[4e]Expertise feats

[Blackdrop]

Can someone explain to me how they are supposedly "broken" or an absolute necessity for you to pick up. My, admittitly ametuerish, number crunching seems to indicate that unless you have a lot of "X vs. Fort" powers or using a race that doesn't have a single boost to one of your classes key abilities, you can pass it over for something else. I'd even say that the only time you "need" to grab one, might be epic tier.



Number Crunching: Level 10
Monster used: Minotaur Warrior

Starting Attack Score: 18, Racial Modifier: Yes
{table=head]Monster Defenses|Player Attack Bonus|Minimum Roll
AC: 26|25 = (10+5+6+2+2)|2
Fort: 27|23 = (10+5+6+2)|4
Ref: 21|23 = (10+5+6+2)|2
Will: 23|23 = (10+5+6+2)|2
[/table]

Starting Attack Score: 18, Racial Modifier: Yes
{table=head]Monster Defenses|Player Attack Bonus|Minimum Roll
AC: 26|24 = (10+5+5+2+2)|2
Fort: 27|22 = (10+5+5+2)|5
Ref: 21|22 = (10+5+5+2)|2
Will: 23|22 = (10+5+5+2)|2
[/table]

Starting Attack Score: 18, Racial Modifier: Yes
{table=head]Monster Defenses|Player Attack Bonus|Minimum Roll
AC: 26|23 = (10+5+4+2+2)|3
Fort: 27|21 = (10+5+4+2)|6
Ref: 21|21 = (10+5+4+2)|2
Will: 23|21 = (10+5+4+2)|2
[/table]


Number Crunching: Level 20
Monster used: Aspect of Dispater

Starting Attack Score: 18, Racial Modifier: Yes
{table=head]Monster Defenses|Player Attack Bonus|Minimum Roll
AC: 37|33 = (10+10+7+4+2)|4
Fort: 33|31 = (10+10+7+4)|2
Ref: 35|31 = (10+10+7+4)|4
Will: 34|31 = (10+10+7+4)|3
[/table]

Starting Attack Score: 18, Racial Modifier: No
{table=head]Monster Defenses|Player Attack Bonus|Minimum Roll
AC: 37|32 = (10+10+6+4+2)|5
Fort: 33|30 = (10+10+6+4)|3
Ref: 35|30 = (10+10+6+4)|5
Will: 34|30 = (10+10+6+4)|4

Starting Attack Score: 16, Racial Modifier: No
{table=head]Monster Defenses|Player Attack Bonus|Minimum Roll
AC: 37|31 = (10+10+5+4+2)|6
Fort: 33|29 = (10+10+5+4)|4
Ref: 35|29 = (10+10+5+4)|6
Will: 34|29 = (10+10+5+4)|5


Number Crunching: Level 30
Monster Used: Ancient Red Dragon

No Epic Destiny Stat Boosts
Starting Attack Score: 18, Racial Modifier: Yes
{table=head]Monster Defenses|Player Attack Bonus|Minimum Roll
AC: 48|42 = (10+15+9+6+2)|6
Fort: 48|40 = (10+15+9+6)|8
Ref: 43|40 = (10+15+9+6)|3
Will: 42|40 = (10+15+9+6)|2
[/table]

Starting Attack Score: 18, Racial Modifier: No
{table=head]Monster Defenses|Player Attack Bonus|Minimum Roll
AC: 48|41 = (10+15+8+6+2)|7
Fort: 48|39 = (10+15+8+6)|9
Ref: 43|39 = (10+15+9+6)|4
Will: 42|39 = (10+15+9+6)|3
[/table]

Starting Attack Score: 16, Racial Modifier: No
{table=head]Monster Defenses|Player Attack Bonus|Minimum Roll
AC: 48|40 = (10+15+7+6+2)|8
Fort: 48|38 = (10+15+7+6)|10
Ref: 43|38 = (10+15+7+6)|5
Will: 42|38 = (10+15+7+6)|4
[/table]

[Colmarr]

I'm not sure what your tables are supposed to show (especially the Player Attack column) so I won't comment on them specifically; just the general question.

Putting specific monsters to one side and looking at the general monster creation rules instead shows that monsters' defences rise by 1 per level, for a total of +29 over 30 levels.

By comparison, PCs' attack bonuses rise by +25 over 30 levels (15 for level, 4 for ability bumps, 6 for enhancement). Yes, some PC builds (eg. Kensai and/or Demigod) that add more than +25, but we're talking generally here.

As such by level 30, PCs have fallen 4 points "behind the curve". The Expertise feats address that perception.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, the feats are not overwhelming until at least level 15.

At that stage, a +2 (+3 at level 25) untyped bonus to attacks is almost universally more beneficial to combat activities than any other feat so far released.

The Expertise feats aren't necessary, but they are clearly superior to other feats that offer conditional bonuses, and it's very difficult to make a viable case why a level 25+ PC should not have one.

PS. There are some who argue that PC and power synergy more than makes up for the missing +4. I don't want to touch that argument with a pole. My 4e experience is limited to levels 1-4.

[nightwyrm]

In 4e, hitting is everything. You can always use something that adds 5-15% to your attack roll. They're just blatantly better than most feats that either just gives a +1 to +3 to damage or some other situational modifiers. Everyone is going to want to take them at some point. The feat just become sort of a feat tax.

Looking at your charts, you somehow have an additional +10 in each of your attack bonus columns. That's why your data doesn't give the expected results.

[Aron Times]

I'm guessing the Expertise feats were added so parties wouldn't be so dependent on leader attack buffs.

At level 1, a tactical warlord can grant an ally a +5 power bonus to attacks against a target until the end of the warlord's next turn. If he spends an action point, he gets a total of +7 on that attack. If he has combat advantage, that's another +2, for a total of +9 above his normal attack bonus.

Assuming a 50% hit rate (16 stat and a +2 proficiency weapon), a +9 bonus means that the warlord's ally will hit 95% of the time on his extra action and 85% of the time on his normal action.

If we bring that up to an 18 stat and a +3 proficiency weapon, the ally will only miss on a 1 until the end of the warlord's next turn. That's insane.

And this isn't an uber-optimized taclord. Any taclord worth his salt can do this at level 1.

[Colmarr]

There have been some suggestions that the feats are intended to help bring "generalist" PCs (eg. 16 stat and +2 weapon) in line with the specialist characters (eg. 20 stat and +2 weapon).

I highly doubt it, because it must have occurred to WotC that the specialists are just as likely to take it as the generalists...

[Oracle_Hunter]

It's not that the Feats are broken; the problem is that we're seeing the return of "indispensable feats." It's not good planning to have a feat so obviously powerful that everyone would take it; all you end up doing is reducing everyone's feat slots by one and reducing the variation between builds.

Expertise is clearly better than all Heroic Feats. Personally, I think it should've been a Paragon or Epic Feat.

[Colmarr]

Expertise is clearly better than all Heroic Feats.

That's a big call, and assumes that offensive feats can be directly compared to everything else.

How exactly do you compare Weapon Expertise to Jack of All Trades? Or even something strange like Lingering Wrath (from Martial Power)?

Pedantry aside, I agree with you that the Expertise feats are clearly the best "value for feat slot" straight-offensive feat available in the Heroic tier and that evaluation probably improves at Paragon and Epic.

[TheOOB]

Expertise is too powerful not to take. I could see avoiding it in heroic tier, but by paragon it is neccesary. There are two reasons for this. First is because the vast majority of the actions you can make are attacks. The attacks work if they hit, and do not work if you miss. Your effectiveness is based almost entirely on whether or not those attacks hit. Such an effective means to raise such an important stat with no compromise(other then a feat slot) is too good to waste. It's not whether you take the feat or not, it's when.

The other thing is that NPC defense rises faster then player offense. Assuming at level 1 the attack vs. defense rate is fair, the NPCs gain +1 defense per level, and the players gain +1 per two levels. Even counting magic items and ability increases you are still left with a 5 point different by level 30. While misc bonuses and situational benefit can count for some if it, it's really difficult to get all five points on a regular bases. The expertise feat helps even out the curve, making it easier for players to keep up.

Personally, I don't allow the expertise feats and just give the players a +1 to attack rolls and all defenses at level 5, 15, and 21.

If you care, here is a chart comparing the increasing monster defense opposed to attack with and without expertise(or my houserule).

Players vs. Monsters (http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/2581/playersvsmonsters.jpg)

[Nightson]

Expertise is better then any other feat you could take at paragon or epic. It's a 10% damage increase at paragon and a 15% damage increase at epic. At heroic, it's just very, very good.

The problem is that having totally superior feats that are totally superior for every single class, race and build is no fun.

[NPCMook]

Expertise is better then any other feat you could take at paragon or epic. It's a 10% damage increase at paragon and a 15% damage increase at epic. At heroic, it's just very, very good.

The problem is that having totally superior feats that are totally superior for every single class, race and build is no fun.

Eh, don't bother, They've made up their minds on how they want to use these feats

[TheOOB]

It's not just 5-10-15% more damage, it also increases the chances for secondary effects.

Anyways, I personally just follow the school of thought that if everyone is going to take it, they should just have it anyways.

[Sophismata]

It's not 5/10/15% more damage, in any case. Math doesn't work that way...

[Talic]

15% greater accuracy is not 15% more damage.

Against very hard to hit foes, it can be as much as a 150% increase in damage.

Against very easy to hit foes, it can be as little as no increase at all.

Let's say the enemy is hard enough to hit that you need a 15 or better to hit. 30% chance of hitting.

Add a +15% chance.

Now it's a 45% chance in hitting.

You are now 50% more likely to hit. (you had 6 numbers that would hit. Now you have 9. That's 50% more successful results.)

Let's say you have a 45% chance to hit base. With the feat, you go to 60%. That's a 33% increase in hits. (you had 9 numbers, now you have 12, 33% more successful results.)

See?

[Kurald Galain]

Can someone explain to me how they are supposedly "broken" or an absolute necessity for you to pick up.

They're objectively better than every other feat in the handbooks.

At early level I suppose this is debatable, as it only gives a +1 then. But note how many feats exist, most of them at paragon level, that give +1 in certain circumstances. But when you hit level 15, +2 to (effectively) all your attacks for the cost of a feat is way, way better than any other feat you could imagine.

They're not game-breakers, though. But they are an example of bad design because of this.

[Kurald Galain]

25 = (10+5+6+2+2)
Player attack bonuses don't start at 10, they start at 0. Unless I'm missing something, that's a pretty huge calculation error you're making there.

5 = half level, 6 = attribute, 2 = magic weapon/implement, 2 = proficiency bonus.




By comparison, PCs' attack bonuses rise by +25 over 30 levels (15 for level, 4 for ability bumps, 6 for enhancement). Yes, some PC builds (eg. Kensai and/or Demigod) that add more than +25, but we're talking generally here.

As such by level 30, PCs have fallen 4 points "behind the curve". The Expertise feats address that perception.
Indeed, that perception. I'm not convinced that it was actually a problem (but then, I haven't played epic tier yet). I think that high-tier characters would have made up for those 4 points through more player experience, better teamwork, power and item combos, and lots and lots of situational modifiers like back-to-the-wall, taclords, and so forth.


It's not good planning to have a feat so obviously powerful that everyone would take it; all you end up doing is reducing everyone's feat slots by one and reducing the variation between builds.
Precisely.


That's a big call, and assumes that offensive feats can be directly compared to everything else.

How exactly do you compare Weapon Expertise to Jack of All Trades? Or even something strange like Lingering Wrath (from Martial Power)?
The answer is that, given the heavy focus 4E places on combat, offensive feats are already stronger and more useful than anything else. Of course, in home campaigns this depends on the DM and on playstyle, but it is generally true in the LFR campaign and nearly every module printed so far by WOTC.



You are now 50% more likely to hit. (you had 6 numbers that would hit. Now you have 9. That's 50% more successful results.)
Taking percentages of other percentages is only confusing the issue. The straight and simple answer is that the feat adds +15% to hit.

[Tengu_temp]

Am I the only one who doesn't have any gripe with Weapon/Implement Expertise? There's a lot of indispensable feats in the core books already. The only thing I don't like about them is that some people argue two Weapon Expertises can stack if you use a weapon that belongs to two categories (which clearly isn't RAI and will probably be errata-ed extremely soon) and/or that Weapon Expertise and Implement Expertise can stack for classes such as Swordmage (which isn't even legal by RAW).

[Kurald Galain]

There's a lot of indispensable feats in the core books already.
Such as?


some people argue two Weapon Expertises can stack if you use a weapon that belongs to two categories (which clearly isn't RAI and will probably be errata-ed extremely soon)
Already covered in the FAQ that this doesn't stack, but of course people will respond that FAQ isn't RAW.

[Artanis]

Like the others have said, +1 to hit is huge. It takes very, VERY specific circumstances for +1 damage to beat +1 to-hit, and a lot of times that to-hit will beat out two, three, or more points of damage. And that's before we start talking about 9w+STAT dailies.

And what's more, to-hit is designed so that it doesn't scale: +1 is just as big a deal at level one as it is at level thirty. But the Expertise feats scale, making them more and more powerful as the levels go on.



Such as?
Elven Precision :smalltongue:

[The Mormegil]

It's a hidden math patch. Monster ACs scale too fast compared to attack bonuses. Therefore, WotC made a feat that increases every attack roll. Except that they made it badly: it shouldn't cost anything to PCs and it shouldn't depend on weapon groups/implement groups.

I decided to houserule the bonus it gives into magic weapons as masterwork weapons: +2 weapons/implements have +1 proficiency, +4 weapons/implements have +2 prof, +6 have +3. End of problem.

[Tengu_temp]

Such as?


Proficiency in a superior weapon (unless you're a caster or rogue). Armor specialization. Weapon mastery.

[Kurald Galain]

Proficiency in a superior weapon (unless you're a caster or rogue). Armor specialization. Weapon mastery.
"Unless"...

There's a huge difference between a feat that's indispensible to a specific build, and a feat that is indisipensible to every single character. The three feats you mention fall squarely in the former category (and are irrelevant to most other builds; e.g. leaders don't need superior weapons, non-melee types don't need armor spec, and so forth; heck, even several fighter builds need neither superior weaponry nor armor spec). It's the difference between a Serra Angel and a Black Lotus.


Elven Precision :smalltongue:
I'll assume that was a joke :smallamused:

[Yakk]

Proficiency in a superior weapon (unless you're a caster or rogue). Armor specialization. Weapon mastery.
Armor Spec -- not required for a Warlock or Wizard. Is two feats deep (each at +1 AC) for a Rogue. Shield Spec is usually better for people who use shields. Classes that are built around attacking will neglect Armor Spec for a long while, especially if they already have sufficient "attack me at your peril" powers. Defenders who over-invest in defence end up being ignored -- if you are already wearing Plate and have a Shield, maybe you should boost your threat rather than your defence.

Superior Weapon proficiency is an entire category of feats, and it helps distinguish between characters. Dwarves and Eladrin (with their racial weapon feats) may or may not get it. Sword-wielding Warlords may skip out on it (as it doesn't boost their accuracy, just their damage), which is less important for a class whose power comes from Hit effects.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Proficiency in a superior weapon (unless you're a caster or rogue). Armor specialization. Weapon mastery.

Armor Spec is debatable. For, say, Staff Wizards, Hide Spec (assuming they buy up to Hide) is not as important as the other Paragon spell feats. Also I'd argue that, if you had to choose between HBO and Scale Spec, you should take HBO - particularly for non-Fighters. Pretty much every class that has a Spec-able armor has another Paragon Feat that may be more important to get first.

You may also not be able to qualify right away - having to drop points in a potentially useless stat (DEX for Heavy Armor guys or for Shield Spec) also makes it a less than strictly better choice. Expertise has no such pre-requisites.

Weapon Mastery is all the way up in Epic, so I don't mind it so much. There aren't all that many Epic feats to start with, and you've already chosen a lot of other feats by that point.

EDIT:
Ninja'd by a Yak(k)!

[TheOOB]

Superior Weapon Proficiency is useful to weapon wielders, but not to casters, also many weapon wielders have better things to do with their feats then increase their damage per attack by 1. Also, superior weapons are harder to find then military.

Armor specialization and weapon mastery are good, very good, but not everyone is going to meet the stat and feat prerequisites, and it's not good enough to cripple your attributes in other areas to get. I doubt many wizards end up getting Hide Specialization.

[Colmarr]

The answer is that, given the heavy focus 4E places on combat, offensive feats are already stronger and more useful than anything else.

Which is not the same as saying that Expertise is better than, say, Skill Training or Arcane Initiate.

The argument that the Expertise feats are the best feats in the game is a blatant oversimplification and I wish people would drop it. Why not simply say that the feats are so good that it's difficult to justify not taking them?


There's a huge difference between a feat that's indispensible to a specific build, and a feat that is indisipensible to every single character.

Ok, devil's advocate time:

And how exactly is Weapon Expertise (Heavy Blades) indispensable to a Wizard? Or Implement Expertise (Orbs) to a fighter?

There's a tendency in the Expertise argument to judge other feats as "how valuable is this feat to all PCs, but the same test isn't applied to the Expertise feats.

[Colmarr]

Double post.

[Kurald Galain]

Which is not the same as saying that Expertise is better than, say, Skill Training or Arcane Initiate.
As a matter of fact, it is.

If you think there are better feats in the game than getting +2 or +3 to all of your attacks, then name them. Otherwise you're just arguing semantics.



And how exactly is Weapon Expertise (Heavy Blades) indispensable to a Wizard? Or Implement Expertise (Orbs) to a fighter?
That's a good example of arguing semantics. Your argument lacks substance, but I think you knew that.

[Colmarr]

If you think there are better feats in the game than getting +2 or +3 to all of your attacks...

But you don't. You get +2 or +3 to your attacks with a specific category of weapon or implement. How does that help with bull rushes? Or split-build classes like Clerics that attack with weapon and implement? How does Expertise (Heavy Blades) help with your ranged attacks against flying oppoents? Is a +2 to attack worth more than a +2 to reflex defence (Lightning Reflexes) when outnumbered 2 to 1 by reflex-targetting enemies? Is a +1 to attack in heroic tier worth more than +2 AC (leather armour proficiency for wizards)? Is a +1/+3 to attack worth more than the ability to swap a utility power for Shield or an encounter power for Color Spray (or countless other high-level cross class powers)?

It's simply untenable to argue that the Expertise feats are objectively better than every other feat in the game at every stage of the game. It's an untenable argument because it cannot be proven. There are some feats that it's simply impossible to compare Expertise to. It's hyperbole, plain and simple.

At best, you can argue that an expertise feat might see more use that any other feat. But that does not make it better.


That's a good example of arguing semantics. Your argument lacks substance, but I think you knew that.

Actually it's not semantics. It's pointing out hypocrisy. If you want to assert that any one feat is better than any other feat in the game, then that assertion should be confined to one feat, not a collection of 2+ feats that you are conveniently lumping into one.

I've already posted in this thread that I consider the Expertise feats high-powered. But the hyperbole is beginning to get on my nerves...

[FinalJustice]

It's simply untenable to argue that the Expertise feats are objectively better than every other feat in the game at every stage of the game. It's an untenable argument because it cannot be proven. There are some feats that it's simply impossible to compare Expertise to. It's hyperbole, plain and simple.

At best, you can argue that an expertise feat might see more use that any other feat. But that does not make it better.

Actually it's not semantics. It's pointing out hypocrisy. If you want to assert that any one feat is better than any other feat in the game, then that assertion should be confined to one feat, not a collection of 2+ feats that you are conveniently lumping into one.

I've already posted in this thread that I consider the Expertise feats high-powered. But the hyperbole is beginning to get on my nerves...

Do note that you are exhagerating the pro-expertise arguments in order to make them sound ridiculous. And do note that 'see more use', while not the very definition of better, is certainly a huge factor.

Hipocrisy is a big word, isn't it? Do you mind pointing the harm in discussing the Expertise feats as a whole?

[Colmarr]

Do note that you are exhagerating the pro-expertise arguments in order to make them sound ridiculous.

How so? Kurald stated in post 14 that "They're objectively better than every other feat in the handbooks."

I called him on that statement. I don't see the exaggeration that you're suggesting.


And do note that 'see more use', while not the very definition of better, is certainly a huge factor.

I agree it is, and it's the primary reason why I dislike the Expertise feats from a game design perspective.

I'm not suggesting that the feats aren't powerful. I simply dislike the hyperbole that seems to have surrounded them.


Do you mind pointing the harm in discussing the Expertise feats as a whole?

Ordinarily there wouldn't be any harm in doing so, and I myself have discussed them in general terms (even in this thread; see post 2).

But it obscures the issue and is misleading to suggest or imply that Expertise (as a general concept) is the best feat in the game, simply because the general concept being discussed is not a feat; it's a collection of 2 or more feats each tailored to be taken by individual PCs.

The specific point in relation to which this issue arises is the suggestion that other feats (such as Armor Specialisation) aren't as good as Expertise because they're not of interest to all classes. That's a smokescreen, because neither is any particular Expertise feat.

[Oracle_Hunter]

The specific point in relation to which this issue arises is the suggestion that other feats (such as Armor Specialisation) aren't as good as Expertise because they're not of interest to all classes. That's a smokescreen, because neither is any particular Expertise feat.

Before I begin, would you be willing to agree that the Expertise Feats are the strictly better combat feats for their Tier?

The Tier part is actually pretty important, because as a Heroic Feat it is going to be taken (or not) well before Paragon or Epic Feats are available. Personally, I don't see anyone retraining out of Expertise (maybe swapping weapon/implement) but perhaps you beg to differ?

Now, when I say strictly better, I mean it.A +1 to hit is offered in Heroic by (IIRC) 2 other Feats - Hellfire Blood and Nimble Blade. Each of these Feats has stringent limitations. Nimble Blade only works with Light Blades and only when you have CA. Hellfire Blood is only for Tieflings and only applies to Fire and Fear attacks. Compare that to Expertise, which applies to one class of implement or weapon and has no prerequisites or limitations. It is strictly better than the other feats because it has no requirements (meaning you don't have to divert resources to get it) and small limitations (since most classes naturally specialize in a weapon class to take advantage of Weapon Feats).

Blade Opportunist does deserve special mention since it offers +2 to hit. However, it has ability score requirements, works only with Light and Heavy Blades, and only works on OAs - which is terrible in Heroic because those are always Basic Attacks. Even here, I'd say Expertise is the strictly better option; you get +1 not just on OAs (with no prerequisites) but also on all of your attack powers with either Weapon or Implement keywords. It is vastly more useful to any character than a +2 to hit on OAs - even characters who would naturally qualify for the Feat.

Finally, a point about implement/weapon switching.
Implement Expertise is actually more valuable to this kind of character. Even when playing a Balanced Character (i.e. a Cleric with identical STR and WIS scores) your Implement Powers can quickly lag behind if you don't pick up a Magic Implement of the appropriate Tier. This is exacerbated by necessarily having lower scores in your attacking ability scores than a focused character - you just don't have the points to make an 18/18 character. You can compensate somewhat on the Weapon side by taking a +3 Proficiency weapon, but there is no non-magical solution for the Implement side. But, the Implement Expertise Feat can fix that right away by turning that 16 into an effective 18, eliminating the usual penalty for unfocused characters.

A focused character is usually on the curve; theoretically they could decide to put off Expertise for a level. But a dual user should feel compelled to take Implement Expertise at Level 1 - it is just that much more important for them than for other characters.

[Colmarr]

Before I begin, would you be willing to agree that the Expertise Feats are the strictly better combat feats for their Tier?

I'll go one better than that. I'll agree (and already have above - post #7) that the Expertise feats are "clearly the best "value for feat slot" straight-offensive feat available in the Heroic tier and that evaluation probably improves at Paragon and Epic."

My issue is that people are seeking to compare offensive feats to defensive feats, and worse: offensive feats to utility feats. To be honest, I don't think I can be convinced that a valid comparison of such feats is possible. Not everything in the game is straight maths and I'm not overly interested in taking the discussion any further.

The argument over whether the Expertise feats are merely "exceedingly strong" or are in fact "the best" is not IMO worth the further time and effort that it would entail.

My intention was to point out that there was in my opinion some exaggeration taking place. I've done that.

[nightwyrm]

I suppose there is a bit of exaggeration on the "expertise is the best feat evar!!" side. However, with the possible exception of toughness, there is no other feat (or class of feats, I'm going to considering all the expertise feats as a whole) in the whole game for which every character of any race, class or build would want and can take at some point in their lv 1 to 30 career.

Now, for some reason, you may decide to hold off taking an expertise feat till you're paragon and/or your game may end in heroic tier so your character may end up never taking it. But if you were to design a combat oriented character (which almost all D&D characters are) from lv 1 to 30 and you have a pretty good idea of how the game works, I can't think of a single reason why anyone would not take one of the expertise feats at some point in that character's life.

And that just makes expertise feats a boring feat tax that just gets worse for characters who either uses multiple weapons/implements or want to use both implement and weapon powers.

[Talic]

Taking percentages of other percentages is only confusing the issue. The straight and simple answer is that the feat adds +15% to hit.

Taking percentages of other percentages makes it accurate.

If you had a 5% chance to hit, and you add that +15% chance, you've quadrupled your chances of hitting. That's huge. (+300% improvement in your odds of hitting)

If you had a 75% chance to hit, and you add it, you've only made yourself marginally (20%), more likely to hit.

This is an instance where +3 to hit is not +15% chance to hit. That is oversimplification, and it's one of the many ways people incorrectly apply statistics.

3 is 15% of 20, yes.
Your range of possible rolls (on a to hit roll) varies by 20 numbers, yes.
If you add +3, that range is still 20 numbers.

What this doesn't take into account is where the target number lies.
For slim chances to hit, bonuses to hit dramatically increase your odds. For high chances to hit, it's less marked.

Here's the straight and accurate numbers:
{table=header]Initial chance to hit | Chance to hit after +3 | Increase in hit odds
*5% (20) | 5% (20) | +0% (1 chance vs 1 chance)
*5% (20) | 10% (19-20) | +100% (1 chance vs 2 chances)
*5% (20) | 15% (18-20) | +200% (1 chance vs 3 chances)
5% (20) | 20% (17-20) | +300% (1 chance vs 4 chances)
10% (19-20) | 25% (16-20) | +150% (2 chances vs 5 chances)
15% (18-20) | 30% (15-20) | +100% (3 chances vs 6 chances)
20% (17-20) | 35% (14-20) | +75% (4 chances vs 7 chances)
25% (16-20) | 40% (13-20) | +60% (5 chances vs 8 chances)
30% (15-20) | 45% (12-20) | +50% (6 chances vs 9 chances)
35% (14-20) | 50% (11-20) | +43% (7 chances vs 10 chances)
40% (13-20) | 55% (10-20) | +38% (8 chances vs 11 chances)
45% (12-20) | 60% (9-20) | +33% (9 chances vs 12 chances)
50% (11-20) | 65% (8-20) | +30% (10 chances vs 13 chances)
55% (10-20) | 70% (7-20) | +27% (11 chances vs 14 chances)
60% (9-20) | 75% (6-20) | +25% (12 chances vs 15 chances)
65% (8-20) | 80% (5-20) | +23% (13 chances vs 16 chances)
70% (7-20) | 85% (4-20) | +21% (14 chances vs 17 chances)
75% (6-20) | 90% (3-20) | +20% (15 chances vs 18 chances)
80% (5-20) | 95% (2-20) | +19% (16 chances vs 19 chances)
85% (4-20) | 95% (2-20) | +12% (17 chances vs 19 chances)
90% (3-20) | 95% (2-20) | +6% (18 chances vs 19 chances)
95% (2-20) | 95% (2-20) | +0% (19 chances vs 19 chances)[/table]

As you can see, feats and abilities which increase your accuracy are best for enemies which are difficult to hit.

* The first three 5% entries are for exceptionally difficult to hit enemies, wherein you would normally need a roll greater than 20 to hit, but the "natural 20 always hits rule" applies. The top one is for a required roll of 23+, the next is for 22, and the third is for 21. The fourth 5% is for those instances where a 20 would hit naturally, even if the natural 20 rule didn't exist.

But in nearly every case where your odds of hitting are less than 85%, this feat provides more than a 15% improved chance to hit, though it adds 15% to your chances in most cases.

In fact, the only time it doesn't is when the target is so difficult to hit that Expertise provides no benefit at all, or so easy to hit that it provides a reduced bonus (or none at all). (both of which should be the exception).

For enemies that you hit with 50% accuracy normally, you'll actually hit 30% more often. (You normally hit 10 out of your 20 swings. Now you hit 13 out of your 20 swings. That's a 30% increase in your hits.) That's the actual statistic that matters in this case.

+3 is 15% of 20.
15 is 15% of 100.
But if you don't need 100, that doesn't matter.
What matters is how many chances you had before, and how many you have now. That's how you track odds, and improvement in odds.

[Artanis]

Now, when I say strictly better, I mean it.A +1 to hit is offered in Heroic by (IIRC) 2 other Feats - Hellfire Blood and Nimble Blade. Each of these Feats has stringent limitations. Nimble Blade only works with Light Blades and only when you have CA. Hellfire Blood is only for Tieflings and only applies to Fire and Fear attacks. Compare that to Expertise, which applies to one class of implement or weapon and has no prerequisites or limitations. It is strictly better than the other feats because it has no requirements (meaning you don't have to divert resources to get it) and small limitations (since most classes naturally specialize in a weapon class to take advantage of Weapon Feats).
It is not strictly better than Hellfire Blood because there are situations where Hellfire Blood would provide more benefit. Even if said situations will never come up in gameplay and even if it is so much worse that it wouldn't matter even if they did, said situations still exist.

Much better? Vastly better? Almost strictly better? Sure. But not strictly better.

[TrashCat]

Pardon my n00bish-ness, but what is an expertise feat? :smallconfused: I'm scouring the PHB and character builder lists, and I can't find any feat with the word "expertise" in it. Is it code for something?

[TrashCat]

Ah, never mind... I see that it is in the PHB2. No wonder I couldn't find it.

Damn, that is nice indeed.