a lot to do with math.  You simply can't deny that in order for encounters to be challenging the math is a factor.  If one character lags behind on math the other character will usually do more than his share and the laggard will do less.  This is ok as long as everyone gets to do their relatively expected amount.  As soon as something bad happens to the optimized guy, then the laggard is left in a situation where he must get lucky an perform above expectations or else the party is in trouble.



grickherder said:


> 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:



you're using a buzzword to support your position but missing all the time is part of the "slowness" of grindspace so the non optimized character is actually significantly to blame for grindspace.  You're trying to shift blame onto the dm and the optimized player but that's simply not correct.



grickherder said:


> 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.



soldiers are tough.  Probably broken from an experience point perspective (all soldiers should be worth 15-25% more exp) take 4 200 exp soldiers vs 5 200 exp skirmishers/brutes for instance 4 ghouls vs 5 wights.  Or try 4 ghouls vs 4 gnoll marauders(level 5 vs level 6) both are are 800 xp vs 1000 exp.  All that aside you keep trying to blame DM's who use soldiers as bad.  Shoulder the responsibility for your actions. Soldiers are part of the game.  The average party is expected to handle soldiers of higher level than their own on occasion, by *YOU *making the *CHOICE* to be *SUB OPTIMAL* you've hurt the game.  *It's not bad encounter design on the DM side it's bad pc design on your side.* The expectations are known when you build a pc, so you're basically ignoring the job requirements and then blaming the reality for you being unprepared.  Like a fireman who decides cotton jammies are more comfortable to wear than his bunkers, it's a choice you can make but don't blame everyone else when you get burned.



grickherder said:


> 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).



This is where you diverge from the developers and much of the community.  You're also opting for homogeneous encounter difficulty, no climactic battles, and greatly lessened danger.  The campaign I play in uses encounters in the N+2 to N+4 range for 80% of the encounters.  The designers monster level selections mean we sometimes face a BBEG.  



grickherder said:


> 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.



When does this happen?  This is fallacious.  For a level 3 party of 5 pc's a level 1 encounter (n-2) could have 2 level 6 monsters.  This means the monsters are pretty much always flanked, and even a level 6 soldier(the worst case) is not out of reach even without flanking.  A Sahuagin Raider has 20AC 19R, 16F, 15W. 
other level 6 soldiers:
Troglodyte: AC 22; Fortitude 21, Reflex 18, Will 19
Warforged: AC 22; Fortitude 20, Reflex 17, Will 18

I'm really wondering how you see this combat with 5 level three pc's going badly for the pc's or becoming grindy.  EVEN if the pc's use no encounter powers or dailies they would rip up two level 6 soldiers in 4-5 rounds tops.  The only character who might struggle is the +5 to hit vs AC or +3 to hit vs NAD guy who put a 14 in his primary stat.  the rest of the party is going to be hitting on a 12-14 dice roll even without CA.

Hardly grindspace, just more arguments based upon emotion rather than fact.



Pickles JG said:


> 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.



Once again, an example of how this feat makes playing more varied builds less viable not more viable.  



WalterKovacs said:


> 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.



 agreed



WalterKovacs said:


> The defenders have AC that will often be "far ahead of the curve" of the rest of the party.



 not particularly true. 



WalterKovacs said:


> 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.



true, but this supports the problem with efficiency feats.



WalterKovacs said:


> 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.



There are too many effective feats for this to be true.  I can name 10+ that will help any character, so no one can possibly "run out" of choices that are valuable, they just run out of imagination to apply them.

Hard to argue that all of the following are pretty nice benefits though none of them is critical they all have a significant utility to any build.  
improved init, toughness, defensive mobility, jack of all trades, linguist, multiclass, skill training(especially stealth, perception, athletics/acrobatics, healing), winter touched(at level ten assuming someone in the party is likely to grab lasting frost at 11 this feat gives you CA multiple times per combat), any +1 damage feat that applies to your build there's at least one for each build, any racial feat, they're all pretty good and every race has at least one really nice one. every class has a good feat or two as well.



WalterKovacs said:


> 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.



This is a very bad argument.  There are too many interesting feats already.  Give me a build and i'll give you 6-7 great feats that significantly improve it.



Pickles JG said:


> It's the ceaseless mockery that irks me.



especially as it's used to deflect from the facts and make straw man arguments



grickherder said:


> 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.



keeping up with the joneses doesn't pertain to not failing to win an encounter and thereby get the party killed.  You ceasely blame the results of your actions on others.  If you fail to make a strong character and you die or get the party killed because you made that choice, you are the one to blame, not the dm.  



grickherder said:


> 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?



+1 to hit seems small but even one more hit at the right time can mean the difference between vicotry and death.



grickherder said:


> 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.



Once again you're denying the problem is your perception that being suboptimal by a significant amount isn't a trade off that has consequences.  I've never made a 20 stat pc so I'm not arguing for the very high end but I've never made a 15/16 stat pc either. Own your decisions.  If you choose to be suboptimal accept that you are responsible for the result when faced with a high defense monster.



Fedifensor said:


> Now you're telling people how to enjoy the game.  People get enjoyment from different things.  Some focus on playing a role.  Some focus on the enjoyment of winning (or surviving) against tough odds.  Some like to tinker with the mechanics to make an efficient character.  Some like to have their time in the spotlight.  None of these things are 'wrong', as long as the group is having fun.  D&D was built to accommodate all of those styles of play, which is why it has retained a broad appeal.



 I get enjoyment from pretty much all of these to some degree.



Fedifensor said:


> Furthermore, wanting to contribute to a team effort IS a virtue.  Saying that someone who feels like they didn't contribute is being petty or small is an insult.



 bingo! every player should get his chances in the limelight.  



Fedifensor said:


> We play games to have fun, and if the group's success doesn't hinge on anything your character does, then you're just along for the ride.  For many people, that's not fun - and the point of playing a game is to have fun.  Who are you to judge people for that?
> 
> 
> 
> Fedifensor said:
> 
> 
> 
> What many people in this thread are saying is that Weapon Experience and Implement Experience are so much better than other feats, that it affects the balance of the game.  Unless everyone takes the feats, those who don't take them can't contribute as much as their companions, which can make things less fun for those people.  If everyone _does_ take the feats, the characters that require both (because they use both weapons and implements) are unfairly taxed by needing a second feat.  And even then, those with non-weapon, non-implement powers like Dragon Breath or Earthshock have no way to bring those powers on par with the powers other people are using.  There are entire prestige classes built around such powers...should characters built with those classes be behind the curve for no good reason?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> great points.  Does prestige mean paragon in this example?
> 
> 
> 
> Bayuer said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you will hit with your encounters and dailies then you will don't need at-wills so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First this is subjective on the "if". If you miss with the dailies and encounters you need the at wills even more.
> 
> 
> 
> Bayuer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So when it comes time to make you char and you just need to take so many feats to don't be weak at combat there is not much room for flavor feats and now its one more taken:/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is really the biggest point beyond the possibility of power gap exacerbation.
> 
> 
> 
> grickherder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm.  No.  If that's the conclusion you're coming to, you're either misreading me or I'm not being clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it's the conclusion that alot of people are coming to...
> 
> 
> 
> grickherder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only if they DM does it wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true.  There's an expectation of being challenged in encounters. As one character gets more effective so does theoverall party and thus the challenges must be more difficult in order to equally challenge the party.  Challenging the party is the DM doing it right, not wrong.  Failing to rise to the challenge is you doing it wrong.
> 
> A single +1 is not a big deal in most instances but it does change the projected outcome of battles by a small amount.  +2 slightly more. +3 quite a bit.  Over the course of a campaign these start to become significant when applied to the law of large numbers.  You will have combats where the creature who you fail to put down because of missing by 1 or 2 puts you down or puts another pc down or both.  This can be the difference between success and TPK.  Do you agree that mathematically making sub optimal characters increases the parties chance of losing a character?
> 
> 
> 
> grickherder said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I am generally a fan of 4e and believe that it meets it's design goals, I would say that it fails to accomplish this.  Others might disagree, but I find that monsters of 7 levels higher cause many problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree monsters 7 levels higher are extremely challenging (usually about 30% hard to hit and hitting an excessive number of times) On the other hand they're usually in encounters with few creatures giving the party more options and attacks.  It also depends on role.  A brute is not such a big deal.  Ogre savages are frightening at first level but hardly insurmountable.  Ogre skirmishers are more problematic as the defenses are higher. Switch to a soldier and the encounter might be too much.  I have a problem with soldiers exp values to begin with so I would agree that a L+7 soldier should rarely if ever appear in an encounter.
> 
> 
> 
> grickherder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Challenging players by choosing monsters that are harder to hit is a lazy and boring way for a DM to operate.  Thank God there's an expertise feat available for those poor souls trapped in grindspace.  While it does't address the root problem, it does provide some relief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're still making excuses and denying the fact that grindspace is created by sub optimal pc's.  DnD is made to be a variety of encounters with various challenges, sometimes the terrain, sometimes the spells or special attacks of a creature, sometimes the number of defenders, sometimes the stealth of attackers and sometimes the toughness/defenses of the bad guys.  You're repeatedly trying to support your argument that saying "dm's who use xyz encounter are bad" when in fact xyz is an expected encounter type by design.  There are guys on another forum who argue that their elven party can never be surprised or never forced to fight at close quarters.  They don't go under ground and any DM that ambushed them in an ally with groups of bad guys at both ends are out to get them.  They try to defend their sub optimal build(they think it's the best build ever) of all strikers and controllers by saying any dm that forces them to fight in an unfavorable encounter is cheating/diabolical/out to get them.  You're making an analogous argument here.  The encounters that hurt your pc are unfair even though they're part of the game.  You jump on a buzzword bandwagon and see this as supporting your argument but it really just points to the flaws in your perception.
> 
> 
> 
> grickherder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Encounters that don't seem to have a significant chance of pc's dieing are not the opposite of what I consider grindy.  You can create incredibly lethal encounters using only monsters +/- 1 level of the PCs.  The encounters I disparage as being grindy are the ones where hitting the monsters is hard, there's lots of rounds of nothing happening, often involve a low number of high power monsters and accentuate the whiff factor of 4e.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please support this with an example.  It's simply not true in most cases.  You call it grindy and blame the DM for your choices but really it's your fault not his.
> 
> 
> 
> grickherder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it does.  Yes it can.  (that was useful)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> typical.  lets talk about "useful" shall we.  Your arguments are full of unsupported arguments and hyperbole.  This is an example where you toss out an untruth like it's fact and don't support it because you can't.  I simply said no it's not because YOU offered NO SUBSTANCE.  The scientific method requires the person making the assertion to supply support.  That's how an intellectual discussion works.  You make an assertion and supply proof in some fashion for others to mull over and agree or disagree.  Those that disagree offer support for why something doesn't work and the process continues.  Once again you are at fault and now shifting blame away from yourself and now trying to blame me because you offered no support for me to refute.  You'll find forums like this full of arguers who offer no proof or bad proof just lots of fluff, emotional hyperbole and straw man arguments.  You're the former in this case. It's commonly referred to as being intellectual dishonest.
> 
> So I'll back track and elaborate since you were too lazy to support your argument in either the original supposition or the rebuttal to my objection.
> 
> No it doesn't make any classes more viable.  The tax clearly hurts builds that are at the high end of feat requirements, thereby making them even weaker as they might not have the feat slot available to complete their build vision and take this feat.
> 
> No it can't compensate for bad DM encounter design because the expectation will be that you have it.  If the design is truly flawed then having it won't save you but if it's YOUR fault the design only seems flawed because you're role playing your firefighter in cotton jammies then maybe you should cowboy up and admit it.
> 
> 
> 
> grickherder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Behind *whom*?  Just a hint, you're not fighting the other PCs, you're fighting together against the monsters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Behind the anticipated power level the game was designed to be balanced for.  If you're not doing the average expected "work" (be it healing, controlling, damaging, tying up that makes up your classes primary work) then YOU are dragging the party down regardless of your willingness to see the forest for the trees.
> 
> Just a hint, I don't really need your hints, perhaps you should take up your arguments about monsters being too tough and DM's being lazy with WotC so they can add that chapter to a future DMG2. I've got a pretty solid handle on the game mechanics both in operation and from an analysis standpoint.  It's fine if you want to deny the reality of the game design but please feel free to skip presenting unsupported garbage as condescending gospel.  You're pontificating but not engaging in a meaningful discussion because you fail to support anything you say with meaningful analysis.
Click to expand...


----------



## AngryPurpleCyclops

Regicide said:


> Well since there is already at least one infinite damage per round build at epic, that feat kinda sucks, the +100 damage really doesn't do a lot.



What build is that?


----------



## Iron Sky

AngryPurpleCyclops said:


> Personally I'll buy a new book for the variety of pc choices, but if I sense that it's an ever increasing creep I'm much more likely to limit the game to books xyz and not allow any outside powers, feats, skills, items.




This is exactly why I disallowed all non-core books in my 3.5 games.  Thusly, as a group of ~6 bought a total of 1 3.5 book, aside from the core 3.  If I'd thought the books were balanced, I wouldn't have felt the need to restrict access to the others.



AngryPurpleCyclops said:


> I agree.  This is a clearer way to say "must have". This feat is probably in the top 3 or 4 in terms of "combat effectiveness" in virtually any build.
> 
> The more intellectually honest question is something like this: if I'm trying to optimize my pc for combat how many feats could I justify taking before this.




These.



AngryPurpleCyclops said:


> While I understand your point this isn't the best angle to view things from.  Take for example the fact that there is no possible way to argue that 10 existing feats are better.  There's a problem with a feat that is better or equal than others in 100% of the possible situations AND it's easier to take (no prereqs) AND it stacks.  You can't make any valid argument to support taking nimble blade before this and nimble blade has a pre req and 2 conditions to gain it's benefit. Precise hunter?  combat reflexes?




This is the heart of it for me.



AngryPurpleCyclops said:


> No one said it had to be above all other concerns.  Everything in building a pc has opportunity costs.  The point is this feat is so good that nearly every character will eventually pick it regardless of build or concept.  What other feat has that property? Maybe improved init is close but I would guess it's about 70-80% of all builds will take it.  Expertise has to be above 95% by level 16.




This too.


----------



## grickherder

Fedifensor said:


> The problem is, you state this like it's not only someone who wants to be the best, but someone who simply wants to be an equal.  The former is a problem, the latter is not.




Sure.  That's a fair way to put it.  I'm with you on that.  The point that I was trying to make is that I consider the notion that the meaningfulness of my contribution to the team effort isn't mitigated by someone else's capabilities.  I won't begrudge someone taking expertise to hit more often any more than I begrudge someone picking a class like a rogue that hits a lot more often than my (say) sorcerer does.  What I'm objecting to is the notion that everyone else will take it, so I have to as well or I'll suck.  I think the reality of the situation is that people are already finding satisfaction in their to-hit percentages before this feat is published and that everyone is going to suddenly find their rolls to be too low and have to pay a feat tax is a bit of a reach.



> Anyone who compares Weapon Expertise to Nimble Blade can see that balance is out of whack...and Nimble Blade is (or was) considered a 5-star feat for rogues.



Another good point.  Nimble blade is a conditional +1 to hit and Expertise is effectively a universal +1 (or at the very least, conditional but in a way the condition is satisfied nearly all the time).  



> How is this situation better than simply fixing the core problem, which is the scaling issue?



It's not better.  I still maintain that it's not the scaling issue that's the problem, but the encounter design.  For example, let's use replacing the level 3 solo brute in the DMG with the soldier.  Same XP, but way higher defenses.

An interesting thing about seeing encounter design as the root cause of the potential problem is that it's actually an admission that 4e fails in a design goal.  Namely, that you can make encounters of monsters 7 levels higher than the party level and that it'll work.  As a DM, I'm not ever going to do that.

Missing sucks in 4e.  There's no greater whiff feeling than missing with a daily.  It sucks.



> Furthermore, at Heroic, you start out with only one big gun for the encounter (and one bigger gun for the day).  Hitting more often at that early stage before you have multiple powers per encounter or per day is a good thing.



Absolutely.

*The hilarious thing is that my advocacy for using monsters with lower defenses is effectively the same thing as giving the players a flat bonus.*  My emphasis on encounter design as the solution is the same as giving a flat bonus because the net effect is the same as far as percentage-to-hit goes.  

As odd as it sounds, I think the best encounter design is one that de-values a bonus to hit beyond a reasonable level.  I want a point of diminishing returns such that an extra +1 to hit is superfluous for an already optimized build and useful for a sub-optimal build.  Using lower level monsters makes this the case.  Especially given how they'll outnumber the PCs and how well they work in level+2 "hard" encounters.

I've enjoyed this thread, but now realize I've been arguing for something and not being clear about it.  So here it goes:

My proposal for an alternative to expertise is an errata to the encounter design section of the DMG so that it discourages high defense monsters, solo soldier encounters and monsters of 7 levels higher than the party, *effectively making it easier for the PCs to hit* *without the need for spending a feat on it*.

Life's hilarious, isn't it?


----------



## grickherder

AngryPurpleCyclops said:


> Behind the anticipated power level the game was designed to be balanced for.  If you're not doing the average expected "work" (be it healing, controlling, damaging, tying up that makes up your classes primary work) then YOU are dragging the party down regardless of your willingness to see the forest for the trees.




PHB2 is not yet published.  My character build is producing a +10 to hit and everyone is fine with that.  PHB2 is published, my character is suddenly not doing the average expected work anymore because it's not +11?  Suddenly I'm dragging the party down because it's not +11?  What nonsense.  



> It's fine if you want to deny the reality of the game design but please feel free to skip presenting unsupported garbage as condescending gospel.  You're pontificating but not engaging in a meaningful discussion because you fail to support anything you say with meaningful analysis.




Pot calling the kettle black - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## jorrit

grickherder said:


> Missing sucks in 4e.  There's no greater whiff feeling than missing with a daily.  It sucks.




Most (all?) dailies still have an effect after missing. Many dailies do half damage. Some dailies can be done again (dailies that have the 'reliable' keyword) and other dailies at least still have an effect even if they miss. I don't know any daily that is simply wasted if you miss.

Greetings,


----------



## grickherder

jorrit, you're absolutely right.  Perhaps there is a greater whiff.  Missing with something that does nothing if you miss.  Either way, missing sucks in 4e.  I'm in favor of anything that makes for less of it.  Designing encounters with monsters with lower defenses, a feat that gives +1 to hit (or even +2 and +3 later on).  I want a sweet spot where people are hitting enough to feel heroic but not too much that rolling to hit is pointless.

The good side of using encounter design to increase hit percentages is that it allows the expertise feat to exist as is without breaking anything.


----------



## ObsidianCrane

AngryPurpleCyclops said:


> this is sort of disingenuous as it leaves room for interpretation. The more intellectually honest question is something like this: if I'm trying to optimize my pc for combat how many feats could I justify taking before this.




This is a good question and its answer is very different from just saying "its a must have feat" as a general statement.

If all you care about in making a character is combat optimisation this feat should be within the first 4 feats you take (to allow for build variance) I would estimate, heck its arguable it should be one of the first 2. In part that is because it makes all subsequent feats that optimise damage work better.

Fortunately DnD is not _just_ about combat, and there are lots of other things to do with building a character that is fun to play.


----------



## AngryPurpleCyclops

grickherder said:


> I think the reality of the situation is that people are already finding satisfaction in their to-hit percentages before this feat is published and that everyone is going to suddenly find their rolls to be too low and have to pay a feat tax is a bit of a reach.



This is another mischaracterization.  What choice do people have currently?  They can play or not play.  The satisfaction example assumes you know there mental state which is ludicrous.  A lot of people when looking at the numbers have expressed dissatisfaction with the gradual decline in pc average effectiveness.  Where are people arguing they're satisfied and the math is already correct?  They're not because everyone already knows there was a flaw in the design.  Two if you count gradual erosion of one NAD.



grickherder said:


> It's not better.  I still maintain that it's not the scaling issue that's the problem, but the encounter design.  For example, let's use replacing the level 3 solo brute in the DMG with the soldier.  Same XP, but way higher defenses.



soldiers are tougher on average than brutes but brutes do more damage and have more hit points which can matter. makes them less impacted by automatic damage for instance.  You keep arguing the encounters are poorly designed but avoid the corollary that it's possibly your character design that's flawed.



grickherder said:


> An interesting thing about seeing encounter design as the root cause of the potential problem is that it's actually an admission that 4e fails in a design goal.  Namely, that you can make encounters of monsters 7 levels higher than the party level and that it'll work.  As a DM, I'm not ever going to do that.



You can easily do that, you're flat out wrong because I've been in two encounters with L+7 monsters and come out on top.  I do feel that soldiers push the limit here and the real design flaw is under costing soldiers exp wise.



grickherder said:


> *The hilarious thing is that my advocacy for using monsters with lower defenses is effectively the same thing as giving the players a flat bonus.*  My emphasis on encounter design as the solution is the same as giving a flat bonus because the net effect is the same as far as percentage-to-hit goes.



 No it's not.  The monsters with higher defenses also have higher attack values, higher hit points and more damage on average.  You're taking one facet and repairing it in a backwards manner then ignoring all the collateral changes you have made.    



grickherder said:


> As odd as it sounds, I think the best encounter design is one that de-values a bonus to hit beyond a reasonable level.  I want a point of diminishing returns such that an extra +1 to hit is superfluous for an already optimized build and useful for a sub-optimal build.  Using lower level monsters makes this the case.  Especially given how they'll outnumber the PCs and how well they work in level+2 "hard" encounters.



What you "want" is semi irrelevant to the thread.  the thread is talking about the bad mechanic of introducing this feat as a defacto fix for an earlier design error.  



grickherder said:


> My proposal for an alternative to expertise is an errata to the encounter design section of the DMG so that it discourages high defense monsters, solo soldier encounters and monsters of 7 levels higher than the party, *effectively making it easier for the PCs to hit* *without the need for spending a feat on it*.
> 
> Life's hilarious, isn't it?



So rather than fix the math error with an elegant errata to the level advancement table adding +1 to all ATT's at level 5-15-25 you're now choosing to experiment with a host of other already play tested options AND still leave the math error in play.  Nice solution.  Even with your fix PC's get progressively less able to hit.  No matter what you limit the maximum monster level to, PC's will still experience the reduction in efficiency.  



grickherder said:


> PHB2 is not yet published.  My character build is producing a +10 to hit and everyone is fine with that.  PHB2 is published, my character is suddenly not doing the average expected work anymore because it's not +11?  Suddenly I'm dragging the party down because it's not +11?  What nonsense.



It's incremental.  Nonsense is making irrelevant analogies and offering no support.  You're making anecdotal arguments that have no relevance.  People rarely complain about the lack of flying dinosaurs at the zoo because they don't exist.  Why would people be complaining about a +1 to hit they couldn't acquire?  People were in fact complaining about the math progression.  Is you needing a 13 to hit when other players need a 10 at level 25 comparatively ok?  Among other things you totally ignore that this feat which is better than 95% of the feats initially scales like no other.  do you really have a point here?  are you really not seeing that this is errata disguised as a feat?

Pot calling the kettle?  Talk about Ironic. You're being ridiculous. Please don't ever lump me in with you, I would be ashamed of myself if I was posting so many straw man arguments.  You can't point to a single point where I don't supply substance to make my points.  You don't even answer half the questions that are posed and you fail to refute ANYTHING people are saying you just blather on blindly supposing your position is correct with out actually defending it.  

You just keep blaming the DM, and now the game designers and encounter designs, and everyone but yourself.  Now you're purporting to change a major section of the game rather than issue errata about +1 to hit (which obviously based upon this feat the people at WotC already know is a problem).  

These are FACTS:
The game works if you build pc's that are close to optimum.  
There's a mathematical slide towards decreasing effectiveness (in ATT) at higher levels by 1 per tier.
There's a decreasing effectiveness of at least one NAD at higher levels by probably 2 per tier.   
This feat erases the decline in attack values at the cost of one feat.
PC's are currently expected to handle monsters up to 7 levels above their own.(L+7)
PC's are expected to handle encounters max valued at their level +4 (n+4)
If you build a sub optimal build you'll perform less well in combat the majority of the time.  If this gap is too large it will have a progressively more noticeable affect and a more profound chance to cause a negative outcome (i.e. character death)
*None of this is the DM's fault.*

Please point to the statement I've made here that's not factual.


----------



## ObsidianCrane

grickherder said:


> An interesting thing about seeing encounter design as the root cause of the potential problem is that it's actually an admission that 4e fails in a design goal.  Namely, that you can make encounters of monsters 7 levels higher than the party level and that it'll work.  As a DM, I'm not ever going to do that.




Ok while I agree that (if we agree there is a problem) the solution is in encounter design not blanket PC bonuses and the correcting of monster design over time I find the assertion that it was a Design Goal you assert to be utter nonsense.

4E's design goal with regards to monsters was "more monsters" not "higher level monsters" the DMG specifically recomends against exceeding the PCs level by more than 3 (DMG pg56-57), and its good advice that some module writers either chose not to follow or just didn't have at their disposal at the time of writing of their module (LFR first 2 rounds of mods basically fall here for example). I expect encounter design in modules will improve over time and the other design goal of "combat feats are not essential" will come more into play and ultimately the only people that will care about feats like the Expertise ones are those who are trying to "break" the game with "super" builds.


----------



## AngryPurpleCyclops

grickherder said:


> The good side of using encounter design to increase hit percentages is that it allows the expertise feat to exist as is without breaking anything.



No it doesn't.  You're making an argument that the system is broken because you don't want to play characters with close to the suggested build numbers.  DnD is very math based.  If the designers built the game so that characters with 14 primary stats would be average in combat, then the character with 20's would all be flying around in leotards.  they have to base the math on something so they base it on most pc's starting with an 18. You can start with a 20 and get a slight advantage but you costs yourself a few defense points/secondary abilities.  This is pretty acceptable.  The game is also about flavor, so more choices = good.  making a feat that everyone must take DECREASES choices and HURTS builds that want more flavor.  you're clinging to the idea that the game as is is broken (I would argue it is broken for you because L+7 might be too strong for "crappy builds") because you want to believe that your build should work when they can't really design the game to balance encounters with both crappy and non crappy builds.  



Cailte said:


> This is a good question and its answer is very different from just saying "its a must have feat" as a general statement.
> 
> If all you care about in making a character is combat optimisation this feat should be within the first 4 feats you take (to allow for build variance) I would estimate, heck its arguable it should be one of the first 2. In part that is because it makes all subsequent feats that optimise damage work better.
> 
> Fortunately DnD is not _just_ about combat, and there are lots of other things to do with building a character that is fun to play.



I totally agree.  There's definitely room for flavor, and non perfectly optimized characters.  There's just a point which when efficiency drops below adversely impacts game balance.  This feat is a tax no matter how people try to disguise it.  If you try to design encounters around people not having it then the characters who do take it will start to massively outstrip their peers and break the under optimized encounters.  It eventually becomes a +3 to hit in all situations.  It's obviously game changing at that point.  Many would argue it's game changing at 15th level.  If a power is broken at 25th level it's still broken.  

If there was a feat combo that made a character totally immune to all damage and effects at 25th level is it broken?  Does the verbiage have to be changed at level one or can we just ignore that eventually it ruins the game and can't be explained from a balance standpoint until we get there?


----------



## ObsidianCrane

AngryPurpleCyclops said:


> This is another mischaracterization.  What choice do people have currently?  They can play or not play.  The satisfaction example assumes you know there mental state which is ludicrous.  A lot of people when looking at the numbers have expressed dissatisfaction with the gradual decline in pc average effectiveness.  Where are people arguing they're satisfied and the math is already correct?  They're not because everyone already knows there was a flaw in the design.  Two if you count gradual erosion of one NAD.




The typical state of forum posters is to only comment when they are dissatisfied. Happy customers are generally busy being happy with the game not griping on an internet forum. 

Never take the position of people on a forum as indicative of wider opinion. Companies like WotC have an interest in finding out if such things are wide spread beliefs, and so if they feel its necassary they engage in more market research than listening to maybe 20 people jumping up and down on a forum. (Consider I had never felt there was degredation in the game with regards to hit chance, nor was I aware that people really felt this way before this thread. Yup anecdotal evidence, but so are the few folks talking about it in CharOp forums or where ever people argue this stuff.)




AngryPurpleCyclops said:


> The game works if you build pc's that are close to optimum.




This isn't a fact. Its an opinion that some people believe is true. Unless you are using a different definition of optimum than I am.

Is a 16 primary attack stat close to optimum?
What about an 18 with a +2 prof weapon?

Just trying to get a measure of scale... I mean a 16 attack stat is +2 behind a 20 which is optimum for attack, and the argument in this thread is that Expertise is to good because it provides a +1 in heroic. Similarly with a 20 +3 prof combo, its 2 better than a the 18 +2 prof character..

This combat omptimisation focus leads to a ludicrous extreme of course.. because fighter's and rogues get a +1 attack from their class that is essentially non-conditional they are arguably "broken" and "optimal choices" for their roles. In fact you can even start to break it down by race if you really want to get silly. This is the thing... the game is not intended nor designed to be played at the extreme optimisation level that some people strive for, its just supposed to be played so that everyone can have some fun hanging out with their friends. It works best when all the friends are working at the same general goal and in the same general way. (ie if everyone is playing hyper-optimised that works, if everyone is playing wacky that works, if everyone is playing in between that works, but wacky with hyper-optimised doesn't work so well depending on the wacky (usually))


----------



## AngryPurpleCyclops

Cailte said:


> 4E's design goal with regards to monsters was "more monsters" not "higher level monsters" the DMG specifically recomends against exceeding the PCs level by more than 3 (DMG pg56-57), and its good advice that some module writers either chose not to follow or just didn't have at their disposal at the time of writing of their module (LFR first 2 rounds of mods basically fall here for example). I expect encounter design in modules will improve over time and the other design goal of "combat feats are not essential" will come more into play and ultimately the only people that will care about feats like the Expertise ones are those who are trying to "break" the game with "super" builds.



You're misreading.

here are the guidelines:
Individual monsters: L-4 to L+7 (where L is the party level) pg 57
Encounter level n-2 to n+4 (where n is the party level) pg 58
here is the hard example It's n+3 and has and L+6 soldier in it. pg 58
Hard Example for 8th-level PCs: 1 war troll (level 14 soldier), 3 trolls (level 9 brute), and 2 destrachans(level 9 artillery). Level 11 encounter, 3,000 XP.


----------



## ObsidianCrane

AngryPurpleCyclops said:


> You're misreading.
> 
> here are the guidelines:
> Individual monsters: L-4 to L+7 (where L is the party level) pg 57
> Encounter level n-2 to n+4 (where n is the party level) pg 58
> here is the hard example It's n+3 and has and L+6 soldier in it. pg 58
> Hard Example for 8th-level PCs: 1 war troll (level 14 soldier), 3 trolls (level 9 brute), and 2 destrachans(level 9 artillery). Level 11 encounter, 3,000 XP.




Nope.

Levels of Individual Threats: Choose threats within two or three levels of the characters’ level.
Threats in an easy encounter can be as many as four levels below the party’s level.
Threats in a hard encounter can be as many as three to five levels above the party’s level.

Taken directly from page 56.

The fact WotC cannot follow their own guidelines should be well understood by now  Further there is still no L+7 monster in those examples, the worst example is the War Troll at Level +6 (one above the page 56 recomendations).  

The War Troll is frankly a rediculous addition to such an encounter and a classic example of the exact sort of bad encounter design that is creating a problem. Lowest defences are 25, PCs will have +5/6 (Item + Level) +4/6 Stat to hit it. +9 to +12 shouldn't be fighting that sort of creature. Defences should be around 20 in the NAD area and 2-3 higher in AC at most. Using examples that encourage bad design and that don't follow the prior guidelines to argue the game is broken isn't actually supportative of your position - it just supports the idea that WotC really didn't understand the implementation of their own game fully when they wrote the final print and released the books. An idea supported by some of the comments in the months since release (like Mearls on Wizards and the Controller role for example).


----------



## AngryPurpleCyclops

Cailte said:


> The typical state of forum posters is to only comment when they are dissatisfied. Happy customers are generally busy being happy with the game not griping on an internet forum.
> 
> Never take the position of people on a forum as indicative of wider opinion. Companies like WotC have an interest in finding out if such things are wide spread beliefs, and so if they feel its necassary they engage in more market research than listening to maybe 20 people jumping up and down on a forum. (Consider I had never felt there was degredation in the game with regards to hit chance, nor was I aware that people really felt this way before this thread. Yup anecdotal evidence, but so are the few folks talking about it in CharOp forums or where ever people argue this stuff.)



Forum posters represent a lot of the more hard core gamers and frequently there's a slant toward power gamer mentality especially in charop threads.  Power gamers are actually the best play testers since they are vastly more likely to search out broken combo's, undercosted, overcosted, etc.  This works for CCG players as well.  The point being that power gamers undoubtedly brought the math discrepancy to the attention of the powers that be and like any good game designer when presented with the math that something doesn't work they develop a fix.  This is that fix.  Players here just feel that it's not an elegant fix and it detracts from the game.  I think there's a very good case for this being made.



Cailte said:


> This isn't a fact. Its an opinion that some people believe is true. Unless you are using a different definition of optimum than I am.



It's based upon a lot of mathematical analysis, the game developers own words and the overwhelming empirical evidence.  For example I just took a look at the pre made characters in 2 modules.  In every instance they used a primary stat number of 16 and a secondary of 14 then added in racial modifiers.  The dwarven fighter had a 16/16 build because dwarves down't have +2 str.  Every pc with an optimized race to class had an 18 and the other 3 had a 16.  So 70% of the builds had an 18 to start.  Do you think this is coincidence that the premade characters have 18's?  (or 16 if there race doesn't line up with their class).  We can agree to disagree here, or you can show me what you base your optimum on.  My supposition is that the game was designed to have a 16 ability score in the primary stat (before racial mods) more often than not (it's 100% in what I could find but let me know if you have a different experience).  Then race is added and anyone who's read the players handbook can tell you that 70% of the suggested races for a class pump the primary stat.  

Is a 16 primary attack stat close to optimum? Yes.  It's weak but not awful. 
What about an 18 with a +2 prof weapon?  Weapon prof is already accounted for by the mathematically higher numbers for AC.  These offset to a large degree.



Cailte said:


> Just trying to get a measure of scale... I mean a 16 attack stat is +2 behind a 20 which is optimum for attack, and the argument in this thread is that Expertise is to good because it provides a +1 in heroic. Similarly with a 20 +3 prof combo, its 2 better than a the 18 +2 prof character..



 16 is weak and 20 is strong.  16 is usually caused by racial variance.  20 has a significant cost in that getting a stat to 18 before racial bonus is very costly.  How many parties have you been in?  DM'd for?  I've seen 2 20's and 1 16 primary in about 8 parties.  IMO 20 is not the optimum build because of the costs but it is the max attack value which definitely has an upside.  Don't include weapon profs as they're accounted for elsewhere.  The various weapons have different damages and this has been balanced to some degree by the prof number.  comparing 16 to 20 is probably not the right angle to take here as 20 has some costs that make 18 the better choice in most cases.  There is a lot of argument that a 20 AC rogue with the right weapons and feats gets ridiculously high to hits.  The normal damage is low but this is offset by sneak damage.  We could take this thread on a lot of tangents that all involve mathematical analysis.  



Cailte said:


> This combat omptimisation focus leads to a ludicrous extreme of course.. because fighter's and rogues get a +1 attack from their class that is essentially non-conditional they are arguably "broken" and "optimal choices" for their roles. In fact you can even start to break it down by race if you really want to get silly.



You're taking a lot of tangential paths that have been explored in great detail on a lot of forums.  There's some math to support rogues being a little too powerful but nothing even remotely approaching +3 to hit for one feat in terms of game impact.  



Cailte said:


> This is the thing... the game is not intended nor designed to be played at the extreme optimisation level that some people strive for, its just supposed to be played so that everyone can have some fun hanging out with their friends.



 I totally agree and I've never advocated min maxing here.  I've tried to logically explain why the current encounters aren't broken and the pc build was the problem as well as point out the detrimental impact the new feat has on the game.



Cailte said:


> It works best when all the friends are working at the same general goal and in the same general way. (ie if everyone is playing hyper-optimised that works, if everyone is playing wacky that works, if everyone is playing in between that works, but wacky with hyper-optimised doesn't work so well depending on the wacky (usually))



I agree again.  I made the same point that if everyone in your party was a poorly optimized build the dm could cap hard encounters at n+3 and max level monsters at L+6 and probably you would all have a great campaign with little or no troubles.  When you mix optimized and crappy builds is when the trouble starts.


----------



## AngryPurpleCyclops

Cailte said:


> Nope.
> Levels of Individual Threats: Choose threats within two or three levels of the characters’ level.
> Threats in an easy encounter can be as many as four levels below the party’s level.
> Threats in a hard encounter can be as many as three to five levels above the party’s level.
> 
> Taken directly from page 56.




[/QUOTE]Yup.
Taken directly from page 57. (emphasis mine)

Level: As you select individual threats to make
up your encounter, keep the level of those threats in
mind. *Monsters or traps more than four levels below
the party’s level or seven levels above the party’s level
don’t make good challenges.* They’re either too easy
or too hard, even if the encounter’s level seems right.
When you want to use a single monster to challenge
the PCs—or a large mob of monsters, for that matter—
try using minions, elites, and solo monsters instead.



Cailte said:


> The fact WotC cannot follow their own guidelines should be well understood by now  Further there is still no L+7 monster in those examples, the worst example is the War Troll at Level +6 (one above the page 56 recomendations).



 this is both opinion and anecdotal.  It says N+7 2" to the left of that, this was just one example.

from the wolfpack template page 59 (emphasis mine):
Easy: 7 skirmishers of level n – 4
Standard: 7 skirmishers of level n – 2
Standard: 5 skirmishers of level n
Hard: *3 skirmishers of level n + 7*
Hard: 4 skirmishers of level n + 5
Hard: 6 skirmishers of level n + 2

The troll is a good example because it's a soldier(soldiers being the worst case in many instances) and still 6 levels higher than the party.  If you think pc's can't handle this encounter you clearly haven't played the game enough.  It's got a 25 reflex.  8th level rogues will hit this on about 10, a 7 with combat advantage which they will be working diligently to get.  The troll doesn't have a lot of hit points for a 14th level critter but it does have regen.  Drop a flaming sphere next to the troll and he's crippled, and coupled with just a few rounds of attention from the rogue this creature will likely perish.

The trolls AC is very daunting but after a few swings the party will know this and the fighter will definitely go elsewhere with his attacks, on the other hand many of his powers have the reliable keyword so he can keep working with the rogue to grant CA which also ups his chances to hit to 13-15.

In your numbers you failed to account for weapon proficiency.   Expect about an 11 ATT bonus at 8th level add 4 more for a rogue with dagger and 3 or 4 more for a fighter with his weapon of choice.  Nimble blade is +1 with CA so the rogue might have a 18 ATT bonus on combat advantage attacks (he has a couple powers that guarantee at least 1-2 flanking opportunities a combat and the party supplies the rest).  I think a 7 to hit with something like Walking Wounded (+ sneak dmg) is pretty powerful.  a 5 to hit if the cleric lands a lance of faith on him first.  

Incidently the +1 ATT from expertise also helps the party considerably in this encounter.  The monster ac creep is already taking effect at level 8 and not having the feat hurts pc's.  

The rest of the encounter is still pretty powerful.  5 level 9 creatures but all of them are easily hit by the party.  This is no cake walk but the reason it's so challenging is that the bad guys are a level 11 encounter not that they included the wartroll.  N+3 = hard.  The troll doesn't break the encounter and asserting it does only demonstrates a lack of understanding how the game works.  The beauty of this design is that they've actually taken the time to figure out exactly how much the party can take and created both the experience point budget and the two ranges.  One for overall encounter difficulty n-2 to n+4 and one for individual threats L-4 to L+7.  These three numbers allow the dm to be extremely creative in designing NON-homogeneous groups and therefore extremely interesting and unique encounters.  As you decrease the ranges you cut back on choices and flavor.  Removing the granularity from the game is not good.  

It's exactly because of the time and effort put into designing the monsters/experience budget/encounter ranges that the pc's need to do their part and be pretty close to the expected power level.


----------



## Regicide

grickherder said:


> PHB2 is not yet published.  My character build is producing a +10 to hit and everyone is fine with that.  PHB2 is published, my character is suddenly not doing the average expected work anymore because it's not +11?  Suddenly I'm dragging the party down because it's not +11?  What nonsense.




  If everyone else takes it and they're hitting 10% more than you, then yes, you're dragging the party down.  You've been shown in this thread that this feat is superior to every other feat.  If you want an inferior character then don't take this feat, otherwise you should take it for 5th and must take it for 15th.  The fact that this is true for every single character in the game is a problem as has been repeated ad nauseum.  It boggles my mind that this thread isn't two posts long, "Is feat is too good?" and "Yes, obviously."


----------



## keterys

Well, there's a decent amount of room for 'Is the hit bonus provided by the feat a (good) corrective action to the system?' and 'Is this overpowered blatant power creep?', since there's a big difference in giving people a hit bonus for free (or reducing monster defenses or level, if that floats your boat) and banning a feat.


----------



## Regicide

keterys said:


> Well, there's a decent amount of room for 'Is the hit bonus provided by the feat a (good) corrective action to the system?' and 'Is this overpowered blatant power creep?', since there's a big difference in giving people a hit bonus for free (or reducing monster defenses or level, if that floats your boat) and banning a feat.




  I don't see it as corrective because a) people are saying epic encounters are already easy enough, b) my experience with pre-epic encounters also shows it's already easy enough even BEFORE the MASSIVE power creep from FRPG, AV and MP, c) if it was corrective it should/would have been errata to the PHB1.

  I think it's obviously blatent power creep.  All three of FRPG, AV and MP have had it, why would PHB2 be any different?

  The main problem I see is that I can't, as a DM, just look at the stat block of monsters and swap out a couple weak feats for these new uber powerful ones to give the players more of a challenge, I need to pretty much re-jig the entire module, or have them enter it several levels below what the module is meant for which then means the magic items and MUST be re-jigged.  I'd like, when I pay for a module, to be able to actually get what I pay for, an adventure I can run, not an adventure I need to fix because my players bought splat books.


----------



## WalterKovacs

> The troll is a good example because it's a soldier(soldiers being the worst case in many instances) and still 6 levels higher than the party. If you think pc's can't handle this encounter you clearly haven't played the game enough. It's got a 25 reflex. 8th level rogues will hit this on about 10, a 7 with combat advantage which they will be working diligently to get. The troll doesn't have a lot of hit points for a 14th level critter but it does have regen. Drop a flaming sphere next to the troll and he's crippled, and coupled with just a few rounds of attention from the rogue this creature will likely perish.




So, as long as the group has a dagger based rogue, and a wizard, and someone to flank wth the rogue it should be fine. Not only does each member of the party have to be optimized ... the actual choice of characters has to be optimized as well. Whether or not the troll is going to be a huge threat or a manageable one is based not just on how optimized the party is, but exactly what classes are there. So ... you should know what your party can handle before you throw just ANY "balanced" encounter against them.



> The trolls AC is very daunting but after a few swings the party will know this and the fighter will definitely go elsewhere with his attacks, on the other hand many of his powers have the reliable keyword so he can keep working with the rogue to grant CA which also ups his chances to hit to 13-15.
> 
> In your numbers you failed to account for weapon proficiency. Expect about an 11 ATT bonus at 8th level add 4 more for a rogue with dagger and 3 or 4 more for a fighter with his weapon of choice. Nimble blade is +1 with CA so the rogue might have a 18 ATT bonus on combat advantage attacks (he has a couple powers that guarantee at least 1-2 flanking opportunities a combat and the party supplies the rest). I think a 7 to hit with something like Walking Wounded (+ sneak dmg) is pretty powerful. a 5 to hit if the cleric lands a lance of faith on him first.




Again ... so long as the group has a rogue, it will be fine. "Having a rogue in the party" should not be a requirement for having a balanced party.  



> The rest of the encounter is still pretty powerful. 5 level 9 creatures but all of them are easily hit by the party. This is no cake walk but the reason it's so challenging is that the bad guys are a level 11 encounter not that they included the wartroll. N+3 = hard. The troll doesn't break the encounter and asserting it does only demonstrates a lack of understanding how the game works. The beauty of this design is that they've actually taken the time to figure out exactly how much the party can take and created both the experience point budget and the two ranges. One for overall encounter difficulty n-2 to n+4 and one for individual threats L-4 to L+7. These three numbers allow the dm to be extremely creative in designing NON-homogeneous groups and therefore extremely interesting and unique encounters. As you decrease the ranges you cut back on choices and flavor. Removing the granularity from the game is not good.




A DM needs to know their party. They need to know that when you go to the top levels of encounter design it's assuming that the entire party is AT LEAST at the baseline of being optimal, and that this means that many in the party are only going to be hitting maybe 30% of the time unless they can get bonuses, or attack the right defense, etc. If they know that there are PCs that are not "at their best", they need to recognise that and adjust accordingly. 

The players and the DM are all playing the same game. If their expectations are not synced up it doesn't matter which one is playing the game wrong. What is important is that they resolve their issue.

The beauty of D&D is that there is more than one way to play it. You CAN have extremely difficult encounter to challenge people who want to have difficult and potentially deadly encounters and test their abilities to build characters able to withstand them. It's _also_ possible for players to try less than optimal ideas (such as race/class combinations that don't yield optimal builds) and for the DM to cut out the most dangerous encounters because the players have increased the difficulty by reducing PC optimization.

The problem comes when PC goals and DM goals, or goals between different PCs, are not synced up. As has been said in the thread, the problem with the feat is if only some of the players take it. The feat is extremely good, and in most groups, everyone will eventually take it, some early in heroic tier, and some later in heroic. Any group that actually has an optimized character taking the feat, and an extremely unoptimized character not taking the feat (The example of the dwarf paladin with 16 charisma and the human fighter with 20 strength was made) is a group that has problems beyond the feat.



> It's exactly because of the time and effort put into designing the monsters/experience budget/encounter ranges that the pc's need to do their part and be pretty close to the expected power level.




Because the designers made the game such that there is a very large range of possible encounters, it's their job to play the game correctly and have their PCs fit a narrow mold. If they don't optimize they are playing the game incorrectly and wasting the time of the designers ...

OR, the DM can take advantage of the wide design area and slowly test the boundaries of the party to see what is acceptable for them, not just what is acceptable for the expected power level. Some parties may not be able to take on level + 7 monsters. Also, some parties may be able to take one SOME, but not ALL level + 7 monsters. Guidelines help in encounter design. The statement has more to do with "don't even bother trying level + 8" so much as "you really _should_ try level + 7". If something is at the very top of the power level a party is expected to go up against, you don't just throw it out there without considering what your party can do. A good DM does more than just builds encounters for a party that is hypothetically at the expected power level, and throws it up against their party. Especially if the party has players that:

(a) don't know they are expected to be at a certain power level
(b) don't know what the expected power level is
(c) don't want to be confined by expected power level (race/class combination is particularly important, and multiclassing, especially paragon multiclassing, would be discouraged)

Problems arise from lack of communication about expectation. It's not about players doing it wrong because they haven't built characters capable of being as good as the hypothetical party (like not having a Rogue with the particular at-will power that targets reflex in order to have an easy time against the Troll, for example).


----------



## Regicide

AngryPurpleCyclops said:


> What build is that?




Swordmaster DPR: 21st - 168.35 - Burst: Infinite - Wizards Community


----------



## grickherder

AngryPurpleCyclops said:


> You're making an argument that the system is broken because you don't want to play characters with close to the suggested build numbers.




If you're wondering why I haven't been responding in depth to your posts, here's a perfect example.  I'm not making that argument.   This notion you have in your head that I "don't want to play characters with close to the suggested build numbers" is false.

You accuse me of intellectual dishonesty but then you turn around and try to tell me what I'm saying when I'm not.   Try not intentionally misrepresenting what people say some time.  Another hint you need apparently.


----------



## Drudenfusz

I see there was a change needed, that characters at high Level can still hit the enemies, but the expertise feats looks like a solution that invents a new problem. For me 4E is about choices, but this feat is no choice, everybody has to take it. Why has WotC not invented Masterwork weapons and implements (which can do the same bonus without robbing choices)? For my campaigns that will be the way I will use (every +2 Enhancement Bonus there will be a +1 to hit).


----------



## Smeelbo

*I will play Expertise as written, and see what happens.*



			
				WalterKovacs said:
			
		

> Are you honestly suggesting that an errata that applies to nearly every monster (except for those level 1 through 4 basically) is really cleaner? Would new monsters have the errata built or would it use the old math and just have the DM always cut the defenses in all situations.



Yes, that is exactly what some are suggesting:
*Proposed Monster Manual Errata:*
*Tier Gap Penalty:* For monsters between levels 5 and 14, reduce all their defenses by 1. This penalty increases to -2 for levels 15-24, and -3 for monsters 25th level or higher.​That's it: two sentences, easily remembered, easily applied on the fly, problem solved. Without essentially requiring all characters to take a feat, or for some builds, multiple feats.







			
				WalterKovacs said:
			
		

> An errata to give the PCs a boost to their attack at each level ending in 5 would be another example that would be a lot easier. It's easier to change a character sheet than a monster stat block.



As you say, probably a better choice, although not identical in consequence.







			
				grickherder said:
			
		

> This is so less of an issue in 4th edition than it is in previous editions. In 4e you design encounters for the group.



You may be right. It may be the case that the 1/2 level bonuses to attacks, defenses, and checks is just enough to keep almost all characters in play, as long as they don't make totally stupid choices. After all, a major design goal of 4E is that it be accessable and playable by a broad variety of players, many of whom will not have a solid grasp of probabilities and their consequences.

Please note, I am not saying that some people on this board do not grasp probabilities, but that 4E, in order to accomodate a broader audience, wants to be robust enough to withstand a variety of decision making styles. I can't say whether they've succeeded or not. This argument over _Expertise_ illuminates this question.







			
				grickherder said:
			
		

> 3.x definitely had some problems where one character could be so amazing and another so terrible that you couldn't challenge one withou killing the others. With the advent of roles and the inability for a party to function as a bunch of individuals who don't work together, 4e has pretty much solved this problem.



This difference between 4E and 3.X is day and night, and one reason I have been converted to the 4E gospel. However, I don't think it's clear yet that 4E is really as robust as _Hasbro_ claims, and as new powers and combinations enter the game, it will become increasingly untrue.







			
				grickherder said:
			
		

> I can give you lots of examples where I definitely won't be taking expertise at level 1. My assessment of expertise is that I can see myself taking it with most builds by level 15 or level 25. As I've said before, something I take more than half way through a characters advancement cycle is hardly the best thing ever.



Most of my character concepts appear to require 2-3 capability feats, then they want feats that improve what their capabilities do. Since attacking is what most characters do, I see taking _Expertise_ around 6th level. That may be a problem, if it's the first general combat improvement feat that almost everyone takes.







			
				WalterKovacs said:
			
		

> With a 16, a player can take steps to increase their accuracy, like taking a weapon with bonus to proficiency.



I sure hope you're correct, because I am a big fan of flexibility over focus. Many of my initial character concepts involve 16 stats, and I feel that if D&D 4E can't stand 16s, the game is flawed.







			
				WalterKovacs said:
			
		

> Feats aren't really that scarce, but they are scarce enough for people to complain about feat taxes.



I wish I could have a feat every level. I can never have enough feats.







			
				WalterKovacs said:
			
		

> 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.



This is why every character I design has two engines: combat and roleplay _(mostly skills)._ I optimize the combat engine well enough to support the roleplay engine, and the result is a balanced, playable character. My combat engine will always select _Expertise_ as soon as practical.







			
				MLund said:
			
		

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



On the contrary, as level rises, combats last more rounds, and at-wills become a larger portion of your damage output. This is a big reason powers that activate on a critical hit become more attractive as level rises.







			
				Bayuer said:
			
		

> Like someone wrote on WoTC forums. Make Masterwork Weapons and add them +x to hit (+1 on magic weapn +2, +2 on magic weapon +4, and +3 on magic weapon +6 or so).



Another intriguing option, but probably too much hassle, if, like armor, there are a variety of such materials.







			
				AngryPurpleCyclops said:
			
		

> This really bothers me. I'm a business owner so I understand the economic realities but power creep as a sales tool destroys the game. It's really awful if PHB1 classes are made obsolete by future releases. The ability to retrain feats and powers could also be a slightly underhanded way of tempting players to buy splat books and "power up" their existing pc's.



While it bothers me too, I see absolutely no way around it. Even if some of the developers refuse to admit it to themselves, power creep as marketing will continue, unless management takes a strong stand against it, and I deem that unlikely under _Hasbro_.

I think 4E will eventually follow the _Magic Type II_ model, where older material automatically _"ages"_ out of the system as new material is introduced. That way, the number of character options remains roughly constant, and more importantly, the number of combinations will remain constant. Old power-creep powers and combinations will leave the system, new ones will be introduced, all the while allowing _Hasbro_ to constantly sell new material without breaking the game. It works for _Magic_, and it will probably work for 4E.







			
				AngryPurpleCyclops said:
			
		

> The verbiage "must have" is simply too ambiguous for this forum in this circumstance because it leaves too much room for interpretation.



Exactly. Some strong optimizers argue that _Expertise_ will be almost always taken at 1st level, and if true, I think we'd all agree it's broken. Others, like me, believe it will be almost always be taken around 6th level, and think it may be broken. Still others conclude that _Expertise_ will be effectively mandatory at 16th level, but disagree on how bad this is.







			
				AngryPurpleCyclops said:
			
		

> The more intellectually honest question is something like this: if I'm trying to optimize my pc for combat how many feats could I justify taking before this.



I believe the answer is three, including capability feats, such as _Quick Draw_ and _Multiclassing,_ which your character concept may require to work mechanically.







			
				AngryPurpleCyclops said:
			
		

> There's a problem with a feat that is better or equal than others in 100% of the possible situations AND it's easier to take (no prereqs) AND it stacks. You can't make any valid argument to support taking nimble blade before this and nimble blade has a pre req and 2 conditions to gain it's benefit. Precise hunter? combat reflexes?



Exactly.







			
				Fedifensor said:
			
		

> Anyone who compares Weapon Expertise to Nimble Blade can see that balance is out of whack...and Nimble Blade is (or was) considered a 5-star feat for rogues.



Yes, exactly what is the counter argument to that? If there is none, then _Expertise_ is too good.







			
				Fedifensor said:
			
		

> If we're going to play "imagine this scenario", let me offer a counterexample.
> 
> The group of players are going through a published module, and having a difficult time with it. Then, the PHB 2 comes out, and most of the group uses the retraining rules to take Weapon Expertise or Implement Expertise. With this new option, they have an easier time, and feel more useful. Great, right?
> However, in the process, one character drops a Skill Training feat, even though it was appropriate for his character. The swordmage still misses too often with his implement powers, because he could only swap out one feat with retraining. The dragonborn misses too often with his Dragon Breath, and has no way of correcting this deficit. Finally, one player feels that retraining is silly, and therefore won't take the feat for his character until a new feat slot becomes available.
> 
> In short, while the group is better off from this new feat, there is a disproportionate hardship from taking that feat depending on the character (and the player). Some are sacrificing character conception, some have to pay more for the same value, some have marginalized abilities because there is no balancing feat for them, and one is marginalized because he won't rewrite his character to add in the feat. Suddenly, some people aren't feeling like they're contributing their fair share to the group, through no fault of their own. How is this situation better than simply fixing the core problem, which is the scaling issue?



This is a very good counter-example.







			
				AngryPurpleCyclops said:
			
		

> Everything is more homogeneous in 4e so far because we haven't had the power creep and broken combos that inevitably surface once 20 splat books are released. Don't be surprised if this changes. Bloodmage combos already had to be errata'd for instance. You're deceiving yourself that this isn't still a problem.



Which is why, probably 2-3 years from now, older material will start _"aging"_ out of 4E, like older blocks _"age"_ out of _Magic_.







			
				grickherder said:
			
		

> My proposal for an alternative to expertise is an errata to the encounter design section of the DMG so that it discourages high defense monsters, solo soldier encounters and monsters of 7 levels higher than the party, effectively making it easier for the PCs to hit without the need for spending a feat on it.



That's certainly a clear alternative. I am not sure how viable it is, I don't have enough experience DMing 4E to judge for myself.







			
				Cailte said:
			
		

> it just supports the idea that WotC really didn't understand the implementation of their own game fully when they wrote the final print and released the books.



I'll second that. In my experience, the players of a game devote far more resources to understanding the mechanics of a game and their consequences than the publishers do. Further, non-mechanical considerations, such as deadlines, budgets, and marketing, tend to dominate decision making, as you would expect in a business. Quality is almost never *Job #1*.







			
				AngryPurpleCyclops said:
			
		

> Power gamers are actually the best play testers since they are vastly more likely to search out broken combo's, undercosted, overcosted, etc. This works for CCG players as well.



_Hasbro_'s best work is with CCGs, and they have and will continue to bring that experience to bear upon 4E.







			
				AngryPurpleCyclops said:
			
		

> My supposition is that the game was designed to have a 16 ability score in the primary stat (before racial mods).



That this was their intention was immediately clear to me upon my very first reading of the PHB, when I read _Generating Ability Scores, Method 1: Standard Array_. Currently, my favorite starting array is 16, 16, 12, 12, 10, 8, and I sure hope 16s are playable.

My conclusion about _Expertise_ is that I am going to play it as written, and see what happens. Both of my active characters will take _Expertise_ when they hit 6th level.

*Smeelbo*


----------



## gribble

Hmmm, somone said something upthread which got me thinking. I think I might see where WotC are going with this. 

If we look at the common ability score distributions together with the perceived problems in higher level play, generally they fall into 2 camps: the specialists (18+ in primary ability with weak scores elsewhere), and the generalists (all ability scores "balanced").

The specialists are able to reliably hit higher level opponents, but have a weakness in NADs. The generalists have acceptable NADs, but usually miss high level opponents a lot more.

Looking at the new feats, it seems that expertise is intended to be taken by generalists to "fix" the missing problem, and the new improved defense feats are intended to be taken by specialists to "fix" the low NADs problem.

Unfortunately, the implementation is flawed, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, there's nothing to stop specialists taking expertise or generalists from taking the NAD boosting feats, so it doesn't really fix the problem (or creates a new problem in that optimised characters will be too powerful for the opponents they're supposed to be facing). Secondly, the feats alone are just "too good", compared to other options available. I can't see any character (which isn't intentionally or unwittingly gimping themselves) not taking expertise by 15th level, and also think most characters will find a feat slot for the epic NAD booster (given that a lot of characters already take one of the paragon single NAD boosting feats, it'd be a no-brainer to retrain that for the new and improved epic one). That aside, they all but invalidate a lot of other feats (Combat Reflexes, Nimble Blade, etc), which IMO is terrible design.

Put me in the MW weapons/implements camp. I think that would have been a much better "fix" for any perceived problems.


----------



## Hypersmurf

jorrit said:


> I don't know any daily that is simply wasted if you miss.




From the PHB:
Astral Whirlwind, Astral Weapon 20
Split The Tree, Ranger 1
Frenzied Skirmish, Ranger 5
Blade Cascade, Ranger 15
Wrath of Acamar, Warlock 19
Prismatic Beams, Wizard 15
Prismatic Spray, Wizard 25

-Hyp.


----------



## Fedifensor

grickherder said:


> *The hilarious thing is that my advocacy for using monsters with lower defenses is effectively the same thing as giving the players a flat bonus.*  My emphasis on encounter design as the solution is the same as giving a flat bonus because the net effect is the same as far as percentage-to-hit goes.



There are 9 months of publications that you'd have to go back and fix under your solution.  All the published modules, LFR modules, issues of Dungeon...your solution is simply not practical.  Giving a +1 per tier bonus fixes the issue without that complication.


----------



## KarinsDad

I think the problem being addressed is not really a significant problem.


42 42 37 40  28 Elite Brute Atropal
42 44 38 36  28 Elite Brute Earthrage Battlebriar
42 46 40 40  28 Solo Artillery Ancient Blue Dragon
44 45 42 42  28 Soldier Efreet Karadjin
42 38 41 38  28 Lurker Sorrowsworn Deathlord

43 48 40 45  29 Elite Brute Godforged Colossus
45 45 43 41  29 Solo Controller Runescribed Dracolich

Level 28 PC with +6 melee weapon, 16 starting stat bumped every time, 28th level = 14 + 6 + 7 + 3 = +30

For the most part, this PC needs a 12 (45%) against a same 28th level creature. Sure, the Dracolich at one level higher is 30%, but that is not game breaking considering that the PC has no synergy bonuses yet.

This is without Demigod, this is without an 18 or 20 starting stat, this is without any Prestige class bonus, this is without any other bonuses such as Leadership bonuses, combat advantage, having high level henchmen or NPCs do Aid Another, specialized feats such as Back to the Wall, Charging, ways to re-roll attacks, etc.

The non-weapon PC typically has multiple defenses to choose from. The lowest average defense (~39) also averages a 45% chance to hit (at +27) for the same level creatures. It might take several rounds to figure out a weaker defense, but Epic level fights tend to last longer anyway.

And most of these creatures are Elites or Solos. They are supposed to be harder to hit. Solos especially are behind the action economy 8-ball.

Going to the higher level creatures:

48 48 43 42  30 Solo Soldier Ancient Red Dragon
43 49 38 32  30 Solo Brute Tarrasque

48 51 46 49  33 Solo Brute Orcus

Orcus here is the only one without weaknesses. The others can be hit. Maybe not well vs. one defense, but against other defenses. I don't think that one god-like monster in the MM should be the indicator that Epic level is broken.


I think the problem that the feat is trying to fix is somewhat illusory. Epic PCs should have so many different resources and options that they can make up for 40% range chances to hit.

I also think that DMs can be lured into the concept of throwing monsters 2+ levels higher at the PCs at lower levels and then suddenly realizing that as the range gets narrower at the top, the game changes a bit and requires not so many encounters that are levels tougher than the PCs. DMs might also throw a few lesser foes in with solos more often at lower levels. This probably should not be done at the highest levels. These type of DM habits sound more like the real culprit here.


And, I suspect there are very few players that do not bump their main stat up every time. Maybe their secondary stat might not get bumped to create a more balanced PC, but the balance of the game does require pushing the main stat. There are defense feats to handle the weaker defenses.


Expertise will probably be disallowed in our game.


----------



## tiornys

gribble said:


> Put me in the MW weapons/implements camp. I think that would have been a much better "fix" for any perceived problems.



The MW implementation is much better than the Feat implementation, but it's still flawed in a couple of ways when compared to the flat background bonus or reduced monster defenses fixes.  The major flaw is that several powers, notably a couple of racial abilities and elemental themed Paragon path powers, don't use weapons or implements.  These powers become weaker in a MW world.  Less relevantly, many characters have a primary weapon/implement, and a backup weapon/implement for specialized useage.  These backups are typically +(X-1) when compared with the primaries, but under the MW system, there will be stages where the backups are effectively +(X-2) because they fall across the MW tier break.  I don't like either of these effects, so I'll be going with the flat background fix.

KarinsDad: that's a pretty solid argument against the concept that the math needs fixing, and banning the feat outright is certainly better than allowing it as printed.  I'm inclined to think that the system runs better when the background math stays static, an opinion informed by recent experiences in our game, where we just reached level 14 so the math slippage is around -2, but it's worth noting the opposing viewpoint.  Do you (or does anyone) have actual experience playing in Epic tier?  It'd be nice to have some anecdotal evidence as to how apparent the math discrepency is.

t~


----------



## AngryPurpleCyclops

Smeelbo said:


> Yes, that is exactly what some are suggesting:
> *Proposed Monster Manual Errata:*
> *Tier Gap Penalty:* For monsters between levels 5 and 14, reduce all their defenses by 1. This penalty increases to -2 for levels 15-24, and -3 for monsters 25th level or higher.​That's it: two sentences, easily remembered, easily applied on the fly, problem solved. Without essentially requiring all characters to take a feat, or for some builds, multiple feats.



That's a lot more complicated than +1 per tier.  No calculations, just add it when you make the level.  The MW system is flawed for a lot of reasons.  We're already putting a lot of pressure on the magic item system to "keep pace" and make sure everyone is getting +X at certain stages but there are going to be lots of exceptions on magic items.  The +1 per tier corrects more uniformly and doesn't punish powers without the implement/weapon keywords.



Smeelbo said:


> On the contrary, as level rises, combats last more rounds, and at-wills become a larger portion of your damage output. This is a big reason powers that activate on a critical hit become more attractive as level rises.



I'm not sure this is correct.  By level 9 a pc has 3 dailies and 4 encounters, not including magic items.  This means the PC can reliably fire 5 rounds in nearly every encounter with a more powerful effect.  At level 2, you can fire something other than an at will only once per encounter unless you burn your daily.  I would say that much more damage comes from encounters and dailies the higher level you get (though at level 21 there is a shift on the graph due to at-wills getting pumped.)



Smeelbo said:


> While it bothers me too, I see absolutely no way around it. Even if some of the developers refuse to admit it to themselves, power creep as marketing will continue, unless management takes a strong stand against it, and I deem that unlikely under _Hasbro_.



I'm sadly forced to agree.  I'll just refuse to buy more material at some point (as soon as i see that the original material is becoming obsolete) and cap the campaign there.  I like having 20 classes to choose from it makes party builds so much more varied, but only if all 20 classes are viable.



Smeelbo said:


> I think 4E will eventually follow the _Magic Type II_ model, where older material automatically _"ages"_ out of the system as new material is introduced.



I think type two was created to level the playing field between the old school players who had the power 9 and those that didn't.  The upside was that they could keep moving type II forward to new material so the market was never saturate and people always needed new cards. This kept tournament play economically viable for new players (allowing an expanded market) as they could join at any point and not have to worry about catching up with collections that were massively deeper than theirs.  



Smeelbo said:


> Others, like me, believe it will be almost always be taken around 6th level, and think it may be broken.



Yup.



Smeelbo said:


> That this was their intention was immediately clear to me upon my very first reading of the PHB, when I read _Generating Ability Scores, Method 1: Standard Array_. Currently, my favorite starting array is 16, 16, 12, 12, 10, 8, and I sure hope 16s are playable.



16's are probably the most common primary stat, then coupled with a race that enhances primary stat for a cheap 18.  I prefer, 16, 14, 13, 13, 12, 8, but it's similar and depends on where your second +2 winds up.



KarinsDad said:


> I think the problem being addressed is not really a significant problem.



pretty good point, the 10% slide is not totally broken but this fails to address that N+7 monsters are part of the game.  when you're 21st level you'll potentially be swinging at 41-44AC with only a +5 weapon, +6 stat, +10 level, +3 prof.  +24 vs 42 AC is not promising.  Suddenly that +2 is a lot more important.  

The red dragon could be on the table for 26th level pc's  

The reality of the math is not seen by anecdotally picking a level for the monsters and a level for the pc's.  The reality is to read the rules for monster generation.  *+1 to each defense per level. expressed as X+level pg 184 of the dmg*  It's right there in black and white.  More monsters will come down the road.  They will be roughly based upon this model. If you're not getting +1 ATT per level from stats, magic, levels, you're falling behind plain and simple.  Since monster hit points are getting larger proportionally as well, hitting 15% less often might add up to a lot more rounds of combat and certainly greater chance of TPK (as well as grindspace issues)



KarinsDad said:


> I think the problem that the feat is trying to fix is somewhat illusory. Epic PCs should have so many different resources and options that they can make up for 40% range chances to hit.



A lot of the resources and options they have are already being factored in.  More options for what kind of attack and more damage from those attacks, sure, but the attacks still need to hit.  yes against the bbeg you need to work to get penalties on him or gain flanking (by definition the solos are suffering from limited actions per turn compared to mobs and more injured by debilitating effects)



KarinsDad said:


> I also think that DMs can be lured into the concept of throwing monsters 2+ levels higher at the PCs at lower levels and then suddenly realizing that as the range gets narrower at the top, the game changes a bit and requires not so many encounters that are levels tougher than the PCs. DMs might also throw a few lesser foes in with solos more often at lower levels. This probably should not be done at the highest levels. These type of DM habits sound more like the real culprit here.



This is trying to sweep the math problem under the rug and blame encounter design in it's stead.  DnD is a very very stale game if every encounter is X number of level N monsters where X is the party size and N is the party level.  One of this designs most elegant features is the encounter design methodology.  The ranges of levels both for overall encounter and individual threats coupled with the exp budget is a masterful piece of work.  Anyone who has ever designed a game or worked on balancing games, can see the genius in the system.  It gives the widest possible range for DM's to be creative and unique with while still preserving balance.  This allows for encounters with a lot of texture/flavor/granularity.   



KarinsDad said:


> Expertise will probably be disallowed in our game.



The designers have basically admitted that there's a gap in their math.  The players have known this for a while, you're free to ban anything you like in your game but suggesting the problem isn't real is plainly false.


----------



## KarinsDad

AngryPurpleCyclops said:


> The designers have basically admitted that there's a gap in their math.  The players have known this for a while, you're free to ban anything you like in your game but suggesting the problem isn't real is plainly false.




Prove it. Which designer might that be?

I posted the monsters. I posted the fact that 16 stat starting PCs have a 45% chance against same level monsters without synergies. I posted several different ways PCs can gain synergy and improve their odds.

You posted rhetoric.

You are arguing to argue here. The math is solid, straight out of the PHB and Monster Manual.

Yours is a "player entitlement" argument. If a PC has a 60% chance to hit at first level, they should have the same chance at 30th level.

Nonsense. A 30th PC has many magical items and powers and feats that he did not have at 1st level. The synergy of multiple 30th level PCs is much greater than multiple 1st level PCs. It's a slightly different game with extremely different tactics at level 30 because of the additional plethora of options.


If the 30th level Orb Wizard gets lucky, he locks down the Solo monster for a significant portion of the rest of the encounter. The math states that he SHOULD hit less often because his control effects are so much more powerful.

The designers would be total morons to give the same 60% chance to hit at 30th level that they gave at 1st level. Just because one designer added a bad feat to PHB II does not mean that all of the designers are that stupid.


----------



## Goumindong

KarinsDad said:


> Prove it. Which designer might that be?




The ones that OK'ed the expertise feats. There is no other reason to O.K. these feats. If they're not meant to be stealth errata then they're blatantly overpowered. If 45% is supposed to be your base hit rate at Epic then a single feat giving you a 60% hit rate is overpowered. Its that simple.



> I posted the monsters. I posted the fact that 16 stat starting PCs have a 45% chance against same level monsters without synergies. I posted several different ways PCs can gain synergy and improve their odds.



Same level monsters at a single level are not a representative sample of the base. The average hit chance changes from what is is in heroic to paragon to epic tier. This was the math he was explaining.

As well: Synergies typically require you to hit first, or are a limited resource. When you run out you run into a lot of problems. Enemies at higher levels have higher amounts of hit points and can absorb more punishment than they can relatively at low levels. An enemy might die in 3-4 average hits at low levels but there is no way that will happen in Epic. 



> Yours is a "player entitlement" argument. If a PC has a 60% chance to hit at first level, they should have the same chance at 30th level.



No, its not. Its a "The game will behave better in this manner" issue. 


> Nonsense. A 30th PC has many magical items and powers and feats that he did not have at 1st level. The synergy of multiple 30th level PCs is much greater than multiple 1st level PCs. It's a slightly different game with extremely different tactics at level 30 because of the additional plethora of options.



It is, for about half of the encounter, then you're stuck drudging through hit points. There are some ways around this but it requires a lot of ability management from players both in the character creation phase and the daily power use phase. Basically you need everyone to build characters around damage enhancing stances and to use one stance per encounter to keep DPR up. 

Ideally, these damage enhancing powers would not be so much better than the burst damage powers, but due to the longevity needed to succeed in epic and paragon play the other powers simply do not compare.




> If the 30th level Orb Wizard gets lucky, he locks down the Solo monster for a significant portion of the rest of the encounter. The math states that he SHOULD hit less often because his control effects are so much more powerful.



No, it doesn't. Wizards trade damage for control with the majority of their powers being d6 and low die count. They suffer no penalty to hit compared to their arcane equivalents. (unless you coun't prime shot on the warlock).

edit2: Also, since wand wizards exist and can get significant bonuses to hit to change one miss to a hit per encounter, it could just as well be said that they are designed to hit more often than others(if you're apologizing for orb specifically then we can whip out second implement since the orb ability is not dependent on hitting with the orb)




> The designers would be total morons to give the same 60% chance to hit at 30th level that they gave at 1st level. Just because one designer added a bad feat to PHB II does not mean that all of the designers are that stupid.



You're now making the same argument you railed against earlier. You make an argument to a point then claim that the designers must also know this fact. And because of that, you reach a conclusion about the design intent.

This is a fair argument, so long as the "fact" is indeed a fact. E.G. "Gravity pulls things towards the earth, the designers of cannonballs know this and so the claim that cannon balls were designed to fly is spurious" Is a valid argument. But "Car's can fly and so the designers of cars clearly intended you to drive them off cliffs" is not since cars can't fly. 

In the end, it all comes down to how well you can prove your point against how well he can prove his.

Edit: In the same breath you're saying that "expertise is not a problem" and saying that "the designers must be idiots if they gave people the same to hit at level 1 as they did at level 30" ignoring the fact that expertise does just that at the cost of a single feat

Having played some higher level games(as both a DM and a player) i've found both that "well specialized groups do not need much coaxing to beat high level encounters", but i have also found that "it takes a long time to beat encounters and a majority of that time is time where the encounter has already been 'won', but you're just grinding through enemy hit points."

Granted, the real test will be how it plays out when my current group(level 8, just finished Den of the Destroyer on the SoW path) gets up to paragon and Epic tiers, but i don't think it will play much differently.


----------



## Elric

Regicide said:


> Swordmaster DPR: 21st - 168.35 - Burst: Infinite - Wizards Community




Whether a build has an expected damage value of infinity isn't actually particularly relevant.  The idea is that if one attack by you on average leads to >=1 additional attack, which has the same properties of generating additional attacks as the original attack, then your expected damage is infinite.  

This is quite different from a build that always does an infinite amount of damage.  This is quite similar to the St. Petersburg paradox.  The probability of doing 3000+ damage is driving the infinite expected damage calculation, but such large amounts of damage are never relevant.  

So a probability distribution of the damage that you do is more relevant for these characters.  Two characters might both have infinite expected damage due to on average unending sequences of attacks, but if one character gets that because half of the time when he attacks he gets 2 extra attacks, and another character gets that because 1/20 of the time when he attacks, he gets 20 extra attacks, the first character is much, much stronger.  The second character is essentially an ordinary character who auto-kills 1/20 of the time; extremely powerful, but not so strong that only another "infinite" build could be its equal.  If the first build got 2 extra attacks 45% of the time it would no longer do infinite expected damage, but it would still be the stronger build.


----------



## AngryPurpleCyclops

KarinsDad said:


> Prove it. Which designer might that be?



LOL.  People have been arguing there's a slippage in the math of 1 per tier for 6 months and now there's a feat that compensates by exactly that amount and is obviously so grossly overpowered in comparison to other feats that you're going to ban it but you can't interpolate that this is the fix?  Ok, I can't teach a rock to sing either.  This is my opinion.  Totally substantiated by the math but I'll accept that you view it as my opinion.



KarinsDad said:


> I posted the monsters. I posted the fact that 16 stat starting PCs have a 45% chance against same level monsters without synergies. I posted several different ways PCs can gain synergy and improve their odds.



Um, define synergies.  CA?  That's part of the game at every level.  If you hit on an 8 at 1st level and hit on an 11 at 25th level you can't say CA makes up for this because CA was available at 1st level also.



KarinsDad said:


> You posted rhetoric.



I posted the exact mechanic for creating monsters.  level + 16 AC for soldiers being an example.  *every* defense for *every* monster is based upon some number + level.  That means 1 per level in case your math challenged.  Hardly rhetoric, it's the actual design mechanic used in building monsters. Obviously you can adjust things a little for flavor or to add a strength or a weakness or to offset some other capability but none the less this is the frame work for ALL monsters even if you feel the authors were lying.    



KarinsDad said:


> You are arguing to argue here. The math is solid, straight out of the PHB and Monster Manual.



this is you attacking me again.  You're mistaken on both counts.  You posted monsters from the book, I posted the actual formula.  Yours is anecdotal in that there are few monsters at 28th or higher level.  Yours is also anecdotal in that you're talking about 1 level and I'm giving you the Math for all of them.  If you pick one level as an example of all levels you always make mistakes.  You of course won't agree to that because you don't understand distributed probability and you're pretty much incapable of admitting you're ever mistaken.   4 out of 17 level one monsters are minions, can I conclude that 23% of monsters are minions?  No because the population sample is small and the cross section is weighted poorly. 



KarinsDad said:


> Yours is a "player entitlement" argument. If a PC has a 60% chance to hit at first level, they should have the same chance at 30th level.



I feel no sense of player entitlement, this is a silver bullet catch phrase you use to disparage anyone who has a different perspective than your own.  Yours is a poorly thought out argument that displays an utter lack of understanding of play balance or game design.



KarinsDad said:


> Nonsense. A 30th PC has many magical items and powers and feats that he did not have at 1st level. The synergy of multiple 30th level PCs is much greater than multiple 1st level PCs. It's a slightly different game with extremely different tactics at level 30 because of the additional plethora of options.



Pretty rhetorical and totally wrong.  The pc's number of options and power of equipment has scaled with level but so has their adversaries.  You think the pc's have gained an advantage because you have a nearly fascist need to control the game down to th tiniest detail but the monsters have scaled in a pretty elegant design that tries pretty effectively to maintain balance across 30 levels with one system.  Now despite all evidence to the contrary your ego has led you to believe that you see a flaw in the designers and nearly everyone elses logic.  You're the ONE person with the right answer.  

The "illusion" you call it.  It's mathematically there even if you deny it.  You now try to conjure up a reason that the fact is illusory and introduce the buzzword "synergies".  There are lots of ways to get bonuses to hit.  There are equally as many ways to get penalties.  The foes you face at every level are designed to have powers that are roughly equal to the pc's, thereby creating their own synergies.  

The reason the fact that the math slipped matters is not because of entitlement it's because of design and balance.  It was meant to be that way they just made a mistake.  They obviously know it or this feat wouldn't exist, there's really no other logical reason to explain a feat so obviously better than so many others. 


KarinsDad said:


> If the 30th level Orb Wizard gets lucky, he locks down the Solo monster for a significant portion of the rest of the encounter. The math states that he SHOULD hit less often because his control effects are so much more powerful.



The math states nothing of the sort.  Where does it state this?  In any event, you're joking right?  As evidence to support your laughable supposition you bring up one of the most controversial and likely broken parts of the game.  



KarinsDad said:


> The designers would be total morons to give the same 60% chance to hit at 30th level that they gave at 1st level. Just because one designer added a bad feat to PHB II does not mean that all of the designers are that stupid.



Now everyone that disagrees with you is stupid... and only one designer had his hand on the most powerful feat yet introduced?  No one else noticed that this was +3 ATT at level 25?  One guy slipped it in?  really?  and Bill Clinton didn't inhale right?  

I notice once again you chose not to discuss how your theory doesn't work for a level 24 party vs a level 27 green dragon.  Hard to account for that with your "synergy" theory.  You've discarded the feat the professional game designers introduced to fix the problem so that the game remains balanced and blame this on entitlement but at level 1 pc's can handle a dragon above their level, apparently you're ok with an encounter the dmg says pc's should be able to handle and totally inline with the encounter design charts is now almost unwinable?


----------



## Eldorian

Elric said:


> Whether a build has an expected damage value of infinity isn't actually particularly relevant.  The idea is that if one attack by you on average leads to >=1 additional attack, which has the same properties of generating additional attacks as the original attack, then your expected damage is infinite.
> 
> This is quite different from a build that always does an infinite amount of damage.  This is quite similar to the St. Petersburg paradox.  The probability of doing 3000+ damage is driving the infinite expected damage calculation, but such large amounts of damage are never relevant.
> 
> So a probability distribution of the damage that you do is more relevant for these characters.  Two characters might both have infinite expected damage due to on average unending sequences of attacks, but if one character gets that because half of the time when he attacks he gets 2 extra attacks, and another character gets that because 1/20 of the time when he attacks, he gets 20 extra attacks, the first character is much, much stronger.  The second character is essentially an ordinary character who auto-kills 1/20 of the time; extremely powerful, but not so strong that only another "infinite" build could be its equal.  If the first build got 2 extra attacks 45% of the time it would no longer do infinite expected damage, but it would still be the stronger build.




Best post in the thread.


----------



## KarinsDad

Goumindong said:


> As well: Synergies typically require you to hit first, or are a limited resource. When you run out you run into a lot of problems.




We are discussing synergies that give a bonus to hit, not any other types of synergies.

Are you claiming that 30th level groups have the same number of these types of synergies as 1st level groups?

Are you claiming that 30th level groups have the same to hit boost of these types of synergies as 1st level groups?

There are 17 powers in the PHB that give a bonus to an attack roll. Most of those are not available at level one.

Most prestige classes have a way to increase their chance to hit. Sure, many of those are limited, but they do exist.

There are dozens and dozens of powers in the PHB that shift allies or foes or knock foes prone that increase the frequency of Combat Advantage alone. High level PCs can get Combat Advantage on a significantly higher percentage of attacks.

There are higher level abilities that give an increase in the number of action points. That equates to an increase in the number of PC attacks.

There are higher level abilities that allow for an attack re-roll. That equates to an increase in the number of successful PC attacks.


There is no doubt about it. The chance to hit decreases over 29 levels compared to the defenses: stat increase (4) + magic (6) + 15 < 29. But, it is only true that this is a serious problem if one ignores the additional to hit synergies gained over those levels.

Nobody is disputing the decrease change in to hit math here, it is a matter of disputing the frequency of higher level to hit synergies. A +3 to hit boost at higher level breaks the math a lot here: stat increase (4) + magic (6) + 15 + 3 is still < 29, but it is only less than it by one. There are a many ways to get synergy boosts >=1 at high levels that do not exist at low level.


A PC minmaxed a bit (even without Expertise) for to hit can get his same level chance to hit into the 60% to 70% range at high level (20 starting stat, Kensai, Demigod, Fighter class, etc. is +5 greater than the example I gave above and takes that same level example to 70% hit chance). Expertise takes such a PC consistently into the 75+% to 85% range for same level opponents. That's not balanced either.

And, the fact that people ignore that many higher level foes are solos blows me away. Sure, the NPC might get as many as 3 or even 4 attacks in, but the PCs at those levels can get 5 to 10 attacks in depending on situation. With the number of additional conditions that can occur on a PC attack, the odds are definitely in the favor of the PCs.

PS. Search the web for people who have played at high level. The general consensus that I have heard so far is that high level is fairly easy. There are just too many ways to pound enemies and assist allies, keeping the action economy in favor of the PCs.


----------



## keterys

Most of the stuff I've seen has been theoretical stuff that wouldn't happen in games I play or DM, so it's been pretty limited use... y'know, here's my level 30 guy breaking demigod to use a power twelve times to bla bla or Okay, so we're fighting Orcus, no, wait, two Orcus, and we guarantee we go first, and see, we hit them with a fear-based stun (save ends) power that autohits and they have a -15 to saves so only have a 5% chance to break out, except they need to roll twice cause of the Starlock so it's actually .25% chance and then they just explode.

The stuff I've seen from people who appeared to _actually_ be playing the game without trying to break it were a lot fewer and far between and ran the gamut.


----------



## Aust Diamondew

I think the real problem with this feat, as has been said, is that it can increase the difference between optimal and suboptimal builds.  Making it necessary for characters with suboptimal builds to take if the characters with optimal builds take it.

For instance a guy with a 16 strength +2 proficiency bonus is in a party with a guy who has 20 strenght, +3 proficiency bonus.
Guy A has an attack bonus of +5, guy B has an attack bonus of +8.
Assuming they have equal enhancement bonuses and they both increase strenght when possible and that neither take paragon paths boosting attack (all reasonable assumptions) then this diffference in attacks will never exceed +3.


If the expertise feat is introduced to the game and the optimizer (B) takes it then at level 25 this attack difference will be +6, instead of +3.
Note guy B is not super optimized (no kensai paragon path, not a demigod etc).  But with this feat his attack bonuses reach that level of optimization, with it and those things he far out strips guy A.

Guy A needs to take the feat to remain effective (becuase being 6-9 points behind in attack bonus is ineffective).


----------



## 77IM

If you want to get non-theoretical, _lead the attack_ is a warlord daily 1 that, if it hits, can radically change the expected outcome of a solo encounter.  I've seen it happen many times (and I weep for my poor solos ).

Granted, that's just one power, and it's a daily, and it has to hit first, and it's really only good against solos and tough elites... but it's level 1.  If there's crazy stuff like that at level 1, I have no problem believing that there is crazier stuff by level 30.

 -- 77IM


----------



## RefinedBean

77IM said:


> _lead the attack_




Sweet mercy, I love that power.  I want to marry it.


----------



## 77IM

Aust Diamondew said:


> Guy A needs to take the feat to remain effective (becuase being 6-9 points behind in attack bonus is ineffective).



The counterargument to this, is that Guy A can take some other feat instead, in order to become just as effective, but in some other fashion.

But I have yet to see the feat that equals Expertise in effectiveness, at any level.  There are some that come close (Weapon Proficiency with a superior weapon, certain multiclass feats; the Mastery feats and defense feats are certainly nice), but these all stack with Expertise, and PCs have enough feat slots left over to take Expertise.  So, really, I would contend that Expertise is maybe balanced for levels 1-6 when you don't have enough feat slots to get both Expertise plus the other feats that are crucial to your concept (say, power swap feats, TWF, skill training, that sort of thing).

The other counterargument I'm hearing is that it's OK for Guy A and Guy B to be imbalanced because not everyone values character effectiveness and some people prefer to build characters based on role-playing even at the expense of effectiveness.  But this argument either admits that Expertise is imbalanced, or claims that the question of its balance is irrelevant; it's not actually an argument that the feat is balanced.

 -- 77IM


----------



## gribble

77IM said:


> If there's crazy stuff like that at level 1, I have no problem believing that there is crazier stuff by level 30.



Don't be so sure. My lvl 17 taclord still has this power. He's swapped out higher level dailies and kept his first level one. With a high Int bonus, it's *just that good*.


----------



## KarinsDad

77IM said:


> If you want to get non-theoretical, _lead the attack_ is a warlord daily 1 that, if it hits, can radically change the expected outcome of a solo encounter.  I've seen it happen many times (and I weep for my poor solos ).




But there are people that will argue that Lead the Attack should hit 60% of the time at 30th level, just like it does at 1st level.

Otherwise, why would WotC have added Expertise to PHB II? Obviously that same frequency of to hit is needed, or the designers would not have added it. 

argumentum ad verecundiam


----------



## gribble

tiornys said:


> The MW implementation is much better than the Feat implementation, but it's still flawed in a couple of ways when compared to the flat background bonus or reduced monster defenses fixes.



Good points. Where can I subscribe to your newsletter?


I don't like the "reduce monster defenses" errata, but having seen the to-hit problems firsthand in my Paragon game (not even epic yet!), I think something has to be done. Maybe the static boosts...


----------



## LuckyAdrastus

Eldorian said:


> Elric said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether a build has an expected damage value of infinity isn't actually particularly relevant.  The idea is that if one attack by you on average leads to >=1 additional attack, which has the same properties of generating additional attacks as the original attack, then your expected damage is infinite.
> 
> This is quite different from a build that always does an infinite amount of damage.  This is quite similar to the St. Petersburg paradox.  The probability of doing 3000+ damage is driving the infinite expected damage calculation, but such large amounts of damage are never relevant.
> 
> So a probability distribution of the damage that you do is more relevant for these characters.  Two characters might both have infinite expected damage due to on average unending sequences of attacks, but if one character gets that because half of the time when he attacks he gets 2 extra attacks, and another character gets that because 1/20 of the time when he attacks, he gets 20 extra attacks, the first character is much, much stronger.  The second character is essentially an ordinary character who auto-kills 1/20 of the time; extremely powerful, but not so strong that only another "infinite" build could be its equal.  If the first build got 2 extra attacks 45% of the time it would no longer do infinite expected damage, but it would still be the stronger build.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Best post in the thread.
Click to expand...



Second best post in the thread.


----------



## WalterKovacs

It's possible to currently make up the gap in the lag that creates the match problem that makes expertise necessary, for example a fighter with Kensei paragon path and demi-god. That gets you +3 right there over say a paladin with the same strength and weapon type. However, instead of requiring specific class, paragon path and epic destiny, you get it all in a single feat.


----------



## AngryPurpleCyclops

KarinsDad said:


> We are discussing synergies that give a bonus to hit, not any other types of synergies.



actually this is you attempting to hijack the thread and pigeonhole it in some tangential space where you can rant about your version of the "real math".



KarinsDad said:


> Are you claiming that 30th level groups have the same number of these types of synergies as 1st level groups?



are you claiming it's not more likely that a 30th level encounter will put debilitating effects on the pc's that block them from gaining use of said synergies?



KarinsDad said:


> Are you claiming that 30th level groups have the same to hit boost of these types of synergies as 1st level groups?



ae you ignoring that getting these synergies into play will be much harder vs teleporting, flying, insubstantial creatures with action points and a host of debilitating effects?  



KarinsDad said:


> There are 17 powers in the PHB that give a bonus to an attack roll. Most of those are not available at level one.



 and this is relevant how?  how many powers are there on monsters that cause penalties to attack? how many are available at level 1?



KarinsDad said:


> Most prestige classes have a way to increase their chance to hit. Sure, many of those are limited, but they do exist.



I assume you mean paragon paths not prestige classes.  Are you proposing that you must take these in order to be effective?  



KarinsDad said:


> There are dozens and dozens of powers in the PHB that shift allies or foes or knock foes prone that increase the frequency of Combat Advantage alone. High level PCs can get Combat Advantage on a significantly higher percentage of attacks.



so can high level monsters.  In fact I would argue it's massively harder to gain combat advantage repeatedly against a lot of the high level monsters because they liberally hand out daze and stun effects and they have powerful move abilities that let them avoid being out maneuvered.  



KarinsDad said:


> There are higher level abilities that give an increase in the number of action points. That equates to an increase in the number of PC attacks.



which is directly offset by the increase in similar abilities among high level monsters.  Above a certain level the proportion of monsters that have repeated ways to attack more than one pc per round sky rockets.  



KarinsDad said:


> There are higher level abilities that allow for an attack re-roll. That equates to an increase in the number of successful PC attacks.



Everything you're saying would be fine if the party continued to fight gobins and orcs but they move on to giants, devils, dragons and orcus. The game scales nicely if you're paying attention.  you seem to believe that only the pc's capabilities get better.  take a look at all the aura's and debilitating effects high level creatures have.  They almost all have a way to push, pull, knock prone, daze, stun, immobilize or add ongoing dmg.  

Take a look at level 25 death knight. has an aura 10 that gives undead +2 to ATT.  This is pretty synergistic and requires no powers.  He also has a minor challenge that's better than any challenge pc's get.  He's got a burst two power that does 41 avg dmg and pumps undead dmg by 7 (including his own) for a turn and it's rechargeable.  He can push a defender 5 squares and prevent him approaching him even while marking you in a way that makes you suffer greatly in attacking others.  He has attacks that get pumped by adjacent allies (the same allies he's pumping with +2 ATT and +7 dmg).  what low level creature matches this for synergies?  I didn't look around, I just picked one monster at level 25.  I'm sure there are some with more powers and some with less but the point being bad guys powers scale too.



KarinsDad said:


> There is no doubt about it. The chance to hit decreases over 29 levels compared to the defenses: stat increase (4) + magic (6) + 15 < 29. But, it is only true that this is a serious problem if one ignores the additional to hit synergies gained over those levels.



It is a serious problem since the game is based upon this not happening and th feat widens the potential gap between optimized and non optimized characters.  You put your blinders on here and steam roll forward.

Your position is pretty much this: 
PC's should have a decreasing ability to hit because they have more powers/options/synergies. 
Shouldn't the corallary be:
Monsters should have a decreasing chance to hit because they have more powers/options/synergies?



KarinsDad said:


> Nobody is disputing the decrease change in to hit math here, it is a matter of disputing the frequency of higher level to hit synergies. A +3 to hit boost at higher level breaks the math a lot here: stat increase (4) + magic (6) + 15 + 3 is still < 29, but it is only less than it by one. There are a many ways to get synergy boosts >=1 at high levels that do not exist at low level.



 FOR BOTH TEAMS.



KarinsDad said:


> A PC minmaxed a bit (even without Expertise) for to hit can get his same level chance to hit into the 60% to 70% range at high level (20 starting stat, Kensai, Demigod, Fighter class, etc. is +5 greater than the example I gave above and takes that same level example to 70% hit chance). Expertise takes such a PC consistently into the 75+% to 85% range for same level opponents. That's not balanced either.



First no pc can reach 85% hit chance consistently.  Second 4e is not solely about same level encounters.  There are also a lot of creatures that can work that low will defense fighter into a puddle of goo.  



KarinsDad said:


> And, the fact that people ignore that many higher level foes are solos blows me away. Sure, the NPC might get as many as 3 or even 4 attacks in, but the PCs at those levels can get 5 to 10 attacks in depending on situation. With the number of additional conditions that can occur on a PC attack, the odds are definitely in the favor of the PCs.



This speaks to encounter design, and future releases of monster manuals.



KarinsDad said:


> PS. Search the web for people who have played at high level. The general consensus that I have heard so far is that high level is fairly easy. There are just too many ways to pound enemies and assist allies, keeping the action economy in favor of the PCs.



high level dnd has always been problematic.  A lot of this is because frequently the people who love playing at the top levels are munchkins with a soft dm.  DnD loses some or all of it's appeal for a lot of players above mid levels.  I'm definitely in that camp.  There are other problems beyond this.  High level campaigns sometimes start at mid to low high level (i.e. build a 18th level pc and begin adventuring) this usually means the pc's got to spend X number of gold on magic items that exactly fit their optimization model.  No found treasures that work well but aren't the 100% best choice for that build.  You're also ignoring the fact that a lot of players argue that combats are pitifully easy at low levels too.  You already repeatedly ignored the fact that because of the current math there are a lot of almost unwinable encounters out there that include an n+6 monster or an n+3 solo.  you have no answer for this other than to cry that the encounter design is flawed.  which is your argument for mostly everything "it doesn't match/support my position, therefore the designer is stupid or the rule is flawed/broken"



keterys said:


> The stuff I've seen from people who appeared to _actually_ be playing the game without trying to break it were a lot fewer and far between and ran the gamut.



great point.



Aust Diamondew said:


> Assuming they have equal enhancement bonuses and they both increase strenght when possible and that neither take paragon paths boosting attack (all reasonable assumptions) then this diffference in attacks will never exceed +3.



 which is already problematic but not broken.



Aust Diamondew said:


> If the expertise feat is introduced to the game and the optimizer (B) takes it then at level 25 this attack difference will be +6, instead of +3.



which really is the point of this thread.  Someone will take this making it mandatory for everyone to take it.  



77IM said:


> If you want to get non-theoretical, _lead the attack_ is a warlord daily 1 that, if it hits, can radically change the expected outcome of a solo encounter.  I've seen it happen many times (and I weep for my poor solos ).



hardly broken.  almost every level 1 daily has encounter changing possibilities. sphere and armor of ag "win" a lot more encounters than lead the attack.  Admittedly it's awesome if it hits if you're facing a solo.  How often is that?  If 20% of encounters are solo's it's awesome about 10% of the time. My experience is that encounters are about 10% solos.  



Aust Diamondew said:


> Granted, that's just one power, and it's a daily, and it has to hit first, and it's really only good against solos and tough elites... but it's level 1.  If there's crazy stuff like that at level 1, I have no problem believing that there is crazier stuff by level 30.
> 
> -- 77IM



But there's crazier stuff for the monsters too.  

Ok, I went and made a hard encounter for a level 22 party (it's a level 25 encounter 35,500 exp).  There aren't a lot of choices yet in the standard monster so thematically I wouldn't use this encounter as is, I would modify the creatures to fit more elegantly together (i.e. make them all fire creatures instead of three somewhat disparate groups.) but concentrate on the stats/abilities not the theme issue.  
Doresain, the Ghoul King Level 27 Elite Skirmisher (22,000 exp) 
Fire Archon Ash Disciple Level 20 Artillery x 3 (8400 exp 2800 each)
Earthwind Ravager Level 23 controller (5100 exp)
so we have an L+5 BBEG, an L+1 controller and 3 L-2 artillery, not exactly terrifying encounter wise, there's a template that calls for 3 N+2's and 2 N+4's on page 59 of the dmg so this seems right inline with the design concept.

lets take a look at how their synergies might compile and you can decide if epic is too easy... 
keep in mind an average level 22 defense value for pc's is in the 36-37 AC 30-33 for NAD's range. ATT values will likely be in the +22 range +25 vs AC.  
First if all the creatures are fire creatures, the 3 artillery have teleport 20 as a move action as long as they end up within 3 of another fire creature.  Makes pinning them down pretty tough.  They can run the party melee types around in circles.  Doresain has a std action that lets him basically run through the entire party (at least 4-5 targets) making a +30 vs AC attack that inflicts slow sv ends (this should hit 3-4 pc's) and it's rechargeable.  It does 15 avg dmg.  he can also teleport 12 and is speed 8 so even without the slow effects it's difficult to pin these guys down.  his defenses are very formidable all in the 41 to 43 range except will38.  His normal attacks are not particularly powerful but he has 500+ HP and the party will have trouble hitting him.  He can recharge the frenzy attack and until then he will still melee pretty successfully with a +32 vs AC attack that does weak damage but 10 ongoing.

Meanwhile the ravager (firewind ravager after modifications) has a ranged 5 attack that is sustain minor and hits at +26 vs fort.  This is an at will that once it hits will lock down one pc with immobilize for the price of the ravagers minor.  It does 4d8 on the attack and 2d8 on the minor with no attack roll and no save to escape.  If this is dropped on a melee focused pc the only way to get him out is via teleport or pushing the ravager beyond 5 squares (he'll then try and hit him again and lock him down some more) He's also got a rechargeable close blast 3 that inflicts stun and a respectable 26 avg dmg and his regular attack is a +26 vs fort reach two attack that does 19. he has 200+hps.  The artillery while having the lowest chance to hit (will benefit from creatures being stunned for ca) are very hard to catch and hurt.  Their range coupled with speed 8 and teleport 20 will allow them to almost invariably choose the range at which the combat takes place.  They have lots of ongoing damage effects and bursts and blasts which inflict ongoing 5 or 10 fire or blindness.  They all have resistances and immunities and only doresian has a vulnerability which I would likely switch to cold instead of radiant when I changed the flavor.  

I find it hard to believe a decent dm can't challenge epic characters.  I would love to hear from a DM who used this encounter vs 5 level 22 pc's and let me know how it works.  

If parties aren't challenged at epic I truly suspect a lot of that has to do with encounter design and poor DM'ing.


----------



## KarinsDad

AngryPurpleCyclops said:


> But there's crazier stuff for the monsters too.
> 
> Ok, I went and made a hard encounter for a level 22 party (it's a level 25 encounter 35,500 exp).  There aren't a lot of choices yet in the standard monster so thematically I wouldn't use this encounter as is, I would modify the creatures to fit more elegantly together (i.e. make them all fire creatures instead of three somewhat disparate groups.) but concentrate on the stats/abilities not the theme issue.
> Doresain, the Ghoul King Level 27 Elite Skirmisher (22,000 exp)
> Fire Archon Ash Disciple Level 20 Artillery x 3 (8400 exp 2800 each)
> Earthwind Ravager Level 23 controller (5100 exp)
> so we have an L+5 BBEG, an L+1 controller and 3 L-2 artillery, not exactly terrifying encounter wise, there's a template that calls for 3 N+2's and 2 N+4's on page 59 of the dmg so this seems right inline with the design concept.
> 
> lets take a look at how their synergies might compile and you can decide if epic is too easy...
> keep in mind an average level 22 defense value for pc's is in the 36-37 AC 30-33 for NAD's range. ATT values will likely be in the +22 range +25 vs AC.
> First if all the creatures are fire creatures, the 3 artillery have teleport 20 as a move action as long as they end up within 3 of another fire creature.  Makes pinning them down pretty tough.  They can run the party melee types around in circles.  Doresain has a std action that lets him basically run through the entire party (at least 4-5 targets) making a +30 vs AC attack that inflicts slow sv ends (this should hit 3-4 pc's) and it's rechargeable.  It does 15 avg dmg.  he can also teleport 12 and is speed 8 so even without the slow effects it's difficult to pin these guys down.  his defenses are very formidable all in the 41 to 43 range except will38.  His normal attacks are not particularly powerful but he has 500+ HP and the party will have trouble hitting him.  He can recharge the frenzy attack and until then he will still melee pretty successfully with a +32 vs AC attack that does weak damage but 10 ongoing.
> 
> Meanwhile the ravager (firewind ravager after modifications) has a ranged 5 attack that is sustain minor and hits at +26 vs fort.  This is an at will that once it hits will lock down one pc with immobilize for the price of the ravagers minor.  It does 4d8 on the attack and 2d8 on the minor with no attack roll and no save to escape.  If this is dropped on a melee focused pc the only way to get him out is via teleport or pushing the ravager beyond 5 squares (he'll then try and hit him again and lock him down some more) He's also got a rechargeable close blast 3 that inflicts stun and a respectable 26 avg dmg and his regular attack is a +26 vs fort reach two attack that does 19. he has 200+hps.  The artillery while having the lowest chance to hit (will benefit from creatures being stunned for ca) are very hard to catch and hurt.  Their range coupled with speed 8 and teleport 20 will allow them to almost invariably choose the range at which the combat takes place.  They have lots of ongoing damage effects and bursts and blasts which inflict ongoing 5 or 10 fire or blindness.  They all have resistances and immunities and only doresian has a vulnerability which I would likely switch to cold instead of radiant when I changed the flavor.
> 
> I find it hard to believe a decent dm can't challenge epic characters.  I would love to hear from a DM who used this encounter vs 5 level 22 pc's and let me know how it works.
> 
> If parties aren't challenged at epic I truly suspect a lot of that has to do with encounter design and poor DM'ing.




I'm not seeing it.

Doresain's Ravenous Frenzy does 14.5 points of damage and slows the hit PCs and recharges on a 6. Not game breaking. It's the equivalent of a minor area effect at that level where PCs have >140 hit points and heals out the ying yang. The slow effect is annoying, but PCs that use weapons can still Charge 4 squares when slowed or even use ranged attacks. The heaviest XP monster in the group (more than 60%) does very little damage and very little control. It just has high defenses and hit points, so the PCs save him for last.

The Ravager is the damage and control threat (which a Monster Knowledge check should ascertain). He only has 219 hit points. Concentrated fire on him for about 3 rounds or so by 3 or 4 PCs should take him out (the opposite does not work for the monsters since the PCs should have many different ways to heal).

Follow that up by wiping out the Disciples. Easy to hit, low hit points.

Plus, your entire assumption here is a large space so that the Ash Disciples can use their area effects from longer range. That just means that the PCs can spread out so that few of them are hit in any given area effect.

This is not super easy, but it's not overwhelming either. Players could concentrate on the Doresain right away, but typically action economy is more important than taking out the BBEG right away.

We are not gaming this weekend, but one of the gamers is still coming over. Maybe I'll give him 5 22nd level PCs and see how it works out.


----------



## AngryPurpleCyclops

KarinsDad said:


> I'm not seeing it.



It might get very grindy because of high defenses and low dmg.  But I think the pc's will struggle.



KarinsDad said:


> We are not gaming this weekend, but one of the gamers is still coming over. Maybe I'll give him 5 22nd level PCs and see how it works out.



I would love to know how it turns out.  One player with 5 pc's is much more effective than 5 with 1 because of the coordination factor but it's still a very interesting scenario.



KarinsDad said:


> Doresain's Ravenous Frenzy does 14.5 points of damage and slows the hit PCs and recharges on a 6. Not game breaking. It's the equivalent of a minor area effect at that level where PCs have >140 hit points and heals out the ying yang. The slow effect is annoying, but PCs that use weapons can still Charge 4 squares when slowed or even use ranged attacks. The heaviest XP monster in the group (more than 60%) does very little damage and very little control. It just has high defenses and hit points, so the PCs save him for last.



I wasn't a huge fan of his limited damage capability either but I wasn't out to totally hose the pc's I was just trying to put together something challenging.  In any event his ongoing ten damage and high probability of hitting mean he'll likely do a lot of damage in small chunks.  Trading him out for a pair of level 27 standard monsters might be more threatening or more interesting the sorrowsworn reaper and sorrowsworn shadow swarm are both level 27 and change the dynamic for the same exp budget.  The sorrowsworn deathlord (level 28) is too powerful I think, he would be an L+7 monster and he has a pretty tough to deal with aura.  



KarinsDad said:


> The Ravager is the damage and control threat (which a Monster Knowledge check should ascertain). He only has 219 hit points. Concentrated fire on him for about 3 rounds or so by 3 or 4 PCs should take him out (the opposite does not work for the monsters since the PCs should have many different ways to heal).



 the pc's are going to spend a significant amount of time, stunned, blind, slowed.  It's a lot harder to run this guy down then you think.  He can totally eliminate one pc from the battle. with his whirlwind power or he can fly away.  If there's difficult terrain his flight gives him an enormous advantage.  He can also fly to an elevation where he can't be hit.  Time is on the monsters side.  



KarinsDad said:


> Follow that up by wiping out the Disciples. Easy to hit, low hit points.



You're missing the beauty of the teleport.  If you spread out the doresian moves near one squishy and then the 3 disciples teleport to the spot and pound him.  then they scatter in 4 directions while the doresian maintains contact with one or more pc's when the party tries to maintain contact with the archons they teleport back together.  If the party tries to follow one of them, he teleports to the location of another.  The parties healers are spread out and much of their healing is out of range.  if the party bunches up, you get better value when you unload the bursts and blasts.  It's a very tactical encounter and if you play the monsters to their strengths they appear to be very dangerous.  Time is on the monsters side.  Every round they can extend the combat makes it more likely that they recharge the frenzy attack and the ravagers burst attack.  I would probably try and use a large area for the combat and open with the ravager blasting the party with the buffeting blast attack, then flying 8 squares gaining altitude 7.  By extending to 3 dimensions the ravager eliminates any ranged 5 attacks (zap clerics, warlocks).  the fire archons can teleport in and drop a heap of pain on the stunned and the "fire lord (doresian) can plow through them getting 2-4 hits most likely and inflicting more effects (slow).  I might not use the AP as suggested but then again getting a stunned pc started on 10 ongoing is kind of nice.  



KarinsDad said:


> Plus, your entire assumption here is a large space so that the Ash Disciples can use their area effects from longer range. That just means that the PCs can spread out so that few of them are hit in any given area effect.



spreading out is tough for pc's.  They get beyond the reach of support and synergies.  The archons can repeatedly teleport 20 squares.  the ravager can constantly be relocating to a good spot for the archons he doesn't even have to land, he can drop down to height 3 and the archons can pop in under him and gang bang someone.  melee pc's will be highly inneffective in this encounter.  The one person who they can reliably get next to has very tough defenses.  the other 4 can repeatedly escape them after no more than a single attack.  the ravager can pin someone down almost indefinitely.  If you give these monsters the opportunity to be tactical they are very potent.  



KarinsDad said:


> This is not super easy, but it's not overwhelming either. Players could concentrate on the Doresain right away, but typically action economy is more important than taking out the BBEG right away.



I didn't mean for it to be overwhelming I meant for the pc's to be challenged.  I meant for a pc or two to be knocked unconscious at a minimum and I meant for the players to walk away from the encounter saying "wow, we're lucky we didn't get killed".  To me, that's the mark of an interesting encounter.


----------



## KarinsDad

AngryPurpleCyclops said:


> It might get very grindy because of high defenses and low dmg.  But I think the pc's will struggle.




Maybe. 



AngryPurpleCyclops said:


> I would love to know how it turns out.  One player with 5 pc's is much more effective than 5 with 1 because of the coordination factor but it's still a very interesting scenario.




It might be for people who are really into the game like many of the people on this board, but the guy (who I've Emailed about this) who might come over is an average Joe. He is more interested in character flavor and concept than powers. He doesn't post on the forums, rarely reads them, has only played a 4E Paladin to level 7 and a 4E Rogue to level 1. He's as far away from a tactician and a powergamer and a 4E expert as one gets at a table. If we do it, this encounter will probably take 3 hours or more, just because of him looking up what to do for each PC each round.



AngryPurpleCyclops said:


> I didn't mean for it to be overwhelming I meant for the pc's to be challenged.  I meant for a pc or two to be knocked unconscious at a minimum and I meant for the players to walk away from the encounter saying "wow, we're lucky we didn't get killed".  To me, that's the mark of an interesting encounter.




If he agrees to do it, we'll see.


----------



## AngryPurpleCyclops

If he doesn't, we could try and do it at some point via something like fantasy grounds.  It doesn't have to be this specific encounter in that case, since a power gamer with previous knowledge of the encounter might take advantage of the situation 

I'm interested in determining if there's really a problem at epic level or if it's more about encounter concept and soft dm'ing.


----------



## ObsidianCrane

So I go look up the Dragonborn Paladin (the level 25 Elite Soldier).

I read the powers and defences and I shrug.

I have a level 22 Sorcerer stated out, her primary attack is against Ref and is in blasts and bursts, so she will be including the Paladin in her attacks. At level 22 she has a +23 base attack without Implement Expertise (the implement version of expertise) and +24 with fire attacks, +25 if she used an at will last round. So she needs 9-11 to hit the guy with most of her attacks without any special conditions being imposed by another PC.

If she is hanging out with a Chaladin with a 24 Charisma then the Chaladin without feats has a better Divine Challenge than the Death Knight - -2 attack, and does 16 damage if you don't attack the Chaladin, and the Death Knight will take 31 damage if it ignores the mark... guess who the Death Knight will be attacking... The Chaladin at that level also has access to Corona of Radiant Brilliance, Hand of the Gods, Break the Wall (useable if someone else buff's the Paladin's attacks) and whatever else it can do.

Chuck a laser cleric in there with Firestorm (and why wouldn't you have it if you are a laser cleric?), any of the level 13 or 15 Encounters for a Wisdom Cleric.. if they are a Radiant Servant then the Death Knight and his undead budies are in for a world of pain. (And that doesn't even have to be optimised for the undead as its a good PP for laser Clerics anyway.)

Anyway the point is that "good encounter design" means more than looking at what the DMG says should be in an encounter. It means looking at what the party can do and choosing monsters accordingly.

Further working out if encoutners are to hard or whatever also means looking at more than "Character A vs Monster B" and seeing who will win. It means looking at the interaction of a whole party with the whole encounter and figuring out what will happen. 

In short game play suggests that raw maths comparison is simply not enough.

What does this have to do with the Expertise feats: it comes back to the fact that they feats are indeed really good. Definately in the top 6 mechanical feats in the game right now. But the straight, and simple math comparisons that people are using to argue that these feats are "must haves" etc are not absolutes. They are arguments based on limiting the view of the game without consideration for the effects of play.

I really hope WotC didn't add these feats because people complained that the "Math" didn't work when their comparisons are often based on either extreme situations, or overly simplified situations. (I mean put a Fighter and a Warlord in the Paladin and Cleric places and the Death Knight is far more dangerous for example, but other combinations its not such an issue (eg Bard or Shaman and Warlord). )

I don't like the feats for what they do in terms of the fact that they seem to be against WotC's claims about what they wanted feat design in 4E to be about: mainly not about widening the gap between combat optimised and non-combat optimised characters. But that said I'm also not of the opinion that they are as necassary as people want to say.


----------



## AngryPurpleCyclops

Cailte said:


> So I go look up the Dragonborn Paladin (the level 25 Elite Soldier).
> 
> I read the powers and defences and I shrug.
> 
> I have a level 22 Sorcerer stated out, her primary attack is against Ref and is in blasts and bursts, so she will be including the Paladin in her attacks. At level 22 she has a +23 base attack without Implement Expertise (the implement version of expertise) and +24 with fire attacks, +25 if she used an at will last round. So she needs 9-11 to hit the guy with most of her attacks without any special conditions being imposed by another PC.



But this is a best case pc targeting the specific weakness of that monster.  Change the sorcerer to a fighter and it's lights out.  This also disregards the fact the the death knight is a powerful creature apt to be leading other undead.  In our campaign if one pc is distinguishing themselves as the major threat in an encounter, the monsters target him in the exact same way pc's target a monster who is over performing



Cailte said:


> If she is hanging out with a Chaladin with a 24 Charisma then the Chaladin without feats has a better Divine Challenge than the Death Knight - -2 attack, and does 16 damage if you don't attack the Chaladin, and the Death Knight will take 31 damage if it ignores the mark... guess who the Death Knight will be attacking... The Chaladin at that level also has access to Corona of Radiant Brilliance, Hand of the Gods, Break the Wall (useable if someone else buff's the Paladin's attacks) and whatever else it can do.
> 
> Chuck a laser cleric in there with Firestorm (and why wouldn't you have it if you are a laser cleric?), any of the level 13 or 15 Encounters for a Wisdom Cleric.. if they are a Radiant Servant then the Death Knight and his undead budies are in for a world of pain. (And that doesn't even have to be optimised for the undead as its a good PP for laser Clerics anyway.)



 I'm ok with all this too.  If a party with a chaladin and cleric runs into undead, I expect the undead to be in huge trouble.  I would feel that the divine classes were broken if this wasn't the case.  Switch the scenario to a sorrowsworn and your average chaladin is in massive trouble.  The swarm has +30 vs reflex attack and can fly 12.  The deathlord has an aura that will enable him to mop the floor with a sorcerer or zap cleric.  He can keep most ranged attackers constantly struggling to get away from his daze and other debilitating effects like weakness and the -2 penalty on melee and ranged attacks and insubstantial ability coupled with teleport and very substantial defenses make him a serious problem.



Cailte said:


> Anyway the point is that "good encounter design" means more than looking at what the DMG says should be in an encounter. It means looking at what the party can do and choosing monsters accordingly.



 I'm ok with all this too but there's a fine line between intelligent encounter design and either designing specifically to party strengths or weaknesses.  Published encounters will neither be designed to help nor hinder any specific build.  



Cailte said:


> Further working out if encoutners are to hard or whatever also means looking at more than "Character A vs Monster B" and seeing who will win. It means looking at the interaction of a whole party with the whole encounter and figuring out what will happen.
> 
> In short game play suggests that raw maths comparison is simply not enough.



It's obviously more complex than the raw math, but the math is a great place to start.  Arguing that pc synergies outclass monster synergies just implies lazy encounter design to me.  The expectation is that N+3 encounters are hard.  If they're not hard their's something wrong with one of three things.  The game system, the encounter design or the monsters actions/DM's tactics.  It can be more than one of these combining to make something less effective than expected.   Obviously a great plan by the pc's or a particularly effective build vs encounter type might sometimes change a hard encounter into something less difficult (i.e. if you have a bunch of ranged strikers and there's lots of difficult terrain for the pc's to hide behind you have an optimum situation vs melee creatures. but the inverse should be true just as often, if the pc's are in a foggy swamp with limited visibility suddenly ranged strikers are at a disadvantage)



Cailte said:


> What does this have to do with the Expertise feats: it comes back to the fact that they feats are indeed really good. Definately in the top 6 mechanical feats in the game right now. But the straight, and simple math comparisons that people are using to argue that these feats are "must haves" etc are not absolutes. They are arguments based on limiting the view of the game without consideration for the effects of play.



 this is denying the mathematical reality of the game.  "Must have" is the wrong verbiage but "vastly superior effectiveness" is an understatement after level 15. 



Cailte said:


> I really hope WotC didn't add these feats because people complained that the "Math" didn't work when their comparisons are often based on either extreme situations, or overly simplified situations. (I mean put a Fighter and a Warlord in the Paladin and Cleric places and the Death Knight is far more dangerous for example, but other combinations its not such an issue (eg Bard or Shaman and Warlord). )



 I doubt they responded to complaints, I think if you were a fly on the wall at WotC you would find that the person who designed the scaling of the game specifically planned for the numbers to ascend symmetrically as a matter of balance.  It's a very elegant system factoring, stats + enhancements + level + feats to maintain parity.  If you take a look at the rules for adding magic items to creatures, specifically the "magic threshhold" on page 174 of the dmg you can interpolate the scaling model.  They put a lot of thought into the balance of this game with regard to combat encounters.  They keep getting better and better with each revision.  In the earliest versions the DM was somewhat on his own with regard to appropriate encounters(there was no rule for easy, normal, hard).  3.0 and 3.5 really got pretty sharp with the EL system but even this had flaws.  4e has nailed this concept down in a way that maximizes dm's range of choices while ensuring that encounters will not spiral out of control.  This is the reason for scaling defenses and attacks.  In older versions of DnD 2 monsters of a comparative level could have defense values that were miles apart.  This system has a range of about 40 for defenses where as the the thac0 system was about 20 so a difference of 6 in thac0 would be a difference of 12 in 4e. Making things like a will-o-wisp very problematic in terms of balance.  This problem is removed by the mathematical model they use in 4e.  They probably hired someone with a lot more knowledge of probability, systems and game theory or at least decided that these things needed to be part of the model.  



Cailte said:


> I don't like the feats for what they do in terms of the fact that they seem to be against WotC's claims about what they wanted feat design in 4E to be about: mainly not about widening the gap between combat optimised and non-combat optimised characters. But that said I'm also not of the opinion that they are as necassary as people want to say.



The problem is that instead of just adding errata to the level advancement table they made this a feat.  It's a horrible choice mechanically (effectively a feat tax) and they're clearly not "necessary" in a literal sense.  Obviously the DM can adjust the encounters as needed (maxing encounters at N+2 instead of N+4 and/or cutting the L+5 to L+7 monsters out of the mix at epic) but denying that this was not the intent of the design is a little silly.  The rules don't say "when you get to epic level, make the range of foes smaller because the math doesn't scale".  The rules for designing encounters remain constant.  

Bottom line: If you want to maintain the scaling model and encounter design system the correction of 1 per tier is indeed necessary.  PC's are going to struggle massively against L+6 monsters in epic.  L+6 monsters in heroic are challenging but not overwhelming, something changed between tiers since facing L+6 monsters is part of the game. Anecdotal scenarios of how some pc's can still compete with L+3 monsters isn't a valid argument to the contrary.  L+3 is not L+7 and for every situation where a pc is strong against a monster there's a monster that is too powerful for them to deal with.  The sorrowsworn level 28 leader can conceivably be in a battle with level 21 or 22 pc's.


----------



## tiornys

I've been following the discussion here and elsewhere and I haven't seen a really convincing argument supporting the idea that increased power selection compensates for the lost base to hit, nor have I seen a really convincing argument against the idea.  However, I think the following is an excellent point, and I wanted to give posters here a chance to rebut it:


DCF said:


> DnDDan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <I can't believe I'm stepping into this, but...>
> 
> The only problem with the argument is that at higher levels the additional effects of encounter/daily powers make the character more effective, overall. I agree this is a nice to have feat, not a need to have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with this statement. I do not believe that more powerful encounter/daily powers make up for reduced to hit chances. More powerful encounter/daily powers make up for stronger enemies, which require more powerful attacks to take down.
> 
> The baseline for the game is that when fighting monsters of your level you should hit a little over half the time AND it should take four hits to take out a standard monster. (One hit to take out a minion, eight to take out an elite and around 20 to take out a solo). Increasingly potent powers are designed to keep up your damage with monsters higher hp and also serve as a counter to the monster's powers which also grow in potency.
> 
> The degree to which a character's chance to hit decreases is highly significant because not all monsters are at the PCs level. Let's say the average boss has defenses 5 higher than a monster of the party's level. This could be because it's 5 levels higher, or just a few levels higher and a solo or elite monster. This means that at first level you have between a 55%-30% chance to hit. At thirtieth level you have a 35%-10% chance to hit. Basically you go from having a range of hitting monsters from one half to one third of the time to a range of hitting them one third to one tenth of the time.
> 
> No amount of power makes up for only having a 1 in 10 chance to hit an enemy, except automatic instant kills, which everyone pretty much agrees are broken anyway and those get errata'd or house ruled out pretty quick. Besides which, it simply isn't fun to play in a game where you only hit 1 out of every 10 times.
> 
> Personally, I'm not a power gamer and I'd prefer to not need to pay attention to make sure that I'm picking the right combination of feats/magic items/paragon paths/epic destinies to allow my attacks and defenses to scale properly with monsters. The game is supposed to do that on its own and my character advancement selection should be based on my decisions, not struggling to keep up with baseline.
Click to expand...



t~


----------



## ObsidianCrane

Firstly if you are going to pull out specific monsters as examples I have every right to pull out examples of PCs who make them not a problem. That is part of the point - DM discretion is important, and chosing the right mosnters for the party is important, even if that means changing a pre-written module (which seem to have "pick a monster" approach all to often so its not like it matters).

(Btw the War Chanter Bard PP can easily generate +9 attack bonus for every ally for a turn at 20th level... talk about situational changes to the balance of the game.)



AngryPurpleCyclops said:


> Bottom line: If you want to maintain the scaling model and encounter design system the correction of 1 per tier is indeed necessary.  PC's are going to struggle massively against L+6 monsters in epic.  L+6 monsters in heroic are challenging but not overwhelming, something changed between tiers since facing L+6 monsters is part of the game. Anecdotal scenarios of how some pc's can still compete with L+3 monsters isn't a valid argument to the contrary.  L+3 is not L+7 and for every situation where a pc is strong against a monster there's a monster that is too powerful for them to deal with.  The sorrowsworn level 28 leader can conceivably be in a battle with level 21 or 22 pc's.




See you are assuming that the Encounter Design guidelines in the DMG are without flaws. I would suggest that the first DMG has many flaws in it wrt mechanical matters. I would go so far as to suggest that problems are seen in high paragon and epic when following the guidelines presented in the DMG because the guidelines that went to print were simply not tested rigourously enough to detect the flaws; because good DMs were making good encounters for their PCs - the bit that isn't covered by the crunchy stuff.

Just think of the problems with Skill Challenges, and still existing problems with Skill Check DCs in 4E created by the gap between Trained and Untrained being potentially huge (+10 or more in some situations).  I have a character whose response to skill challenges is to largely do nothing for example (though that's more an issue with LFR skill challenges and DMs).

In essence the Encounter Design rules work well in Heroic Tier and early Paragon, after that they start running into problems.

Further to this you keep holding up the math of monster design as if it is ideal as well, yet few of the monsters in MM1 conform to the math we are given in the DMG - most having lower defences than the DMG predicts in at least one area, and the DMG is terrible at predicting AC, which is usually higher in the MM. 

So what you have is an argument about the math of the game using systems (that is the ones in the DMG not the ones WotC actually used) that are flawed as its foundation. Not a good place to start tbh... much better off looking at game play and seeing how things really work.

In encounter design you should be taking your XP budget and looking at monsters that have defences around +10 on the typical attack of the party. Selecting monsters that the party needs to roll 7-8 to hit without effects will lead to an easy fight. Selecting 9-11 will lead to a moderate challenge, and selecting 12-14 will lead to a tough fight. (Those are "most of the party" ranges, individual PCs may need higher or lower values.). Grindspace, as its called, is something to be avoided, and following the DMG guidelines on encounter allocation of monsters is a good way to create it. As a rule you should be using monsters that are +/- up to 2 on PC level. Elites should be typically PC level, maybe up to Level +1, and Solos should be from Level-2 with buddies up to level +2 at most and alone depending on their defences. Similar evaluations on the to-hit chance of the monsters can be done as well.

None of this is well discussed in the DMG it just makes wild statements with little to no guidance on the application - reinforcing my belief that it was heavily tested for Heroic tier, but basically not tested for Paragon or Epic.

It will be interesting to see what DMG2 has to say about encounter design if anything.


----------



## hong

There sure are a lot of ppl thinking too hard about Expertise.


----------



## keterys

They'd argue less, but everyone's arguments keep missing.


----------



## tiornys

Cailte said:


> See you are assuming that the Encounter Design guidelines in the DMG are without flaws. I would suggest that the first DMG has many flaws in it wrt mechanical matters. I would go so far as to suggest that problems are seen in high paragon and epic when following the guidelines presented in the DMG because the guidelines that went to print were simply not tested rigourously enough to detect the flaws; because good DMs were making good encounters for their PCs - the bit that isn't covered by the crunchy stuff.



I'll agree that problems occur at high paragon and at epic, but I don't agree that the guidelines in the DMG are at fault.  I think your argument unintentionally supports what you're attempting to argue against.



> In essence the Encounter Design rules work well in Heroic Tier and early Paragon, after that they start running into problems.



This is true precisely because the background math underpinning the game changes significantly past early Paragon.



> Further to this you keep holding up the math of monster design as if it is ideal as well, yet few of the monsters in MM1 conform to the math we are given in the DMG - most having lower defences than the DMG predicts in at least one area, and the DMG is terrible at predicting AC, which is usually higher in the MM.



Quickly checking on monsters starting from L30, I found general agreement between MM guidelines and AC of creatures.  In a couple of cases where AC was lower than I would have expected, the creatures had defensive abilities that made up the difference.

I don't doubt that some creatures violate the guidelines; mistakes happen.  However, I'd need overwhelming evidence that "few monsters conform to the math..." since my experience directly contradicts that claim. 



> So what you have is an argument about the math of the game using systems (that is the ones in the DMG not the ones WotC actually used) that are flawed as its foundation. Not a good place to start tbh... much better off looking at game play and seeing how things really work.



The systems in the DMG are based on an assumption that the background math remains constant throughout 30 levels of play.  Since the background math changes, those systems falter at higher levels.



> In encounter design you should be taking your XP budget and looking at monsters that have defences around +10 on the typical attack of the party. Selecting monsters that the party needs to roll 7-8 to hit without effects will lead to an easy fight. Selecting 9-11 will lead to a moderate challenge, and selecting 12-14 will lead to a tough fight. (Those are "most of the party" ranges, individual PCs may need higher or lower values.). Grindspace, as its called, is something to be avoided, and following the DMG guidelines on encounter allocation of monsters is a good way to create it. As a rule you should be using monsters that are +/- up to 2 on PC level. Elites should be typically PC level, maybe up to Level +1, and Solos should be from Level-2 with buddies up to level +2 at most and alone depending on their defences. Similar evaluations on the to-hit chance of the monsters can be done as well.



Correct the background math, and the encounter guidelines will generally create encounters where this is true.  One of the aims of 4E was to reduce the preparation time necessary for DM'ing, and if the background math worked as intended, there'd be no need to be as thorough as you suggest.

t~

edit: keterys, I <3 you


----------



## WalterKovacs

The DMGII is apparently focused on paragon play. Perhaps they'll be addressing encounter design at levels above heroic. They've definitely learned a lot since the first books came out, seeing as how PHBII and other books with player options seem quite different (they've pinned down the controller role; they figured out how to reintroduce summoning, familiars, animal companions and the like; they are avoiding making new classes like the paladin, cleric or warlock that are two classes in one by keeping primary attack stats for each class) so it's possible that DMGII will address some of what they've learned about encounter design. They initially believed the skill challenges were balanced, but they were using some assumptions that apparently didn't translate into actual play. It's possible that what they interpreted as balanced encounters didn't necessarily translate in terms of "fun factor".

If the assumption is that you want to hit the monster regularly (close to 50/50) to avoid swinginess. If you increase the range where you can hit the monster (by increasing the PCs ability to hit), you are also having higher level monsters that can hit the PCs easier. The difficulty coming more from surviving the monsters than from having a hard time to hit it.


----------



## grickherder

My favorite thing about expertise is that it's here.  I opened my PHB2 and there it was.  Nice and published in a core rulebook.

I'm already used to designing encounters for parties with very high variance in both the to-hit bonus and level of optimization.  Even if the least optimized characters don't take it and the most optimized do (widening the gap), my nicely lethal and dramatic encounters will continue to work fine.  The rogue who hits all the time will continue to do so.

I expect that everything will work fine with this feat.  It's here and it's not going any place and people will take it and their games won't fall apart.  Other people will opt not to take it and will continue to have no problem compensating for scaling differences just like they do right now-- situational modifiers, powers granting bonuses to hit and all that stuff.

People can feel my position is unsupported and dismiss my points if they like, but the feat is still here and here to stay and I imagine many people will enjoy it.  I feel a little bit sorry for those who's priorities in play are rigid such that they feel forced to take it and feel it's a feat tax.  If that ruins/reduces their fun, but somehow doesn't for others, I'd sugggest they examine the variable-- themselves and their priorities.


----------



## KarinsDad

grickherder said:


> I feel a little bit sorry for those who's priorities in play are rigid such that they feel forced to take it and feel it's a feat tax.  If that ruins/reduces their fun, but somehow doesn't for others, I'd sugggest they examine the variable-- themselves and their priorities.




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)?

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. 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).

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.


----------



## Grabuto138

KarinsDad said:


> 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.




It isn't like they are recalling your Ford Escort for failing brakes! It is a game made by real human being. 100% perfection is an unreasonable expectation even in things that actually matter like medicine, food safety and car brakes. In a role playing game rule-set you just have to go with it and be happy that further expansions, errata and the DDI (not to mention Dm fiat) are available to fix problems. 

We muddled through rules that were sometimes (usually) inexplicable in 1e and 2e. 2e Powers were overpowered to the point of absurdity. In its quest for rule unity, expansion of 3e created so many loopholes it required a deft Dm hand to keep things in order.

A swimg of +/- 1 has got you that wound up? Really?


----------



## KarinsDad

Grabuto138 said:


> A swimg of +/- 1 has got you that wound up? Really?




No, not wound up at all. I was merely replying that using a feat to fix a math bug is not a good way to solve it.

Errors in the game mechanics should be fixed with errata. Errata that than makes it into the Character Builder so that the problem is automatically fixed for everyone.

They didn't fix the math errors with Skill Challenges with a feat, they should not do so here (course, their fix for Skill Challenges is not that great either).


----------



## Grabuto138

I agree with you. I will be giving everyone the expertise feat of their choice for free since a feat everyone will take means effectively a loss of a feat.


----------



## grickherder

KarinsDad said:


> 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.


----------



## Branduil

If you do not take expertise you are choosing to be less effective than other party members.


----------



## KarinsDad

grickherder said:


> 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.




I believed as you do until I noticed how many higher level monsters either decrease the chance for the PCs to hit, or increase the defenses of themselves or allies.

Given a completely homogenous system, I would agree with you (and in fact, I originally did). But the system is not homogenous. As one gains levels, it's not just that the PCs gain synergies to hit and lose bonus to hit, so that's almost a wash (not quite though). Many of the monsters gain synergies as well (almost always +2 to defense or -2 for the PCs to hit when it occurs), but they do not lose bonus to defenses.

So, the math is obvious. +4 for stat increases +6 for magic items and +15 for level is 4 less than +29 for level. Yes, some PCs can take both Demi-god and Kensai and make that 2 less, but not all players will make those choices for their PC.

In my 22nd level experiment last Saturday, it became obvious that for something even as simple as Lance of Faith, if the Cleric almost never hits, the Cleric almost never gives a synergy bonus. Many synergy bonuses in the game system require that a PC hit with a given attack before the bonus is given. At higher levels, the frequency of those types of synergies decrease.

Catch 22. The PCs cannot hit because they cannot gain the bonus because they cannot hit to give the bonus.


----------



## tiornys

grickherder said:


> 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.



This is a reasonable opinion.  Are you also of the opinion that Expertise as written is a fair and balanced feat?  If so, please justify in light of the fact that anything comparable is either highly limited in application (Action Surge), or both limited in application and weaker (Blade Opportunist, Nimble Blade, Back to the Wall, etc.).

t~


----------



## WalterKovacs

tiornys said:


> This is a reasonable opinion. Are you also of the opinion that Expertise as written is a fair and balanced feat? If so, please justify in light of the fact that anything comparable is either highly limited in application (Action Surge), or both limited in application and weaker (Blade Opportunist, Nimble Blade, Back to the Wall, etc.).
> 
> t~




Unlike epic destinies or paragon paths, feats don't just have to be balanced against each other. There can be feats that are better than other feats because you are still limited in how many times you can take the same feat.

Since all those "lesser" feats stack with Expertise ... they just mean they will be picked up _after_ someone grabs expertise first. If Expertise was fair and balanced, they still couldn't make other feats that were just as good as it unless those feats were an either/or choice. Regardless of if Expertise is balanced ... two stacking versions would definitely be unbalanced.

So, at best, "there can only be one", such feat. Is it the best feat out of the various bonuses to hit feat? Yes. However, a feat that everyone takes is not as bad as an epic destiny or paragon path that everyone needs to take or class needs to take. By not needing to be a fighter or a rogue, a kensai, or a demi-god just to get some bonuses, the feat eats up a feat slot and opens up options for paragon paths and epic destinies that don't need to focus on finding the way to squeeze every +1 bonus they can find.


----------



## keterys

The cool part is, that if feats don't need to be balanced against each other, some day you might be able to throw away _all_ the old feats to embrace all the new feats. 

Maybe for feats extreme power creep is a feat-ure?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

You know, I'd love to see a designers comment on this. 

--

Aside from that, I'd just like to note that the feat is better for people with a lower attack bonus than those with an already high one. 

If you have a hit chance of 50 % and gain 2 points to attack, you have a hit chance of 60 % and a 20 % gain in damage. 
If you have a hit chance of 75 & and gain 2 points to attack, you have a hit chance of 85 and a 13 % gain in damage. 

So even if it's never a bad idea to take this feat, it is more interesting for people that have chosen a lower attack ability score or a weapon with a low proficiency bonus.


----------



## Fedifensor

(Posted from my G1 phone)

Two points to consider:

* Some games can't be fixed with house rules.  Living campaigns like Living Forgotten Realms.  Convention games where people expect to play D&D, not some homebrew variant.

* There is no feat for non-weapon, non-implement attacks like a dragonborn's breath weapon.  Some paragon paths (like the Scion of Arkhosia) utilize these powers exclusively.  That's a relative penalty of 1 to 3 points (depending on level) that cannot be overcome.


----------



## 77IM

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Aside from that, I'd just like to note that the feat is better for people with a lower attack bonus than those with an already high one.
> 
> If you have a hit chance of 50 % and gain 2 points to attack, you have a hit chance of 60 % and a 20 % gain in damage.
> If you have a hit chance of 75 & and gain 2 points to attack, you have a hit chance of 85 and a 13 % gain in damage.
> 
> So even if it's never a bad idea to take this feat, it is more interesting for people that have chosen a lower attack ability score or a weapon with a low proficiency bonus.




I'm not sure I agree with your analysis (although I am willing to be persuaded).  A fixed increase to hit results in a fixed increase in the expected value of the attack (even if the relative increase looks bigger for the guy who was hitting less).

On the one hand, this means that the guy who was hitting less is putting foes down relatively faster.  For a trivial example, if you were hitting 10% of the time and are now hitting 20% of the time, you drop enemies in half the time (or kill them twice as fast); while the guy who was hitting 50% of the time and is now hitting 60% of the time drops enemies in 5/6 the time (or kills them 6/5 as fast).

But on the other hand, in the context of a party of multiple characters fighting multiple enemies -- where you can think of the party's damage output as pooled and the enemy's hit points as also pooled -- either guy can gain 10% to hit and the monsters effectively drop in 6/7 the previous time.  (Assuming both guys do the same damage and only their to-hit is different, because it makes the example easier.)

Of course any ability anyone gets is ultimately going to help the party.  But if balance is measured by your ability to help the party, then since Expertise helps equally regardless of who takes it, it implies to me that this feat isn't the "boost-the-guy-with-the-low-primary-ability" fix that some people claim.

 -- 77IM


----------



## Obryn

77IM said:


> I'm not sure I agree with your analysis (although I am willing to be persuaded).  A fixed increase to hit results in a fixed increase in the expected value of the attack (even if the relative increase looks bigger for the guy who was hitting less).



Basically, you need to look at it from a different perspective.

Let's say I normally have X% chance of hitting.

If I get a +2 to hit, my absolute chance of hitting is X+10%

That +2 does not mean that I hit 10% _more often_, though.

If X = 50%, then a +2 bonus gives me a 60% chance of hitting.  This is 10% better than it was before, so I hit *20%* more often.

If X = 80%, then a +2 bonus gives me a 90% chance of hitting.  This is also 10% better than it was before, but in this circumstance I only hit *12%* more often.

When I am playing a game and taking on the role of a single character, what I'll notice is that I hit 20% more often (and thereby miss 20% less), not that I have a +10% chance to hit on every roll.

-O


----------



## CapnZapp

You're right 77IM of course.

This feat benefits all characters equally (except a few classes that lose out) and it is strictly better than any other feat in increasing your chance to hit and thus damage potential.

If you don't feel like taking it, it only serves to show your disinterest in optimum play, which really disqualifies you from being taken seriously when we discuss game balance - which is all about the mechanical side of play.

So, while I can see an argument for taking a couple of other feats first, I would expect anyone that realizes the math involved will feel forced to take the Expertise feat at mid-Heroic play or at level 15 at the very latest.

It's as if you just lost a feat slot; only you get to choose exactly when you lose it. Not very flexible in my book.


----------



## WalterKovacs

keterys said:


> The cool part is, that if feats don't need to be balanced against each other, some day you might be able to throw away _all_ the old feats to embrace all the new feats.
> 
> Maybe for feats extreme power creep is a feat-ure?




There is a difference between one feat being better than other feats, and all new feats (or most new feats) being better than older ones.

It is impossible for all feats to be equally good as all other feats. Part of the balance is that, even _if_ a feat is better, you can only have that feat once, and you'll need to take other feats.

Heck, powers you need to pick one at each level ... feats only have a few level based restrictions (mostly tier, and a few non-tier based restrictions on feats), and thus it's not a matter of "if you don't take this feat at level X you will never take it unless you have no good options at level Y".

Paragon you have one choice of path. Epic you have one choice of destiny. For the most part, you have one choice of power at a level, since you'll _usually_ take the highest level power available. Feats are the one feature that you get he most of, and aren't as "now or never" as other options in character creation.

Thus, it is more flexible in terms of balance. If it is better than other feats it means:

The feat you would normally take at say ... level 8, you instead take at level 10. The feat you take at level 10, which for _some_ characters is probably going to be retrained at 11 anyway, and is probably going to be toughness, or something similar that is generic and "because I have to take a feat" is a feat you don't end up taking.

Does this feat cause people to not take warforged tactics, action surge, nimble blade, weapon focus, etc, etc, etc? Or does it delay the time before it takes those feat by 2 levels? It doesn't really obsolete a feat if you end up taking the obsolete feat anyway.


----------



## keterys

So, a feat that gave +3 untyped damage per tier would be balanced, despite it being more effective than any other damage feat, because you get lots of feats?

One feat doesn't cause you to not take all those other feats. Just one of them, whichever mattered to you least. Of course, the next feat boots off the next one. One after that, another. And six feats later maybe you aren't taking any of those feats, at all.

Does a feat have a major restriction on it that would justify it being better? For example, is it a multiclass feat - the designer playground method for allowing people to take a more powerful feat, but only one? How about is it a race feat, which is a perk of that race and thereby limited? Does it have sizable limitations, such as Spell Focus which is not only limited to one class but also requires an ability score not useful to that class otherwise? Is it an epic feat, of which you only get so many and at a certain pace, and which are often allowed to be just a bit cooler (though not nearly as much cooler as Expertise, but eh)?

Either:
A) Expertise is too powerful a feat as stands, so is badly designed
B) Expertise is a fix for a math problem in the system and is badly designed for that purpose

I don't believe there actually is _any_ other possibility. I'm not expressing hyperbole or railing at the interwebs here. It's bad design, whether it's good intentioned or sloppy balancing.

Now, will it break your game? Of course not. It takes a lot to break a game (like Demigod level 30 a lot). Will it help break the game? Maybe, if A is true. Will it help fix the game? Maybe, if B is true.

Honestly, I suspect it's an improvement in the game to the extent that it makes certain things at epic less based on missing with your normal attacks a lot and people using the super powers were already doing things like using action surge and a pocket TacLord to game the system for their really important attacks... it's just a really badly designed way of doing it. I mean, bad design happens, and it's a shame, but it's fixable - like Blade Cascade, for instance.

Or like how this could have been handled, if it was a fix to an unforseen math trend.


----------



## 77IM

WalterKovacs said:


> Does this feat cause people to not take warforged tactics, action surge, nimble blade, weapon focus, etc, etc, etc? Or does it delay the time before it takes those feat by 2 levels? It doesn't really obsolete a feat if you end up taking the obsolete feat anyway.




Well, that is an interesting thought experiment.  I foresee three broad categories of players:

*1)*  Power-gamers who take Expertise early on and are happy as clams because it makes them more powerful.

*2)*  Role-players who delay taking Expertise (possibly indefinitely) so that they can take feats that are more fun, interesting, or appropriate to their concept.  This makes them weaker than group 1.  _But are they so much weaker that it hinders their enjoyment of the game?_  (VERY few players enjoy playing the weakest link or being overshadowed by the power-gamer, even if they themselves don't care particularly about power.)

*3)*  In-betweeners who would LIKE to take a fun, interesting, or concept-appropriate feat, but who instead take Expertise, delaying the "fun" feats by 2 or more levels.  They do this because they know that NOT taking Expertise will cause them to lag behind -- and they know (from experience) that they are not the sort that enjoys playing 2nd fiddle to some power-gamer.  _But is delaying the "fun" feats so bad that it hinders their enjoyment of the game?_


I don't know the answers to the italicized questions in regards to Expertise.  But in general, whenever there is some sort of trade-off between character effectiveness and _any other thing_, the game is imbalanced.

 -- 77IM


----------



## tiornys

WalterKovacs said:


> Unlike epic destinies or paragon paths, feats don't just have to be balanced against each other. There can be feats that are better than other feats because you are still limited in how many times you can take the same feat.



Feats should be as close to balanced as possible, or you stray into poor design philosophy.  Feats can have more powerful effects than other feats as long as those feats are proportionally more restrictive in who can take them and/or when their effect can be used.  Small amounts of power variance are inevitable since that kind of balancing act is nigh impossible, but large amounts can and should be avoided.  Expertise has no restrictions and is an order of magnitude more powerful than existing feats.  

Keterys has said basically everything else I wanted to say on this topic.



> Since all those "lesser" feats stack with Expertise ... they just mean they will be picked up _after_ someone grabs expertise first. If Expertise was fair and balanced, they still couldn't make other feats that were just as good as it unless those feats were an either/or choice. Regardless of if Expertise is balanced ... two stacking versions would definitely be unbalanced.



You do realize that under RAW, Weapon Expertise already stacks with itself?  Apparently the Khopesh, Glaive, Halberd, Longspear, Greatspear, Double Sword, and Urgrosh needed a power boost.

t~


----------



## grickherder

tiornys said:


> This is a reasonable opinion.  Are you also of the opinion that Expertise as written is a fair and balanced feat?  If so, please justify in light of the fact that anything comparable is either highly limited in application (Action Surge), or both limited in application and weaker (Blade Opportunist, Nimble Blade, Back to the Wall, etc.).




I think it's fair and balanced until level 15.  The scaling is a bit much.

It's certainly a top tier feat, even at heroic tier.  If my priorities are to be more effective in combat, it'll be taken some time during the 6 (7 if human) feats available in the heroic tier.  The next time a group I'm DMing allows me a break and someone else takes over, I'm contemplating a few different builds:

Gnome Warlock MCed into Wizard.  Don't need it.  Lots of other cool stuff to take and won't be taking it during the heroic tier for sure.

Deva Avenger.  Maybe.  If I go with a +3 weapon, I probably won't take it.  If I go with a +2, I might-- but after feats that boost AC, my Deva power and other things.

Some feats are better than others and both of the expertise feats are top tier feats.  If I was the type of player who really valued the +1 to hit and also really valued other feats because they're more interesting, I'd be torn, annoyed and would turn to a house rule for a solution.  But I'm not.  Whether or not I'll take it will be on a build-by-build basis and I don't feel a +1 is a must have.  Now when it gets to +2 and +3...


----------



## WalterKovacs

tiornys said:


> You do realize that under RAW, Weapon Expertise already stacks with itself? Apparently the Khopesh, Glaive, Halberd, Longspear, Greatspear, Double Sword, and Urgrosh needed a power boost.
> 
> t~




I also realize that it seems like something that should (and hopefully will) be addressed. Until that time, as a player I won't take the feat twice for that purpose (assuming a DM even allows the feat since I know of some that won't be allow it) and as a DM, I will definitely not allow that to work. Not even so much a house rule but a particular interpretation of the "same source" rule in terms of stacking. They are untyped bonus, but the same feat taken twice for different groups is still the same feat, and I would rule it's the same source as far as stacking is concerned. I'm sure very few DMs would rule it that way, and I seriously doubt it was designed to boost those.

_Of course those tempest fighters really needed that boost to the double sword ..._


----------



## keterys

> I would rule it's the same source as far as stacking is concerned.




I wish that rule still existed


----------



## tiornys

keterys said:


> I wish that rule still existed



To clarify, there actually isn't a rule in 4E that prevents bonuses from the same source from stacking.  Penalties, yes, but not bonuses.  So, even if you rule that they're the same source, they still stack with each other under RAW.

Not that any sane DM will allow it....

t~


----------



## grickherder

What I'm about to say only applies to levels 1-14.  When expertise hits the +2 bonus and level 15, it's in a whole new ball park compared to other feats.

Perhaps a good comparison is what you get to hit by spending a feat on a superior weapon proficiency.

Generally speaking, you're going to get either a larger damage die, a +1 hit or a special property like high crit, brutal or defensive.

If the priority is +1 to hit (like say switching from a broad sword to a bastard sword) then you're better off with expertise as you can simply keep using the broad sword and get a +1 to hit with every other heavy blade you might pick up.

If the priority is additional damage, expertise is only a good idea if there's a similarly typed weapon that does more damage that doesn't require a feat for you to use.  For example, going from a longsword to a broadsword with expertise.  But if we're talking about axes, you'd need to spend the feat on proficiency with the war axe.  There isn't a single handed weapon you can take with a lower proficiency bonus that expertise would then compensate for.

If the priority is having those special weapon effects like high crit or brutal or whatever, then unless you can find a weapon you're already proficient with that has them, you're going to have to spend a feat to get that.

Now the real love comes for a dwarf with weapon training who alredy knows how to use the war axe and takes expertise and makes it a +3 d12 versatile weapon with a nice +2 to damage.  But that's two feats as well.

After level 15, expertise you get you a net +2 or an increase in damage die size and a net +1 (for example, switching from longsword to broadsword).  It's definitely better than spending a feat on proficiency with a superior weapon.

My assessment of all this is that it is marginally better than a superior weapon proficiency until level 15 and then obviously better after that.


----------



## 77IM

That is a good analysis to compare it to Weapon Proficiency (some superior weapon).  In my opinion, though, superior weapons are also slightly broken.  ;}


Looking at the paragon tier feats, it seems that a near-constant +1 attack bonus is pretty well balanced against a lot of the other crazy stuff that feats get at paragon tier (hello, Combat Anticipation...).  I think if Expertise were a flat +1 (not increasing) and came in at paragon levels (so as to not obsolete many of the conditional +1 attack feats at heroic teir) we would probably never have had this debate.

 -- 77IM


----------



## Obryn

Yeah, as of last night I just went ahead and houseruled it.   I'm not completely sold on whether it is or isn't balanced, but I do think that it's a _boring_ feat.

So, I'm giving everyone +1 to-hit at 5th, +2 at 15th, and +3 at 25th.  No Expertise feats exist.

This serves to free up feat slots for more interesting (IMHO) feats; it treats Expertise as basically errata; and it allows it to help on non-weapon, non-implement abilities like dragon breath, fireburst, and several Paragon Path options.  Everything non-weapon and non-implement is already at a disadvantage...  I didn't want to hurt them any further.

-O


----------



## KarinsDad

77IM said:


> Looking at the paragon tier feats, it seems that a near-constant +1 attack bonus is pretty well balanced against a lot of the other crazy stuff that feats get at paragon tier (hello, Combat Anticipation...).




In a game system were a minimum of one defense has to start falling behind the others, you consider a +1 to defense that does not stack with most other defense feat bonuses against ~42% of the attacks crazy?

Unlike the +1 to hit discussion (where the ability score always adds in and it is typically for 100% of attacks), all defenses do not get the stat ability score increase bonuses. So, feats have to make up for both the defensive math problem and the one or more defenses do not get stat ability increases (or as many stat ability increases).

+1 to hit 100% of the time (typically) is more powerful than +1 defense to 42% of attacks (not even counting that at least one defense has to start falling behind and the fact that Combat Anticipation does not stack with most other defense feats).

+1 to hit 100% of the time is more powerful than +2 to a single defense like Great Fortitude (~15% of attacks) or Iron Will (~11% of attacks) or Lightning Reflexes (~18% of attacks).

Note: These percentages are for all monsters in the MM, not just Paragon and above, so they are might be off by a percentage point or so.


In fact, we have been talking here about the offensive math problem, but have not been discussing the defensive math problem.

It's the same problem, except in reverse. Monster attacks are level based plus powers, PC defenses are half level plus magic plus stat gains plus feats plus powers. The only differences are that there are some more feats to help handle the defensive math problem and the game is designed for a PC to always have at least one weak defense (from minimal stat ability gain).


----------



## KarinsDad

Obryn said:


> Yeah, as of last night I just went ahead and houseruled it.   I'm not completely sold on whether it is or isn't balanced, but I do think that it's a _boring_ feat.
> 
> So, I'm giving everyone +1 to-hit at 5th, +2 at 15th, and +3 at 25th.  No Expertise feats exist.
> 
> This serves to free up feat slots for more interesting (IMHO) feats; it treats Expertise as basically errata; and it allows it to help on non-weapon, non-implement abilities like dragon breath, fireburst, and several Paragon Path options.  Everything non-weapon and non-implement is already at a disadvantage...  I didn't want to hurt them any further.




Agreed.

I do think that +1 at 5, +2 at 15, and +3 at 25 is a little much due to the increased number of powers that PCs acquire as they gain levels, I prefer +1 at Paragon and another +1 at Epic, but I do think that once people become aware of this, it might start becoming a fairly common type of house rule.

Now, what are you going to do about the defensive math problem? 

I think I am going to add +1 to all defenses at Paragon and again at Epic levels, just like for offense.


----------



## keterys

There's a defense discussion going on the house rules forum, but the math gap can actually end up more like 4 to 8 for defenses unless you take things like the new +4 to a defense feat or +2 to all defenses. 

So, decide if you're keeping such feats before figuring out how much you're adding to them, but there's room to add 3 to 6 to defenses likely.


----------



## Regicide

grickherder said:


> If the priority is additional damage, expertise is only a good idea if there's a similarly typed weapon that does more damage that doesn't require a feat for you to use.




  It's been shown (in this thread even) that the +1 to hit does more damage than taking a damage feat.  On top of that other power effects will trigger and of course minions make hitting far more important even before you calculate damage.


----------



## infocynic

keterys said:


> There's a defense discussion going on the house rules forum, but the math gap can actually end up more like 4 to 8 for defenses unless you take things like the new +4 to a defense feat or +2 to all defenses.
> 
> So, decide if you're keeping such feats before figuring out how much you're adding to them, but there's room to add 3 to 6 to defenses likely.



Me and the other DM in my group are just discussing giving Paragon Defenses and Epic Defenses for free. They'll stay feat bonuses because we don't want to fight the character builder, so the only other things really worth taking will be the Epic +4 ones, but I'm OK with a character having to take one or two of those to shore up a weak area that hasn't advanced by stats.


----------



## grickherder

Regicide said:


> It's been shown (in this thread even) that the +1 to hit does more damage than taking a damage feat.  On top of that other power effects will trigger and of course minions make hitting far more important even before you calculate damage.




You're quite correct, because average damage is the result of the percentage hit rate multiplied by the average damage roll result.  Increasing the bonus to hit has a larger net effect on the average damage overall in almost all cases (perhaps all cases?).

If someone wants to maximize their damage, they should probably stick to +3 weapons and choose all feats that give bonuses to hit before they take any damage related feats.

However, those who might fit in the category of prioritizing damage might actual be the type who enjoy the psychological effect of rolling a higher damage die.  And people also take +2 weapons over +3 weapons for a variety of other reasons.  It's cool to roll a d12 for damage, even if the +3 weapon that rolls a d10 would increase your average damage overall.


----------



## grickherder

Obryn said:


> So, I'm giving everyone +1 to-hit at 5th, +2 at 15th, and +3 at 25th.  No Expertise feats exist.




This is the best solution to the boring but effective feats vs interesting feats conundrum.  If I find that actual play proves it to be a problem, I'll likely adopt a similar solution.


----------



## grickherder

Another thing to consider when assessing this feat is where you spend most of your playing time.  Heroic tier?  Paragon?  Epic?  If you're the type of group that runs full campaigns and will go through all 30 levels, then Expertise is a very different feat than those who will likely only run a game to level 13 or so.

I consider the sweet spot of 4e to be the entire heroic tier and about two thirds or so of the paragon tier.  I like higher level play only when the PCs developed there or if the players took a serious amount of time learning their characters before play.  Being unfamiliar with a character that's over level 20 is a recipe for combats that last forever.

That said, being somewhat heroic-tier centric, I like expertise just fine.  It allows someone who'd like to hit as if they started with 20 in their primary attack stat without having to choose an array that has an 18 in it (that's 16 of the 22 availabl points).  Similarly, for those who really like MAD classes and builds, they can go with a 16 and hit as if it was an 18.  And if someone loves hitting, they can start with an attack bonus as if they had 22 in a stat.  The price?  16 out of 22 of their attribute points _and_ one of their precious 6 (or 7) heroic tier feats.


----------



## Regicide

grickherder said:


> However, those who might fit in the category of prioritizing damage might actual be the type who enjoy the psychological effect of rolling a higher damage die.  And people also take +2 weapons over +3 weapons for a variety of other reasons.  It's cool to roll a d12 for damage, even if the +3 weapon that rolls a d10 would increase your average damage overall.




  The game system shouldn't assist mathematically challenged people in making bad decisions.  It's bad design.  Particularly for one that goes out of it's way to give "helpful" character creation advice.


----------



## CapnZapp

So. What I want to know as a DM is: are the following assumptions reasonable or not?

(Obviously, now I'm assuming the feats aren't automatically available)

Attack: there is "space" for a bonus up to +3 (at Epic)
Fort/Ref/Will: there is "space" for a bonus up to +6 (at Epic)
AC: ? (that is, do you need anything else than masterwork?)

If this is about right, it's great to know.

I certainly think feats aren't the most exciting solution. By handing out these bonuses in other ways, these feat slots can be kept open for more flexibility overall.

I guess the lesson learned is that there really can't be a feat giving out an unconditional bonus to the crucial stats (attack & defense). Such a feat can't ever be "optional" regardless of whether the math shows there is "space" or not. 

I mean sure, if you hit only on a 19 then these bonuses are very welcome. But even if you already hit on a 6, you still gain the exact same benefit. 

The fact that hitting on a 3 isn't "necessary" to enjoy the game doesn't prevent the increase in to hit to be equally good statistically speaking. Power-gamers understand this. They take the feat even though it actually _decreases_ excitement and tension.

Thus I conclude bonuses to attacks and defenses really shouldn't be made available as feats - because the underlying assumption that they are "optional" is simply wrong! A +1 to your vital statistics is simply nearly always better than any other benefit, simply because it will always be in play!

Corollary: Bonuses to attacks/defenses can be given out as feats, but to be interesting, to be truly optional, they must be situational. That is, their bonuses can't apply all the time.

Okay?

Zapp

PS. I too dislike how Expertise widens the gap between your main method of attacking and any secondary ones. 

If you give out the bonus for free to all attacks, and then allow the feat for any kind of attack except your best, then you'd have an interesting feat! (It would then help to shore up any second weapon of yours, or perhaps help you use a magical attack even though you're primarily a martial combatant)


----------



## Otterscrubber

jgsugden said:


> If every character takes this as a feat, it basically becomes a core character ability and every PC loses a feat. If that is the case, then this implementation is a mistake. There should be no feats that every PC takes. In fact, if there is a feat that more than 50% of the PCs are taking, I think there is a problem that needs to be addressed. I certainly see these feats (really the same 1 feat masked as 2 feats) as exceeding the 50% mark very quickly.  I'll retrain my characters to gain them as soon as I can.
> 
> I'd love to hear designers comment on why the feat was made, what they think of everyone assuming it is a must have feat, and what builds might find this feat to be a suboptimal choice.




Ya I have to agree with this especially as I live in this fantasy world (pun intended) where they balanced epic level fights before the PHB2 came out, which means this will make high level encounters easier than they should be.  I have a hard time seeing someone not taking this feat, unless they play a totally support based style of play.


----------



## tiornys

CapnZapp said:


> So. What I want to know as a DM is: are the following assumptions reasonable or not?
> 
> (Obviously, now I'm assuming the feats aren't automatically available)
> 
> Attack: there is "space" for a bonus up to +3 (at Epic)



Actually, +4.  PC attack bonuses increase by +25, monster defenses by 29. (Some Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies can up PC attack bonuses by 1 more each, but that's theoretically balanecd by the rest of the Path/Destiny).


> Fort/Ref/Will: there is "space" for a bonus up to +6 (at Epic)



Assuming _no_ feats, and no items except Neck, monster attack bonuses increase by 29 while PC F/R/W increases by 21-25, depending on the number of stat pumps to a relevant stat.  That leaves space for up to 8 points of bonus to a non-pumped defense, and 4 to a fully pumped one.  PHB feats exist that ameliorate 2 points of this gap.  Balancing these out fully is kind of tricky, since anything that brings the non-pumped defense up to par puts the pumped defenses above par.


> AC: ? (that is, do you need anything else than masterwork?)



Masterwork exists to close this gap.  Strange that they caught it with AC but not attacks or F/R/W.



> Corollary: Bonuses to attacks/defenses can be given out as feats, but to be interesting, to be truly optional, they must be situational. That is, their bonuses can't apply all the time.



Full agreement here.



> If you give out the bonus for free to all attacks, and then allow the feat for any kind of attack except your best, then you'd have an interesting feat! (It would then help to shore up any second weapon of yours, or perhaps help you use a magical attack even though you're primarily a martial combatant)



Sounds like a solid idea for a house rule!  Let us know if you come up with a good way of translating it into rules-text.

t~


----------



## grickherder

77IM said:


> That is a good analysis to compare it to Weapon Proficiency (some superior weapon).  In my opinion, though, superior weapons are also slightly broken.  ;}




I thought so too until I took a look at the mathematical difference between a superior weapon and the equivalent non-superior weapon of the same type.

Battleaxe vs. War axe:  You get a d12 damage die.  So that's an extra point of damage per [w] on average.

Flail vs Triple headed flail:  You get a +1 to hit.

Warhammer vs Craghammer:  You get brutal 2, effectively giving you d8+2 rather than d10.  Average damage of 6.5 rather than 5.5.  An average of +1 damage per [W].

Great Ave vs.  Execution Axe:  You gain Brutal 2.  d12 brutal 2 is mathematically identical to d10+2.  The average damage of a d12 is 6.5.  The average damage of d10+2 is 7.5.  So it nets you an extra point of damage on average per [W] of the attack.  Both are high crit.

Greatsword vs Fullblade:  You gain high crit and d12 damage.  On non critical hits, the d12 has an average damage of 6.5.  The d10, 5.5.  So once again, you've got a +1 per [w], this time with a maximum that's higher by 2 (10 vs 12 possible points of damage).  Add in the high crit and in this case, you're getting a decent bang for your buck for the superior weapon feat-- average of 1 more point of damage, 2 more possible points of damage and high crit.

Longspear vs Greatspear:  You gain +1 hit.

Maul vs Mordenkrad:  You gain Brutal 1.  That means you have the mathematical equivilant of 2d5+2 rather than 2d6.  So that's 8 damage on average rather than 7.  +1 damage per [W] just like the Execution Axe.

Double weapons generally get you an increase in damage die for your off hand weapon only, as well as the AC boost.  So a two weapon ranger gains a bonus AC point, but nothing really changes as far as the damage die goes (the ranger can already use full size weapons in the off hand).  For the tempest fighter who doesn't multiclass, you gain the AC and your offhand goes from a d6 to a d8 or a d10.  That's an average of 1 or 2 extra points of damage per [w], but only on the off hand.

For a lot of these, you might be better off taking weapon focus and getting +1 to damage per tier.  Unless you make a lot of 2[W] and greater attacks.  Then +1 per [W] is better.

At the heroic tier, these are all good options, not quite on par with expertise.  But they don't scale at level 15.  From levels 1-14, going from a long spear to a great spear or from a broad sword to a bastard sword or from a flail to a triple flail are pretty much the same as Expertise as long as you don't switch weapons.  If you switch weapons within a single weapon group, expertise is better.


----------



## grickherder

Regicide said:


> The game system shouldn't assist mathematically challenged people in making bad decisions.  It's bad design.  Particularly for one that goes out of it's way to give "helpful" character creation advice.




I sort of agree.  Though I must admit that even though I know the math, I may take a feat to go from a d10 damage to a d12 even though it nets me less than a +1 to hit.  Rolling those twelvesiders is fun.

Another good example is going from the maul to the modernkrad (which gives you brutal 1).  Statistically it just gives you an average of +1 damage per [W] of the attack, arguably not as good as +1 to hit.  But when you roll damage dice and it comes up 1,1 once every 36 strikes or so, it's going to _feel_ so good to pick those up and roll them again.

Is it the most mathematically optimized way to increase your average damage per round?  Nope.  Hitting more does that.  But rerolling 1s is fun.  And picking up those bigger dice for damage is fun too.  Should players be able to choose that even if their average DPR doesn't go up as much as if they chose a lower damage die but +1 to hit?  I think so.  I suppose a perfectly designed game would give you the same average DPR regardless of your weapon and feat choices, but I'm not sure I'd want to trade away the relavency of my choices for the sake of balance, even if I'm making sub optimal choices in order to reroll those 1s.


----------



## Samurai

I don't know if anyone else has proposed this, as I haven't read the whole thread, but what about a compromise:  The feat really isn't broken until it gives +2 and +3 to hit, so why not say that the feat only gives +1 to hit, no matter your level.

Then, all characters also automatically get a +1 attack bonus at 11th and 21st level.

The feat is now balanced, and available for those that want a little extra specialization in a specific weapon or implement, but characters will also get automatic bonuses at each tier.


----------



## jtrowell

It would be better, but the feat would still be one of the best, and stricly better than some others like Nimble Blade (already one of the best feats for rogues)


----------



## CapnZapp

tiornys said:


> Actually, +4.  PC attack bonuses increase by +25, monster defenses by 29. (Some Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies can up PC attack bonuses by 1 more each, but that's theoretically balanecd by the rest of the Path/Destiny).






tiornys said:


> Assuming _no_ feats, and no items except Neck, monster attack bonuses increase by 29 while PC F/R/W increases by 21-25, depending on the number of stat pumps to a relevant stat.  That leaves space for up to 8 points of bonus to a non-pumped defense, and 4 to a fully pumped one.  PHB feats exist that ameliorate 2 points of this gap.  Balancing these out fully is kind of tricky, since anything that brings the non-pumped defense up to par puts the pumped defenses above par.



Thanks!

I'll stick with +3 attacks/+6 defenses then. It's close enough, and it's simple to remember: 

*+1 attack per tier and +2 defense per tier.* 

And leaving an odd point or two is probably a good idea, to account for player ingenuity (read "me as the DM making mistakes like handing out too generous items") 

This brings me to another question:

Is there anywhere a complete list of items and feats that impact attacks and defenses? It seems like as a DM you'd want control over where these things have snuck in, so you aren't suprised by the PCs getting them without you really having taken them into account.

No, wait, I'll start a separate thread for this issue.


----------



## CapnZapp

tiornys said:


> Sounds like a solid idea for a house rule!  Let us know if you come up with a good way of translating it into rules-text.



I guess the simplest implementation by far is to hand out one instance of Weapon/Implement Expertise as a free bonus feat.

That would take care of this particular issue - anytime you take this feat _again_, it automatically can't apply to your bestest attack (because presumably that one you selected the first time).

It's still raw in that it won't help your secondary attacks catch up with your main ones though.

A more direct solution is difficult to arrive at - the main problem is that the game doesn't define "bestest attack". 

And relying on the player to identify his particular character's main attack won't work - if he can, he'll identify a secondary attack as his main one, to then be allowed to "catch up" with his real main one...!

Unless you're ready for a whole truckload of rules text, the only simple implementation will be "your best attack, the one which can't benefit from the feat, is the one identified by your DM with reassessment taking place each level"...  

I agree it was a neat idea, but it won't work in practice. It really can't - it would mean specific anti-minmaxing rules, and unless you involve the DM, they too will be minmaxable. In the end, there will probably be a lot of rules for very little benefit (in the form of added fun)...


----------



## CapnZapp

After some thought, one possible implementation is keying off the race ability score modifiers. 

That is, take Dragonborn: +2 Strength, +2 Charisma.
These modifiers key off the Str and Cha attacks, and the Fortitude and Will defenses.

_Remember all of this is presuming you get a basic +3 bonus to all attacks and defenses (at 25th level perhaps)._

We would then say you could not take feats like Expertise for Str/Cha attacks and you could not take the corresponding +3 defense feats (whatever its name is) for Fort/Will. 

This would hopefully ensure the bonuses only benefit secondary features in a deterministic way (not involving the DM).

Of course, we need to check that for newly generated level 25 characters we haven't simply reversed racial favorites for specific classes....


----------



## darkInertia

Although I think it's a good and important discussion, let's keep on topic and not discuss the defense tier gap (which can instead be found here).

In regards to expertise, I think we need to ask ourselves the following questions:

1) Should feats be relatively equivalent in power/effect?

2) Is expertise equivalent in power to other similar feats?

3) Is there a deficit in the math supporting the game mechanics related to PC attack progression versus monster defense progression?

For the first and second points, I don't think that it is helpful to bring in the argument that a power of a feat is defined by when a PC will/must take that feat. As other people have posted, players are varied in their play style and in how they get enjoyment from the game,

Instead, when looking at the feat, you must compare it to other feats, specifically feats that have a similar mechanic. Thus, it is not helpful to compare expertise to any of the feats that grant a bonus to skills, since they are affecting two different mechanics in the game. The better comparisons are between either feats that grant a bonus to damage, or better yet, feats like Nimble Blade.

Because of its lack of requirements (both to obtain the feat and the bonus granted by the feat), as well as it's scaling with each tier, expertise is a more powerful feat than nimble blade, and thus it is one of the stronger feats to take (at any tier).

However, I think that the first question cannot be argued or proved. It is ultimately up to the developers of the game to decide, although we as consumers and players should hold them accountable to it. While we all have our own opinion about this subject, the developers must decide whether they want their game to be balanced, and if it should contain power creep.

Finally, people have already gone through and done the legwork and math to show that the last point is true and relevant. Whether this was an oversight or if it was intended for a purpose, people's opinions of this deficit are varied. I think that it would be very helpful if we received feedback to these questions from the developer, but barring that, many informed people seem confident in choosing a side and making a house rule to fix these questions and problems cause by this feat.


----------



## Smeelbo

*PHB+2 rewards specialists (20) over generalists (16)*

After looking over the new feats in _PHB+2_, my new concern is that these feats greatly favor specialists _(characters with a starting score of 20 in their attack),_ and generalists _(those with a starting 16)._

Prior to these new feats, one could reasonably argue that the specialist paid for his higher attack bonus with his much narrower stats, and so his defenses would suffer significantly, whereas the generalist had overall better stats and more solid defenses.

However, the new attack and defense feats greatly favor the specialist.  Since offense is clearly better than defense, the specialist gains more from taking _Expertise_, and can cover his supposed weakness by taking the defense feats.  It is not symmetrical, because improving already decent defenses is not as good as improving an already great offense.

Thus the generalist falls further behind the specialist.

The specialist can adequately mimic the main advantage of the generalist, better defenses, but the generalist attempt to mimic the specialist fails.  The generalists sole hope is the significance of his higher secondary stats, which, by the trends we are seeing towards single stat classes, appears to be a fool's bet.

In my opinion, if 4E cannot withstand 16s, it has failed.  If only starting 18s and 20s need apply, that a lot of the _"choice" _and_ "flexibility"_ that have been sold to us is little more than snake oil.

It may well be.  But it makes me sad.

*Smeelbo*


----------



## Obryn

Smeelbo said:


> Since offense is clearly better than defense, the specialist gains more from taking _Expertise_, and can cover his supposed weakness by taking the defense feats.  It is not symmetrical, because improving already decent defenses is not as good as improving an already great offense.



I think your math is off...

A +1 to-hit from any source benefits someone with a lower chance of hitting more than it benefits someone with a higher chance of hitting.

As an example, if character A has a 50% chance of hitting, a +2 to-hit improves his chances of connecting by 20%.

If character B has an 80% chance of hitting, a +2 to-hit improves his chances of connecting by 12%.

Yes, of course it helps specialists.  But it helps generalists _more._

-O


----------



## keterys

That actually ignores the benefits of reliability (and I don't mean Reliable) - that is to say, increased chance to land the stun effect, to immobilize all the targets in an area, etc. 

Damage is increased less for the high hit person in proportion (but equally in literal amount, ie like +5 DPR each), but it's _all good_.


----------



## WalterKovacs

Smeelbo said:


> The generalists sole hope is the significance of his higher secondary stats, which, by the trends we are seeing towards single stat classes, appears to be a fool's bet.




Actually, the new classes benefit more from the secondary stat than many of the original classes.

The wizard, for example, has very little outside of at-wills that reference wisdom, and I can't think of any that reference dex or con. So, other than a single once per encounter class feature, the wizard is almost entirely a single stat. However, a lot of the classes in the PHBII rely on their secondary stat for AC [unless they buy a lot of heavy armor feats which still has stat requirements].

Examples:

The avenger's class features each key off their secondary stats (not to mention both secondary stats apply to AC). Each stat has an at-will that benefits from it directly. At each level of encounter attack power there is one power for each class feature with a bonus based on DEX/INT stats. There is also a paragon path that benefits from intelligence.

The barbarian actually needs to either get heavy armor, or _some_ ammount of DEX/INT (they get a boost to AC/Reflex while in light armor, but it isn't enough to allow you to completely dump those stats. You'd probably want a minimum of 14 to start, and even then it wouldn't be that great.)

The class features each use the secondary stat, and will trigger multiple times per battle, as a striker will likely bloody or kill a few enemies each fight presumably. While again there are encounter powers all over the place that benefit from the secondary stats, in this case there are also some dailies and utilities that use the stats. Only one at-will uses con, and none use charisma though.

Compared to Fighters and Wizards, and Wisdom Clerics, etc ... the PHBII classes have more focus on encouraging the secondary stat.

Every class could just max out their attack stat if they wanted to, but most classes discourage it (and, with PHBII having no class with proficiency in scale or plate armor, you can't exactly ignore your stats as you'll need them for AC one way or the other, either for armor prof or using light armor well.


----------



## KarinsDad

Obryn said:


> I think your math is off...
> 
> A +1 to-hit from any source benefits someone with a lower chance of hitting more than it benefits someone with a higher chance of hitting.
> 
> As an example, if character A has a 50% chance of hitting, a +2 to-hit improves his chances of connecting by 20%.
> 
> If character B has an 80% chance of hitting, a +2 to-hit improves his chances of connecting by 12%.
> 
> Yes, of course it helps specialists.  But it helps generalists _more._
> 
> -O




I think your math is off...

Don't let percentages fool you.



The generalist (16 stat) has a 50% chance of doing x points of damage.

The specialist (20 stat) at +2 (only, not 30% like your example) has a 60% chance of doing x+2 points of damage.

Let's pick a reasonable number for x (like 10 to keep it simple).

A: 50% * 10 = normally 5, but goes to 6 with 60%. Net gain: 1 point of average damage.

B: 60% * 12 = normally 7.2, but goes to 8.4 with 70%. Net gain: 1.2 points of average damage.

No matter which x you pick, the specialist gets a greater increase in average damage: x = 20, A gains 2 (10 to 12), B gains 2.2 (13.2 to 15.4).

Yes, of course it helps generalists.  But it helps specialists _more._


----------



## Obryn

KarinsDad said:


> Yes, of course it helps generalists.  But it helps specialists _more._



...because they're already doing more damage in the first place, and this helps them do that increased damage some more?

Of course they're doing a tad more damage.  Hitting and landing those rider effects is important, too, and shouldn't be overlooked.

-O


----------



## grickherder

KarinsDad said:


> A: 50% * 10 = normally 5, but goes to 6 with 60%. Net gain: 1 point of average damage.
> 
> B: 60% * 12 = normally 7.2, but goes to 8.4 with 70%. Net gain: 1.2 points of average damage.




For completeness sake, let's make an 18 stat one as well:

C: 55% * 11 = normally 6.05, but goes to 7.15 with 65%.  Net gain: 1.1

But what does one have to give up to get that 18 or 20?  Not much for an 18.  If your race gives you bonuses to both your primary stat and your seconday, you can get 18, 18 without much trouble.  If you're alright with a secondary of 16, the third higest stat can be a 15.

But that 20, that takes doing.  The most you secondary stat will be at that point is a 14 (+2).  So that's 1 or 2 less every time a secondary stat would give you something (and between pretty much all the PHB2 classes, rangers, many rogue powers, fighter opportunity attack rolls, paladin powers and lay on hands, warlock powers, and warlord stuff, that's a lot of the time).  And if it's not constitution, then you've got a 12 left over hit points, assuming you don't need it somewhere else to qualify for feats later on.  That's an awful lot to give up to get an extra .2 points of damage per attack out of Expertise at level 15.

As for what works with D&D, 16 can get you by.  18 is pretty much the default and 20 works for some builds, but is not wise for most.  16 will get you by if what you're gaining in exchange is worth it-- and that gets pretty specific build by build.  An extra lay on hand can make the difference at the right time.  Would I recommend 16?  Nope, but I consider it a viable minimum and won't discourage someone from trying a build with a 16 as their primary attack stat.


----------



## Danceofmasks

I posted a rant elsewhere, and I figured I'll post it here, too.
Apologies if most of the points have already been made, as the rant was meant to sum up the power creep issue.

So <Weapon/Implement> Expertise.
Ok, +1 to hit means a lot.
Much more than most players think, but I'll leave them to their delusions at heroic tier, and focus on epic tier.
+3 hitroll is a 15% swing in the odds of inflicting status conditions, up to and including the ideal "dead" condition.

It's huge. It's so huge that having players with and without on the same table is a catalyst for disgust at the necessity of retraining.
Perhaps it's to compensate for PCs getting +26 hitroll over 29 level gains, whilst their foes get +29 to all defenses over those same 29 level gains.
They stuffed up the maths, and rather than admit their mistake and apply errata, they're trying to do the same thing with a feat.
In a book that costs money.

If it's a computer game, it'd be tantamount to "charging me $40 to un@#$%! my game."

So it widens the gap between haves and have-nots, the very definition of power creep and unbalanced supplementary material.
What was it WotC said about 4e, sweet spots, and fundamental game mechanics?
Now, I usually despise house-ruling but right now, the rather common "I'll just give all my players that boost to all their attacks" is a great idea.

Irregardless, in campaigns, tournaments, and in other by-the-book settings, PCs will have to have these feats at least once.
At least.

And that there is the other problem.
The feat doesn't apply to all your possible attack rolls.

Rather than the supplement providing options for being cooler at what you do, it becomes more of a chokehold on builds.
So we have twice as many feats to choose from, but having a half dozen nigh-necessary feats make these choices moot.

Maybe my point isn't immediately apparent, so I'll use a classic example: the cha paladin.

Used to be, they already had issues having to invest in holy symbols as well as weapons. Why, now it's not just an investment in gear, it's an investment in feats, too. Ok, fine ... so they always had that issue with their damroll, but 3 points of damroll at epic tier is a small slice of total damage output, whilst 3 points of hitroll is an enormous gap in effectiveness ... partly because total potential damage output is so much higher.
Used to be, they had problems doing melee basic attacks. You now have a feat to .. use cha instead.
Throw in a few other choice feats based on race or class, such as healing hands, and what happens?

The available pool of "feats your character wants" ends up being smaller than before the release of PHB2.
I reiterate. Smaller pool of desired feats.
That is a sign of unbalance, don't you think?

Not that I'm surprised at the way it's turning out, the very fact that material in PHB1 is unbalanced against other material in PHB1 means it was always going to happen.
But no feat should ever be so disgustingly overpowered that it's a case of "have it or be sub-optimal."


----------



## CapnZapp

darkInertia said:


> Although I think it's a good and important discussion, let's keep on topic and not discuss the defense tier gap (which can instead be found here).



I started a thread where we can collect all the feats and items and such that impact the "base math" of the game:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/252766-index-attack-defense-boosters.html (both for attack and defenses)

Even if we end up not removing them, it's still nice to know what we're dealing with.


----------



## darkInertia

Wizard's has already removed the double-dipping of weapons with multiple groups:

Add the following sentence to the end of the Benefits section: “Even if an weapon qualifies for this bonus more than once, you can apply the bonus only once when using that weapon.”

source


----------



## Regicide

darkInertia said:


> Wizard's has already removed the double-dipping of weapons with multiple groups:
> 
> Add the following sentence to the end of the Benefits section: “Even if an weapon qualifies for this bonus more than once, you can apply the bonus only once when using that weapon.”
> 
> source




  I'd say it's funny that they made the exact same mistake and errata with a very similar feat in the Player's Handbook 2 for 3.5E (called "Melee Weapon Mastery"), but it isn't really funny.  Okay, it is a bit.


----------



## keterys

I've several times gotten the impression that WotC designs and tests for normal games, rather than "I am trying to break the game" games.

Maybe they just don't have enough people of the right temperament, or they're too goodhearted (gullible)


----------



## Bolongo

I'm lucky in that when I described the feat/s to my players they all responded the same way: that it's a boring way to design a feat, that they would all feel obligated to spend a feat slot on it, and that they would be happy if I banned it.

So I did.


----------



## Lauberfen

Bolongo said:


> I'm lucky in that when I described the feat/s to my players they all responded the same way: that it's a boring way to design a feat, that they would all feel obligated to spend a feat slot on it, and that they would be happy if I banned it.
> 
> So I did.



Case closed.


Amusing that they moved so quickly (many people getting their book through Amazon don't even have it yet [at least here in the UK]), but still no official response about why they made the feats in the first place, and about the (supposed) attack/defense gaps.

Any more word on an official response?


----------



## Smeelbo

*Does the teir gap actually even exist?*



			
				Keterys said:
			
		

> I've several times gotten the impression that WotC designs and tests for normal games, rather than "I am trying to break the game" games.
> 
> Maybe they just don't have enough people of the right temperament, or they're too goodhearted (gullible)



There are several disincentives against playtesting.


Good playtesting requires adherence to a design methodology.
This in turn requires skilled and disciplined management.
Once a lax development culture is in place, it is in the participants' self interest to maintain the status quo.
Broken powers and combinations have a measurable positive effect on revenue.
Decades of subpar software development practices have lowered end user/customer expectations to the point where failure to meet design criteria is normal.
Because of these lowered expectations, improved quality does not yield increased revenue.
So most developers, whether pen and paper or software do the minimal possible testing, as having better processes increases up front costs, and has a negative impact on revenues.

Unless the number of broken combinations rises above a certain threshold, it is better to errata after the revenue has been booked, than to catch that combination in advance.

_"The fix is in the mail."_

Back to the original subject, after DMing the _PHB2 WW Game Day Adventure_, I am less convinced that the supposed tier gap really exists, even prior to _Expertise_. The main argument against the gap is that as player level rises, tactics are expected to make up the apparent attack deficit.

The counter argument is that tactics or synergies are first, roughly constant over level, so effectively the same tactics are available at heroic as at epic, and second, comparable tactics and synergies are available to the monsters, and third, to the extent that more tactics and synergies become available as level rises, they become equally available to both monsters and players.

I don't think this is really so.

Clearly, higher level characters have more powers, and therefore potentially more tactics and synergies available to them. The number of abilities a character can expect to have available by level is approximately:

Level/Abilities (including racial, class, and items)
1/8
6/15
11/26
16/33
21/38
26/42
30/48

Which is a considerable number of powers for the player to choose from.

In constrast, monsters have vastly smaller numbers of available powers, roughly 2-3 powers per tier, at most. Further, while parties are extremely diverse, with no duplicate members and few identical abililities, there are almost always fewer distinct monster types in an encounter than player characters, and parties mostly do not face groups of monsters that greatly outnumber them.

So on a given round, the players might have approximately between 10 to 50 options per character, or between 10^5th and 3x10^8th permutations of options, while the monsters have more like between 10 and 3x10^3 permuations of options.

It is this power of permutations wherein the great power of the player character arises. Some of those permutations yield very great advantage, and the players have orders of magnitude more options than the monsters.

Indeed, I can safely predict that what will break 4E in the not-so-long-run will be ability of players to apply powerful combinations faster than the publisher's ability to errata. The awful gap that arose in 3.X may take somewhat longer to raise its ugly head in 4E, and it may be possible to beat it down longer, but as long as new material is published, the permutive hydra will grow new heads faster than exponentially.

Consider the cheesy goodness that is the character optimization forum. They will continue to discover nastier cheese that becomes harder and harder to fix. The power of the group is in the combination of its powers, and not so much to be found in the individual powers themselves.

But you still have to hit!

Aid another.

_Expertise_ seems more and more to me like a weak fix to a problem that never existed in the first place.

*Smeelbo*


----------



## KarinsDad

Smeelbo said:


> But you still have to hit!
> 
> Aid another.
> 
> _Expertise_ seems more and more to me like a weak fix to a problem that never existed in the first place.




Your post here is similar to what I might have written a month ago (even with regard to the software industry). Even looking at the math, I was convinced (like you are) that synergy bonuses and additional number of powers made up the difference.

But after running a mock up 22nd level hard encounter where the BBEG needed a 4 to hit most of the time and the PCs needed a 16 or 17 to hit, I no longer believe that.

The PCs will still survive. The extra number of powers will allow the PCs to survive. For a standard encounter, the difference is that instead of 8 rounds at 60% chance to hit, it becomes 12 rounds at 40% chance to hit. Throw in some synergies and bump that up to 50% chance to hit, ok. 10 rounds (if the +2 synergies last the entire encounter).

For a hard encounter, the difference is that instead of 12 rounds at 40% chance to hit, it becomes 24 rounds at 20% chance to hit.

No doubt about it. The players will have more options. The issue is that those options do not last the entire encounter and some of those options do not occur as frequently.

Take something as simple as Lance of Faith.

At low level, if the Cleric hits 50% of the time, Lance of Faith helps one round in two when used.

At high level, if the Cleric hits 35% of the time, Lance of Faith only helps one round in three when used, not one in two.

In order to even stay even with the Lance of Faith synergy bonus over the lifetime of an encounter, someone else has to give the Cleric a different +3 synergy bonus over the lifetime of the encounter.

It's actually the equivalent of a synergy death spiral. Because the chance to hit is less, the chance to gain certain types of synergies is less.


It's great that the dynamic synergy bonuses (i.e. ones based on an ability score modifier) increase. +6 to hit for the next attack at high level instead of +3 to hit at low level. The problem is, the odds of giving that bonus are less and the actual gain is the same.

Fighter has 60% chance to hit at low level. Warlord gives him +3. His chance goes to 75%.

Fighter has 45% chance to hit at high level. Warlord gives him +6. His chance goes to 75%.

If the Warlock's power does not require an attack roll, there is no difference. If it does require an attack roll, the Fighter's chances go down.


----------



## keterys

There are a few things - like TacLord and paragon path AP multi attack novas - that make it difficult to see the full picture. 

I actually think it's a bug more with any ability that provides an ability bonus to hit (lead the attack, taclord AP use, etc) or penalty to defense, or otherwise provides a swing in accuracy of more than about 2.


----------



## chaotix42

There are a TON of bugs, then! The PHB2 is just loaded with various ways to get bonuses to hit. That half-orc epic feat that gives +4 to hit when you crit till the end of your next turn made me tingle.


----------



## KarinsDad

chaotix42 said:


> There are a TON of bugs, then! The PHB2 is just loaded with various ways to get bonuses to hit. That half-orc epic feat that gives +4 to hit when you crit till the end of your next turn made me tingle.




Many of these are very specialized and do not occur every round of an encounter. If they do, then a DM will have to review them carefully for his game.


----------



## Drudenfusz

I think the Expertise feats are the worst bug-fix I have ever seen. It ruins player choices (cause other bonuses on attack rolls from feats are weaker), it makes the Warden weaker (cause this class has Powers which are neither Weapon or Implement, like all his level 29 dailies), it makes classes with Weapon and Implement Powers (cause they have to take both feats), it makes spontaneous changes of weapon (find one in an Adventure) a bad choice (cause you fight not as good any more).


----------



## Regicide

KarinsDad said:


> But after running a mock up 22nd level hard encounter where the BBEG needed a 4 to hit most of the time and the PCs needed a 16 or 17 to hit, I no longer believe that.




  Sounds like a bad test.  44 AC (pit fiend) is the highest I've found for level 26s in the MM, every other one is lower, most much lower and the level 25s lower still.
  At 22 you'll have 11 (lvl) + 7 (stat) + 3 (prof) + 5 (magic) + 2 (CA) = +28, or a 16 to hit WITHOUT... feats, racials, bonuses from power and any benefits of the other party members (aside from flanking).  A party should have an easy time getting those to-hits under a 10 and thats on the absolute hardest fight 4 levels above them.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Why I do not see the problem...Well to put it blunt no one who doesn't do the math sees it in play (and by no one I mean not a noticeable %, you would think here, WotC and RPGnet would be full of “My epic character can’t hit” threads) because as powers and items scale PCs have more options. You see at level 30 you have 3 magic item uses +1 per milestone (2 more then 1st level) you also have 16 more feats specializing you, a bunch of magic items, more powers that have better effects (other then damage that also scales) and you have more healing.

       The numbers only take +x to hit Vs Y Ac into account, the wizard powers that do things on miss and hit the whole dang board are not calculated, or the cool PP powers that do things like auto damage, or bonus to hit, or free movement. Heck fighters have auto damage stances as early as 5th level, there are too many X factors for the math to take into account.

If you really get from level 1-level 25 and then feel like you have somehow gotten worse for having leveled, then please show us your examples.

Now having said that I have seen a small number of characters that can’t hit well (or atleast feel that is the case) all the way at level 1, and stay feeling that way  the whole campaign. I will give 3 examples:

      A warlord and the DM made us roll for stats, he got 1 15 and 1 13. Other then that they were all 11 or less. He dropped the 15 in Int, and the 13 in Str, and is a genesi He uses an Axe ( a +2 prof) and at first level had +4 to hit. We are now 9th level and he has +10 (+1 weapon). He insistes his 10th level feat will be expertise.

       Same player older character. Ranger default array half elf. He started with a 16 dex, a 14 str and a 13 wisdom. He was the Archer who could fall back on two weapons. Because he has a habit of rolling low he chose careful attack and nimble strike. His dilatants was Piercing strike. He had 2 short swords, a throwing Axe, and a long bow. His enchantments were always low (Like he still had a +2 something long bow at 20th level). If we were still playing that game he would take this feat

        Different Player Cleric. Human. Wanted to walk the line so he started (after race mod) with a 16 Str and a 16 Wis and 14 charisma. This character is in LFR, so his items are more level appropriate then the other two, but he feels he needs an edge.

I will now give 3 counter examples:

         Same player as the first two. Eladrin war wizard, he specializes in large AOE. He has multi implements each with different cool powers. He started with a 20 Int, and his 11th level feat is already set to be second imp master. ( we are now at level 6). He never feels he has prolems hitting, and infact he has both a +2 wand and a +2 orb already. He has too many feats he wants, he will probably never even look at expertise.

       Same player as the 3rd one up top, same game as the one right above here. Level 6 Drow Rouge. Artful Dodger. He uses daggers, and he often explains that he has at least 3 different ways to call combat advantage each round, he very often is quieted as “I need a 4 or better to hit”

         My warlord. I started with a 16 Str, and have a long sword. I have not hit every attack, although I have never found him to have major issues. I ran him from level 2 to level 27. This was befor PHB2 was previewed, and I had no issue hitting, or feeling useful. The only time I remember prolems was with elite or solo soldiers of our level +3 or more


----------



## KarinsDad

Regicide said:


> Sounds like a bad test.  44 AC (pit fiend) is the highest I've found for level 26s in the MM, every other one is lower, most much lower and the level 25s lower still.
> At 22 you'll have 11 (lvl) + 7 (stat) + 3 (prof) + 5 (magic) + 2 (CA) = +28, or a 16 to hit WITHOUT... feats, racials, bonuses from power and any benefits of the other party members (aside from flanking).  A party should have an easy time getting those to-hits under a 10 and thats on the absolute hardest fight 4 levels above them.




It was a fine test. It was a hard encounter test.

CA does not apply. It is not guaranteed, especially at higher levels.

11 (lvl) + 7 (stat) + 3 (prof) + 5 (magic) = +26

Also, not all 22nd level PCs have a +5 magic weapon or implement. When playing the game, some PCs might have a +4 item at level 22. And, not all weapons are +3 proficiency. So the to hit range for PCs is +24 to +26.

So here we have a situation that is considered a typical hard encounter with PCs needing an 18, 19, or 20 to hit without other situational bonuses.

The ACs in the MM for level 26 opponents are: AC 41, 44, 43, 42, 42, 42, 40, 40

This is an average of ~42 with a to hit range of +24 to +26. The required number on the die ranges from 16 to 18 (15 to 17 for a Fighter).


And this is at level 22. The problem is worse at level 30.


To illustrate your "a party should have an easy time getting those to-hits under a 10" claim, you would have to state exactly which bonuses that you are talking about. "Under 10" is 7 to 9 below 16 to 18. And the bonuses that are available should be available most rounds of combat. Sure, some paragon paths have a +1 to hit. But there are few other bonuses that really last an entire encounter. As an example, if a Cleric has a 20% chance to hit with Lance of Faith and does not hit, the +2 is not available that round. The +2 bonus is worth considerably less than a +0.4 bonus equivalent because it only works 1 round in 5 and LoF would not even be used every round.


----------



## Amphimir Míriel

77IM said:


> The worst thing about this feat is that it penalizes players who aren't into math.  Our boy Noob McRoleplay, who doesn't understand why attack bonus is important so he plays an eladrin starlock with a 15 in both Con and Ch, might skip this feat because it's boring.  But his fellow player Minmax McMunchkin, who is a halfling rogue with Dex 20 and rogue weapon talent (daggers) and who basically sneak attacks constantly, is going to snatch up this feat very early on.  This makes the power-gap between the two characters even worse.  This is the epitome of imbalance.
> 
> Fortunately this particular feat is not the end of the world (there are numerous ways to easily fix this imbalance) but it represents to me the sort of broken rule that I was hoping 4e would be moving away from.
> 
> -- 77IM




How about restricting the feat to characters that have less than 17 in their primary attribute (in heroic, maybe less than 20 in paragon and less than 22 in epic)?

That way, we can give this feat to the odd build with MAD so that they are not left behind?


----------



## Regicide

KarinsDad said:


> It was a fine test. It was a hard encounter test.




  No, you can't say that with a straight face.



KarinsDad said:


> So here we have a situation that is considered a typical hard encounter with PCs needing an 18, 19, or 20 to hit without other situational bonuses.




  No, we have a situation that is the HARDEST hard encounter going against one of if not the HIGHEST defense of said creature, AND you're tying the party's hands by not counting ANY additional to-hit bonuses from feats, race, powers etc.  Calling that typical is absolutely ludicrous.



KarinsDad said:


> To illustrate your "a party should have an easy time getting those to-hits under a 10" claim, you would have to state exactly which bonuses that you are talking about.




  How about a rogue, going against reflex who took demigod and sly flourish and has combat advantage, which, despite what you say, is trivial to get, there is a 11 point difference right there, taking it under 10 to-hit WITHOUT any other powers or benefits of the party like triumphant strike, marks and the like.  And again, remember, this is the HARDEST hard encounter, NOT, as you claim "typical."

  Maybe this is why I've never seen ANYONE who has actually played in epic say it's anything like hard to hit.  Even the hardest possible +4 encounter is still pretty easy to handle before you start piling on all the benefits of stuff from Adventurer's Vault, Martial Power and PHB2 and the like.


----------



## KarinsDad

Regicide said:


> How about a rogue, going against reflex who took demigod and sly flourish and has combat advantage, which, despite what you say, is trivial to get, there is a 11 point difference right there, taking it under 10 to-hit WITHOUT any other powers or benefits of the party like triumphant strike, marks and the like.  And again, remember, this is the HARDEST hard encounter, NOT, as you claim "typical."




Actually, this is not "the HARDEST hard encounter". It's only that way if the foe is a solo. There is 1 46th level solo, 3 elites, 3 regulars, and 1 minion in the sample set. These creatures could show up in n, n+1, or n+2 encounters.

And, not every PC is a Rogue. Not every PC gets to use weapon proficiency against Reflex. Rogues are the opitome of "I can hit you easier than my friends, but you can hit me easier than hitting my friends too".

Explain how Combat Advantage is trivial to get. Yes, it's possible, even without flank. But, trivial?

Rogue with Dagger (+1), 18 starting Dex (+7 at level 22), level (+11), Demigod (+1), magic weapon (+5), +3 Proficiency = +28

46th level reflexes: 41, 38, 41, 40, 42, 35, 40, 38, average = 39+

Rogue hits on a 11, on a 9 with Combat Advantage. This is the best to hit class, maxxed out with Demigod (instead of Sly Trickster), has the best possible magic weapon at his level, and he has a reasonable change to hit a hard encounter foe. Other PCs do not have this, but he does.

The Rogue has AC 37: Leather (+3), 18 starting Dex (+7 at level 22), level (+11), Demigod (+1), magic armor (+5)

His opponents (the ones who can target AC) to hits are: +33, +32, +31, +31, +30, +31, average = +31.

They hit him on a 6. On a 4 if they get combat advantage against the Rogue.

So, the Rogue needs a 9 or 11 to hit and the monster needs a 4 or 6 to hit.


What happens if the Rogue does not start with an 18 Dex (like the Tiefling in our group)? Or does not take Demigod (which many Rogues might not)? Or only has a +4 magic weapon at level 22 (which is quite possible based on magic item distribution)?

Sorry, but your POV is not supportable, even when you stack the deck in your favor with the best to hit class with the best to hit options. That's not reality for every PC in every game.

The maxxed out Ranger with the +2 Prof Bow against AC hits on a 14 with combat advantage and 16 without.


----------



## Elric

Regicide said:


> Maybe this is why I've never seen ANYONE who has actually played in epic say it's anything like hard to hit.  Even the hardest possible +4 encounter is still pretty easy to handle before you start piling on all the benefits of stuff from Adventurer's Vault, Martial Power and PHB2 and the like.




I haven't played at anything near epic, so here's a question.  Assume you have an encounter of 2 Pit Fiends, who use their summon ability on the first round of combat for 2 War Devils each, plus 3 Ice Devils.  Do you think that a typical level 22 party straight out of the PH, without taking serious advantage of the few most powerful abilities in the book (Orb of Imposition, Champion of Order's Certain Justice power, Blood Mage's Destructive Salutation, and Rain of Blows come to mind at level 22) would have a pretty easy time with it?  I think this would be really tough for most parties, but it's a level+4 encounter (just under 45K exp), which you say would be pretty easy above.

Now, this may reflect the Pit Fiend's summon ability being a little too strong.  However, Karinsdad's test fight used Doresain the Ghoul King, who seems very weak on offense for a level 27 Elite.



KarinsDad said:


> Rogue with Dagger (+1), 18 starting Dex (+7 at level 22), level (+11), Demigod (+1), magic weapon (+5) = +25
> 
> Rogue hits on a 14, on a 12 with Combat Advantage. This is the best to hit class, maxxed out with Demigod (instead of Sly Trickster), has the best possible magic weapon at his level, and he has a reasonable change to hit a hard encounter foe. Other PCs do not have this, but he does.




You have forgotten about a Dagger's base proficiency bonus, so his attack should be 3 higher than you have listed.


----------



## Ryujin

KarinsDad said:


> What happens if the Rogue does not start with an 18 Dex (like the Tiefling in our group)? Or does not take Demigod (which many Rogues might not)? Or only has a +4 magic weapon at level 22 (which is quite possible based on magic item distribution)?




Then, much like my Warlock that started with a 16 CHA and is still using a +1 implement at 8th level, he doesn't hit for beans. I'm really starting to notice the disparity now, as we just faced a few battles in which a cult's THUGS has 22 STR and beat on us mercilessly. Missing a +1 here and there shouldn't be a make/break and it tends to be painful for someone like me who plays the character, not the math.


----------



## KarinsDad

Elric said:


> You have forgotten about a Dagger's base proficiency bonus, so his attack should be 3 higher than you have listed.




Yup. Doh! 

I realized that later on, but did not have a chance to get back to it.

Still, the maxxed out Rogue (who gets the big +3 boost going against Reflex instead of AC) needs a 9 to 11. Other PCs do not.


----------



## KarinsDad

Ryujin said:


> Then, much like my Warlock that started with a 16 CHA and is still using a +1 implement at 8th level, he doesn't hit for beans. I'm really starting to notice the disparity now, as we just faced a few battles in which a cult's THUGS has 22 STR and beat on us mercilessly. Missing a +1 here and there shouldn't be a make/break and it tends to be painful for someone like me who plays the character, not the math.




This is brutal.

As DM, I had an enemy with a +1 Dagger (forget the name, the weapon from AV where it increases +1 to hit on each miss). After the 2nd level 16 Dex Rogue killed him, the Rogue ended up with the dagger. I have 5 indentations and a gem in the hilt to clue the player in that he can have the Arcane ritual PC improve the bonus to hit in the future. This worked out well for this particular player since he prefers to have items that improve over time for the same PC instead of finding new items and swapping old out for new.


----------



## catsclaw227

Didn't Mearls say there would be a Design & Development article on these Expertise feats in the near future (maybe even this month?)

That will, at least, shed some light on the situation.


----------



## grickherder

GMforPowergamers said:


> Why I do not see the problem...Well to put it blunt no one who doesn't do the math sees it in play (and by no one I mean not a noticeable %, you would think here, WotC and RPGnet would be full of “My epic character can’t hit” threads) because as powers and items scale PCs have more options.




You nailed it.  And your real game examples are perfectly appropriate.  I'm finding it to be exactly the same way.  The whole expertise scare is a good example of theoretical problems that don't exist in actual play.  

Expertise is a nice useful feat for those sub-optimal builds but hardly necessary for those builds that already hit enough.  The rogue with multiple ways of getting combat advantage with a subsequent +14 to attack vs reflex at level 4 (+5 for dex, +4 for dagger, +2 for combat advantage, +2 for level, +1 for magic dagger) should hardly bother with it.


----------



## Drudenfusz

grickherder said:


> Expertise is a nice useful feat for those sub-optimal builds but hardly necessary for those builds that already hit enough.  The rogue with multiple ways of getting combat advantage with a subsequent +14 to attack vs reflex at level 4 (+5 for dex, +4 for dagger, +2 for combat advantage, +2 for level, +1 for magic dagger) should hardly bother with it.



At Level 6 I have taken the Feat for my RPGA Rogue (before the PHB2 I have thought about taking Nimble Blade, but Weapon Expertise is by far the better choice)...


----------



## Regicide

grickherder said:


> Expertise is a nice useful feat for those sub-optimal builds but hardly necessary for those builds that already hit enough.  The rogue with multiple ways of getting combat advantage with a subsequent +14 to attack vs reflex at level 4 (+5 for dex, +4 for dagger, +2 for combat advantage, +2 for level, +1 for magic dagger) should hardly bother with it.




  Except, as has been shown, repeatedly, in this thread, that it's, if not the best, among the top 3 or 5 feats, for ANY character, even ones that are already hitting more than 50% of the time.  This is why it's called a feat tax, since every single character should take this feat.


----------



## keterys

I've seen a group of all level 4 PCs that had it, a group of level 1s that _half_ had it (I didn't doublecheck when they just hit 2nd, but I bet it's 2/3 now... but I know the bard doesn't have it cause he'd need 2 feats, so he just gripes about it whenever he misses), and I have 3 LFR characters (level 4, 5, and 7) who all have it. And I'd _definitely_ rather have other feats on all three of those characters, but it's mathematically imprudent.

I was willing to give the game the benefit of the doubt that it would actually take until higher levels for the feat to really become ubiquitous, but no... it took about a week after the book came out for it to become ubiquitous, even with no group over 7 that I'm currently running or playing in (the high level game is on hold - I assume they'll all have it as soon as they can retrain). Yay.


----------



## catsclaw227

keterys said:


> I have 3 LFR characters (level 4, 5, and 7) who all have it. And I'd _definitely_ rather have other feats on all three of those characters, but it's mathematically imprudent.



But.... for a silly +1 to hit you would rather do the "mathematically prudent" thing than build the character you want?

In a good campaign, hitting 1 out 20 times more often is not as fulfilling as taking a feat where I get some RP out of it.

Really?  A +1 is that important at 7th level?  Where did all the role-playing go?


----------



## grickherder

Regicide said:


> Except, as has been shown, repeatedly, in this thread, that it's, if not the best, among the top 3 or 5 feats, for ANY character, even ones that are already hitting more than 50% of the time.  This is why it's called a feat tax, since every single character should take this feat.




In the two games I run and the game I play in, no one has taken it.  Even with a free retrain offered by the DMs whenever a new book comes out.  Not a single person.  For all this "should" take it, people I game with are simply not making it the auto-include that the critics of expertise claim it to be.  Are these people _wrong_ not to take it?

I was so amused that no one was interested in it after all the ruckus online, that I tried to sell other people on it.  No bites.  Almost universally their answer as to why they aren't taking it was that they didn't need it.  It was on my short list for my avenger until I actually played the Avenger.  Oath of Emnity is the mathematical equivilant of like a +4.5 to hit on average, so I decided there were better things to get than a measly +1.  It's still on my long list though.  Aiming to take it after level 15.


----------



## HardcoreDandDGirl

catsclaw227 said:


> But.... for a silly +1 to hit you would rather do the "mathematically prudent" thing than build the character you want?
> 
> In a good campaign, hitting 1 out 20 times more often is not as fulfilling as taking a feat where I get some RP out of it.
> 
> Really? A +1 is that important at 7th level? Where did all the role-playing go?



when I see people choose math over playing the game I want to cry, and trust me I had a very eye opening experiance just last week.


----------



## grickherder

catsclaw227 said:


> But.... for a silly +1 to hit you would rather do the "mathematically prudent" thing than build the character you want?
> 
> In a good campaign, hitting 1 out 20 times more often is not as fulfilling as taking a feat where I get some RP out of it.
> 
> Really?  A +1 is that important at 7th level?  Where did all the role-playing go?




It's all about play priorities.  And some people get torn between taking interesting/character/role-playing related feat choices and feat choices that give them greater combat effectiveness.  They're welcome to those priorities, but they also need to take responsibility for the choices that result.  Subsequently, expertise is not a (feat) tax any more than the lottery is.  

It's not mandatory-- even for those that have some sort of play priority that is somehow compelling them to take it.  It's still a choice and people need to own up to the fact that they are prioritizing mathematical combat efficiency above other priorities.  It's them doing it, not the feat doing it and they're somehow powerless and have no choice but to write "expertise" on their character sheet.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

catsclaw227 said:


> Didn't Mearls say there would be a Design & Development article on these Expertise feats in the near future (maybe even this month?)



      yes early last week I asked him to look into this (I am a nobody, but he listened anyway...go figure)



grickherder said:


> You nailed it.  And your real game examples are perfectly appropriate.  I'm finding it to be exactly the same way.  The whole expertise scare is a good example of theoretical problems that don't exist in actual play.



     Thank you, I have been trying to push against this 'math build' stuff for months here and at WotC on the errata board. If no one noticed the problem before the feat, then how can the feat be a fix for the problem?



Regicide said:


> Except, as has been shown, repeatedly, in this thread, that it's, if not the best, among the top 3 or 5 feats, for ANY character, even ones that are already hitting more than 50% of the time.  This is why it's called a feat tax, since every single character should take this feat.



       Again that only takes into account that everyone weighs feats equaly. witch is better Multi classing to meet your concept, Rit caster to give you new options, attack bonus, or defence bonus? you can't break that quastion down to math. It is only a tax on people who WANT to hit more, just like tougness is a tax on people who want more hp, or lingustic is a tax on people who want more languages, or maybe rit caster is a tax on fighters that want to cast rit... It is a feat to give attack bonus, it is the BEST feat for that catagory, OK (I even think it should be nerfed a little +1 at heroic +2 @ 21) but it is not utomatic by any means, heck read my post ont he last page for characters who do not need it.



keterys said:


> I've seen a group of all level 4 PCs that had it, a group of level 1s that _half_ had it (I didn't doublecheck when they just hit 2nd, but I bet it's 2/3 now... but I know the bard doesn't have it cause he'd need 2 feats, so he just gripes about it whenever he misses), and I have 3 LFR characters (level 4, 5, and 7) who all have it. And I'd _definitely_ rather have other feats on all three of those characters, but it's mathematically imprudent.



please remember that everytime that bard complains inless he missed by 1 that feat would not help. It would only help 5% of the time if we wanted to do this by math . 



> I was willing to give the game the benefit of the doubt that it would actually take until higher levels for the feat to really become ubiquitous, but no... it took about a week after the book came out for it to become ubiquitous, even with no group over 7 that I'm currently running or playing in (the high level game is on hold - I assume they'll all have it as soon as they can retrain). Yay.



 So you all like to play offencive characters, and have a head for theratical numbers, and that clouds your way of thinking. 3 weeks ago when you had no such feat did you guys complain "Damn I wish I could get +1 better"??


----------



## Regicide

catsclaw227 said:


> Really?  A +1 is that important at 7th level?  Where did all the role-playing go?




  There are RP feats?  Really?  Seriously, if you're looking for RP, 4E is not for you.  It is a combat simulator.



grickherder said:


> In the two games I run and the game I play in, no one has taken it.  Even with a free retrain offered by the DMs whenever a new book comes out.  Not a single person.  For all this "should" take it, people I game with are simply not making it the auto-include that the critics of expertise claim it to be.  Are these people _wrong_ not to take it?




  They are making a beginner's mistake in not taking it because the math isn't obvious to them.  Fighters fight better, wizards wiz more, rogues are more rogueish etc.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

grickherder said:


> It's all about play priorities.  And some people get torn between taking interesting/character/role-playing related feat choices and feat choices that give them greater combat effectiveness.  They're welcome to those priorities, but they also need to take responsibility for the choices that result.  Subsequently, expertise is not a (feat) tax any more than the lottery is.



 just remember you can't win if you don't play. So my odds of becoming a millionar soar when I gamble...



> It's still a choice and people need to own up to the fact that they are prioritizing mathematical combat efficiency above other priorities.



  I think I need this quote hot keyed for the rest of this arguement...


----------



## keterys

I already have the feats for my core concept by about 2nd... after that it's just a matter of what little fiddly things I want beyond that. 

So, sure, I'd rather have hurl breath on my dragonborn warlord cause it's nifty than +1 to hit... but the +1 to hit just flat out helps my party more. But the paladin multiclass I took at 1st level and is the thing that was actually important to his character.

Similarly, my fighter has his cleric multiclass and novice power... but weapon focus traded to weapon expertise was a no brainer.

My warlock values Reaper's Touch for his character concept... but after that, none of them are vastly more important than other choices. I'd love to have room to get the extra 3 temp from infernal pact or pick up something like fighter or shaman multiclass just to mess around with it, but they're far less core to my concept than actually hitting.

Feel free to assume a holier than thou attitude if you wish, but it doesn't change the underlying math of the game. After the first four or so levels, many characters are _done_ with feats for their concept. In one game folks were done _after 1st level_ - if you've got the skills you want already, some classes just don't have feats that are all that important to roleplaying.

As is, in one game someone was done with feats she wanted by 3rd level and took a multiclass at 4th cause it was better than nothing. Feats do not RP make.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Regicide said:


> There are RP feats?  Really?  Seriously, if you're looking for RP, 4E is not for you.  It is a combat simulator.



  is this a joke??? is it still the 1st were you are??





> They are making a beginner's mistake in not taking it because the math isn't obvious to them.  Fighters fight better, wizards wiz more, rogues are more rogueish etc.



  I would say this is boarder line offenceive, but there is nothing boarder line about it...


maybe I would have given you the fighter one, except there main trick (mark) works hit or miss...maybe you don't understand as well as you think you do...


----------



## GMforPowergamers

keterys said:


> *I* already have the feats for my core concept by about 2nd...



I put emphisis on the impportant part there...the part that says you are right, but also says you might be wrong 



> Feel free to assume a holier than thou attitude if you wish, but it doesn't change the underlying math of the game. After the first four or so levels, many characters are _done_ with feats for their concept.



really, were did you find this, since  I have seen people at high paragon and low epic still saying they have a ton of feats for there concept...





> As is, in one game someone was done with feats she wanted by 3rd level and took a multiclass at 4th cause it was better than nothing. Feats do not RP make




how hard is it to understand your way is not the only way...


now for my new hot keyed ending:







grickherder said:


> It's still a choice and people need to own up to the fact that they are prioritizing mathematical combat efficiency above other priorities.


----------



## Regicide

GMforPowergamers said:


> is this a joke??? is it still the 1st were you are??




  Haha, okay, go ahead and give me some examples of your characters RP feats, and, heres a hint for you, if you use it in combat, it's not an RP feat.  Feats used in combat are for improving your combat ability which has nothing to do with role play, and... expertise is better than it if it is a combat feat.


----------



## 77IM

grickherder said:


> It's still a choice and people need to own up to the fact that they are prioritizing mathematical combat efficiency above other priorities.




The game rules _shouldn't allow you to make that choice._  They should not allow me to make a character that is more -- or less -- useful than yours.  That's what "game balance" ultimately means.  My character can be _different_ but not _better_.

This thread has devolved into people arguing whether or not the game should be balanced.  I'm for balance, because it's always easy for the DM to unbalance things by throwing a monkey wrench into the works, if that's what the group wants.  ("You're playing Aragorn, so you're 4 levels higher than everybody else... and you hobbits, I have news for you too...")

I'll certainly grant that combat is not the only measure of usefulness, but in most D&D groups it is the most important measure.  (For example, it's possible to have fun with a weak character if he is getting a lot of the spotlight -- see aforementioned hobbit example.)  But I've played in too many games where one PC wound up _accidentally_ better or worse -- power-wise -- and the other PCs came to resent it.  Then the DM has to untangle the mess and it's a pain.  So I'm definitely in favor of the core rules being balanced.



grickherder said:


> It's all about play priorities.  And some people get torn between taking interesting/character/role-playing related feat choices and feat choices that give them greater combat effectiveness.  They're welcome to those priorities, but they also need to take responsibility for the choices that result.



Since when is being torn any fun?  That sucks.  A game may be "a series of interesting decisions" but that does not mean that every decision is automatically fun.  A trade-off between combat effectiveness and character concept is a lose-lose.

 -- 77IM


----------



## Iron Sky

Regicide said:


> Haha, okay, go ahead and give me some examples of your characters RP feats, and, heres a hint for you, if you use it in combat, it's not an RP feat.  Feats used in combat are for improving your combat ability which has nothing to do with role play, and... expertise is better than it if it is a combat feat.




Skill Focus: Diplomacy.

Ritual Caster.

That said, I do agree that Expertise is better than 95% of combat feats out there.  For some characters, Superior Weapon Prof will be better at low levels, but I can't think of any other feat that every character I can think of would definitely get at some point...


----------



## grickherder

77IM said:


> Since when is being torn any fun?  That sucks.  A game may be "a series of interesting decisions" but that does not mean that every decision is automatically fun.  A trade-off between combat effectiveness and character concept is a lose-lose.




It does suck being torn.  A trade off between combat effectiveness and character concept is indeed a lose-lose.  I still maintain, however, that such a dichotomy is created by players emphasizing certain priorities over others.  I'm not torn.  No one in my groups is torn.  If someone finds themselves torn between choosing expertise and something they would normally find more interesting if not for how good expertise is, that's a result of their priorities.

Does it suck that the current rules create a situation where people with certain priorities will find themselves torn in their feat choices, feeling they have to pay a feat tax to stay competitive?  Yes it does.  So the options for those who find themselves in such a situation are to either a) modify their priorities, b) accept being torn and live with whatever they choose, c) create a house rule that removes the situation or d) do nothing and complain about it on the internet.


----------



## grickherder

Regicide said:


> Feats used in combat are for improving your combat ability which has nothing to do with role play




It doesn't have to be this way.  You don't have to separate the combat mechanics and role-play so starkly.  I don't want to get into a tangent about "what is role-play?" but I will put forward that the definition is broad enough that what you said above doesn't have to be true.

My suggestion for exploring this is to intentionally insert elements of role-play into the combat.  Have dialogue.  Explore theme.  Force elements of decision making related to character priorities (note, character priorities, not player) right into the combat encounters.

My second suggestion is to insert combat abilities into the non-combat times.  Use the flavour/narrative of your powers and your knowledge of their capabilities during non-combat.  Replace some combat encounters with skill challenges.  Have combat where the outcome of the combat is irrelevant (and thus not resolved using the combat system), but where what is said by the combatants is what matters.


----------



## tiornys

grickherder said:


> It does suck being torn.  A trade off between combat effectiveness and character concept is indeed a lose-lose.  I still maintain, however, that such a dichotomy is created by players emphasizing certain priorities over others.  I'm not torn.  No one in my groups is torn.  If someone finds themselves torn between choosing expertise and something they would normally find more interesting if not for how good expertise is, that's a result of their priorities.



The true problems don't arise in your kind of group, any more than they arise in keterys's kind of group.  Both of those groups are composed of people with similar priorities, so their relative balance stays the same.  The problems occur when three people from keterys's group get together with two people from your group and start gaming with their level 16 characters.

At that point there's a very noticeable difference in combat capability between the characters, to the point where the math prudent characters dominate combat at the expense of the RP prudent characters.  This leads to a less fun experience for everyone.

4E isn't quite to the point where the DM has to bend over backwards to present a challenge that is powerful enough for the reasonably optimized people but not too powerful for the reasonably built but unoptimized people.  These feats, however, are a huge step in that direction.

That's the core of my problem with these feats.  They are too powerful for 4E feats.  Having options that are too powerful in comparison with the other available options creates potential problems with in party balance.  The game _shouldn't_ be about trying to keep up with your teammate, and in general 4E is excellent at avoiding this.  With these feats, unfortunately, 4E failed at that goal.

t~


----------



## Amphimir Míriel

77IM said:


> The game rules _shouldn't allow you to make that choice._  They should not allow me to make a character that is more -- or less -- useful than yours.  That's what "game balance" ultimately means.  My character can be _different_ but not _better_.




100% Agreed, which is why I suggested that the best way to fix this feat would be not to ban it or to give it automatically to everybody.

Instead, limit it to characters with less than 17 in their primary attribute in heroic (20 in paragon and 22 in epic).

That way, you allow a "non-optimized" build to keep up with the rest of the party.

Balanced Paladins and Clerics, some Star Warlocks, the odd Warlord who wants CHA, INT and STR (I have one in my table).... The people playing such MAD builds would benefit, while at the same time we disallow the feat for those people who have 20 in their primary at first level and collect every single possible bonus along the way.


----------



## tiornys

Amphimir Míriel said:


> 100% Agreed, which is why I suggested that the best way to fix this feat would be not to ban it or to give it automatically to everybody.
> 
> Instead, limit it to characters with less than 17 in their primary attribute in heroic (20 in paragon and 22 in epic).
> 
> That way, you allow a "non-optimized" build to keep up with the rest of the party.
> 
> Balanced Paladins and Clerics, some Star Warlocks, the odd Warlord who wants CHA, INT and STR (I have one in my table).... The people playing such MAD builds would benefit, while at the same time we disallow the feat for those people who have 20 in their primary at first level and collect every single possible bonus along the way.



The problem with this idea is that it promotes flipped builds, where you emphasize the secondary statistic of a class at the cost of the primary, relying on this feat to make up the lost to-hit.  So, your Warlords can now have amazing riders on their powers sacrificing the hit chances that a Str-optimized Warlord currently has.  Orb wizards can max their Wis without worrying as much about their Int.  Etc.

That's not, of course, the intent of the change, but it is the optimizer's response to it.

t~

edit: also, since some classes (and builds) get more oomph out of their secondary stats than others, you also make those classes/builds comparatively more powerful than those which currently do well with a very high primary stat and moderate secondary/tertiary stats.  Warlords, for example, gain much more from the proposed feat than Rogues do.


----------



## KarinsDad

catsclaw227 said:


> Really?  A +1 is that important at 7th level?  Where did all the role-playing go?




Roleplaying?

Roleplaying exists in DND?

DND is and has historically been an explore, kill, loot game.

People throw a little roleplaying into that, but there are zero roleplaying rules in DND. A few roleplaying guidelines, sure. But, no roleplaying rules. As an example, there are XP rules for combat encounters and XP rules for noncombat encounters (only if a skill challenge is involved) and XP rules for quests, but no XP rules for roleplaying. The skill challenge system in the DMG is terrible and even it tries to distill roleplaying down to a set of dice rolls.

The vast majority of feats are combat feats.

The vast majority of powers are combat powers.

Roleplaying? Please. 

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.

When 90+% of the rules are about combat, it's a combat game. Sure, a given group can say "Oh no, we roleplay a lot in our game". But, I seriously think that such people are overemphasizing their roleplaying to seem cool or some such and not actually sitting down and figuring out how much time the PCs explore, kill, and loot, and how much time they actually talk to NPCs or even in character to other PCs. And no, I do not consider making tactical decisions or using a thieving skill for a PC roleplaying. Some people consider that everything their PC does (like walking) is controlled by the player and hence is roleplaying. I don't. I consider roleplaying to be the communication aspects of the game between PCs and NPCs, or PCs and PCs, and the DM telling an interesting and involved story.

Bottom line, DND emphasizes rules and combat over storytelling, plot, and (non-statistics) character development unlike some other RPGs.

Go to YouTube. Watch the DND sessions that people have videoed. A very small percentage of the time is actually spent on roleplaying. As a DND gaming community, we have disillusioned ourselves into believing it isn't so, but it is. Or, secretly video your own sessions without telling the players and afterwards, see how much time was actually spent having the players (including the DM) act in character or the DM relate story elements (such as history or plot) beyond that of the description of the contents of a room.


----------



## Regicide

Iron Sky said:


> Skill Focus: Diplomacy.
> 
> Ritual Caster.




  Improving a d20 roll isn't a role-playing feat, neither is a feat that lets you cast spells too powerful or esoteric for combat.


----------



## Jhaelen

KarinsDad said:


> People throw a little roleplaying into that, but there are zero roleplaying rules in DND. A few roleplaying guidelines, sure. But, no roleplaying rules. As an example, there are XP rules for combat encounters and XP rules for noncombat encounters (only if a skill challenge is involved) and XP rules for quests, but no XP rules for roleplaying.



Roleplaying rules is an oxymoron. How would a 'rule' for granting xp for roleplaying look like?! You cannot have anything but roleplaying guidelines in a (roleplaying) game.


----------



## keterys

As far as concept feats go...

My warlock has a feat which lets him mix it up in melee. He's otherwise in pretty good shape - I keep thinking of picking up Athletics so I could do more physical things in combat in terms of jumping and leaping about, since I don't want to be prevented from doing my insane charge into combat shtick by terrain... but I'm not sure that's really a RP thing, especially if I did it as a multiclass that had little to do with anything I care about. 

My warlord has multiclass paladin and plays as a would-be paladin, and that was core to his concept. He has enough skills - I think I'd take Endurance and Streetwise if feats were freely available, but I'm not worried about it. He actually hogs too much of the spotlight in RP and skill encounters anyways. At the moment I'd most want Hurl Breath. It's pure silliness, but it's fun silliness. That... has nothing to do with RP. 

My fighter has multiclass cleric and novice power, which let me do his concept. If I could swap a daily at his level, I'd have already done that too I suspect. I'd probably take Shield Push next - it hasn't seemed like it would come up all that often, but it's neat.

My wild mage sorcerer wanted Acrobatics so that was his first feat. Honestly I have no idea what he's taking next - I'd consider improving his Bluff/Diplomacy, but honestly I've had the most fun with the couple encounters I've botched those rolls so a statistical improvement there wouldn't make RP more fun. Maybe Arcane Power will give him more options he wants than +1 to hit - probably even. I guess in the meantime... Lost in the Crowd maybe next? I'm not sure I want to bother to remember it and it wouldn't come up _that_ much for that character, though, so maybe just the improved Second Chance. Meh.

So, yeah, I'd take a convenience feat, a silly-fun feat, a more interesting tactical feat, and pick a random feat out of hat... none of them would help the character more than the +1 attack and none of them would help with RP. Heck, the Hurl Breath one might hurt with RP since I'd have trouble explaining how I'd do it.

Each character has things to contribute to every skill challenge, each is very involved in all RP... in fact, the problem I've been experiencing lately is finding reasons not to hog the spotlight so everyone gets a share. So... yeah, I don't have something more RP worthy to spend the feats on. I took care of those feats already.

And if I hadn't, I'd have done so by slightly higher level.

My newest character is a Deva Invoker and at 1st level he doesn't have expertise - he has spirit talker because I wanted to have a Lantern Angel following me around to chide me for my actions. Not sure when he'll take Expertise - I'd like to pick up one more skill with him for his concept. I would consider Skill Focus for that character, since it would help support me playing him as an infallible know-it-all, but his chance of failing skill checks in those skills is pretty damn low anyways. Otherwise... yeah, I think after that it's the temp hp on his class ability, expertise, and focus feats off the top of my head. So, different variations of combat effectiveness... probably expertise makes sense there. So by 6th, on him too. Maybe as early as 2nd since we're starting up Spellgard and I hear it's pretty much a hackfest so... yeah, may as well pick up the attack first then Insight. 

Whee.


----------



## keterys

Fwiw, both characters in the latest WotC Character Concepts article take Expertise nice and early on... 4th and 2nd respectively.

Yeah, this is totally a design feature, not a bug.


----------



## Ryujin

Last week we decided how to handle the Expertise issue and I think that it's fairly measured. My GM agreed with me that it was going to be a must-have and he doesn't want to mess with the RP aspect of the game by having a feat that we'll all end up taking anyway, so he is granting us the feat freely. We won't be getting +1/+2/+3 with ALL attacks, but will with our primary attack tool. It would be nice if I could take Heavy Blades for both Implement and Weapon Expertise effectively in one shot but judging by the way that Character Builder handles it, that isn't how it's intended to work in this instance. 

... or perhaps I should make a bug report


----------



## grickherder

tiornys said:


> The problems occur when three people from keterys's group get together with two people from your group and start gaming with their level 16 characters.




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.


----------



## grickherder

KarinsDad said:


> The skill challenge system in the DMG is terrible and even it tries to distill roleplaying down to a set of dice rolls.




As they are written, yep the skill challenge rules don't really work like they should.  Over time actually using them though, I found they drift into a usable format that encourages/gives structure to role-playing rather than reducing it to die rolls.  You can have some very free dialogue with great content when the participants aren't worried about getting the result they want.  The dice have been rolled and you know who has succeeded and who has not-- now it's time for a scene where that is the end result, but how it gets there and what spins out of it is up for grabs.



> 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.




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.

Some people might find this to be a shocking statement, but characterization can happen within the confines of the combat system.  Even within the combat system, decisions communicate things about your character to the other participants.  If you prioritize such characterization, expertise is a pretty boring feat.  All it will communicate is that you are accurate.  Feats that let a defender or controller really protect or help others can communicate things about your character's priorities even though they're just doing their job.  

Add in a bit of that tacked on free form roleplaying in the form of in-combat dialogue, internal soliloquies, quick narrated flash backs, etc., and you can start using the combat mechanics to do characterization.  Powers, feats, class features-- basically everything can be keyed off of to communicate things about the character to the participants of the game with a little bit of that glue that is normally reserved for stringing combat together.


----------



## catsclaw227

HardcoreDandDGirl said:


> when I see people choose math over playing the game I want to cry, and trust me I had a very eye opening experiance just last week.



Really?  Do tell, do tell...


----------



## keterys

grickherder said:


> 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.



> Feats that let a defender or controller really protect or help others can communicate things about your character's priorities even though they're just doing their job.



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'.



> Add in a bit of that tacked on free form roleplaying in the form of in-combat dialogue, internal soliloquies, quick narrated flash backs, etc., and you can start using the combat mechanics to do characterization.  Powers, feats, class features-- basically everything can be keyed off of to communicate things about the character to the participants of the game with a little bit of that glue that is normally reserved for stringing combat together.



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 - I actually close my mouth when initiative is rolled and don't open it again until combat ends - I communicate all of my character's actions, purely reduced to attack and damage results with a bit of chess-like notation, via filled-in cards I hold over my head when it's my turn.


----------



## catsclaw227

Regicide said:


> There are RP feats?  Really?  Seriously, if you're looking for RP, 4E is not for you.  It is a combat simulator.




This is where we disagree.  I never said there were RP feats.  I said that in a good campaign, hitting 1 out 20 times more often is not as fulfilling as taking a feat where I get some RP out of it.

I was replying to this comment:



			
				keterys said:
			
		

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



Clearly, there are feats he would rather take....

Feats like the cold ones if you are making a cold concept character, or toughness or other feats that might not have the mechanical +1 to hit, but have other mechanical bonuses or things that fit your PC more, like Skill Focus feats or even things that make you run faster, or dodge OA better because you want to be a moving target.

These 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. 



keterys said:


> I already have the feats for my core concept by about 2nd... after that it's just a matter of what little fiddly things I want beyond that.



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).




keterys said:


> Feel free to assume a holier than thou attitude if you wish, but it doesn't change the underlying math of the game. After the first four or so levels, many characters are _done_ with feats for their concept. In one game folks were done _after 1st level_ - if you've got the skills you want already, some classes just don't have feats that are all that important to roleplaying.
> 
> As is, in one game someone was done with feats she wanted by 3rd level and took a multiclass at 4th cause it was better than nothing. Feats do not RP make.



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

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.


----------



## catsclaw227

KarinsDad said:


> 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

keterys said:


> grickherder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...



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

catsclaw227 said:


> 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

keterys said:


> [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

grickherder said:


> 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

keterys said:


> 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

catsclaw227 said:


> 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

catsclaw227 said:


> 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

keterys said:


> 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.



			
				keterys said:
			
		

> 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

grickherder said:


> 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~


----------



## keterys

grickherder said:


> 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.




Not really - I can't houserule LFR games. For the game I'm starting tomorrow as DM, I've houseruled appropriately.

Other than that - I enjoy hitting with the powers I already have... that's why I took them in the first place. I'm not necessarily going to even have a need for Athletics on my warlock, but I know I'll be disappointed if my diabolic grasp misses and I don't get to slide someone around, or if frigid darkness misses so the rogue can't get his sneak attack or other people miss.

Now, I certainly enjoy some feats _more_ than a minor +1 to hit... which is why I took them. 

Ultimately I'm extremely disappointed that 4e contains several feats that bear a passive and direct impact on a character's combat performance (bonuses to attack, damage, etc) instead of a bunch of flavor feats. Expertise is not the only example, but it's the most offensive for the size of the bonus and its poor design in other areas (you're a dragonborn bard / scion of arkhosia who uses a sword in one hand and instrument in the other? Oh, sucks to be you...)

I'd rather I had a huge list of feats that did nifty things that had almost no bearing on overall combat prowess or allowed suboptimal tactics to come up to snuff so people could make their odder ideas work.



> 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.




For example? Let's take my wife's elf druid, for instance, who already has all the skills she wants due to her initial selection, background, and possibly 1st level feat (that is, she doesn't want to improve her social skills, and has nature, perception, athletics, and acrobatics covered). She's an elf but doesn't care about any of the 'better elven precision feats' - she'll probably take Light Step someday but she could honestly just RP having it for the same effect on actual gameplay that it will have, she might consider the druid charging feat since she does at least rarely charge so a bonus to attack and damage in that circumstance could be fine... the other druid feat wasn't appropriate for her though I don't remember what it was off the top of my head (paragon has great stuff for her, though). 

So, it's level 1, 2, or 4 say and she has to pick a feat. She could get a minor bonus when she charges, or she could get a minor bonus with every attack she makes, including charges. 

Hard choice.

Somehow Weapon Focus and Implement Expertise made it onto her list. Maybe after Primal Power is out she'll have another 2 options, but by that time she'll also be level 16 with 9 feats and dropping Expertise's +2 would be downright silly.

I'd not be surprised if she takes Skill Focus (Perception) sometime, though, so she goes from automaking every perception check in the game to automaking them with even more silly numbers. But she might as well get a feat that actually does something for her first.


----------



## Smeelbo

*Expertise as Power Creep as Marketing, D&D as a Roleplaying Game*



			
				77IM said:
			
		

> The game rules shouldn't allow you to make that choice. They should not allow me to make a character that is more -- or less -- useful than yours. That's what "game balance" ultimately means. My character can be different but not better.



Very good observation, but balance is difficult in practice. Even in a game like _EverQuest_, where after enough XP, characters of the same class and level have acquired all the same abilities, balance between classes is elusive. If it is difficult to balance classes, how is character balance even possible?

In _EverQuest_, balance is easier not just because all characters of the same level and class have essentially the same abilities, but there is only one central metric: how well one does in important combat situations (_raids, grouping, soloing, etc.)_. A MMORPG like _EverQuest_ can collect terabytes of combat data, and perform voluminous combat simulations and reach some useful conclusions.

But how is balance to be obtained in 4E? How is it measured? It is a much more difficult proposition. While the superficial resemblence to a MMORPG like _EverQuest_ invites similar measures of balance, and those measures are useful, players, encounters, and campaigns very so greatly that reliable comparisons are hard to make.

Which brings us back to combat optimization, because combat is ubiquitous, and is subject to strenous analysis. Balance in combat is of necessity the most important balance issue. Other balance issues are far more vague and therefore much more difficult to analyze, if it is possible at all.

If we were playing _EverQuest_, I would agree with _77IM_. Because we are playing _D&D_, I think his criteria is too strong to be fulfilled, except at the cost of minimizing choice _(which one could argue 4E does)._

One important result in game theory is that the best strategies often do not seek the best possible outcome _(as 77IM would seek),_ but rather to avoid the worse outcomes. 4E seeks to avoid the worse outcomes of 3.X by attempting to keep character effectiveness within a narrow band. That is, it seeks to minimize the difference between the best and worst combat ability of character choices.

Therefore, the problem with _Expertise_ is that it potentially widens that gap, rather than narrow it. If exactly those characters that needed a boost took the feat, and those whose attacks were already sufficient did not, it would narrow the gap. But if, as is likely, combat-emphasizers take _Expertise_, but other-emphasizers do not, the gap has widened.

So for example, _Expertise_ might better fulfill its apparent intended purpose if it had the requirement _(not sure how to best word this)_ that the character have the appropriate attack stat starting no higher than 16. That would narrow the gap, not widen it.







			
				77IM said:
			
		

> But I've played in too many games where one PC wound up accidentally better or worse -- power-wise -- and the other PCs came to resent it. Then the DM has to untangle the mess and it's a pain. So I'm definitely in favor of the core rules being balanced.



And in practice this can only be achieved by avoiding outcomes that widen the gap. Indeed, this is supposed to be a central design tenet of 4E.







			
				Tiornys said:
			
		

> That's the core of my problem with these feats. They are too powerful for 4E feats. Having options that are too powerful in comparison with the other available options creates potential problems with in party balance. The game shouldn't be about trying to keep up with your teammate, and in general 4E is excellent at avoiding this.



He is completely correct. The correct design decision would have been to work the intended effect of _Expertise_ into _Errata_. Sadly, power creep is a tried and true marketing tool, and _Hasbro_ lacks the discipline to avoid it. Why, when it is in their immediate short term financial interest? Almost no corporations take a long term perspective, and instead are structured in such a way as to reward short term thinking and punish employees who might attempt to act instead in the long term interests of the corporation or its customers.

Because of this, 4E will break sooner than we'd like, and in no more than a few years, they will be selling us a _"new"_ edition that fixes problems that they could have avoided in the first place. This new edition will be even more stable than 4E, but absent a change in corporate perspective and the business processes that support that perspective, the next edition will suffer from the same problems as the current edition, it will just take longer to collapse.







			
				Amphimir Miriel said:
			
		

> Instead, limit it to characters with less than 17 in their primary attribute in heroic (20 in paragon and 22 in epic).



This would work better at narrowing the gap, but it needs to be worded very carefully, I am not sure how. Otherwise, optimizers will work around the limitation somehow, using one stat to qualify for the feat, but in practice, depend on another stat.







			
				Tiornys said:
			
		

> The problem with this idea is that it promotes flipped builds, where you emphasize the secondary statistic of a class at the cost of the primary, relying on this feat to make up the lost to-hit. So, your Warlords can now have amazing riders on their powers sacrificing the hit chances that a Str-optimized Warlord currently has. Orb wizards can max their Wis without worrying as much about their Int. Etc.
> That's not, of course, the intent of the change, but it is the optimizer's response to it.



Exactly.







			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Roleplaying?
> Roleplaying exists in DND?
> DND is and has historically been an explore, kill, loot game.



Yes, roleplaying exists in D&D. Lest we forget, it was the first published _roleplaying_ game.

I've been playing D&D for almost 35 years now, and in every campaign I've ever played in, to a greater or lesser degree, D&D alternates roleplay and combat. Most people I've played with over the years identify with their avatars during the game. They act them out. They interact with the non-player characters, pursue goals, conflict with other characters' goals, enjoy triumph, and suffer defeat.

The mechanics of the game really have almost nothing to do with whether roleplaying occurs: it is a choice by the players, and a frequent choice in my experience. When I played _EverQuest_, mechanically a pure combat game, my friends and I roleplayed: we identified with our characters, developed distinct personalities for our characters, and relationships, guilds, even in-game marriages.

Compared to many other roleplaying games, D&D is very combat heavy. Big deal. That doesn't stop me from trying to pursue character goals beyond levelling and acquiring stuff.

Admittedly, D&D is not _Burning Wheel, _or_ Spirit of the Century_, but even those games have significant combat rules.

The fact that D&D emphasizes combat is not because D&D is only a combat game, but given the stakes in combat, which is fun, we, as players, want clear and fair rules to adjudicate those combats. It is much easier to trust that the game master adjudicates the non-combat portion of the game fairly, that the non-player characters act consistantly and the world behaves in a way that we can have rational expectations and act on those, but in combat, if the DM kills my character, it better damn well be fair.

D&D has extensive combat rules because by and large it is the most important game domain to define unambiguosly, and, by and large, it is one of the only game domains that can be usefully defined unambiguously. The same is true to a lesser extent to almost all other published roleplaying games.

While it is true that several other games better support mechanically non-combat conflict, _Dungeons and Dragons_ remains, for almost all the players I know, and all the players I enjoy playing with most, a role-playing game.

4E's biggest flaw in that regard is that the skill challenge system is broken, and does not support fair adjudication of non-combat conflicts. Most other RPGS are much better in that regard.

In the end, the emphasis on combat matters little to roleplaying. Give players avatars they can identify with and customize, and a world they can interact with, and many, if not most, will roleplay.







			
				Jhaelen said:
			
		

> Roleplaying rules is an oxymoron. How would a 'rule' for granting xp for roleplaying look like?! You cannot have anything but roleplaying guidelines in a (roleplaying) game.



On the contrary, there are several RPGs that excel at exactly this. Check out _Burning Wheel_, or its latest incarnation, _Mouseguard_. As the author says, _*"It's not what you fight, it's what you fight for."*_ In _Burning Wheel_, if you don't roleplay interestingly, your character will not only advance more slowly and not as far, but will perform more poorly in combat.

Likewise, _Spirit of the Century_ is driven by character and story elements, and again, a poor roleplayer would suffer in combat because they would not receive rewards for playing to their character.

The element that 4E is missing is not rules for supporting roleplaying, but rather a good set of rules for resolving non-combat conflicts. The skill challenge system is barely a mechanic, and a broken one at that. Many other systems give much better mechanics for resolve conflicts outside of combat, and many other RPGs put character conflict and roleplaying at the center of the game, rather than just combat.

As for me, I will continue to play _Expertise_ as written, and see what actually happens in play.

*Smeelbo*


----------



## grickherder

tiornys said:


> 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~



I'm willing to accept that it's a bad math fix and that the way I play D&D isn't typical and that I like expertise because I approach the game differently than my peers in this thread.  My group looks at expertise and says "I don't really need to hit more, I hit enough.  I think I'll take something else."  I don't think it's done out of ignorance of the math behind the game but simply out of a current satisfaction with our in game hit rates.

That said, if I can play the game without chumps for characters, have expertise at the heroic tier not be an autoinclude and not have myself or my fellow players feel they have to pay a feat tax to stay competive, I'll keep doing what I'm doing.  Those who play a certain way that makes expertise a problem can house rule it away or change the way they play.  The rules as they are published are working for me just fine.


----------



## grickherder

Smeelbo said:


> Therefore, the problem with _Expertise_ is that it potentially widens that gap, rather than narrow it. If exactly those characters that needed a boost took the feat, and those whose attacks were already sufficient did not, it would narrow the gap. But if, as is likely, combat-emphasizers take _Expertise_, but other-emphasizers do not, the gap has widened.




I have disagreed with this point in the past in this thread.  I now admit to being wrong about that.  All you need are two players in the same group who emphasize different things and you can end up with a wider gap in their in combat performance that before the publication of PHB2.  

One play might make a character with a 16 in their primary stat and be satisfied with their combat performance while another takes a 20 and takes every possible feat, power and whatnot to eek out as much of a bonus to hit as possible.  They've got expertise, they've multiclassed into avenger for a couple rounds of rerolls and are taking paragon paths to maximize their combat effectiveness, with the flavour of the paragon path be damned.

So what problems does this actually create in play?  Is the person who took a 16 because they didn't really care if they rocked in combat going to start caring?  In most cases probably not.  The person who will care is the one who wanted to rock but didn't know the ins and outs of character optimization.  So let's just say for arguments sake that it becomes a problem.  That the optimized characters are putting out hits and damages and effects as if they are a couple levels higher.

People will find my solution to these problems (or at the very least my means of mitigating them) to be unsatisfying.  It's the exact same answer that's been given for when a character becomes unbalanced in old D&D, 1st edition 2nd and 3rd.

The DM intervenes.  

Be it through encounter design and monsters making different tactical choices.  Or through a direct intervention.  Basically it's _time to renegotiate the social contract _and say either "you guys who aren't optimizing your characters need to start!" or "you guys who are optimizing your characters need to dial it back a bit."

For encounter design and monster tactics, the first rule of that should be to know the party you are designing encounters for.  Let's assume 2 non-optimized characters, 1 middle of the road characters and 2 optimized to the max characters.

As the DM, I need monsters the weakest characters are going to want to attack that they can actually hit.  I need average monsters as well and I need tougher monsters that the optimizers can take down.  I also need to set up the encounters such that if the optimizers don't do their job and take down/control/defend against the strong monsters, it's obvious that they are failing in their job rather than the other characters being too weak.  In short, encounter design becomes difficult, but still not impossible and still easier than 3.x where you're trying to design for a high level spell caster being present while everyone else isn't.  I bet I can even do it without people realizing that's what I'm doing.

Some people will find that reprehensible though.  They'll make the point that the fact that the DM has to intervene or change how they're designing encounters is proof of a flaw-- if the game was working properly the situation should never come up.  That the optimizers and non-optimizers might have to get together and find a middle ground is proof that the game can't work for both simultaneously.  I think expecting the rules to make it so you never have to think about your social contract or never have to rely on the DM to make things work is asking too much.  It's asking for perfect balance.  I think Smeelbo pointed out the flaws with that expectation in his paragraphs referencing Everquest.



> Sadly, power creep is a tried and true marketing tool, and _Hasbro_ lacks the discipline to avoid it. Why, when it is in their immediate short term financial interest? Almost no corporations take a long term perspective, and instead are structured in such a way as to reward short term thinking and punish employees who might attempt to act instead in the long term interests of the corporation or its customers.



Sadly I think you're describing reality here.  As I said earlier in this thread, you probably have the pulse of the gaming community better than I and perhaps PHB2 sales are driven by people who might buy it for the one awesome feat.



> The element that 4E is missing is not rules for supporting roleplaying, but rather a good set of rules for resolving non-combat conflicts. The skill challenge system is barely a mechanic, and a broken one at that. Many other systems give much better mechanics for resolve conflicts outside of combat, and many other RPGs put character conflict and roleplaying at the center of the game, rather than just combat.



Yep.  I've had to drift/house rule skill challenges quite a bit to make them do what I want.  I'm interested to see what DMG2 has to say about skill challenges.  Perhaps that book will overcome this short fall.



> As for me, I will continue to play _Expertise_ as written, and see what actually happens in play.



This is where I am as well, but none of my players will take the stupid feat!  I can't exactly report back that it's not causing a problem if no one ever takes it.  Well, except for that it's not causing any problems because no one is taking it.


----------



## Bayuer

Well if someone is interested hows the math works on higher levels here is complete crunch:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/4735419-post1.html

At late paragon player must roll 12 to hit monster, at epic it's 13 now. And we talking about the skirmisher whose level is the same as player.

That's no brainer Expertise is bad feat. Let's wait for this article. We will see how the designers see this problem.


----------



## KarinsDad

grickherder said:


> So what problems does this actually create in play?  Is the person who took a 16 because they didn't really care if they rocked in combat going to start caring?  In most cases probably not.  The person who will care is the one who wanted to rock but didn't know the ins and outs of character optimization.  So let's just say for arguments sake that it becomes a problem.  That the optimized characters are putting out hits and damages and effects as if they are a couple levels higher.




Or like in my game, maybe it's the player who wants a certain concept like a Tiefling Rogue and the game just does not support that well.



grickherder said:


> People will find my solution to these problems (or at the very least my means of mitigating them) to be unsatisfying.  It's the exact same answer that's been given for when a character becomes unbalanced in old D&D, 1st edition 2nd and 3rd.
> 
> The DM intervenes.
> 
> Be it through encounter design and monsters making different tactical choices.  Or through a direct intervention.  Basically it's _time to renegotiate the social contract _and say either "you guys who aren't optimizing your characters need to start!" or "you guys who are optimizing your characters need to dial it back a bit."




The DM can intervene easier by making house rules that lousy game fixing feats like Expertise are out and rules that affect all PCs to balance the delta and the math problem are in.

A lot better than trying to tell one player "You cannot do that" and another player "You must do that".

Win win for everyone, the DM included.



grickherder said:


> For encounter design and monster tactics, the first rule of that should be to know the party you are designing encounters for. Let's assume 2 non-optimized characters, 1 middle of the road characters and 2 optimized to the max characters.
> 
> As the DM, I need monsters the weakest characters are going to want to attack that they can actually hit. I need average monsters as well and I need tougher monsters that the optimizers can take down. I also need to set up the encounters such that if the optimizers don't do their job and take down/control/defend against the strong monsters, it's obvious that they are failing in their job rather than the other characters being too weak. In short, encounter design becomes difficult, but still not impossible and still easier than 3.x where you're trying to design for a high level spell caster being present while everyone else isn't. I bet I can even do it without people realizing that's what I'm doing.
> 
> Some people will find that reprehensible though. They'll make the point that the fact that the DM has to intervene or change how they're designing encounters is proof of a flaw-- if the game was working properly the situation should never come up. That the optimizers and non-optimizers might have to get together and find a middle ground is proof that the game can't work for both simultaneously. I think expecting the rules to make it so you never have to think about your social contract or never have to rely on the DM to make things work is asking too much. It's asking for perfect balance. I think Smeelbo pointed out the flaws with that expectation in his paragraphs referencing Everquest.




Yes, I find your solution extremely flawed.

Fix it once for the PCs as opposed to fixing it for every single group of monsters for every single encounter for what could be years of play for the DM.

What a workload for the DM!

There is no doubt that a fix is needed, but this is the worse suggestion for a fix I have seen so far.


----------



## Regicide

Smeelbo said:


> I've been playing D&D for almost 35 years now, and in every campaign I've ever played in, to a greater or lesser degree, D&D alternates roleplay and combat. Most people I've played with over the years identify with their avatars during the game. They act them out. They interact with the non-player characters, pursue goals, conflict with other characters' goals, enjoy triumph, and suffer defeat.
> 
> The mechanics of the game really have almost nothing to do with whether roleplaying occurs: it is a choice by the players, and a frequent choice in my experience. When I played _EverQuest_, mechanically a pure combat game, my friends and I roleplayed: we identified with our characters, developed distinct personalities for our characters, and relationships, guilds, even in-game marriages.
> 
> Compared to many other roleplaying games, D&D is very combat heavy. Big deal. That doesn't stop me from trying to pursue character goals beyond levelling and acquiring stuff.




  4E has no affordance for RP.  Sure, like Everquest you could RP, but it's you doing it almost in spite of the game, not with any help of it.  Actually EQ promotes RP far more than 4E does.

  4E is a mechanically balanced system of gold and XP and nowhere is there room for role play in it.  Most games will give RP awards in their modules or can make allowances for family heirlooms that are level + 8, 4E... not so much.

  Alignment is meaningless in 4E, good and evil and redemption are common tropes but with no in-game consequences for what is in the alignment box on your character sheet, they lack any game meaning and are simply things you do without any assistance or consequence within the game.  Anything done for or about RP is "tacked-on" and not a part of the game.

Hey, looky there! You won yourself a suspension for trolling!

Folks, please discuss; _don't _try to pick fights.  ~ Piratecat


----------



## KarinsDad

Smeelbo said:


> I've been playing D&D for almost 35 years now, and in every campaign I've ever played in, to a greater or lesser degree, D&D alternates roleplay and combat. Most people I've played with over the years identify with their avatars during the game. They act them out. They interact with the non-player characters, pursue goals, conflict with other characters' goals, enjoy triumph, and suffer defeat.




If you say so. I think thou dost protest too much.

I've played with hundreds of people for nearly that long as well and I have never seen:

1) A PC marriage in a campaign.

2) Two PCs or a PC and NPC fall in love.

3) A PC ever respect a rival. Rivals = enemies.

I have never ever ever seen the level of roleplaying the hopes and desires of a PC that people sometime claim happens in their games. I have never seen it on any of the videos on YouTube. I have never seen it at a gaming store where people come in and play. I have never seen significant immersion in character beyond the adventuring goals du jour.

Ever.

And when I go back and read the original DND rules, the term roleplaying is not there. There is one single sentence "Before they begin the campaign, players must decide what role they will play in the campaign, human or otherwise, fighter, cleric, or magic-user."

Roles in the original game was a different word for class.

Role playing in the original game context was moving your avatar around, exploring, fighting, and looting.

The game was about the exciting parts of the adventure, not the mundane parts. There is no doubt that roleplaying plays a part in every game. It's just not even 25% of the time spent in the game in any game I have played in (typically closer to 10% of the time). It's a fraction, not a majority. My only point is that roleplaying is not the core of the game. Combat is the core of the game. More time is spent in combat than in roleplaying. At least, IM (35- years) E. YMMV.


----------



## grickherder

KarinsDad said:


> The DM can intervene easier by making house rules that lousy game fixing feats like Expertise are out and rules that affect all PCs to balance the delta and the math problem are in.




I'm now starting to see it your way.  See below for more.



> Yes, I find your solution extremely flawed.  Fix it once for the PCs as opposed to fixing it for every single group of monsters for every single encounter for what could be years of play for the DM.
> 
> What a workload for the DM!




We need to remember that such a solution only needs to be implemented if the gap between the optimizers and the non optimizers poses a problem.

But you're right.  My favorite thing about DMing 4e is the lowered workload.

Expertise isn't a problem for me as I don't have a power gap between the characters in my group and I'm having a hard time even convincing people of taking it.  They find +1 to hit uninspiring and are happy with how often they hit.

However, all it would take is slightly different play priorities and you end up hitting a point where people will prioritize it over almost every other feat.  People with such play priorities might also be inclined to optimize their characters and the potential for a performance gap widening certainly exists.

Furthermore, such players may feel they are contributing less if they don't take the feat.  While I believe these problems are all the direct result of their chosen play priorities, the fact that the game creates such a situation for how a large percentage of the people play the game, it needs to go.

Unfortunately for those playing in LFR, house ruling isn't an option.  For everyone else, house rule the crap out of this if you find the problems pop up.  I'm not going to as it's not a problem for my group.  I'd also like to encourage everyone to give different play priorities a try-- they might find something they enjoy that they didn't know they would.  Or at the very least think about why one makes the decisions with one's character.



> Or like in my game, maybe it's the player who wants a certain concept like a Tiefling Rogue and the game just does not support that well.



I'm not convinced of this.  I think you could viably play the following party:

Tiefling Rogue
Dragonborn Wizard
Deva Ranger
Half Elf Warden
Halfling Cleric

I think the notion that you must have an 18+ in your primary attack stat and must take a race that gives you a stat bonus that matches your classes just isn't true.  Yes, those characters might be more powerful, but it's hardly necessary.  The following party would be more powerful:

Drow Rogue
Deva Wizard
Elf Ranger
Goliath Warden
Longtooth Cleric

But I don't think the first party would somehow fail at completing published modules or encounters designed as per the DMG.


----------



## KarinsDad

grickherder said:


> I'm not convinced of this.  I think you could viably play the following party:
> 
> Tiefling Rogue
> Dragonborn Wizard
> Deva Ranger
> Half Elf Warden
> Halfling Cleric




We currently have:

Tiefling Rogue
Human Invoker
Human Ranger
Genasi Swordmage
Elven Cleric

The problem for the Rogue is not the 16 Dex results in 1 less to hit and 1 less damage.

The problem for the Rogue is the 16 Dex results in 1+ less to AC.

At first level, the Rogue had an AC of 15. She just got smacked around a lot.

The Swordmage had an AC of 18, the Invoker, Ranger, and Cleric had an AC of 17.

Unlike a Wizard who can hang back and have an AC of 14 and still survive without getting attacked, a Rogue has to be in melee a lot.

The combination of Leather Armor and a 16 Dex makes for a very fragile melee PC. The 16 Dex Rogue loses 1 AC for Dex and 1 AC for Leather instead of Hide compared to other non-melee classes. The differences for both offense and defense add up. It's as if the Rogue is level zero instead of level one.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

KarinsDad said:


> I've played with hundreds of people for nearly that long as well and I have never seen:
> 
> 1) A PC marriage in a campaign.
> 
> 2) Two PCs or a PC and NPC fall in love.
> 
> 3) A PC ever respect a rival. Rivals = enemies.
> 
> I have never ever ever seen the level of roleplaying the hopes and desires of a PC that people sometime claim happens in their games. I have never seen it on any of the videos on YouTube. I have never seen it at a gaming store where people come in and play. I have never seen significant immersion in character beyond the adventuring goals du jour.
> 
> Ever.
> 
> snip
> E. YMMV.




well I have seen al three of those things. I have seen PCs marry eachother, I have seen PCs merry (mostly to NPC) and I have not only seen rivals respected, but I have seen PCs go to one villian and make a deal to fight a bigger threat. Heck I saw a PC go to the vampire (BBEG of the campaign) and yell at his tower "DO you want to rule a dead world" to get him to help stop the tarrasque...


----------



## catsclaw227

GMforPowergamers said:


> well I have seen al three of those things. I have seen PCs marry eachother, I have seen PCs merry (mostly to NPC) and I have not only seen rivals respected, but I have seen PCs go to one villian and make a deal to fight a bigger threat. Heck I saw a PC go to the vampire (BBEG of the campaign) and yell at his tower "DO you want to rule a dead world" to get him to help stop the tarrasque...



I have also had PCs fall in love with NPCs, PCs negotiate with their enemy for a greater threat, PCs decide that falling from favor with their god was the "right thing to do" in a campaign (purely for RP reasons), I've had combats STOP because of roleplaying events occurring, and then the combatants come to an agreement and eventually friends.

I've seen LOTS of RP level events that have shaken up the "kill things, take their loot" trope and crushed it under their heel.

D&D has evolved in many ways over the years, yet in almost EVERY campaign I have been involved with (not one-shots, but campaigns) have had RP dominating moments.  And none, since I was 14 years old, have been more about "kill things, take their loot" than story, plot and experience.


----------



## grickherder

KarinsDad said:


> The problem for the Rogue is the 16 Dex results in 1+ less to AC.




It's true that rogues are the striker with the biggest AC problem.  A 15 AC for a melee character at level one is bad.  A 16 isn't wonderful either, but it's standard for a rogue.  As one sided as 18 before racial upgrade stat arrays are, I think it might be appropriate for a tiefling rogue.  I'd probably go for 10, 13, 18, 11, 10 14, artful dodger after racial mods.

16s in primary attack stats are definitely less of an issue for those who don't also need a higher bonus for AC.

If a ranged rogue is more of the player's concept, the tiefling becomes far more viable.  Distant advantage for the combat advantage at range.  Avoiding melee as much as possible.  But a melee one, I'd go with an 18 dex anyway as 15 AC is awful for a melee character.


----------



## Amphimir Míriel

KarinsDad said:


> I've played with hundreds of people for nearly that long as well and I have never seen:
> 
> 1) A PC marriage in a campaign.
> 
> 2) Two PCs or a PC and NPC fall in love.
> 
> 3) A PC ever respect a rival. Rivals = enemies.




I know the plural of anecdote is not data, but I have seen all three situations described above happen in a D&D game. I accept that I have only seen #3 happen once, but I have had PCs having romantic sidequests at least once per campaign (initiated by the players themselves).
I once even had two PCs becoming rivals for the attention of another PC!

I find that I can keep both my male and female players interested in the game if I alternate sections of exciting combats with sections of deeply immersive social roleplaying.

I use both the usual heroic fantasy tropes and romance novel tropes to keep my players coming back, hungry for more


----------



## Ulthwithian

A couple of observations here.

I understand the mathematical argument, and a sensible consensus regarding the scaling of the feat seems to have been achieved.

However, to those who say that everyone should be given the feat, and are saying that because the feat is 'the best'... there is always a 'best' feat.  It is a dangerous argument you make.  It is simplified in this case because of the underlying math, but there are _always_ 'best feats' to take.  Giving them out for free is incorrect.  You have simply replaced what was 'best' and thus 'required'.  It really doesn't matter what the 'best' is.  E.g., I've heard Nimble Blade brought up here for Rogues.  Do you give all Rogues Nimble Blade for free?  If not, isn't it true that 'all Rogues will take it, and is thus some form of feat tax'?

I realize that Expertise is most likely to close a design loophole, and that can muddy the waters here.  But to go down the road of 'free feats' is not the best way of handling this situation, I think.  Also, I hope that everyone here who says Weapon Expertise is a required feat uses a +3 proficiency weapon.  If not, your argument (until level 15) is, essentially, that you want to ignore the built-in weapon balance of 4E.  That argument will not pass muster with me.

I would think a restricted (and thus balanced) form of Expertise would be to apply it only to basic attacks.  (Careful Attack and Sure Strike would then be erratta'ed to gain at least some scaling, or become basic attacks.)  This would also benefit those 'basic attack' powers that some classes get.  (I refer to Magic Missile, Eldritch Blast, et al. here.)


----------



## keterys

I don't think that making basic attacks more powerful than at-wills is really a desirable design outcome.

It is pretty easy for folks to basically decide for themselves: A) I'm okay with people getting the bonus to attack or B) I'm not okay with people getting the bonus to attack, and then giving the bonus for free or banning the feat.

Really, I think it's more just problematic for two situations
1) By RAW campaigns, like Living Forgotten Realms
2) People who can't or won't do or care about the underlying math

The first has, honestly, a host of other problems as well. The second only matters if it leads to disparities between the PCs in effectiveness or if the DM doesn't balance around the capabilities of the party. Both of those are problematic, and I suspect more likely but by no means certain in the second case.

But, really, I doubt anyone is going to convince anyone else of anything on the 17th or 18th page of this thread. It's probably okay to move on, wait to see what's said or done next officially, and turn on the apathy blinders in the meantime


----------



## Ulthwithian

keterys: Do you think that giving the attack bonus to a basic melee attack would make it _better_ than an At-Will?  I find that hard to believe.  It might make it an _option you would consider_, but I doubt it would be better.  Of course, it steps on the toes of OA feats, but it's at least restricted, right?


----------



## keterys

Depends on the class - some classes don't have, say, Twin Strike to fall back on. So yeah, I could see Fighters and Swordmages making basic attacks for instance.  

You already see this happening sometimes when the bracers of bonus damage to basic attacks show up.

Either way, encouraging basic attacks doesn't really make sense to me.


----------



## Regicide

Ulthwithian said:


> However, to those who say that everyone should be given the feat, and are saying that because the feat is 'the best'... there is always a 'best' feat.




  There doesn't have to be a "best" feat.  It is quite possible to have "situationaly best" feats without any "always best" feat.

  4E funnels everything in the entire game though a d20 roll in order to have an effect or not and then requires those rolls to fall within an 18 pt range because of the d20.  Due to this, anything that influences that roll becomes "always best" because it impacts everything else in the game.

  A mechanic like the doomguard's where it gets a +2 on the next attack if it misses would have been better.  I'm sure there are lots of ways that are better still that could have turned this into a situationally useful feat instead of an always useful.


----------



## tiornys

Ulthwithian said:


> A couple of observations here.
> 
> I understand the mathematical argument, and a sensible consensus regarding the scaling of the feat seems to have been achieved.
> 
> However, to those who say that everyone should be given the feat, and are saying that because the feat is 'the best'... there is always a 'best' feat.



I just want to point out that although many posters to this thread, myself included, believe both that these feats are too powerful, and that the fix these feats probably represent should be applied to the math through errata, there's a large difference between that correlation and the causation you imply.  I most certainly do not think the feats should be given to everyone _because_ they are overpowered.

I think the feats should receive errata because they are too powerful.  Period.  Regardless of whether or not anything is done about the math scaling problems, these feats should not exist in their current form.

I also think these feats represent an admission by WotC that they didn't intend for the math to decay as it does.  Between that, some personal experience, and various anecdotal evidence, I think it's best for the game if the math gets fixed.  If you agree, the best way to fix it is to apply it to all attacks for all characters, because any other approach changes the relative balance between various builds and powers.

I'm willing to concede the second issue.  Not everyone agrees that it's better for the game to adjust the math.  I can respect that.

I'm _not_ willing to concede the first issue.  Unless someone can convince me that the feats are not overpowered (good luck!), I will continue to call for errata to reduce their power level.  My reasons for this stance can be found in the thread.

t~


----------



## Iron Sky

tiornys said:


> I just want to point out that although many posters to this thread, myself included, believe both that these feats are too powerful, and that the fix these feats probably represent should be applied to the math through errata, there's a large difference between that correlation and the causation you imply.  I most certainly do not think the feats should be given to everyone _because_ they are overpowered.
> 
> I think the feats should receive errata because they are too powerful.  Period.  Regardless of whether or not anything is done about the math scaling problems, these feats should not exist in their current form.
> 
> I also think these feats represent an admission by WotC that they didn't intend for the math to decay as it does.  Between that, some personal experience, and various anecdotal evidence, I think it's best for the game if the math gets fixed.  If you agree, the best way to fix it is to apply it to all attacks for all characters, because any other approach changes the relative balance between various builds and powers.
> 
> I'm willing to concede the second issue.  Not everyone agrees that it's better for the game to adjust the math.  I can respect that.
> 
> I'm _not_ willing to concede the first issue.  Unless someone can convince me that the feats are not overpowered (good luck!), I will continue to call for errata to reduce their power level.  My reasons for this stance can be found in the thread.
> 
> t~




This sums up this thread for me.  Thanks tiornys, now I can stop coming here!  Expertise = banished in my game until they can justify it.


----------



## Gargoyle

It seems to me that the feat could just have been intended to be for people who hate to miss with their dailies.  No player likes to miss with an important daily power, but some really really hate it...it messes up their fun.

If that's so, maybe a good errata or house rule would be to allow the +2 at paragon and +3 at epic levels to only apply when attacking with daily powers.   It would still be a great feat choice, and not overpowered or as boring.

(psst, take this and run with it WotC!)


----------



## Lurker37

If these feats are not an attempt to fix the math then are simply too powerful compared to the other +1 hit feats (which have no scaling). They furthermore fly directly in the face of what feats were initially described as - they are in fact textbook examples of the sort of feats we were told 4E would not have.

Personally, I believe that these scaling feats are an attempt to fix the divergence at higher levels between PC attacks and Monster defences. It just doesn't make sense to me for the feats to scale like this otherwise.

If so, then this is a problem because _all future 4E design is likely to be based on the assumption that all PCs have these feats_.

The problem with that assumption is that, paradoxically, while these feats are too powerful at level 15+ (where the bonus is +2 or +3), they simultaneously fail to address the problem because they are not broad enough:

A character who uses more than one weapon (either dual wielding or switching between them ) or who uses a weapon and an implement needs to take two feats _just to remain level_ with another character concept that uses only one weapon or only an implement. Heck, last time I checked there was even a feat to allow wizards to get benefits with two implements - that wizard would now also need to buy expertise twice. Heaven help someone using three.

Worse yet, there are powers that cannot ever benefit from these feats, as they have neither weapon nor implement as keywords.

So we have a pair of feats that (by 15th level) are so good as to be almost mandatory,  which some characters will need to take two or more times, and which some powers can never get benefit from.

Sacrificing one feat slot to fix the math is bad, but I can live with it. Sacrificing more than one feat slot, and still having the math still be broken (and unfixable) for some powers is, in my opinion, just not acceptable. 

I fervently hope that a future errata removes these feats entirely, as even with the scaling removed the issue with some classes needing to take the feat multiple times, and with some powers unable to benefit, remain.


----------



## CapnZapp

How about the following change?

*Expertise (Heroic Feat)*
Benefit: Choose a frequency of power: either At-Will, Encounter or Daily. You gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls with any power you use for that frequency. The bonus increases to +2 at 15th level and +3 at 25th level.


----------



## KarinsDad

CapnZapp said:


> How about the following change?
> 
> *Expertise (Heroic Feat)*
> Benefit: Choose a frequency of power: either At-Will, Encounter or Daily. You gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls with any power you use for that frequency. The bonus increases to +2 at 15th level and +3 at 25th level.




Lousy.

It means that the PC would need to take the feat 3 times, just so that his powers attack the same.

The point is not to limit the feat. The point is to give the feat to everyone for free. If not just to help out with the massive number of hit points that high level monsters have and to decrease the grind. A high epic PC that hits 40% of the time with the current rules would hit 55% of the time with the free feat. This increases his overall damage by ~33% (20's are close to double damage). Hence, that would decrease the number of rounds of combat by ~25%. A 20 round encounter would end in ~15 rounds instead (e.g. PCs do 800 hit points of damage in the same time as they previously did 600 hit points of damage).


----------



## Tuft

Lurker37 said:


> Worse yet, there are powers that cannot ever benefit from these feats, as they have neither weapon nor implement as keywords.




I'm curious, which powers are those?


----------



## keterys

Race powers (Dragonborn breath weapon, Drow Darkfire, etc), some Paragon Path powers (Scion of Arkhosia powers for instance), some item powers (Scintillating Robe, for instance), occasionally other attack powers like Shield Bash...


----------



## Regicide

KarinsDad said:


> The point is not to limit the feat. The point is to give the feat to everyone for free. If not just to help out with the massive number of hit points that high level monsters have and to decrease the grind. A high epic PC that hits 40% of the time with the current rules would hit 55% of the time with the free feat. This increases his overall damage by ~33% (20's are close to double damage). Hence, that would decrease the number of rounds of combat by ~25%. A 20 round encounter would end in ~15 rounds instead (e.g. PCs do 800 hit points of damage in the same time as they previously did 600 hit points of damage).




  The effect that giving this feat for free to everyone would be that DMs would have to throw even higher level monsters at the PCs to maintain what is an already too-low challenge level.  By epic this feat is like giving the players 4-6 levels...  Level +8 fight anyone?


----------



## keterys

> By epic this feat is like giving the players 4-6 levels...




Indeed, +3 attack is a _lot_ like ~30 hp, +1 to two ability scores, +3 attack, +3 all defenses, all skills, a new encounter, a new daily, and a new utility.

Err, what?


----------



## KarinsDad

keterys said:


> Indeed, +3 attack is a _lot_ like ~30 hp, +1 to two ability scores, +3 attack, +3 all defenses, all skills, a new encounter, a new daily, and a new utility.
> 
> Err, what?




And don't forget +1 better magical items. 

Logic does not matter in debates like this. Only who can say the funniest buzzphrase. 


He does have a point though. I've solved this in my game by having paragon and epic monsters do more damage. I've also increased the recharge rate of monster attacks by one at epic level. Course, it might be two years before the PCs actually get that high of level ...


----------



## Regicide

keterys said:


> Indeed, +3 attack is a _lot_ like ~30 hp, +1 to two ability scores, +3 attack, +3 all defenses, all skills, a new encounter, a new daily, and a new utility.




  A 30% increase in DPR means the fight ends that much faster and so you get hit 30% less.  Whats the point of hp or defenses when you can simply end the fight before they even matter?

  Skills?  Do people actually use those?  30 power cards in front of me to choose from, not one of them is a skill.  5E will get rid of them.


----------



## keterys

I guess that at least settles the question of whether we're playing the same game


----------



## DrSpunj

Please forgive the thread necromancy here, but I did state in the other thread I was reading through this one again! 



KarinsDad said:


> I've solved this in my game by having paragon and epic monsters do more damage.




I'm just curious how much you've increased damage at the upper tiers and how much shorter you expect those combats to be now. By +1[W] per tier? By adding +MonsterLvl for damage instead of 1/2 damage?

As I said, my campaign is only at 4th level so this is mostly just for the sake of mental gymnastics, but it's still fun from a puzzle solving perspective. 

Thanks!


----------



## KarinsDad

DrSpunj said:


> I'm just curious how much you've increased damage at the upper tiers and how much shorter you expect those combats to be now. By +1[W] per tier?




Yes. +1[W] for Paragon, +2[W] for Epic.

There are a few Paragon level monsters that do D20 damage, but I changed that to 2D10 so that nearly all monsters do D6 through D12 dice damage.

But, this change was not implemented to decrease the number of rounds of combat. It was made to make monsters slightly more threatening, especially due to putting in the +1 per tier NAD fix.

The +1 per tier to hit change is what I think will decrease the number of rounds of combat. Theoretically, that should decrease the number of rounds by ~33% at high Epic level. So, a 15 round encounter should be finished in 10 instead.


----------



## Elric

There's an extensive discussion of the underlying math issue, that monsters gain attack and defense faster than players, and potential house rule fixes, in this thread.  It also includes suggestions for increasing monster damage.


----------

