|
I was discussing this with some friends the other day and we began thinking about what we would want to see in the next Player's Handbook. First off I would not want to see any new power sources. We are pretty well set with those. I would like to see a catfolk style race and maybe a race with ties to the Far Beyond. I would also like to see a cavalier style class, a dedicated necromancer, and a few more controllers. Maybe a martial controller as we don't have one of those yet.
So what do you guys want to see?
I am not sure if a Players Handbook would cover it, but I would like to see some expansion on basic melee and ranged type powers available to any class, via some type of proficiency mechanic.
I would also like too see some more details in regards to alchemy, rituals, etc. and provide more incentivie to use them in game.
As to classes, a necromancer would be cool.
I would like to see a catfolk style race and maybe a race with ties to the Far Beyond.
You mean other than those razorpaw shifters?
I really hope they don't give us an actual necromancer with unliving pets; it'd be the first 4e class that I'd have to ban. Sorry folks, but undead = evil in my book, and my players don't need any more encouragement to play evil SOBs.
The only thing I can think of that I'd like to see isn't anything new, really. I'd like to see a rewrite of the PHB character advancement table, with extra bonuses written in to replace feat taxes. But we all know how likely it is that WotC'll own up to a major mistake like that.
The only thing I can think of that I'd like to see isn't anything new, really. I'd like to see a rewrite of the PHB character advancement table, with extra bonuses written in to replace feat taxes. But we all know how likely it is that WotC'll own up to a major mistake like that.
I'm pretty new to 4ed, can you elaborate on the feat tax thing?
I'm pretty new to 4ed, can you elaborate on the feat tax thing?
The only thing I can think of that I'd like to see isn't anything new, really. I'd like to see a rewrite of the PHB character advancement table, with extra bonuses written in to replace feat taxes. But we all know how likely it is that WotC'll own up to a major mistake like that.
My understanding of a feat tax is that there is a feat that is needed for a character to be properly balanced for the encounters he faces. They are feats that you can't afford not to take.
|
I suspect that any Necromancer class is likely to be released online, instead of in print, much like the Assassin. There seems to be a sense that that's how they want to handle darker character concepts that go beyond the heroic concepts presented in the PHBs. I would like to see one released in that way eventually, myself.
There is a promised "Elemental" power source that appears to still be on the table, and I wonder if it might make an appearance in a PHB4, but we shall see.
I don't suspect that they are going to address "feat taxes", since they would realistically have to revamp character advancement, class features, and feat lists to do so. Anything's possible, but I would be very surprised.
I'd like to see kobolds given a full PHB treatment, in much the same way they did with gnomes, minotaurs, and so on.
Shadow and Elemental power source is what I am looking for. I want to see the defenders for each. A true summoning class would also be welcomed for either power source. Necromancer for one and Summoner for the other would be most welcome.
|
|
I would like to see a catfolk style race and maybe a race with ties to the Far Beyond.You mean other than those razorpaw shifters?
I am looking for something more like rakastas from Mystara.
I second a 4E savage species, or anything to bring monsters and characters under the same ruleset.
I want to see Shadow and Elemental Power Source classes.
Savage Species would be cool too, but I'll not hold my breath. What I really hope for are full write-ups for races like Githyanki, Duergar, and Kenku.
Blaze is correct in his definition. In 4E we are talking about the Expertize feats...the ones that give a +1 when you take it and again at 15th and 25th.
They are badly designed feats because they are simply too good compared to other feats - especially once you have gotten to 15th level.
That said I don't agree with TS that the players needed such feats just to be able to play. The idea that their is some kind or requirement that the player bonuses must equal the monster bonuses is, in my view, flawed. The players get a lot of bonuses the monsters usually simply don't have access to. Almost all player groups have abilities and powers that can grant an ally some bonuses some of the time. Player groups are designed to do whatever their schtick is, often get combat advantage for example. There are powers that grant bonuses and the list goes on. Its easy for a player group to make up for any deficiency along these lines and that keeps them in line with the monsters benefits. Monsters occasionally get such bonuses but its simply not as common and they don't have anything close to the same number of powers (and hence options) that a player group has. Hence I expect that by Epic level, once the players use their trick of switching places (to get combat advantage) and they are operating in aura of some power that give more bonuses and using another power that grants a bonus we'll be talking about +6 to hit from circumstances alone - never mind the extra bonus from these feats.
Hence I suspect that what we actually see when the dice are rolled is that the players, on average, have +4 to +8 better then the monsters by this level simply due to all the outside benefits they get - far from equalizing the players with the monsters these feats make a mis-match worse and force the DM to break the game in other areas just to keep up the challenge (probably by including more monsters of more power - thus breaking the XP system)
I second a 4E savage species, or anything to bring monsters and characters under the same ruleset.
I could see a book detailing a lot of races but not something like Savage Species. Savage Species tried to create a system where any monster fit within the framework. It did not work then and it'll have even less chance of working in 4E's environment of rigid attempts to keep play in balance.
What is possible however is for some designers to sit down and pick 15 or 30 monsters and create races from them and have these be play balanced and usable - won't help you if you want to play an Otyugh though.
I'd like to see them actually implement Psionics in the same way as they handled the powers of other classes. The system was perfect for introducing Psionics... and then they went and did it completely different. Again.
In theory you could take the psionic powers and redo them in this manner (so that there where encounter powers and at wills) but I don't think you'd really get much out of the deal. In truth what your really doing is splitting the power cards into different parts. The psionic 'enhancement' system is fundamentally an encounter power system - each psionic point corresponds roughly with the other classes encounter powers. So psionic characters enhance their powers about as often as other classes use their encounter powers. The psionic characters should be stuck using enhanced at will powers at about the same time that other characters run out of encounter powers.
I want to know where the heck Oriental Adventures is? The class system is perfect for make well flavored ninja's and samurai's etc. so where is the book that supports this?
I second a 4E savage species, or anything to bring monsters and characters under the same ruleset.I could see a book detailing a lot of races but not something like Savage Species. Savage Species tried to create a system where any monster fit within the framework. It did not work then and it'll have even less chance of working in 4E's environment of rigid attempts to keep play in balance.
What is possible however is for some designers to sit down and pick 15 or 30 monsters and create races from them and have these be play balanced and usable - won't help you if you want to play an Otyugh though.
For some reason I imagine, for a 4th edition Savage Species book, is a number of generic bases for monsters, then a vast array of monstrous feats, encounter, daily, and utility powers that certain monsters may pick.
A winged monster might be able to take, instead of a typical utility power from their class, a utility power that lets them fly a short distance. If one gets access to a Tentacle Slam and Diseased Bite attack powers, I think one could play an Otyugh without a book specifically giving an Otyugh race.
I want to know where the heck Oriental Adventures is? The class system is perfect for make well flavored ninja's and samurai's etc. so where is the book that supports this?
\
Beyond the fluff and maybe some specific oriental powers you may envision, I have already used 4E for an oriental campaign, with warlords as samurai, ninja assassins, sorcerers, shamans, etc. I just had to re-justify some of the powers and races to meet an oriental theme. I even used a hybrid class with warden per DDI, to represent a monk with different styles, i.e. forms. With a monk from PHB3, no need to do that anymore. But I guess people said the same thing for 3.5, so I would definitely be interested.
But if we are asking about worlds, I would be more interested in planescape.
I know in GURPS, after playing D&D, the monsters seem to loose functionality, like multiple attacks. That is one thing I would like to be addressed in 4E, in addition to allowing each class more powers in relation to basic weapon proficiencies. But perhaps that is ground for an advanced guide which I doubt we would ever see. Of course, this is based on previous biases drawn from 3.5.
I'm pretty new to 4ed, can you elaborate on the feat tax thing?
The only thing I can think of that I'd like to see isn't anything new, really. I'd like to see a rewrite of the PHB character advancement table, with extra bonuses written in to replace feat taxes. But we all know how likely it is that WotC'll own up to a major mistake like that.
What Blaze said, basically.
If you want to get more involved, here's the deal. Monsters on average increase attacks and defenses by +1 per level. Naturally, you'd assume that PC stats increase at the same pace--after all, the designers intentionally tried to get away from the 3e problem where you might need a natural 20 to hit a monster--or you might only need a natural 2. If you do the 4e math though--adding the 1/2 level bonus, gear bonuses and stat boosts--you'll find that PCs actually lose out on a few bonuses by the time they reach 30th level:
PCs 'lose' 4 attack bonuses, 2 AC bonuses, and 4 to 7 NAD (non-AC defense) bonuses. Soon after 4e hit the shelves, a lot of us started noticing this discrepancy. And then, lo and behold, the PHB2 gave us the Expertise feats, which plug the 'math hole' almost perfectly, and also gave us Paragon/Robust Defenses and the Epic Fort/Ref/Will feats. Whether adding these extra bonuses into the game was a good idea is debatable, but they represent something that your PC is supposed to already have--the offensive accuracy and defensive numbers that the encounter system assumes that he has. They're called 'feat taxes' because you have to spend feat slots just to keep your PC from falling behind the power curve.
The Expertise feats, at least, are so inarguably useful that it seems obvious that the designers want every PC to have one--which implies that the designers think that PCs need them. Problem is, 4e was supposed to eliminate all 'necessary' options--particularly feats, which are usually nice little unnecessary advantages. Again, whether the extra bonuses are necessary is debatable, but everyone who knows anything about game design agrees that these feats are horrible. They should either be built directly into character advancement, or thrown in the circular file with all the other bad ideas.
Whew, didn't mean to go on that long! Hope that helps.
Hope that helps.
It does, thanks! My whole group is new to 4ed (just made our first characters) and I've been on the look out for stuff like this to keep in mind.
If you want to get more involved, here's the deal. Monsters on average increase attacks and defenses by +1 per level. Naturally, you'd assume that PC stats increase at the same pace--after all, the designers intentionally tried to get away from the 3e problem where you might need a natural 20 to hit a monster--or you might only need a natural 2. If you do the 4e math though--adding the 1/2 level bonus, gear bonuses and stat boosts--you'll find that PCs actually lose out on a few bonuses by the time they reach 30th level:
PCs 'lose' 4 attack bonuses, 2 AC bonuses, and 4 to 7 NAD (non-AC defense) bonuses. Soon after 4e hit the shelves, a lot of us started noticing this discrepancy. And then, lo and behold, the PHB2 gave us the Expertise feats, which plug the 'math hole' almost perfectly, and also gave us Paragon/Robust Defenses and the Epic Fort/Ref/Will feats. Whether adding these extra bonuses into the game was a good idea is debatable, but they represent something that your PC is supposed to already have--the offensive accuracy and defensive numbers that the encounter system assumes that he has. They're called 'feat taxes' because you have to spend feat slots just to keep your PC from falling behind the power curve.
The Expertise feats, at least, are so inarguably useful that it seems obvious that the designers want every PC to have one--which implies that the designers think that PCs need them. Problem is, 4e was supposed to eliminate all 'necessary' options--particularly feats, which are usually nice little unnecessary advantages. Again, whether the extra...
Of course there are those players & DMs who don't feel the expertise feats are all that hot and see maybe 50% of a group take them. YMMV
|
|
At this point I just cannot see the need for a PHB 4. The three existing PHBs does an excellant job covering everything. As Uchawi has said I would also like to see a 4E Savage Species.
The way I see it, the player's handbooks have taken the place of other types of splatbooks in 4th Edition. It is my contention that as long as they have ideas for new classes or races there will be a yearly player's handbook to look forward to.
i would like to see an elemental power sorce in the game. fiction has examples of characters being able to dip into fire water earth and air.
as far as monster races go, im not that excited about those. i think it would be more fun to outwit, outplay, and outlast a dragon than being one. the problem with having infinite cosmic power is that your challengers also have infinite cosmic powers.
i am ok with a feat tax. i think feats is what killed 3.5. (that and monsters had to follow the same creation rules as players)
Agreed, although isn't that what genasi are for? :)i would like to see an elemental power sorce in the game. fiction has examples of characters being able to dip into fire water earth and air.
Or the arcane power source? Arcane kind of stole all of elemental's stuff, same way psionics took all the good stuff from ki.
|
|
Or the arcane power source? Arcane kind of stole all of elemental's stuff, same way psionics took all the good stuff from ki.Agreed, although isn't that what genasi are for? :)i would like to see an elemental power sorce in the game. fiction has examples of characters being able to dip into fire water earth and air.
Well, they ditched the ki power source altogether. They replaced it with the idea of a "ki focus" which various classes from other power sources might be able to tap into (currently monk and assassin).
Or the arcane power source? Arcane kind of stole all of elemental's stuff, same way psionics took all the good stuff from ki.Agreed, although isn't that what genasi are for? :)i would like to see an elemental power sorce in the game. fiction has examples of characters being able to dip into fire water earth and air.
Yeah, sorceror, especially, has a gazillion elemental powers. If I was building an elemental character, that's where I'd start.
Or a wizard, but there was a 4E supplement called Scarrport: City of Secrets, that has a elementalist class, based on water, earth, air and fire, and you gained a bonus to your powers if you had one of those elements in close proximity, like a river, or camp fire.
I want to know where the heck Oriental Adventures is? The class system is perfect for make well flavored ninja's and samurai's etc. so where is the book that supports this?\
Beyond the fluff and maybe some specific oriental powers you may envision, I have already used 4E for an oriental campaign, with warlords as samurai, ninja assassins, sorcerers, shamans, etc. I just had to re-justify some of the powers and races to meet an oriental theme. I even used a hybrid class with warden per DDI, to represent a monk with different styles, i.e. forms. With a monk from PHB3, no need to do that anymore. But I guess people said the same thing for 3.5, so I would definitely be interested.
Oh I agree that things can be reflavoured and it more or less works. I'm just somewhat surprised that we don't see the actual classes. The system is actually ideal for creating just these kind of arch typical classes and I'd think Samurai and Ninja's would have a following. Plus I want a class that can do cool things while whipping throwing stars around.
Sure I can kind of get there from here if I really want but it seems so odd that a game that is excellent at creating sword and sorcery-fu moments does not actually give us such classes.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
i am ok with a feat tax. i think feats is what killed 3.5. (that and monsters had to follow the same creation rules as players)
I know I should keep my mouth shut, but I think it's pretty funny you referred to 3.5E being killed on this particular site :) Guess Paizo took its stuff!
Of course there are those players & DMs who don't feel the expertise feats are all that hot and see maybe 50% of a group take them. YMMV
Really? I mean compared to other feats (at least after 15th) I can't think many stack up. +2 to hit is huge.
If your game is combat light it makes sense but otherwise it seems odd.
Oh I agree that things can be reflavoured and it more or less works. I'm just somewhat surprised that we don't see the actual classes. The system is actually ideal for creating just these kind of arch typical classes and I'd think Samurai and Ninja's would have a following. Plus I want a class that can do cool things while whipping throwing stars around.
Sure I can kind of get there from here if I really want but it seems so odd that a game that is excellent at creating sword and sorcery-fu moments does not actually give us such classes.
Yeah, but they couldn't think of a niche for samurai/ninja beyond "fighter/rogue, but ASIAN!", so they never made actual classes for them.
(Alright, Assassin is basically the mystic style of ninja, but like Celestial Healer said, they basically took Ki and put the good stuff in other classes so they weren't Mystic Classes From The Orienttm.)
Also, if anything they'd just make a Ninja pp for the rogue if they decided to make Oriental Adventures for 4e. Hell, they already have the Kensai pp for fighters.
i would like to see an elemental power sorce in the game. fiction has examples of characters being able to dip into fire water earth and air.
as far as monster races go, im not that excited about those. i think it would be more fun to outwit, outplay, and outlast a dragon than being one. the problem with having infinite cosmic power is that your challengers also have infinite cosmic powers.
i am ok with a feat tax. i think feats is what killed 3.5. (that and monsters had to follow the same creation rules as players)
I'm not really interested in starting a flame war but I am curious what you think it was about feats that damaged 3.5 and why you think a feat tax is not really a problem. The two ideas seem kind of contradictory.
I'm not really interested in starting a flame war but I am curious what you think it was about feats that damaged 3.5 and why you think a feat tax is not really a problem. The two ideas seem kind of contradictory.
As someone who still likes 3.5, there were just too many bad feats and too many feat chains that looked good that turned out to be bad. If I had any of my 3.5 books with me at the moment, I bet you I could open to the feats section of any of the non-core books and at least half the feats in it wouldn't be useful most of the time in an average game. It didn't really help that the only way to officially change your feats was in the back of the PHBII and most people never really noticed them, so if you made a bad choice you'd be out of luck unless you spend enough time with a succubus to bring you back below the level you took the bad feat at.
I like 3.5 and all, but the average quality of stuff Wizards is putting out for 4e is higher.
(This is probably a different take than what the first guy had, but opinions are free.)
(Oh, and down with feat taxes and all that.)
Really? I mean compared to other feats (at least after 15th) I can't think many stack up. +2 to hit is huge.
Of course there are those players & DMs who don't feel the expertise feats are all that hot and see maybe 50% of a group take them. YMMV
Is it? My level 11 Avenger has +17 to hit. Would +2 be huge? It would be nice, but I don't think it would be huge. At level 12 I could add that +2, or, I can take the racial feat I plan on taking to give my whole party +2 to intiative. Which is better? The group going faster, or me gaining a slightly better hit chance when I won't miss much anyway?
My 14/16/18 feats will be chosen from among 4 divine feats, all of which play to the flavor of the character while aiding her efficiency and fitting into the game she's in.
20 *might* be toughness :) I love toughness, but I can't fit it into her build!
I like the expertiese feats, and they can be helpful. But I do not think that you have to buy them to be effective. If you can fit them in, fine. But, there are a lot of very good feats and they might be better for a given character then a +1 to hit per tier.
Really? I mean compared to other feats (at least after 15th) I can't think many stack up. +2 to hit is huge.
Of course there are those players & DMs who don't feel the expertise feats are all that hot and see maybe 50% of a group take them. YMMVIs it? My level 11 Avenger has +17 to hit. Would +2 be huge? It would be nice, but I don't think it would be huge. At level 12 I could add that +2, or, I can take the racial feat I plan on taking to give my whole party +2 to initiative. Which is better? The group going faster, or me gaining a slightly better hit chance when I won't miss much anyway?
Ten percent chance to hit(which is everything in 4e), vs 10% chance of everyone in the party maybe going before an enemy.
Also, trust me from experience when I say an Avenger can miss too.
EDIT: The various Expertise feats are considered essential because it's that much better than every other feat because everyone needs to hit to do just about anything in combat.
I want to see non-humanoid player races.
I'm not talking about centaurs or wemics, I want races like the Hivers from Traveler or the Vrusk, Dralasites or Osakar from Starfrontiers.
I'm always amazed at how complacent players can be. A couple players in my group can't be bothered to take Expertise, which is somewhat understandable. They don't understand the game's math, they think flat bonuses are boring (I agree), and we're still playing in the heroic tier. But c'mon people, charging a feat for a scaling attack bonus is like WotC selling you a new book--except when you get the book home and crack it open, the last twenty pages are replaced by a note that says "You must pay an additional $1 for the final pages." Sure, it's only $1, and you don't really need those pages, but it's something that you should have gotten in the first place.
Let me ask this: Paragon paths and epic destinies are supposed to be character-defining choices, right? You can only take one of them, and you can't retrain them, yes? They're much more important than feats, right? Right. Next question: what's the best always-on bonus you can get from a PP or ED? Think really hard, 'cause I could be wrong...as far as I know, the best unconditional bonus you can get is +1. It bears repeating: +1 via a PP or ED, when you can get +3 from one measly heroic feat. Doesn't that seem fishy to you?
If you still don't think a +3 is a big deal, I'm going to write a letter to the WotC designers. "Nobody thinks that getting +3 from a feat is a big deal, so can I have a few paragon paths and epic destinies that give me more +3s? Scratch that, I want more than +3 out of my PPs and EDs, since I can only have one of each. Oh, and how about some +3 items? Everyone's always saying how the game needs masterwork weapons and implements, so just increase a weapon's proficiency bonus by 3 and call it masterwork!" But of course the designers would laugh at my letter, so I'd have to home brew my own material to get my +3s. What do you think other home brewers would say after seeing my material? Do you think my DM would let me use it? Do you think I'd have a balanced game if I let my own players use it?
I'm not really interested in starting a flame war but I am curious what you think it was about feats that damaged 3.5 and why you think a feat tax is not really a problem. The two ideas seem kind of contradictory.As someone who still likes 3.5, there were just too many bad feats and too many feat chains that looked good that turned out to be bad. If I had any of my 3.5 books with me at the moment, I bet you I could open to the feats section of any of the non-core books and at least half the feats in it wouldn't be useful most of the time in an average game. It didn't really help that the only way to officially change your feats was in the back of the PHBII and most people never really noticed them, so if you made a bad choice you'd be out of luck unless you spend enough time with a succubus to bring you back below the level you took the bad feat at.
I agree with your point - though if you played with psionics you could buy a feat swap. I had players that did that.
In any case while I agree that the charge can be leveled against 3.5 and it is true - but its at least as true in 4E IMO. In fact I'd go so far as to say that the unbelievable number of extraordinary situational feats in the game are one of the weak points in the system. Feat choices are now the only part of the game that my newb players just can't really deal with. The character Builder is great until you get to the part where your supposed to choose a feat from 150 different options - 95% of which are really just not worth even considering.
There is something to be said for choice but this has reached the point where its damaging the game IMO. I suppose I could live with this if the organization level was stepped up another notch - whats needed is a way to have the feats more organized and filterable. If one could filter the list down so that it did not include feats that effected opportunity attacks or the use of specific keywords maybe we could distill the list down to something that could be reasonably reviewed. As it stands my players just leveled to 4th and most of them got sick of the attempt to find the one good feat among dozens of garbage ones after fifteen minutes and took durable.
Yeah, they have released too many feats so far and most of them are still not that good, and I wish the CB could filter out the irrelevant ones. Still, part of the reason we're noticing it already is because we can see them all at once without flipping through a dozen books.
I really do wish they could bolt the filters from the compendium onto the feats section though. I only multiclassed into rogue to get Stealth, I don't need to see all the feats from Martial Power 2.
Okay, I've got something that I want. I just discovered Draconic Spellcaster and Gnome Phantasmist (I know, I'm late to the party), and they're stupidly good. So I want my slice of the cheese cake; my half orc ranger could really use a 2-in-1 Expertise-Weapon Focus feat. Hell, every character could use something similar, so let's spread the love. I want a feat that simply gives a scaling bonus to all attacks and all damage; call it DUH and I'll be happy!
Okay, I've got something that I want. I just discovered Draconic Spellcaster and Gnome Phantasmist (I know, I'm late to the party), and they're stupidly good. So I want my slice of the cheese cake; my half orc ranger could really use a 2-in-1 Expertise-Weapon Focus feat. Hell, every character could use something similar, so let's spread the love. I want a feat that simply gives a scaling bonus to all attacks and all damage; call it DUH and I'll be happy!
These are good but I'm not sure if they are too good. Dragon Born make weak wizards because their stat bonuses end up in the wrong places - this feat pretty much counter acts that and even adds a small amount of gravy but, because you could not min max in this direction in the first place I don't really see the problem.
Draconic spell casters with spells aligned to their breath weapon are a cool idea and this kind of feat enables that sort of a build without trying to make the base race viable for both martial and arcane builds (which it should not be - only humans should do everything fairly well).
Feats like these that are 'enablers' for non-linear builds usually strike me as a good idea and they can be stronger then normal if what they are enabling is non-linear because its normally weaker then average.
I'm less clear on the Gnome feat 'cause I've never seen a gnome player but I suspect that we may be dealing with the same sort of thing. Small characters are just punished in 4E. One way to address that is to give them extra good racial feats. This is not a bad compromise that allows small characters to retain the issues with being small but not be to badly penalized from a play balance perspective.
These are good but I'm not sure if they are too good. Dragon Born make weak wizards because their stat bonuses end up in the wrong places - this feat pretty much counter acts that and even adds a small amount of gravy but, because you could not min max in this direction in the first place I don't really see the problem.
Think sorcerer, a class that's already optimal for dragonborn. There's even an entire build centered around lightning, so you're guaranteed to have every one of your powers benefit from DS if you want.
I'm less clear on the Gnome feat 'cause I've never seen a gnome player but I suspect that we may be dealing with the same sort of thing. Small characters are just punished in 4E. One way to address that is to give them extra good racial feats. This is not a bad compromise that allows small characters to retain the issues with being small but not be to badly penalized from a play balance perspective.
Small characters are only penalized for being big weapon wielders. Gnomes are already perfectly optimal for being illusionists.
I stand by my judgment: power creep.
It certainly was at first, and annoyingly so. Now that the feats don't stack with expertise, though, they aren't really any worse than something like Dwarven Hammer Training - a way to save a feat, essentially, for the right build. The Gnome Illusionist...
The difference between feats like Dwarven Weapon Training and DS/GP is that the first one boosts a sub-optimal race/class combo. DS and GP boost builds that are already optimal. And the other difference being that Expertise itself is the cream of the feat crop, if not the best in the game, even without combining it with another nice feat.