Solution: House rules.

Let us look over the major feat taxes currently present in the system, shall we now?

Problem #1: At approximately levels 5, 15, and 25, the attack bonuses of player characters gradually begin to be unable to keep up with monster defenses, thereby causing a deterioration of player character hit probabilities as the levels rise.
Solution: Introduce the Implement Expertise and Weapon Expertise heroic feats in the Player's Handbook 2, and later, the Focused Expertise feat in Dragon Magazine #375.
Problem with the Solution: Pointlessly fills up a feat slot that could have been spent on something other than patching an issue caused by an oversight of the game designers. Also, characters are strongly discouraged from ever using an implement or weapon not covered by the respective tax feat, and characters who use two different types of weapons or implements (such as a paladin with both a magic weapon and a holy symbol) are unfairly forced to take two iterations of these tax feats.

Problem #2: At approximately levels 16 and 26, the Fortitude, Reflex, and Will defenses of player characters gradually begin to be unable to keep up with monster attack bonuses, thereby causing an increase in monster hit probabilities against these three defenses as the levels rise. This is due to masterwork armor granting an overall +1 bonus to AC at level 16 and then another +1 AC at level 26, but failing to commensurately increase Fortitude, Reflex, and Will.
Solution: Introduce the Paragon Defenses paragon feat and the Robust Defenses epic feat in the Player's Handbook 2.
Problem with the Solution: Pointlessly fills up a feat slot that could have been spent on something other than patching an issue caused by an oversight of the game designers.

Problem #3: Ardents, avengers, artificers, bards, monks, non-Brutal Scoundrel rogues, Wisdom/Charisma paladins who do not have Virtuous Strike, and swordmages cannot use melee basic attacks with any efficacy, thereby denying them the ability to perform charge attacks or opportunity attacks (thus allowing monsters to move around them with little fear of being damaged in exchanged) and use the attacks granted to them by various leader powers.
Solution: Introduce the Intelligent Blademaster heroic feat in the Forgotten Realms Player's Guide and the Melee Training heroic feat in the Player's Handbook 2.
Problem with the Solution: Pointlessly fills up a feat slot that could have been spent on something other than patching an issue caused by an oversight of the game designers.

Problem #4: Strength/Wisdom paladins cannot effectively use their Divine Challenge class feature, as it is Charisma-based.
Solution: Introduce the Mighty Challenge heroic feat in Divine Power.
Problem with the Solution: Pointlessly fills up a feat slot that could have been spent on something other than patching an issue caused by an oversight of the game designers. Also, Mighty Challenge is not compatible with Divine Sanction powers, thereby arbitrarily denying Strength/Wisdom paladins the ability to efficiently use such powers.

Problem #5: The avenger is the worst striker class in the entirety of the system.
Solution: Introduce the Painful Oath paragon feat in Dragon Magazine #382.
Problem with the Solution: Pointlessly fills up a feat slot that could have been spent on something other than patching an issue caused by an oversight of the game designers. Also, heroic-tier avengers cannot benefit from this feat in any way.

>>7537500

Hello, fair touhoufag, I trust you're having a nice day?

Problem #6: Even with the Barbarian Agility class feature, a barbarian is forced to invest in proficiency with heavy armor in order to acquire a non-abysmal AC defense.
Solution: Introduce the Hide Armor Expertise heroic feat in Primal Power.
Problem with the Solution: Pointlessly fills up a feat slot that could have been spent on something other than patching an issue caused by an oversightof the game designers. Also, Strength/Constitution barbarians are inadvertently granted defender-level AC and hit points due to the benefit of the feat stacking with Barbarian Agility, rendering them obscenely durable strikers. Strength/Charisma barbarians cannot make use of this feat at all, and are arbitrarily relegated to taking feats for heavy armor proficiencies that shall never put their AC on par with that of a Strength/Constitution barbarian.

Again, feats should be optional luxuries rather than compulsory patches, and WotC willfully, surreptitiously refusing to repair the mechanical errors that these tax feats solve through their errata/updates in a feeble attempt to save face reeks of unprofessionalism. What is stopping Wizards from biting the bullet and directly correcting their game rather than beating around the bush and forcing taxes to follow their players even into D&D?

...couldn't you just go back to posting broken character builds? This "I am the BEST D&D DESIGNER EVER BORN!" shit is simply offensively self-aggrandizing.

>BAWWWW, I MIGHT HAVE TO TAKE A COUPLE OF FEEEEEATS!

Honestly, putting "Problem with the Solution: Pointlessly fills up a feat slot that could have been spent on something other than patching an issue caused by an oversightof the game designers." every time is redundant.

>>7537572
That's how you know it's aspie-work.

FUCK YOU TOUHOUFAG, THOSE FEAT TAXES ARE THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT POWERS THE ENTIRE FEAT SYSTEM. WITHOUT FEAT TAXES, THERE'D BE NO FEAT ROADS, NO FEAT BRIDGES, NO FEAT ELECTRICITY -- ALL PUBLIC FEATS THAT YOU ENJOY BECAUSE WOTC LEVIES AN ESSENTIAL FEAT TAX. QUIT SHIRKING YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO SOCIETY AND PAY YOUR GODDAMN FEAT TAXES.

>>7537538
It doesn't take a genius to notice the feat tax problem.

Wow, high level D and D is broken in this edition too? That's a shock.

>>7537594
>broken
>you need to take a couple of feats to not have your AB/AC/whatever fall behind by a couple of points
Totally the same as high-level 3.5. Wow.

>>7537583

In this game nothing can be said to be certain, except death and feat taxes.

>>7537584
It does take a monumental opinion of your own abilities and tastes to declare it "the most reprehensible issue currently plaguing D&D 4e", and what might well be a CONSCIOUS decision "spineless".
It's the sort of claim made by people who started with 3e and think D&D is supposed to be a universal fantasy game.

I am so glad I don't have whatever mental disroder touhoufag does . It must ruin his enjoyment of life completely to be this concerned about such trivial shit.
Is he confirmed for Asperger's, or hat?

>>7537627
Touhoufag: Confirmed for hat.

>>7537594

Nah. The game is perfectly playable at high levels, it's just that the monster stat growths get better faster than yours do. In practice, this problem is solved by the fact that you know what the fuck you're doing and have better teamwork by the time your group is experienced enough to handle an Epic Tier game, so the difficulty jump is barely noticeable.

I will concede that MM1 solos were rather obnoxious though, since they took so long to beat into the ground that they almost made me wish for the return of save-or-die.

>>7537500
>>7537511
>>7537520
>>7537529
While what you complain about is old news, I do so appreciate all the cracks in 4e being bundled together for ease of smiting. Is this just an exemplary redux or have you listed everything?

>>7537570
Character optimization is IS TF's shtick, after all, and I guess something like this is bound to grate. That said:

>>7537529
>What is stopping Wizards from biting the bullet and directly correcting their game rather than beating around the bush and forcing taxes to follow their players even into D&D?

I think you're taking this way out of perspective, TF. a feat or two here and there won't really make a difference, and with the retraining mechanic, it's even less of a deal (mechanics-wise, anyway; how you explain your sudden weakening from exchanging Toughness for something else is your problem, unfortunately). Not everything has to be about the numbers; the right RP could more than cover numerical weakness.

THAT said, thanks again for the Kobold Avenger help.

>>7537652
Of course, this doesn't help if your DM decides to start out a new group at high levels- but in that case, I don't suppose anything could help you.

I'm too tired to read all of this, but I wholeheartedly agree with the following line.

>Feats should be optional upgrades, not mandatory patches.

>>7537625
Huh? No, you're wrong on both counts.

Touhoufag it may not be obvious to you but WotC's intentions are clear. The reason they're applying feat patches rather than errata is for myriad reasons but the chief one is they don't wish to clutter the field with endless errata. Simply offering a feat is a far simpler operation rather than providing minutely detailed errata to books already published.

>>7537687

If a DM decides to start a new group at epic, then he's either a total sadist or has not himself read the PHB.

The Character Builder is a godsend, but even then it's rather overwhelming to build a new character at anything above level 10.

I think the crux of this problem is that feats no longer function as feats. When every character ends up taking the same feat at approximately the same point it is no longer a feat. As you see in the problem 1 it would be better solved by the a new rule of +1 bonus to attacks at 5,15,25. I would rather my feats be free to take thing like ritual expert instead of taking what is in the end a math fix.

>>7537706
You're right, of course. People LIKE more feats. They conversely dislike the thought of buying edition 4.1. Not yet, at least.

I think that any feat that should be taken by every character EVAR should be built into the level progression, and any feat that should be taken by every character of a given class should be built into the class. But that's just me.

>>7537625

That the decision was a conscious one is exactly why it is egregious. "We had erred in our calculations for attack bonuses, and so you must pay for our mistake in the form of a feat tax. Likewise, a second feat must be spent on repairing the issue with Fortitude, Reflex, and Will at the paragon and epic tiers, and more likely than not, a third feat shall have to be occupied by either Melee Training, Mighty Challenge, Hide Armor Expertise, or Painful Oath." Players new to the game are mostly unaware of these feat taxes and must unjustly pay the price for their ignorance, and other players are irked by how WotC makes them pay for their errors rather than by issuing the proper fixes in the errata/updates.

>>7537668

>a feat or two here and there won't really make a difference
Eighteen feat slots over thirty levels is plenty, true, though I would prefer it if the illusion of choice was not present in two or three of these eighteen.

>the right RP could more than cover numerical weakness.
No amount of RP can cover the lack of bonus to attack rolls from, say, an Expertise feat.

>THAT said, thanks again for the Kobold Avenger help.
Had you received an opportunity to view the level 16 snapshot?

>>7537718
Have you ever played 3.5?

So basically, touhoufag's bitching about the fact that you can't build a character at level 20 without selecting a shitload of feats. Tough luck, jackass.

You guys do realize that there's a rule for making characters have additional bonuses as they level, which it has become more or less standard to use, right?

>>7537706
But this does gimp classes that need feats (though I suppose it enhances humans playing classes that require those feats).

>>7537529

It'd do more harm than good for WotC to admit it. People with a critical eye--you for example--are going to do one of two things about feat taxes. 1.) Ignore them, play optimized or even suboptimal characters or 2.) simply houserule fixes into your game.

Others aren't even going to notice, or pay it to much heed. Yes, by around level 20, you're missing about 10% more of the time, or you'll have taken the expertise feat and thought it a solid investment.

Then again...perhaps WotC is keeping track, and 4.5 isn't too far away.

>>7537747

Yes. I just took the most obvious SRD feats and raped everything because I was a cleric. Nowhere near the level of work to create.

>>7537743
>Had you received an opportunity to view the level 16 snapshot?

Yep, no worries.

>No amount of RP can cover the lack of bonus to attack rolls from, say, an Expertise feat.

Well, no, but if one can talk one's self out of a fight (which 4e seems to focus a lot on), then a good DM will see to it that such a player should be rewarded. Then again, this requires a good DM in the first place.

>>7537764
>Then again...perhaps WotC is keeping track, and 4.5 isn't too far away.

We can pray.

>>7537762

People play things that aren't humans?

>>7537773
Hee hee. I pretty much had one CS for all my 3E characters, just shuffle the casting stat, and I'd just fill all of each slots with the same spell. Same for my girlfriend, we'd swap CSes for different campaigns to keep it a bit fresh. Even though we had universally spent the least effort on minmaxing, our chars were universally the ultra powerful glue holding the party together and engendered occasional rage for being OP

So imagine you stepped into a restaurant and you ordered a burger. It's a nice restaurant and a nice burger, so you end up paying $10 in it.

But then the waitress comes in and tells you that they forgot to add lettuce, but you have to pay $1 for them to put the lettuce in. Would you feel ripped off? You would.

That's what Wizards is doing here.

>>7537783
Three sixteens build, bitch. DO YOU PLAY IT?

>>7537783
It's either humans, dwarves or kobolds. Oh, and elveseladrindrow...

Touhoufag makes a decent point though. This shit is what errata is for. If this kind of thing was placed there players wouldn't need to take DON'T RAPE ME FEATS and they'd have more options at their fingertips.

>>7537797
>Three sixteens build, bitch. DO YOU PLAY IT?
Aren't you not allowed to reduce stats? Or did I misread the rules?

This is a bit...well, a lot off topic but I really didn't think its worthwhile making a new thread for this.

Dear Touhoufag: What abilities are worthwhile for a Sin-Eater in nWoD?

eh, I'm with Touhoufag on the feat taxes being pretty damn lame. They hit some classes/builds very hard indeed.

Only real problem I have with this criticism is related to Non-AC Defenses, for which more than just the (Tier) Defense bonus is required to maintain similar defensive ability to that possessed at level 1, but rather that, an item granting an item bonus to the defenses in question, AND the great defense feats of Epic Tier.

Attacks against these defenses start at +4.5 averaged across monster types (level 1) and finish at +34.5 averaged across monster types (level 30).

Assuming a(good stat) defense of 14 and a (bad stat) defense of 11 at first level, these are hits on 9.5 and 6.5 respectively.

Let's slide along to level 30, where the defenses have gone from 14 to 43 and 11 to 32. The math, even without fix feats, appears to have worked fairly well for the former, but not so well at all for the latter. Now it's an 8.5 and (any number other than 1) to hit them, respectively.

The math fix feat tax boosts the first defense up *above* its starting position, but does nothing for the second one at all. Now we add in the *other* math fixes (that is, a bonus of +4 from Epic (defense) and +3 from Item bonus to defenses. Now Defense 2 is at 41...which is hit on a 6.5.

So, two math fix feats and a math fix item later and bad defenses are back up to their starting position. Classes with two bad defenses are looking at a third math fix feat and a second math fix item. This is Non-AC defenses alone. There is a problem here.

Add in that getting defenses up to snuff (and buffing already good defenses passively) is often a superior use of feat slots over interesting feats and things are quite bad.

WotC is monumentally retarded when it comes to game design. Nearly every design goal they set out to achieve with 4e ended in a failure.

That being said, feat tax is dumb. It harms the game and eliminates variety. Just like when every combat character in 3.5 that didn't have damage dice would take power attack. If you are going to create something like that then make it available to every character at level 1 at no cost.

>>7537797

Only marginally useful for Paragon. In Epic, the extra two points have become worthless vs. the fact that practically every epic feat option is godly, and in Heroic having 25% more feats is better than having 10% better stats.

Really though, I think the more important reason that everyone takes human is that when it comes to picking your race, if you pick anything but human, you will be a character defined primarily by your race rather than your class. Human Fighter is a Fighter. Goliath Fighter is a Goliath. Most people care more about the Fighter aspect.

>>7537918
Show me your better-designed RPG. Minimum 1,000 pages of content.

>>7537951
>1,000 pages
>good RPG
Mutually exclusive.

>>7537845

Point buy. 3 16s is a possible array, but it's generally only taken if you're doing some sort of weird multiclass shenanigans.

>>7537957
Personal opinion, discarded.

>>7537797
Uh... that's not a legal ability array.

>>7537773
I'm not talking about balance. I'm talking about the work that goes into a character. And you can get builds that require a LOT more work than anything in 4e. You can even get them without multiclassing, and by using only one non-core book.

Statting a level 20 swordsage is among the most needlessly complex things I've ever done in D&D.

>>7537976

Yes, everything outside of the core in 3.5 was an utter clusterfuck. We know this.

>>7537976
>Uh... that's not a legal ability array.
You oughta tell that to all the folks that are using it with their non-human characters, then. They're gonna be REAL pissed when they find out.

>>7537989
3E core was far worse than 3E noncore. People think there was power creep. There wasn't. Go check out Gate, Dominate Monster, Triple Advanced Golems and shit if you dispute this. Or even the humble Lesser Planar Binding spell.

>>7537993

What the anon I am referencing is failing to state is that this is three 16s *AFTER* racial bonuses, because he doesn't seem to understand what using an array means.

>>7537976

Including racial bonuses, 16/16/16/13/10/8 is a perfectly valid score set.

>>7538014

You apparently missed the fact that this entire line of argument came up in a discussion of why someone would play a non-human character, so the fact that we were discussing racial traits was inherent to the debate.

>>7538025

The array in question is 16/14/14/13/10/8 by the way. The (non-human) bonuses are to the 14 and the 14. What you have posted is not a legal array. It is a legal stat line for a 1st level character, however.

>>7537951

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ptitlecl8xukzuauw1?from=Main.LetsSeeYOUDoBetter

Congratulations. You lose the argument.

But I will probably end up writing a P&P RPG some day. For now I'm just taking notes on what NOT to do.

>>7538060

Which part of INCLUDING RACIAL BONUSES did you not just read?

>>7538025
>Including racial bonuses
That's a nontrivial difference.

Anyway, 3-stat builds in 4e are bad. They are bad because you get to increase two ability mods per tier. You can't do that with three stats. This is on top of, and exacerbating, the problem that you're splitting your stats from level 1. It is obvious from the ability increase mechanic that you are not intended to use a tertiary stat for anything that requires scaling.

>>7538061
So you don't know shit about game design either, is what you're saying, but you'll be DAMNED if you're not getting on the Wizards-hate bandwagon?

>>7538052
You apparently missed that an ability array does NOT include racial bonuses. They are applied TO the array.

>>7538061
>LetsSeeYOUDoBetter
I'd rather see ANYONE do better.

And yes, I play RPGs other than D&D.

And no, D&D was not my first RPG. (It was MERP.)

>>7538077

I am aware of this, and argued as much in an earlier post. It has some minor benefits for multi-classers, but multi-classing in general is now sub-optimal, with a few exceptions (coughStarPactWarlockcough) where they didn't realize how utterly awesome one of their PPs would be for a different class.

>>7538061

He's not telling you to write an RPG, he's telling you to show him any better ones.

>>7538074

A legal stat array is any arrangement of stats worth a total of 20 points.

I gather where you got the three 16s from. I posted where you got it for the benefit of the other poster(s?) who were not getting it. I took issue with your initial use of stat array in describing the three 16s. Your use of that term, which has an understood meaning, for some meaning other than that which is commonly understood was solely responsible for the criticisms leveled that it was not, in fact, a legal array. It isn't, but what you were posting wasn't intended to be a stat array.

Fucking Internets.

>>7538096
So you're just trolling, is what you're saying? I think it's nice of people to bring up complaints in public forums and put them into nice, neat packages, and explain why they dislike them. This is a good forum for that, considering a lot of people here have experience they can relate or are affected by the complaint in question.

It's probably better off in the Wizards forums, though.

>Ah the Feat tax. The way you say it, if not the PCs are investing in these things then they'll get hosed because they cannot hit the monsters and ultimately will die and the monsters will hit the PCs frequently and they also will die.

>When I played pre-PHB2, I have to say that my experience where quite the opposite. My players got extremely more robust at the later levels. And I thought that 4e is "too easy" to catering for the kidz, then why is there a complaint about the necessity in investing these feats?

>Can you really say this is true, if we go back to pre-PHB2?
>Did parties always start to TPK at 5 and beyond before these taxation feats where introduced?
>Was the players weak at level 5 and beyond because they always got hit?
>Was the game hard at level 5 and beyond, because the PCs couldn't hit?

Gotta love the I'M A ROLEPLAYER, NOT A ROLLPLAYER crowd.

Why aren't you working for Wizards now? You sound like someone who can identify what's wrong with their game and how to fix it.

>>7540301
Because they already tried to prosecute him for distributing their copyrighted material?

>>7540313
Wait what?

What I hate the most is Melee Training.

Right, so my Valor bard is a badass warrior skald who leads troops into battle from the frontlines... but he can't charge or take an OA for shit unless he takes a feat for it? And my avenger, who's all about zealously punishing the infidels, also can't charge or take OAs without a certain feat?

There's just no way to explain why Melee Training has to be taken as a feat by characters.

>>7540952
You can still charge and make AoO.
What you want to have good attack stats in everything?
As a player you have to make a choice that matters else there's no point making choices.

So if you have a caster, why would you charge or at an alarming rate be so close to the enemies that a high AoO attack roll is a serious concern?

>>7540334
Wizards V Aya Shamemaru (2009) is now a legal case.

>>7540984
I can charge and make OAs, only I'll suck at them.

If I'm a Valor bard or an avenger, I may be using magic, but I'm using melee magic. Explain to me why I somehow can't charge or take OAs as well as I do regular attacks.

>>7537625

But it IS the biggest problem in 4E right now. They're fixing the rest, but they're fixing it via feat tax - which is why the problem is so important.

It IS poor design and conscious choice or not it's pretty dumb.

wtf is hat?

So I'm getting ripped off because my dagger throwing Rogue has to take Distant Advantage in order to do sneak attack damage from a distance?

>>7541003
That's actually a valid concern. But I'd say the feats are there to cover up weaknesses. Yes it's gone a bit overboard but this particular issue would normally be a good thing to take a feat for since it's kind of situational. A rather common situation.
>>7541043
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hat

What this thread needs to be turned around is a list of all the feats that are disguised patches so that DMs can decide which ones to houserule into the base classes and solve the problem themselves.

>>7541116
all of the static bonus to a certain defence under all circumstances.

Other than that I don't think there is a problem. All the builds have certain flaws in them that makes a certain build more attractive than the other. That you can take a feat to cover up this flaw is nice.

>>7541043
>>7541090
I think he was refering to >>7537627
And last I check, Touhoufag isa state-recognized autistic in the Phillipines. For the uninitiated, he leaked a DDI article or somesuch, neglected to scrub the watermarks off, and got sued by WotC for copyright infringement. Then they realized "ah shit, he's an underaged b& from a third world country", which basically means there is no case.

>>7541154
I know. But if you hang around here long enough you would know it's a typo of "asbergers or what?" with the W missing and someone made fun of the typo.
So now all of /tg/ knows that touhoufag wears a hat.

>They had introduced the Mighty Challenge heroic feat in Divine Power
You know I was thrilled with the aspect of alternate features. That idea was interesting and neat. I was also thrilled with the idea of racial feat trees so they don't have to make a dozen race splats.

They failed horribly on both accounts.

>>7540984
I find it to be more of a fluff issue.

Why can a Valor bard swing his fullblade around this way and that, but if he charges, he can't do shit with it?

>>7541492

Bard attacks are magic.

Charging doesn't allow him to focus his magic.

So I was looking at the ENWorld version of this thread. /tg/ may be dumb at times, but this is a whole new level. Are people on the internet outside of 4chan really... this dumb in comparsion?

>I just want to say thank you to everyone in this thread, OP excluded, for bolstering my faith in role players Thanks, guys!

>To the OP: None of your assertions seem to bear out in actual play of the game. Math exercises are fun, and I enjoy them as much as the next nerd; but from what I've seen, there are a lot of hidden factors you aren't including in your math (buffs, defuffs, combat advantage, etc.) that only show up in actual play. My suspicion is that the designers noticed those factors in their playtesting, and adjusted things appropriately. Cheers :)

>>7541757
/tg/ has a higher concentration of smarter people (the D&D crowd at least) but has a lot more trolls in return.

>>7541757

>ENWorld

Well there's your problem!

But seriously, that's just fanboyism showing. They can't admit wizards is doing something wrong.

This thread has moved from self-aggrandizement to hilarity.

"This is the most reprehensible issue currently plaguing Dungeons & Dragons 4e: Shit 90% of players don't give a fuck about!"
"People who are publicly accountable for their opinions suggest this isn't borne out in play."
"LOL they're fucking retards of course we're smarter."

>>7541757
>> there are a lot of hidden factors you aren't including in your math (buffs, defuffs, combat advantage, etc.)
Graah. How can that explains why NADs scale slower than AC? It could explain away expertise etc. but it's not like there are more buffs that only affect NADs than there are AC buffs.

>>7541846
>>"This is the most reprehensible issue currently plaguing Dungeons & Dragons 4e: Shit 90% of players don't give a fuck about!"
Worth pointing out an issue doesn't have to be well known to be a serious problem.

>the most reprehensible issue currently plaguing Dungeons & Dragons 4e: feat tax

Yeah, no. That is just the feat mechanic being overextended and improperly balanced.

The real problem is encounter math, which they even rewrote(skill challenges) and revised (monster stats). They are in need of a 4.5 but won't do it do to the negative backlash from 3.5, so we are stuck with feats.

>>7542071
There are over a thousand monsters right now. They can't change them practically, but they can change the rules for PCs.

>>7542071

When they make a new edition, it'll be a full number upgrade, break further from tradition, be tighter, sleeker, and still fall apart into a giant clusterfuck within half a decade of writing.

So Touhoufag, what do you suggest for a DM to do? Just give some of these feats for free?

>>7537500
++;

> what do you suggest for a DM to do? Just give some of these feats for free?
pretty much. in his errata, he has several house rules regarding character creation. e.g., warlocks got ritual caster feat (+ hand of fate ritual component free) and arcana skill by default, and he increased die size on curse damage.

link to his errata TXT file, http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?dm5iyy2a5r2
link to his errata PDF file, http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?no2zotmm2oz

>>7545034
I don't see free Expertise anywhere in there.