So now I want to know: Where's my piece of the cheese cake? My half orc ranger could really use a 2-for-1 Expertise-Weapon Focus feat. And my undead warlock could use a similar Expertise-Pact Focus feat. Heck, we could all use one of those couldn't we? Let's just have one feat that grants the Expertise bonus to all attack rolls and the Focus bonus to all damage rolls. Call it 'DUH' and every one'll be happy!
(This is not a troll. I hope to see this in the PHB4.)
So your half-orc ranger could have one, but it would only work with beast powers, and your revenant warlock could have it but it would only work for nectic powers...
Something about those combo feats, their always restictive. If a gnome/dragonborn picks an inappropriate power, they "loose" their epertise bonus.
That's a lot like saying "If you shoot yourself in the foot, you lose locomotive capability." Sure, I could pick inappropriate powers, but why would I?
So your half-orc ranger could have one, but it would only work with beast powers, and your revenant warlock could have it but it would only work for nectic powers...
I hope they don't go the pigeonholing route. If they absolutely must have pointlessly restrictive feats, they should literally fill the PHB4 feat chapter with these 2-in-1 feats so that everyone can take advantage of one. Or like I said the OP, the DUH route would work just as well and be 10x simpler.
Something about those combo feats, their always restictive. If a gnome/dragonborn picks an inappropriate power, they "loose" their epertise bonus.
That's a lot like saying "If you shoot yourself in the foot, you lose locomotive capability." Sure, I could pick inappropriate powers, but why would I?
So your half-orc ranger could have one, but it would only work with beast powers, and your revenant warlock could have it but it would only work for nectic powers...
I hope they don't go the pigeonholing route. If they absolutely must have pointlessly restrictive feats, they should literally fill the PHB4 feat chapter with these 2-in-1 feats so that everyone can take advantage of one. Or like I said the OP, the DUH route would work just as well and be 10x simpler.
Their the same pigion hole routes that currently exsist. If your a dragonborn with lightning breath, then you need to pick lightning spells. I don't see how that's much different then a revenant being forced to pick necotic powers.
I can't express how terrible of an idea this is and how wrong you are about the power level and mechanics of the game. This is such a terrible idea that I wish I could sage this thread, but I'll post this anyway because its so terrible. Aren't you one of those vehemently against the expertise feats and claim them being bad design to the "math fix" and claim it as a "feat tax" (that I don't belive is true)? Why would you then propose that they include a feat that is nearly twice (!) as powerful as already the most powerful feat in the game (for charopers)?
I'm pretty sure that was sarcasm ...
DUH would just get the whole mess out of the way, and we could just. move. on. I would vote for it, though I would still prefer errata of the level up chart to fix the underlying problem, and let all the expertisse feats be consigned to the dumpster altogether. Sadly, the introduction of the new, extra pidgeonholed versions of expertisse makes it seem like the funamental solution to the problem probably won't be appearing in the new essentials books as I had hoped.
Maybe because expertisse is a feat tax, and even with all the changes to it it's still unevenly applied? What's so awesome about an axe and hammer dwarf tempest fighter that he deserves to be taxed twice to make up for the designers not bothering to do some basic addition before 4e's release?
Because it's not a necessary feat.
Even if its not a 'tax' its still arguably one of the best (if not the best) feats in the game, cause it makes everyone better at almost everything their class does, cause everyone needs to hit.
Because the feat is bad when viewed as a feat tax or not, I have banned it in my games. I also, however, often adjust enemy defences, so it is not an issue.
I agree that expertise isn't actually needed, my party gets by fine without it. However, that still doesn't make Expertise a real statement of character beyond saying you got better at everything.
Every new player I have introduced to 4th edition has picked up Expertise faster than I can tell them I ban it from my game. It is the most basic and obvious piece of character optimization in the game.
Fixing 'flawed math' is still the goal of the feat, regardless of whether the math is flawed or not.
I can't express how terrible of an idea this is and how wrong you are about the power level and mechanics of the game. This is such a terrible idea that I wish I could sage this thread, but I'll post this anyway because its so terrible.
And why do you think think this idea is so terrible?
Aren't you one of those vehemently against the expertise feats and claim them being bad design to the "math fix" and claim it as a "feat tax" (that I don't belive is true)? Why would you then propose that they include a feat that is nearly twice (!) as powerful as already the most powerful feat in the game (for charopers)?
The designers have made two things very clear by their [in]actions: 1) They won't settle the taxpertise issue until 5e comes around, or maybe not ever. (I suspect they enjoy reading taxpertise flame wars.
) And 2) They're not going to actually fix power creep feats like DS and GP. So if we're stuck with power creep, which we are, I'd at least like everyone to have access to the power creep--not just dragonborn sorcerers and gnome illusionists.And let's be honest, if the PHB4 feat chapter had DUH or was filled with these expertise-focus feats, it'd turn a friggin' profit! Half of all players would just have to have one right then and there. And it's easy work for the designers.
I've found that the Expertise feats were unnecessary.... Until late-Epic. I just completed a 1-30 campaign and for the most part there was a nice balance in encounters. In Paragon when I threw a "boss fight" solo (EL 5+party level) they were still able to hit on rolls of about 14/15+ without expertise. Hard, but doable.
At level 30, it became ridiculous. Through various magic items, powers, or feats, the party had increased their crit-range beyond just a natural 20. This resulted in them being more likely to crit than hit regularly. WITH expertise, they were hitting on 16+, and critting on 18+. Without, they would only be critting or missing.
Purely based on my own observations, for any future game I run I will be giving away Veratile Expertise as bonus feat to every single player character at level 5. (To keep the bonuses uniform at 5, 15, and 25)
Just speaking from personal experience....
I've found that the Expertise feats were unnecessary.... Until late-Epic. I just completed a 1-30 campaign and for the most part there was a nice balance in encounters. In Paragon when I threw a "boss fight" solo (EL 5+party level) they were still able to hit on rolls of about 14/15+ without expertise. Hard, but doable.
At level 30, it became ridiculous. Through various magic items, powers, or feats, the party had increased their crit-range beyond just a natural 20. This resulted in them being more likely to crit than hit regularly. WITH expertise, they were hitting on 16+, and critting on 18+. Without, they would only be critting or missing.
Purely based on my own observations, for any future game I run I will be giving away Veratile Expertise as bonus feat to every single player character at level 5. (To keep the bonuses uniform at 5, 15, and 25)
EL 3 + party level is supposed to be boss level. You could give out free expertise.. or you could ban expertise and run the game closer to its design (i.e. fights going up to EL+3, more total monsters, especially at higher levels. Observe that the compendium has no non-solos above level 30 except for 3 monsters from a published adventure. Also observe that epic characters have more multitarget engagement ability than heroic characters. It seems pretty obvious that the use of overlevel monsters other than solos was supposed to taper off as you level while the use of underlevel monsters with more quantity was expected to pick up. No level 0 or negative level monsters after all.)
I'd say Expertise is less math fix and more embracing a failure to communicate. The structure of the game pre PHB2 "math fix" feats strongly favors a shifting balance in encounter size: roughly a drop of 4 in relative monster level and doubling of quantity from level 1-30, with the exception of still running solos as much as 3 over level (because an epic party can utterly pwn a solo with all the dirty tricks they can muster at higher levels). Rather than clarify that this was the intention, they decided to patch the 'math problem'.
Just speaking from personal experience....
I've found that the Expertise feats were unnecessary.... Until late-Epic. I just completed a 1-30 campaign and for the most part there was a nice balance in encounters. In Paragon when I threw a "boss fight" solo (EL 5+party level) they were still able to hit on rolls of about 14/15+ without expertise. Hard, but doable.
At level 30, it became ridiculous. Through various magic items, powers, or feats, the party had increased their crit-range beyond just a natural 20. This resulted in them being more likely to crit than hit regularly. WITH expertise, they were hitting on 16+, and critting on 18+. Without, they would only be critting or missing.
Purely based on my own observations, for any future game I run I will be giving away Veratile Expertise as bonus feat to every single player character at level 5. (To keep the bonuses uniform at 5, 15, and 25)
EL 3 + party level is supposed to be boss level. You could give out free expertise.. or you could ban expertise and run the game closer to its design (i.e. fights going up to EL+3, more total monsters, especially at higher levels. Observe that the compendium has no non-solos above level 30 except for 3 monsters from a published adventure. Also observe that epic characters have more multitarget engagement ability than heroic characters. It seems pretty obvious that the use of overlevel monsters other than solos was supposed to taper off as you level while the use of underlevel monsters with more quantity was expected to pick up. No level 0 or negative level monsters after all.)
I'd say Expertise is less math fix and more embracing a failure to communicate. The structure of the game pre PHB2 "math fix" feats strongly favors a shifting balance in encounter size: roughly a drop of 4 in relative monster level and doubling of quantity from level 1-30, with the exception of still running solos as much as 3 over level (because an epic party can utterly pwn a solo with all the dirty tricks they can muster at higher levels). Rather than clarify that this was the intention, they decided to patch the 'math problem'.
Actually, a "Boss Fighter" is at least EL+4, with +5 being the most common, and +6 being a 50/50 TPK. That's the way I've always run it, from the week after 4e was released all the way to now. Honestly, if you never go past EL+3, then you pretty much lose out on all of the interesting Epic Tier threats, including all of the Gods and most of the Primordials. The only endgame bosses left at that point are Orcus, Balcoth, and Grazzt, and even without expertise Orcus is a pushover.
Seriously, where are you getting EL+3 from?
Okay, lemme just be clear, when I think of "boss fight", I mean the kinda fight that the PCs may very well not survive. This is not the fight you put at the end of any adventure, this is the capstone encounter of an entire story-arc.
There were two, in my campaign, in Paragon (Party level 15 and 20), and 2 in Epic (Party level 25 and 30). Each fight was against a Solo 5 levels above the party.
The Paragon fights worked great. The PCs struggled, the leader used his utility powers to narrowly bring people back from the edge of death, and one PC actually died. My players really felt like their characters were putting all their determination and power on the line to grasp victory from the jaws of defeat. This is how EL +5 fights are supposed to go, this is what I was looking for, and it worked great.
My point is that I noticed that it would have still worked great in Paragon without Expertise, but in Epic, I was watching how high the PCs had to naturally roll on their dice to hit, and I knew that without Expertise they would've stood no chance at all. With Expertise they were hitting on about 15+/16+. Without? Hitting only on an 18+/19+? That isn't challenging, that's masochistic.
Again, this is just my own personal observation for the game I ran. But as far as needing to work on my encounter design? I politely disagree. My players had a blast, so I'm certain I gasp how to tilt the scales of an encounter to get just the right amount of tension out of it.
Again, it's not power creep. You get extra damage but at the cost of versitility. A Dragonborn with all Fire powers can't do anything against a Fire Elemental.
If you really don't think they're power creep, speak up! Wouldn't it be nice to have more of them? The game's all about options, so more options = more fun, yes? This is what I want.
Okay, lemme just be clear, when I think of "boss fight", I mean the kinda fight that the PCs may very well not survive. This is not the fight you put at the end of any adventure, this is the capstone encounter of an entire story-arc.
There were two, in my campaign, in Paragon (Party level 15 and 20), and 2 in Epic (Party level 25 and 30). Each fight was against a Solo 5 levels above the party.
The Paragon fights worked great. The PCs struggled, the leader used his utility powers to narrowly bring people back from the edge of death, and one PC actually died. My players really felt like their characters were putting all their determination and power on the line to grasp victory from the jaws of defeat. This is how EL +5 fights are supposed to go, this is what I was looking for, and it worked great.
My point is that I noticed that it would have still worked great in Paragon without Expertise, but in Epic, I was watching how high the PCs had to naturally roll on their dice to hit, and I knew that without Expertise they would've stood no chance at all. With Expertise they were hitting on about 15+/16+. Without? Hitting only on an 18+/19+? That isn't challenging, that's masochistic.
Again, this is just my own personal observation for the game I ran. But as far as needing to work on my encounter design? I politely disagree. My players had a blast, so I'm certain I gasp how to tilt the scales of an encounter to get just the right amount of tension out of it.
Hmmmmm, AC 48 is IIRC the highest AC there is in the game for any monster. Its CERTAINLY very close. A character needs a +38 to hit that on a 10. Soooo, my fighter has what, +15 level bonus +6 enhancement +3 proficiency +1 FWT +3 Expertise +8 ability score +1 PP or ED based bonus = +37. Now toss in some trivial situational bonuses such as a 30th level party is virtually assured of having every round and I'm pretty much guaranteed to hit AC 48 on around a 6. So basically I fail to understand how you could even be CLOSE to having a party requiring a 20 to hit capstone bosses. Even without Expertise you should be seeing hit rates around 50% and a little less with even basic teamwork. I guess if the party is underequipped, the characters are poorly built, nobody is tossing out ANY buffs or debuffs, etc then yeah you might be in the high teens, but honestly its a pretty sorry excuse for a level 30 party. All of this is not even considering the truly VAST amount of automatic damage a decent party can drop every round such that even if they have terrible to-hit numbers they should still not be in that bad a shape. Even just going with PHB1 and nothing else the toughest bosses like Tiamat should be beatable and reasonably hittable.
Now, if you DO have a party that is far enough down the curve in their capability that they have trouble with the baddest of the bad bosses then Orcus or one of various other slightly lesser threats should still give them a fun time, which is all that actually matters. Expertise is basically take it or leave it. If you take it, then sure you add a small increment to epic tier combat capability but at worst it just means the end of the story is going to involve a slightly tougher combat. The only real question is if these expertise style feats put one character far ahead of others. I don't really see where they cause a huge discrepency. They aren't NEEDED, they are just nice for some people. I've seen plenty of players ignore them because they had other more interesting uses for their slots or just didn't care.
At least the 'themed' expertise feats have a theme. Its OK if they have one for every class/race/whatever but its not really going to change much.
Hey, all your theoretical number crunching is nice, but I saw it in practice. PCs were only hitting on 15/16 or higher with expertise. I know now what works for my games and my players. Just saying.
+1. I respect the opinion of those who've actually experienced epic level play, but IME, Expertise (and other combined feat taxes) are nothing to sneeze at. If anyone wants to debate feat taxes, there's already a thread for that: community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
Now let's get back to supporting the DUH movement! Or the chapter-of-needlessly-restrictive-but-still-sweet-power-creep-feats movement, if you prefer. We can make this happen for PHB4!
There exist feats that are little more than "when you use your racial power..." and then there are actually interesting race feats. If Draconic Arrogance was "feat +hit and +damage to push/prone powers" it'd be far less interesting than it is now even though it'd create the same kind of character.
Shadar Kai for example have an epic feat that reduces damage of blows that'd knock them out- it's very useful in the campaigns for those in risk of death ties in well with their Death Surviving ways. I'd rather we get half as many feats for races as long as they're well thought out like Deathless Warrior.
EDIT: I've been running an Epic Delve (level 28) and my players were given free expertise, they still need 9-11 to hit most of the time, sometimes more from the enemies causing Restrained and reacting to being flanked. Their leader is a Bard who focuses on healing and movement control.
Not to mention 2in1 feats erode the human feat advantage.
How so? Unless you're assuming that humans will for some reason be left out of the 2-in-1 grab bag, they still have their feat advantage.
Hey, all your theoretical number crunching is nice, but I saw it in practice. PCs were only hitting on 15/16 or higher with expertise. I know now what works for my games and my players. Just saying.
+1. I respect the opinion of those who've actually experienced epic level play, but IME, Expertise (and other combined feat taxes) are nothing to sneeze at. If anyone wants to debate feat taxes, there's already a thread for that: community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
Now let's get back to supporting the DUH movement! Or the chapter-of-needlessly-restrictive-but-still-sweet-power-creep-feats movement, if you prefer. We can make this happen for PHB4!
Uhhhh, First of all TQ you still seem to be stuck in some fictional universe where I haven't experienced epic level play, which is your own hang up.
Secondly ITS A GAME OF NUMBERS, so you have to be able to explain how it is BY THE NUMBERS that the assertion is correct. I can think of several reasons why his party could have been needing a 15 or a 16 but they all involve basically someone changing the math of the encounter (either the DM increased his creature's defenses/level FAR beyond normal or applied some sort of huge party wide perpetual debuff to the party). In either case his example can't be used as a general illustration of how things work. Thus the most intelligent form of criticism and commentary IS 'number crunching' as you put it in this case.
If you want to discuss character development or 100 other things that DON'T have to do with the game's math, then that's fine, but don't bring up the math and then dis number crunching, that's just dumb.
Uhhhh....
My my, we're quite defensive today. Well, if you'd like to post in the appropriate thread, I'll be happy to explain the horribly inaccurate assumptions you just made.
Secondly ITS A GAME OF NUMBERS, so you have to be able to explain how it is BY THE NUMBERS that the assertion is correct. I can think of several reasons why his party could have been needing a 15 or a 16 but they all involve basically someone changing the math of the encounter (either the DM increased his creature's defenses/level FAR beyond normal or applied some sort of huge party wide perpetual debuff to the party).
Okay, lets explain it by the numbers using another example: Perhaps, assume, that the party desperately needs it's leader to hit with his daily so that they can benefit from it's party-aiding rider. This leader has taken PPs and EDs that focus on leading so he has not scoured the books for the few EDs and PPs that give a universal bonus to attacks. He is also weilding a +2 proficiency weapon, like an axe. He has also decided that most of his buffs would be defensive in nature, so has very few ways to boost attack bonuses (While you may disagree with this tactic, it should be a valid choice to play how you want to, so that you're not forced to pick powers you don't like just to be effective).
So now we're dealing with +15 level + 6 enhancement +2 proficiency +3 Expertise +8 ability score. That's a +34.
So +34 to AC 48 will hit on 14+. With Expertise. Without? 17+ That's ridiculous.
Sure, the lack of power bonuses to attack could be the problem. You could say that every leader who doesn't pick powers that give bonii to attack is an idiot. But why should I pidgeonhole the leader into picking "correct" buffs? Why should there even be "right" and "wrong" buffs to take?
Sure, the leader can pick up a +3 proficiency weapon instead of +2. But what if the player character really likes the image of his leader weilding an axe? Why should he have to sacrifice his character's image for an extra +1? Why should there be "right" and "wrong" weapons to take?
Sure, the leader can pick these supposed PPs and EDs that give universal bonii to attack. But I doubt that if they do even exist, they exist in numbers great enough for the player character to not be constrained by the obligation to take these paths or destinies just to be able to hit. What if he wanted to focus on something else about his character, taking PP to enhance his healing and an ED to cement his place in the story of the campaign? Why should he have to take PPs and EDs just to eek out another +1? Why should there be "right" and "wrong" paths or destinies to take?
Sure, the character could have decided to play a Fighter for that weapon talent.... but he didn't. He wanted to play a leader. It's not valid to figure in the Fighter's class feature in this arguement because even if the fighter can hit, the rest of the party has problems. Why should there be a "right" and "wrong" class to take?
On the other side of the table, should I never use Beholders as a campaign end-boss? Or anything else with All-Around Vision to deny flanking, or other monsters that give penalties to attacks, or things that restrain, or any other monster that can counter the "round to round" micellaneous bonuses the PCs can do? Why should there be "right" and "wrong" boss monsters to use?
See, now, even if you disagree with all of that, figure that my players are idiots for not taking attack-buffing powers instead of defense and damage buffing powers, even if you figure they're morons for not searching out every single +1 to attack they could manage in thier builds, even if they build their entire characters "incorrectly", even if I'm a **** for using boss monsters with abilties that mitigate PC bonuses round from round... Giving the PCs Expertise for free fixes it. Now they're hitting on 14+ on really tough boss fights. Tough, but doable.
See, for my group Expertise is just too necessary not to take. It opens up all these other options for the players and for ME. Now they can take what powers they want, play what classes they want, take whatever paths or destinies they want, and weild whatever weapon they want. And I can throw whatever monsters I want at them.
A feat that far-reaching and powerful, opening up all these possibilities and choices, means that it's the "right" feat to take. But I dislike there being any "right" option for players, just as much as I dislike there being a "wrong" one. So since this feat seems so necessary just so PCs don't back themselves into a corner, I will give it for free from now on.
I hope you can see where I'm coming from, since I've now crunched numbers too.
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
No one should require an engineering degree or a A+ in high school probability/mathematics to be able to play DnD "correctly". You should just be able to come in, pick options that sound cool and are fun at the table, and have fun at the table.
I don't require my players to be tactical geniuses or even tactically adept to play DnD, and that approach works for me and mine.