DDE Tiefling Invoker
DDE Goliath barbarian
DDE Elf Sorcerer
Do the simple math, that feat adds +1 to ATTACK! Now THIS is power creep.
The sorcerer even seems to get (maybe thanks to the combo with his other GREAT feat) the Implement Expertise when using the dagger as a weapon, as long as he doesn't throw it.
Wow...
+1 to attacks. I wonder if they might be overcompensating for not really following the guidelines on monster defenses in the MM. Fort defense I'm told tends to be as high or higher than AC in many cases, while Reflex is only 1-2 points lower when implements lose 2-3 points of attack compared to weapons.
Thanks for the link.
+1 to attacks. I wonder if they might be overcompensating for not really following the guidelines on monster defenses in the MM. Fort defense I'm told tends to be as high or higher than AC in many cases, while Reflex is only 1-2 points lower when implements lose 2-3 points of attack compared to weapons.
Well, but... We also get Weapon Expertise... Not only Implement... Don't know, what strikes me is that such a basic feat should not appear in PHb2, it should have been there in PHb1 from the beginning.
The only thing that could reasonably balance the feat and make it a bit more situational is denying its bonus when you suffer certain conditions, to represent you no longer can take advantage from your expertise when you're crippled.
I started a thread for the incredible sorcerer's melee feat here...
Do the simple math, that damned feat adds +1 to ATTACK! Now THIS is power creep.
The sorcerer even seems to get (maybe thanks to the combo with his other GREAT feat) the Implement Expertise when using the dagger as a weapon, as long as he doesn't throw it.
Wow...
Perhaps the math just isn't simple enough for me...but here's what I see on the sheet:
Sorcerer's Acid Orb: +6 (+4 stat, +1 level, +1 enhancement)
Invoker's Sun Strike: +6 (+4 stat, +1 level, +1 enhancement)
Barbarian's Greatsword: +10 (+5 stat, +3 proficiency, +1 level, +1 enhancement)
None of bonuses need a +1 to-hit feat to explain what they provide. Each character has a +1 magic weapon or implement. Think we're jumping the gun on what the expertise feats actually do.
Perhaps the math just isn't simple enough for me...but here's what I see on the sheet:
Sorcerer's Acid Orb: +6 (+4 stat, +1 level, +1 enhancement)
Invoker's Sun Strike: +6 (+4 stat, +1 level, +1 enhancement)
Barbarian's Greatsword: +10 (+5 stat, +3 proficiency, +1 level, +1 enhancement)
None of bonuses need a +1 to-hit feat to explain what they provide. Each character has a +1 magic weapon or implement. Think we're jumping the gun on what the expertise feats actually do.
Sorcerer CHa: 16
Barbarian Str: 18
The bonuses to the side are Level+Mod.
Sorcerer CHa: 16
Barbarian Str: 18
The bonuses to the side are Level+Mod.
Doh. Apparently, it wasn't simple enough. Thanks for the tactful correction.
Doh. Apparently, it wasn't simple enough. Thanks for the tactful correction.
I try not to insult people over simple things I have done before too.
.I think you are all jumping the gun a bit on calling a heroic feat that grants +1 attack bonus power creep. Do people call foul at the fighters one-handed and two-handed weapon talents? As long as the bonus granted does not increase and only grants a +1 feat bonus when using a specific weapon group or implement over all 30 levels of the game it should be fine.
Seconded.
I think you are all jumping the gun a bit on calling a heroic feat that grants +1 attack bonus power creep. Do people call foul at the fighters one-handed and two-handed weapon talents? As long as the bonus granted does not increase and only grants a +1 feat bonus when using a specific weapon group or implement over all 30 levels of the game it should be fine.
Its a little early to call it one way or another, it does create some oddities
1. the tiefling feat is severely weakened now, meaning from am optimizing standpoint they are not even close to good at infernalocks which is interesting all things considered.
2. Every striker is going to have IF/WF as their first feat, as +1 to hit > +2 max damage.
3. Every warlord will have WF as their first feat as to them its simply much better then Weapon Focus.
4. Its strictly better than weapon focus. +3 damage < +1 hit at epic levels. At least until they give us a way to get +9-12 to hit then maybe more damage is better.
It is surprising, though.
And it certainly is power creep. If everyone takes this feat (and who wouldn't?), then basically every class in the game just got a +1 attack bonus across the board. That's the very definition of power creep.
Yeah, I feel like this feat is coming dangerously close to a feat that's "so good everyone has to take it", which I thought they were trying to avoid. Attack Bonus is hard to come by in 4e, yet it's the most necessary thing for almost every class in the game, so I can't imagine any character that wouldn't take expertise.
And it certainly is power creep. If everyone takes this feat (and who wouldn't?), then basically every class in the game just got a +1 attack bonus across the board. That's the very definition of power creep.
Meh. I probably wouldn't. I can think of far more interesting things to spend a feat slot on.
A general feat that gives unconditional +1 hit bonus with one implement or weapon group is completely retarded in the 4E context.
Its not dangerously close to a feat that's "so good that everyone will take", it is better than feat that's "so good that everyone (except Salla) will take".
Has anyone considered the possibility that this feat only benefits at-will attacks? That will put it more in line.
The feats look like a good idea to me, helps allow players that want reasonable chances of hitting with their powers to not feel pushed towards complete "min/max" ability score spreads.
Just NO.
Just because you can try hard and think of not overpowered use for overpowered feat does not make the feat less overpowered or less of a power creep.
A feat that really helps suboptimal characters is only balanced if it doesn't help optimal characters just the same.
Compare Helfire Blood to weapon/implement expertise and you will see what I mean.
Having said that - we still don't know what exactly the feat do, so discussion whether the sky is falling or not is a bit pointless.
I think you are all jumping the gun a bit on calling a heroic feat that grants +1 attack bonus power creep. Do people call foul at the fighters one-handed and two-handed weapon talents?
No, but that was a feature of the fighter - it was one of the things that made him special.
You could argue that it's like handing out a feat that gives everybody the class feature of another class - even if it stacks for the original class, it sounds suspicious.
Personally, I don't think it's overpowered, so just a couple of thoughts on that:
1) Is close to a must have, which sort of annoys me. Makes feats more combat relevant than they are now, makes it harder to justify some side feats on skills or languages and so on.
2) The designers probably realised that they overvalued hitting (see podcast, see Sure Strike/Careful Strike) a little bit too much, so that's probably a "fix" to their old perspective.
3) Helps with the sour taste you often get when you miss with encounters/dailies. Probably another reason why it was put out - will help with the "grind" phenomenon, as you hit a little more often and get the funky entertaining effects a little more often.
-> Looks more like a fix than like creep (one could argue it's deliberate creep to bring things up par... but that's even more semantics).
Cheers, LT.
Expertise is basically the following feat:
Awesome
Requirement: PHBII
Benefit: Your character is now simply better.
Special: You must be fool not to take that feat.
It basically removes your first level feat from the game and replaces it with no choice bonus.
It also punishes balanced characters even more - you want to use swords in melee and bow at range? Tough luck. Unless you remove 2 out of your feats from the game, because unlike weapon focus this is a must have.
Just look how many of the premade character sheets that are floating around (those for the avenger, barbarian, sorcerer etc) have this feat.
Bringing things up on par will be:
"DMs should reduce all the NPC defenses in all WOTC core books and supplements published before 01.02.2009 by 1. Also the errata of Sure Strike, Careful Attack and Wand of Accuracy is below..."
You DONT fix general system problems with feats, you fix them by fixing the system. You can boost tiefling fighters with a feat or two, because they are suboptimal yet desired archetype. You should not boost ALL CHARACTERS with a single feat.
Implement Expertise may actually be OK, since some of the casters in PH1 still have a little trouble hitting consistently, in my experience. Perhaps this is because weapon users are often in melee and can get combat advantage. Weapon Expertise is a big buzzkill for me right now though. This PH2 stuff is awesome, but I really don't like it when a feat is this much better than other feats.
If this were pushed back to Paragon or Epic, I would be OK with it, however, since monster defense scaling does outpace PC attack scaling by a bit. Putting this stuff in Heroic is just mind-boggling.
Weapon Talent Fighters are also less attractive now- if you were on the margin before, you are pushed toward whichever of the other builds you like.
If it stacks the WTF are just as attractive as before. You can never have to many hit bonuses, so when everyone now has their +1,the WTF has his +2.
To the general topic: I agree, absolute must have feat
Show
Just like Toughness, Weapon Focus/Elemental boost feats, Improved Initiative, and various other feats that are crucial to certain optimized builds(i.e. Wintertouched and Lasting Frost for Frost Mages/Rogues).
If it stacks the WTF are just as attractive as before. You can never have to many hit bonuses, so when everyone now has their +1,the WTF has his +2.
To the general topic: I agree, absolute must have feat
More bonuses = more better, but it's all about trade-offs and how you pay for things. For a little while now, we've been playing WT fighters (WTFs... nice) and liking them. Along comes the Battlerager and we consider how the healing balances with the lack of FWT. But if we can make up for that lack with a feat, the WT fighter has that much less going for him.
We certainly can't make up for the lack of all those temp hps with a feat. That's still a unique feature that can only be obtained one way. Sure, the Battlerager is still 1 point behind the maximum attack bonus. But attack bonus just became a lot cheaper. Instead of paying with a class feature, you can now pay with a feat, which is a much more common currency.
Seriously though, it is a pretty important feat, sure, but I don't know if I'd actually say it is either game breaking or vital for the average player. Strictly speaking, anyone on these boards is either completely clueless or a power-gamer (the ratio here is somewhat unfortunate, but hey, at least it gives us power gamers a way to show how smart we are). For power gamers, there will always be ways to min-max characters and new combinations that are going to 'break the game' if anyone ever uses it.
Basically, I'm saying that if you are breaking out the calculators when building your character, you may not be the average player. As said above, this feat is fine for helping someone feel a bit more powerful. If you REALLY don't like it, have it banned from your table. Now, if the PHB5 actually has the feat Merchant of Shadows suggested... then I'll bow to the cries of the power gamer.
All the listed barbarian powers in the sample sheet were at +10 vs AC. I'd assume that it isn't just BAs and At-Wills. Here is the full page and all the information on all the character sheets: http://www.hordelings.com/forums/postView.php?post_id=177811&viewPage=0#177811
I sure hope there's a limitation somewhere that causes people to not consider using it.
Otherwise double-implement users or multi-class characters (esp CHA paladins) are so screwed with this rule: They already have to pay for 2 implements, this feat is making them even less optimal.
Because this needs to be changed one way or another.
I had high hopes that PH2 would focus almost entirely on the new classes, introducing them, giving them lots of powers, and only introducing feats for them, and for multiclassing into them.
That was what I liked about the Forgotten Realms Player's Guide. I felt like the feats (while usable elsewhere, with modifications) were really there for Forgotten Realms characters (and drow and genasi), and were not there just to provide more feat choices for everyone.
It becomes a real problem for me when there are more feats that accurately fit my character conception than I can possibly choose. I like for there to be a lot of good choices, so that many characters are different. It seems like Weapon Expertise is one that it is really obvious for most builds to take. I don't think any feat should be an excellent pick for almost every build. If it that good, then it's too good to be a feat. Feats need to be more situationally useful, in my own opinion. Presenting some feats which are really consistently good for every build means that either all of the characters start to resemble each other, or you have to trade off effectiveness for distinctiveness. I feel that well designed feats allow you to be equally effective, but distinct from other characters.
Who knows? Maybe weapon expertise has some drawbacks we don't know about.
This feat is far better than anything else we have seen before. Before, feats that gave attack bonuses used to have a certain condition (like nimble blade, where you need combat advantage). Now, weapon expertise makes these feats completely obsolete. I can't believe I actually trusted WotC when they promised to keep power creep down in this edition
Yep, this does really suck the wind out of all the other "specialized" feats which gave a feat bonus. Hopefully there are some sorts of specialized requirements or drawbacks to it, because otherwise, it really shoves a lot of other feats right off the plate.
In addition, as someone has mentioned, the ONLY thing that the Battlerager lost over a Weapon Talent Fighter is the +1 to hit. Now the Battlerager seems like a complete no-brainer over the WT fighter. Spend a feat, and you get everything the WT fighter has, plus all of these extra rules! You can still wear heavy armor if you want! You can still use any weapons you want! You have the same Attack rolls, but you also get all of these temporary hit points, too!
Also, if you'll notice, the Barbarian, Avenger, Invoker, and Sorcerer all have Weapon or Implement Expertise. If the pregenerated characters almost all have the same feat, it's probably too good. WOTC wrote the rules, and even they seem to think it's an automatic pick. I think only the Warforged didn't take it. What would you think of a feat that 4 out of 5 characters in the party took at first level? I mean, I really like both Toughness and Durable, but in our group, only two people took Toughness, and one of those got it free as a Two Weapon Ranger.
Yep, this does really suck the wind out of all the other "specialized" feats which gave a feat bonus. Hopefully there are some sorts of specialized requirements or drawbacks to it, because otherwise, it really shoves a lot of other feats right off the plate.
In addition, as someone has mentioned, the ONLY thing that the Battlerager lost over a Weapon Talent Fighter is the +1 to hit. Now the Battlerager seems like a complete no-brainer over the WT fighter. Spend a feat, and you get everything the WT fighter has, plus all of these extra rules! You can still wear heavy armor if you want! You can still use any weapons you want! You have the same Attack rolls, but you also get all of these temporary hit points, too!
Well technically the WT fighter still has +1 as he can take weapon expertise as well, but there is the law of diminishing returns with to hit bonuses.
Also, if you'll notice, the Barbarian, Avenger, Invoker, and Sorcerer all have Weapon or Implement Expertise. If the pregenerated characters almost all have the same feat, it's probably too good. WOTC wrote the rules, and even they seem to think it's an automatic pick. I think only the Warforged didn't take it. What would you think of a feat that 4 out of 5 characters in the party took at first level? I mean, I really like both Toughness and Durable, but in our group, only two people took Toughness, and one of those got it free as a Two Weapon Ranger.
Barbarian, Avenger, and sorcerer are strikers, and so far there isn't a lot of good feats for controllers to take, so I am not as concerned about that, at least until I see the full text on the conditions.
I don't know... The only limitation I could think about is "usable until bloodied" or similar limitation depending on you staying out of problems... But I don't know, from what we've seen it appears to be really a static bonus.
edit: I feel even if it is just +1 att...it is fine. I feel that wotc was to stingey with attack bonuses...I have been playing the LFR and Delves, and I find in a group with out a warlord very little is giving for bonuses to hit, and as such the basic math breaks down sometimes...I do agree it should have been in PHB1, but I think they were playing it safe...tooo safe. but that is IMHO
Seems like a simple +1 to attack rolls with x Weapon/Implement. They should have placed this feat in PHB 1
I think they thought they wouldn't have such a feat, but here a year later they realize it wont be as powerful as they thought...
I think they thought they wouldn't have such a feat, but here a year later they realize it wont be as powerful as they thought...
Quite possibly you're right. Still if it would have appeared in PHB it wouldn't have alarmed so many people as it does now.
Quite possibly you're right. Still if it would have appeared in PHB it wouldn't have alarmed so many people as it does now.
agreed...but the thing people forget is not all power creep is bad...sometimes it just is....
Also, if you'll notice, the Barbarian, Avenger, Invoker, and Sorcerer all have Weapon or Implement Expertise. If the pregenerated characters almost all have the same feat, it's probably too good. WOTC wrote the rules, and even they seem to think it's an automatic pick.
This is what really concerned me, the fact that almost all the pregens fell upon these feats. I don't think there are any limitations on them, as they would have been mentioned on the pregen sheets.
The worst part of all this is that this boosts everyone up, with a few exceptions (some multiclass combinations that are already perceived as weak). I'm not sure even that happened in 3e.
I don't think this feat unbalances the game, or ruins the advantage of certain fighter builds (you can just stack the feat, of course) it just... its kind of a no brainer for almost everyone. The only thing it ruins is Hellfire Blood in certain warlock builds.
agreed...but the thing people forget is not all power creep is bad...sometimes it just is....
Also agreed, In fact I doubt if this is Power creep at all. Power boost yes. Optional power boost yeah. Id rather have toughness.
Yeah, I'm kind of feeling like they should have just said, "all characters lose their level 1 feat, and gain +1 attack."
yes becuse everyone takes the same feat at first level....
Problem is... I think there would be no easy way to cap the bonus. At all. It would need a custom table and it would look too strange then.
So nothing, it could maybe become a house-rule. Personally I'm not into house-rules, but I see most people love to have one or two.
Of course, as far as we know, it scales with tier and has no penalties. And comes with a free puppy. Carrying a box of cupcakes.
1) I agree with the stated design goal that "if everyone wants a feat, it's too good", and like many others here I'm worried these feats break it.
2) It increases the gap between single-minded builds (the fighter who uses his axe for everything) and versatile ones (the cleric who both smashes stuff with his mace and smites them with his holy symbol), because the later will have to take 2 feats to get the same effect as the former gets from 1.
In other words, it encourages mini-maxing.
Don't worry - it is probably only usable by player who have paid wizards the money and actually purchased the PHB2. PHB2! Now with free +1 to hit!
Seriously though, it is a pretty important feat, sure, but I don't know if I'd actually say it is either game breaking or vital for the average player. Strictly speaking, anyone on these boards is either completely clueless or a power-gamer (the ratio here is somewhat unfortunate, but hey, at least it gives us power gamers a way to show how smart we are). For power gamers, there will always be ways to min-max characters and new combinations that are going to 'break the game' if anyone ever uses it.
Basically, I'm saying that if you are breaking out the calculators when building your character, you may not be the average player. As said above, this feat is fine for helping someone feel a bit more powerful. If you REALLY don't like it, have it banned from your table. Now, if the PHB5 actually has the feat Merchant of Shadows suggested... then I'll bow to the cries of the power gamer.
I'm glad you said what I was thinking... now I only have to write a sentence to agree with you, instead of a paragraph giving my opinion. :D
yes becuse everyone takes the same feat at first level....
They probably should, now. That's why I don't like it.
They probably should, now. That's why I don't like it.
I would disagree, but that's my opinion, my gaming group would still take toughness over this
And no, the fact that the "average player" doesn't optimize enough for this addition to ruin his game does not excuse this broken feat. If WotC actually designed for such "average players" the game would be staggeringly unbalanced. This is not the wizard save penalty build that a player has to meticulously build for and that only comes into play at high levels. This is an extremely basic heroic tier feat, staring every player right in the face, obviously outshining all of the alternatives and forcing anyone in a reasonably optimized game to pick it.
Who cares if this helps powergamers, I could care less about them. If you don't like them with ya don't have them at your games. I admittedly had a powergame/min/max phase but I grew out of it.
Only problem was if you picked a race that didn't have an attribute bonus in the primary attack stat of the class then you were gimping yourself (kobold warlord, 16 str, I find i don't hit as much as the other folks in the party). This feat makes gnome fighters and kobold paladins much more attractive. THIS HELPS FLUFF! SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL FLUFF
Even if the feat does benefit only at-will powers, any character who doesn't take it for at least the first 5 levels of play is clearly gimping himself. That's really a shame.
Actually even if its JUST at wills, anyone who doesn't take it and keep is gimping themselves. (Wizard's Magic Missile as an example)
LEvel 30: 4d4+8(int)+6(implement)+3(feat), 27 avg damage on a hit
26*.5 = 13 before feat.
26*.55 = 14.3 after feat.
Thats without me being too particular about stuff, let see about a maul fighter who went into the epic destiny to get large mauls
4d8+8+6+3+2 (PA) = 18+8+6+3+2 = 28
37*.45 = 16.65 before feat (.5+.05FT-.1 for PA)
28*.5 = 18.5 after feat.
And no, the fact that the "average player" doesn't optimize enough for this addition to ruin his game does not excuse this broken feat. If WotC actually designed for such "average players" the game would be staggeringly unbalanced. This is not the wizard save penalty build that a player has to meticulously build for and that only comes into play at high levels. This is an extremely basic heroic tier feat, staring every player right in the face, obviously outshining all of the alternatives and forcing anyone in a reasonably optimized game to pick it.
There is the also the fact that monsters in the future MMs have to be balanced iwth this in mind et cetra.
These feats mainly help out those without a 18 in their primary stat ^_^ this makes oddball race/class combos much more attractive.
Who cares if this helps powergamers, I could care less about them. If you don't like them with ya don't have them at your games. I admittedly had a powergame/min/max phase but I grew out of it.
Only problem was if you picked a race that didn't have an attribute bonus in the primary attack stat of the class then you were gimping yourself (kobold warlord, 16 str, I find i don't hit as much as the other folks in the party). This feat makes gnome fighters and kobold paladins much more attractive. THIS HELPS FLUFF! SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL FLUFF
Fluff is never an excuse for poor design. Starting with an 18 while attractive is not mandatory through heroic tier.
I would disagree, but that's my opinion, my gaming group would still take toughness over this
And then at level 2, what would they take?
Suppose a fighter who puts all his feats, money, and powers into making himself the greatest greatsword-wielding fighter on the planet - it's got the best enchantment he could get, and all his power work with it.
He's attacked by a dragon. Said dragon has reach, can fly, and can pretty much own the fighter without ever coming into range of the fighter's weapons. Mr. Specialist quickly finds himself to be an ice cube/statue/pile of ashes/other, as appropriate to the variety of dragon.
That, my friends, is why excessive specialization is a bad thing, and why this feat does not represent power creep.
These feats mainly help out those without a 18 in their primary stat ^_^ this makes oddball race/class combos much more attractive.
Who cares if this helps powergamers, I could care less about them. If you don't like them with ya don't have them at your games. I admittedly had a powergame/min/max phase but I grew out of it.
Only problem was if you picked a race that didn't have an attribute bonus in the primary attack stat of the class then you were gimping yourself (kobold warlord, 16 str, I find i don't hit as much as the other folks in the party). This feat makes gnome fighters and kobold paladins much more attractive. THIS HELPS FLUFF! SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL FLUFF
This is wrong. This feat does absolutely nothing to help characters with only a 16 in their primary stat. Since all characters with 18's in their primary stats are going to be taking this feat just the same as all characters with 16's, the disparity between them is going to be just as great.
The character with an 18 is still going to outshine the character with the 16 just as much as before. If the encounters are designed around the character with the 18, the character with the 16 is still going to struggle just as much as before.
The only games this will not affect are games which are unoptimized enough that none of these mechanical disparities matter much. For all other games, every single character has to take this feat. Every single character just got a significant across-the-board boost in power and lost a feat slot.
Every single character just got a significant across-the-board boost in power and lost a feat slot.
lets fix this
Any character that takes this feat will have a minnor boost in power for the cost of a feat slot.
becuse you only lose something when you can't make a chose...there are plenty of people who WILL CHOOSE OTHER FEATS...
The reason it isn't power creep is because it requires specialization, and specialization in and of itself is a bad thing.
Suppose a fighter who puts all his feats, money, and powers into making himself the greatest greatsword-wielding fighter on the planet - it's got the best enchantment he could get, and all his power work with it.
He's attacked by a dragon. Said dragon has reach, can fly, and can pretty much own the fighter without ever coming into range of the fighter's weapons. Mr. Specialist quickly finds himself to be an ice cube/statue/pile of ashes/other, as appropriate to the variety of dragon.
That, my friends, is why excessive specialization is a bad thing, and why this feat does not represent power creep.
One very particular sort of fight is not proof enough. A fighter who specialized in fullblade wielding will have a substantial advantage over a fighter who specialized in greatspear wielding in the other 99/100 fights the party engages in.
The problem with your logic is that heavy specialization is hardly punished at all in 4th edition. Not using a reach weapon will gimp a fighter in--at most--one fight every few levels, unless the DM is meticulously trying to use monsters that gimp non-reach fighters.
In this thread specifically, we're dealing with weapon groups. How often is someone heavily specialized in the sword group punished? Extremely rarely. How often is someone heavily specializing in the spear group punished? Perhaps even more rarely. Certainly not often enough to make a +1 to attack anything less than an absolute must-have.
I can see a system in which you'd be right, a system in which many, many monsters are very resistant to slashing, or piercing, or bludgeoning damage. A system in which picking four or five different weapon groups might well be stronger than picking just one. 4th edition is most definitely not that system. Unless the DM is going out of his way to punish the party fighter's weapon group, that +1 to attack is the best feat he's got.
becuse you only lose something when you can't make a chose...there are plenty of people who WILL CHOOSE OTHER FEATS...
And every single one of them will be gimping himself. If the game in question is so unoptimized that it doesn't matter, good for it; those aren't the games that concern me. In reasonably optimized games, in any game in which the players have some concern for their mechanical effectiveness, it is a non-choice. Players deserve multiple choices, and for players who care about mechanical effectiveness that necessarily means multiple viable choices. Such players no longer have multiple viable choices for one of their feat slots; they have only one viable choice.
2. Specializing is still a good idea because the proper way to deal with flying creatures in 4e isn't to diversify into archery, its to call the wizard to inflict a Prone effect, and then to beat the monster senseless while its on teh ground.
3. GMforPowerGamers: Yeah, some people will pick other feats. For most of them this will be a poor decision, particularly if they select their feats with the intention of increasing their offensive abilities. And of those people who pick other feats, many will pick this one after a level or two.
One of the character builds I've really been looking forward to is an elf shield-and-spear-fighter/invoker PMC. He needs 4 feats to become a PMC. He needs Quick Draw to be able to switch between weapon and implement. Toughness for a defender is invaluable. But it would also be nice to have the feats that go perfectly with a high-Wis spear user, like Shield Push, Shield Defense, and Distracting Shield. So, because he's an elf (no +2 Str) using a one-handed spear (no +3 prof) and is out of feats (no Weapon Expertise), he's going to have an attack bonus 3 points lower than most of his allies. Comparatively, he'll be much better with his invoker powers (missing only Implement Expertise).
Should I be punished for using an outside-the-box build? Apparently WotC thinks so.
And every single one of them will be gimping himself. If the game in question is so unoptimized that it doesn't matter, good for it; those aren't the games that concern me. In reasonably optimized games, in any game in which the players have some concern for their mechanical effectiveness, it is a non-choice. Players deserve multiple choices, and for players who care about mechanical effectiveness that necessarily means multiple viable choices. Such players no longer have multiple viable choices for one of their feat slots; they have only one viable choice.
so in a party with a hafling rouge...with daggers and back stabber is total the sux...
A eladrin swordmage who takes his first feat to multi into wizard to be a gish...what a wast right...
A dwarven cleric who takes his first feat as Dwarven weapon training must be trying to make a horrid character
The human wand wizard who takes imp expertise and human perserverance is going to totaly rule this party...
Dragonborn Sorcerer who multi's into Infernal lock with his first feat...2nd rate...
look at that party...only 1 good character at first level the rest must not know how to build a character...I mean who doesn't ALWAYS take the same feat...
The reason it isn't power creep is because it requires specialization, and specialization in and of itself is a bad thing.
Suppose a fighter who puts all his feats, money, and powers into making himself the greatest greatsword-wielding fighter on the planet - it's got the best enchantment he could get, and all his power work with it.
He's attacked by a dragon. Said dragon has reach, can fly, and can pretty much own the fighter without ever coming into range of the fighter's weapons. Mr. Specialist quickly finds himself to be an ice cube/statue/pile of ashes/other, as appropriate to the variety of dragon.
That, my friends, is why excessive specialization is a bad thing, and why this feat does not represent power creep.
So you mean paragon paths are bad? Because the represent specilization. As does the fighter's weapon talent. Oh, and the basic idea of classes...
so in a party with a hafling rouge...with daggers and back stabber is total the sux...
A eladrin swordmage who takes his first feat to multi into wizard to be a gish...what a wast right...
A dwarven cleric who takes his first feat as Dwarven weapon training must be trying to make a horrid character
The human wand wizard who takes imp expertise and human perserverance is going to totaly rule this party...
Dragonborn Sorcerer who multi's into Infernal lock with his first feat...2nd rate...
look at that party...only 1 good character at first level the rest must not know how to build a character...I mean who doesn't ALWAYS take the same feat...
I only meant to claim that Expertise must be one of his heroic tier feats. I can see a character who might understandably push it back even to the 6th level slot. But anyone who didn't take it by then would without question be gimping himself. For anyone interested in mechanical effectiveness, not taking this feat is simply not an option.
It's true that Dwarven Weapon Training does much the same thing for melee dwarves that Expertise does for all characters. And I'm critical of DWT too, for that very reason. But at least DWT is limited to only melee dwarves; it is the must-have feat, and so kinda the defining feature, of one particular subset of one particular race. Expertise doesn't have that redeeming quality; it is the must-have feat for every character ever. It's much worse.
This is starting to look like the errata forums.
Yes, it is. It is because Expertise is no less broken than the broken items and powers that are constantly argued about there. It isn't the most broken element of 4th edition yet to surface, but it is the most basic broken element: I can't think of anything this obviously overpowered which is an issue for every character of every build right from the first one or two levels.
This is starting to look like the errata forums.
Nerf Bards! Clerics need more love....etc.
No it's looking like something else.
Dragonborn Sorcerer who multi's into Infernal lock with his first feat...2nd rate...
I have to wonder though, why inferal lock from sorcerer? If they went with another pact they could use their CHA, which is likely to be where they're focusing.
I have to wonder though, why inferal lock from sorcerer? If they went with another pact they could use their CHA, which is likely to be where they're focusing.
ok I totaly forgot that they were con...my bad...
This is starting to look like the errata forums.
Do you mean in that some people say, "This is way too powerful because it's close to obligatory," and others say, "I would skip it for completely subjective reasons," and, "There are some builds that would put this feat off until second level, so it's not obligatory."?
Do you mean in that some people say, "This is way too powerful because it's close to obligatory," and others say, "I would skip it for completely subjective reasons," and, "There are some builds that would put this feat off until second level, so it's not obligatory."?
or becuse some people think they know what is ALWAYs going to be taken, and if people disagree they are told they are wrong...I am just waiting for someone to tell me I am too dumb to post here...
Yes, there are other feats (or to be specific) combinations of feats which are leagues more powerful (the everlasting frost combo, for one), however the problem isn't that the feat works too well with other feats/abilities or that it breaks the game.
The problem is it's not fun. No, it's not ABSOLUTELY necessary but the vast majority of characters will take it - this is a problem. The vast majority of players would prefer to have feats which are more balanced. Feats which are good but where a reasonable choice still exists. There's not much choice with this feat, even if it's not at first level the vast majority of characters WILL pick up this feat.
It's true that the average player will not be that worried about power gaming, but neither is the average person a murderer, that doesn't mean murder shouldn't be illegal. I'll admit that's an extreme example, but the game needs to be based on what can be done with the system, not what most players will do with the system, because it only takes 1 power gamer to ruin a game. No, this feat isn't going to ruin a game, but it would lengthen the gap between power gamed characters who took it, and the characters that didn't.
I'd be okay with the feat as an epic feat, still good, but there are a lot of good epic feats. This is also where the disparity between PC and monster AC is highest.
I might also consider allowing players to take it ONLY if they have a race which lacks a bonus in their attack stat. Otherwise it will not be a part of my game as it works against character individuality.
Personally, I prefer feats that open up new builds or combinations.
as an example, I thought that toughness was a 'boring feat'.
but hey.. at one point there is going to be so many feats that you won't be able to take everything at first level !
ie: the +1 ac ? the +1 hit ? the +5 hps ?
but.. in the end, everyone will take these feats, just at different levels.
and that what is most important, the PATH and not the destination ;)
unless you're in a game that starts at level 25.. you will have to go thru some levels with or without certain feats.
But the attack bonuses weren't a problem in Heroic levels; they fell behind in Paragon levels. This feat should have been a paragon feat, and should have required Weapon Focus.
That's if the feat is even granting +1 to hit.
This feat has been a needed feat for a while, but not at Heroic. I've shown in a previous thread that player attack bonuses do not scale in line with monster defenses. A monster's defenses increase by +29 over the course of 30 levels, while a player's attack bonus only increases by +25 (+6 enhancement, +4 ability bonus, +15 level). Armor gets Masterwork to get an additional +2, and armor and defenses get feats to boost them.
But the attack bonuses weren't a problem in Heroic levels; they fell behind in Paragon levels. This feat should have been a paragon feat, and should have required Weapon Focus.
That's if the feat is even granting +1 to hit.
In novomber over at enworld I proposed "Weapon Specilization...prerq Weapon focus...and 11th level....add +1 per teir to hit... (So +2 and at 21+3)
The fact that some people won't take it doesn't mean that it isn't an optimally good feat. Orb is widely regarded as a much superior implement to Wand or Staff, but still plenty of people take the others. The fact that some (even many) people don't make the most optimal build in no way obviates the complaint that one build is more optimal than others. Many people would like most of the feats to be equally attractive choices between many options. This would encourage diversity, much as making all races equally attractive to play encourages diversity over having one race, say elves, have bonuses to three attributes instead of two. A wide selection of equally good choices is preferable, to many people, over a few good choices and many inferior, though characterful, ones.
I like feats when they develop a character along a particular style of play, not when they just say "whatever you do, you do it better now". I don't mind that the feat discourages multi-weapon users, because I see how feats that boost fire powers, or cold powers, discourage the person who uses both fire and cold, and I think it is fine. My problem is that, for every character and every build, hitting more often is always good, and attack bonuses have, by stated design, been hard to come by. Now, by design, here's an attack bonus that everyone can evidently get, simply through feat selection. It leads me to either suspect originally sloppy design, or to suspect that the designers are deliberately ignoring their original design ideas to put out a "hella-good" feat to get people to buy the book.
My other thought is that perhaps this is a "ringer" feat which was put on the sheets deliberately, to trip us up, or that this is a bogus feat which was put on the sheets specifically for the Dungeon Delve, so that fights would go quicker, and the Delves could be completed in the time allotted.
And then at level 2, what would they take?
Probably their superior weapons. The possibility of getting a magic military weapon and being stuck with it for 4-5 levels when you really want a magic superior weapon is more then enough incentive. Some may want better armor (leather is still a better first pick then this for a cloth-user), and will prioritize them for the same reason. Also, at the low levels you're talking about, Weapon Focus is better for damage, albeit mildly. Frankly, this feat probably shouldn't be taken until level 6 or 8, maybe even up into paragon if you're a rogue or someone else who hits a whole lot. It's good, but not as good as you're all making out.
I understand that not everybody will take this feat.
The fact that some people won't take it doesn't mean that it isn't an optimally good feat. Orb is widely regarded as a much superior implement to Wand or Staff, but still plenty of people take the others. The fact that some (even many) people don't make the most optimal build in no way obviates the complaint that one build is more optimal than others.
I like feats when they develop a character along a particular style of play, not when they just say "whatever you do, you do it better now". I don't mind that the feat discourages multi-weapon users, because I see how feats that boost fire powers, or cold powers, discourage the person who uses both fire and cold, and I think it is fine.
It leads me to either suspect originally sloppy design, or to suspect that the designers are deliberately ignoring their original design ideas to put out a "hella-good" feat to get people to buy the book.
I took the parts of your posts just so I can say...this is the most honnest post about "non choices" ever...
The fact that some (even many) people don't make the most optimal build in no way obviates the complaint that one build is more optimal than others.
but the complaint that one build is more optimal then others only matters when compairing power levels in a vacume...or an excel spread sheet...
In game the system can handle a range of N-W when it comes to optimazation... too little say a L and you can't help your party...and are a liability... Z is way too powerful...you barely need the party...
Now if we except that there is a range...and they wanted to make sure no one EVERY feel below N...and it was as hard as possible to even hit W...let alone go past it to x..y..or z...
I feel this feat will make hitting N O P much eaiser...in fact that is why it is such a
"hella-good" feat
the quastion we much debate though is does it make it too easy to hit W+...
I wish there was a more direct way to complain about this then forum threads, the errata forum takes too long.
the quastion we much debate though is does it make it too easy to hit W+...
Actually, I think the point isn't about whether this feat will "break the game" or not. The fact is that, as Skalgrimm has expressed, the feat is a 'non-choice' (for every class in the game!!); that alone is more than problematic enough. (This is definitely turning into the errata forums...)
That said, I really hope this feat isn't what I think it is! I've already warned my players that if it is, it's going to be disallowed.
Assumption 1) The core mechanics as originally presented in the DMB will result in balanced PC vs Monster fights.
Assumption 2) This feat applies a +1 bonus to attack rolls with a chosen implement or weapon group.
Different feats appeal to different types of players. One class of feats are the static bonuses to written variables, things like Toughness and Durable, Weapon Focus, and now Weapon/Implement Expertise. A different type of feat grants a character new abilities or enhance his non-combat talents, things like Linguist and the elven overland speed feat.
As far as players are concerned, they'll choose feats according to a wide variety of criteria - note that the DMG makes a HUGE deal about different player personalities, of which Power Gamer is but one. Some players like "powerful" feats, some players like "flavorful" feats, some players like feats that grant them new options, and some players (myself included) really like "simple" feats, of which this is one. Note that there will be some overlap in these categories - multiclass feats are both flavorful and powerful, Implement Expertise is both simple and powerful. But assuming the mathematics were ok before, then characters will still be viable even if they're not choosing this feat. (NOTE: If the mechanics were NOT "ok" before, then there's a real problem here, but that's a different discussion).
Why might it be balanced and in-line with the mechanics? It's often been argued that the reason monster attacks and defenses scale beyond PC's is to compensate for PC's getting non-"big three" magic items, feats, and multiple class features. This feat provides a PC to give up a small portion of that "other" category in exchange for a small portion of the monster's static superiority. It's the balance of "how small a portion" that makes this feat so powerful, in my opinion,
Optimizers are accustomed to cherry picking between different types of feats, and seeing a very "optimable" feat in the "simple" category of feats results in something of a system shock. But (again, assuming the core mechanics are ok) characters will be viable, if not optimized, with or without this feat. That the feat is universally attractive to one player personality is not reason enough to cry foul.
...
One last thing. That this feat only applies to a single implement type or weapon group lessens its power overall, and this difference is, I believe, more important than it's encouraging further specialization in characters. If this feat encourages a casual, non power-gamer to consider specializing his character to a particular role-within-a-role, I see that as a good thing rather than a bad thing. It won't suddenly transform that player from a fun-loving guy to a ruthless power-gamer.
Anyway. My 2 cents.
Darn it, my character is feat starved enough; last thing I need is another must have feat!
I wish there was a more direct way to complain about this then forum threads, the errata forum takes too long.
yes and when you are feat starved...it becomes...shoot what is that word...
The fact is that, as Skalgrimm has expressed, the feat is a 'non-choice' (for every class in the game!!); that alone is more than problematic enough. (This is definitely turning into the errata forums...)
not non choice...it is a CHOICE....
just becuse it is good dosn't make it mandatory...if you want to argue it is part of a problme show the porblme..don't throw around BS like NON CHOICE witch Realy means "I want it"...
In 3.0/3.5 I had a PC who ALWAYS wanted or got Boots of sprining and striding...Ranger he wants it...Fighter in full plate...he wants it...Psion with the psi feat that gave +10ft move...still wanted it...he was totaly wiggin out on those dumb boots... It became a Non choice to him...
I also know a player that 9 out of 10 characters going back to 1st ed have been theives...rouges...or fighter/theives...Fighter/Rouges...we joke that when we draw up characters he wants to be that fighter thief...
I myself have played more wizards then any two other classes put togather...In 3rd edtion I use to go out of my way to collect pearls of power...
now the boots of spring and striding are cool...fighter theives are cool...Wizards...ok that one is bad for were I am going...the boots are not broken neither is the F/Th...(Will admit the wiz was)
+1 to hit is great...and when you run the numbers seams like a great choice...that doesn't in the least mean it is broken...or needs to be fixed...
That said, I really hope this feat isn't what I think it is! I've already warned my players that if it is, it's going to be disallowed.
the funny part is I sent an email out to my group saying how much I hope we are right about this feat...Our Warlord could use it...since our Rouge (guess who) who started with a 19 dex is mostly targeting nads with a +3 dagger and hitting on 5+'s alot of the time, but our warlord (who started with a 15 str...) and who has a +2 Axe is needing 12+ to hit...and he rolls bad...now does that fact that the rogue may hit on a 4+ at 11th level make it so bad, if the war lord is down to 11+????
Every feat is a choice...if you crunch the numbers to find the best feat don't complain that you found what you looked for...
or becuse some people think they know what is ALWAYs going to be taken, and if people disagree they are told they are wrong...I am just waiting for someone to tell me I am too dumb to post here...
OK, I was a little rude there. Don't take what I said as excusing people on the errata forums or elsewhere who refuse to explain their reasons and call people names. This is a forum and people should be willing to follow through on what they say or just not say it.
BUT (;)) I do think there are things that are overpowered that get dismissed for the wrong reasons. I'm willing, perhaps even eager, to believe that the Expertise feat is just fine. I'm not posting because I think I have all the answers. In fact, I'm pretty sure that I'm mediocre at optimization and I'd really like to be persuaded that there is another side to this. But I find it silly that people offer arguments on the basis of subjective preferences or outliers.
Is, say, Eladrin Soldier sometimes a better feat than Weapon Expertise? Sure- going from longspear to greatspear gets you the same +1 and +2 to damage (from ES) and a superior weapon (which may qualify you for something). DWT provides us with similar cases. These, however, are two of the best feats out there and they exist to give an edge to eladrin and dwarves who otherwise may not shine in martial classes. This is a perfectly good reason to make an awesome feat, since it opens up more choices.
I like incentives to play races without a bonus to their main attack stat. I don't like "options" that clearly outshine others- they should just be built-in. Even those dwarves and eladrin will be hard-pressed to come up with more than a feat or two that beat Expertise. Tiefling non-casters have actually lost ground, and I hope that Hellfire Blood will be errata'd into an untyped bonus.
Maybe I'm overreacting, but this seems like poor design.
Assuming this feat works as described, I have a few words.
thank you...you put it much better then I can?
OK, I was a little rude there. Don't take what I said as excusing people on the errata forums or elsewhere who refuse to explain their reasons and call people names.
don't worry I honnestly just really have a sore spot for the whole "non choice" thing...
just remember the funnest part of this argument...is it is about a feat not out yet that we THINK we figured out...bu know nothing about the prereqs...
Probably their superior weapons. The possibility of getting a magic military weapon and being stuck with it for 4-5 levels when you really want a magic superior weapon is more then enough incentive. Some may want better armor (leather is still a better first pick then this for a cloth-user), and will prioritize them for the same reason. Also, at the low levels you're talking about, Weapon Focus is better for damage, albeit mildly. Frankly, this feat probably shouldn't be taken until level 6 or 8, maybe even up into paragon if you're a rogue or someone else who hits a whole lot. It's good, but not as good as you're all making out.
Transfer Enchantment in AV guarantees no one has to get stuck with a particular weapon.
Weapon Focus might be better for straight damage in some cases, but not when you take into account the difference it makes when, say, Lead the Attack misses instead of hits. I'd rather have an extra edge with dailies and encounters against tough foes than have a marginally more damaging attack all around. Ditching Weapon Expertise for Weapon Focus is exactly like choosing an always-on -1 to hit/+1 to damage Power Attack. Sometimes you will really wish you could turn it off. The deceptive thing about averages is that they fail to account for what happens when you get a few bad breaks in a row.
Darn it, my character is feat starved enough; last thing I need is another must have feat!
And here is the answer :D
There are many so called "must haves" and everyone has their own opinion.
Transfer Enchantment in AV guarantees no one has to get stuck with a particular weapon.
Weapon Focus might be better for straight damage in some cases, but not when you take into account the difference it makes when, say, Lead the Attack misses instead of hits. I'd rather have an extra edge with dailies and encounters against tough foes than have a marginally more damaging attack all around. Ditching Weapon Expertise for Weapon Focus is exactly like choosing an always-on -1 to hit/+1 to damage Power Attack. Sometimes you will really wish you could turn it off. The deceptive thing about averages is that they fail to account for what happens when you get a few bad breaks in a row.
Every party has a ritual user now? News to me. Also, you'd rather have the extra edge with dailies and encounters. At that level, they are uncommon enough that they are easy enough to set up via flanking and aid another that I think the 'extra edge' from the +1 will make less difference then the consistent extra damage. And getting a few good breaks in a row is just as common as a few bad breaks, and the +1 to hit will mean diddly then. Different pluses and minuses in different situations mean that neither is an automatic choice over the other.
And here is the answer :D
There are many so called "must haves" and everyone has their own opinion.
Before all the feats I was considering were equalish in power, now this one stand out above them all.
It's still a non-choice to me, the only choice is what feat I "will" lose to obtain it.
As far as players are concerned, they'll choose feats according to a wide variety of criteria - note that the DMG makes a HUGE deal about different player personalities, of which Power Gamer is but one. Some players like "powerful" feats, some players like "flavorful" feats, some players like feats that grant them new options, and some players (myself included) really like "simple" feats, of which this is one. Note that there will be some overlap in these categories - multiclass feats are both flavorful and powerful, Implement Expertise is both simple and powerful. But assuming the mathematics were ok before, then characters will still be viable even if they're not choosing this feat. (NOTE: If the mechanics were NOT "ok" before, then there's a real problem here, but that's a different discussion).
This helps me pin down why I don't like the, "Not everyone is a powergamer" argument.
Let's say two people make characters for the same campaign. One is mechanically savvy and likes to optimize as much as she likes to roleplay. In fact, math just jumps off the page at her, no matter how hard she tries to avoid it. The other only thinks of his concept, which happens to include both powerful and weak aspects, though he sees all of them as equal. However, it is absolutely *not* his plan to be the weakest link- he simply doesn't see the numbers.
If the first player sees Weapon Expertise, she realizes that it will add a lot to her character's power in combat, which may already be significantly above average. The other player sees the feat but doesn't think it's very interesting, even though it may fit his character decently well once he picks up those 4 or 5 cool-sounding feats that fit his concept.
So what's the net effect? He's a little more behind the power curve than he would otherwise be and he may not know why. His character is neat on paper but frustrating in play sometimes. Not cool.
Every party has a ritual user now? News to me. Also, you'd rather have the extra edge with dailies and encounters. At that level, they are uncommon enough that they are easy enough to set up via flanking and aid another that I think the 'extra edge' from the +1 will make less difference then the consistent extra damage. And getting a few good breaks in a row is just as common as a few bad breaks, and the +1 to hit will mean diddly then. Different pluses and minuses in different situations mean that neither is an automatic choice over the other.
Most parties at least have access to rituals, yes. Even if no one casts them, 175 gp for a low-level scroll isn't something you worry about.
Here's the thing about good luck versus bad. The upside of good luck is pretty small; you pretty much get what you were going to get, except faster or more elegantly. The downside of bad luck is much greater and can include making a new character.
Default feat layout for weapon using characters, mix and match the order you choose them: Weapon Expertise, Superior Weapon Training, Toughness.
Superior weapons aren't necessary for characters where damage isn't the major concern like Warlords, Str Clerics, Paladins, or Shield Fighters.
Hit will always be necessary, which is why this feat is so much worse.
Default feat layout for weapon using characters, mix and match the order you choose them: Weapon Expertise, Superior Weapon Training, Toughness.
so wait...yor telling me the best thing a weapon useing character can do is take weapon feats...wow...and toughness...a feat for people who are in melee is a good choic for melee combatants...how could we ever have known... I mean I thought Linguestics...and Rit caster...and Skill focus Endurence were my thre first feats for my fighter...
maybe next you can blow the suprise that multi classing with the same main stat is better then with a diffrent one...
YES IT IS A GOOD FEAT...the fact that it is one of a few that make you better at combat makes it an easy choice for combat...not the only choice...also maybe my fighter will take the rit caster feat...and multi into wizard...6 feats in 10 levels 1 to multi 3 for power swap...1 for rit caster...one for a cool race feat (whatever race I am)...and 1 feat to go... so what is a better gish feat? expertise...or toughness...or Bastard sword...or maybe something else...maybe a new feat from PHB2 we haven't seen yet...
wait what aabout my Drow rogue/fighter
16 str 17 Dex 8 Wis
11 Con 10 Int 16 Cha
Artful Dodger
1st Backstabber [Rogue]
2nd Weapon Proficiency (Two bladed sword)
3rd Student of the Sword
4th Novice Power rain of blows
6th Slaying Action
yea...I took 1 of those "Must have feats"....let me guess this sucks becuse a +1 to hit is better then what I have here...
don't worry I honnestly just really have a sore spot for the whole "non choice" thing...
just remember the funnest part of this argument...is it is about a feat not out yet that we THINK we figured out...bu know nothing about the prereqs...
Ah. The only people who are going to preach that this is a must are going to be number optimizers. But it's still pretty limited. It's the poor mans Dwarfven Weapon Training, or Eladrin Solider feat. Why? It's 1 weapon/implement. And it counts as you 'feat bonus' when doing the numbers for over all bonuses in combat. The racial feats grant you 2+ weapons and do pretty much the same thing. The down side to this is say I'm a Fighter who loves Heavy Blades. Now I have to stick with a single heavy blade and would have to trade it out later in my career if I wanted to switch to axes over 2-handed swords. Etc.
Toughness is debatable, with a healing heavy group and/or already high HP classes (easy to get out of negative hp) most of it's benefit will be lost.
Superior weapons aren't necessary for characters where damage isn't the major concern like Warlords, Str Clerics, Paladins, or Shield Fighters.
Hit will always be necessary, which is why this feat is so much worse.
EXACTLY!
The only character I can think of who might not want the feat is a dagger rogue. Even then it's iffy.
Seriously, a feat which makes combat reflexes, hellfire blood, all the +1/+2/+3dmg feats, and improved elven accuracy (why bother with a conditional +2 on 1 roll when you can have a flat +1 for all rolls) etc which have been taken in perfectly viable builds, look bad in comparison, needs to be relooked.
I'm still not giving up hope yet, though. Hopefully the feat is slightly nerfed at press time, like the previous D&D experience with the paladin's mark.
what would all of the people coomplaining now say then...
there would be explosions of heads...
The only character I can think of who might not want the feat is a dagger rogue. Even then it's iffy.
I think they'd want it more than anyone! Single weapon... significant damage and/or interesting rider effects... the feat is made for these. The ones who won't want it are characters that rely on a weapon and an implement, or a ranged and a melee weapon. Who are already gimped because they need to spread their resources more thinly.
What about those of us who like optimizing, but who also like to make interesting and unique builds? We're stuck being plain-vanilla folks with twinked numbers, or coming up with neat tricks that look good on paper until you figure out that they cost you 2 AC, 2 attack bonus, 5 HP/tier, and a weapon die.
There are also people who don't realize which type they prefer. I've had players who tweak the numbers, then quickly get bored with "I swing again. What damage dice do I roll for this one again?" And I've also had players who come up with wacky race/class/multiclass combinations that get frustrated because everyone else outshines them in practice.
I mean, name a build, and I'll tell you a build that should be taking +1 attack for a feat by level 4.
You mentioned Skill Focus: Endurance. I don't think that feat should automatically be worthless! But guess what, it kind of is. Or at least its getting there. Who wants to improve a trademark skill when they need to be taking +X attack feats and +X damage feats and upgrading their weapon and adding hit points?
Honestly, if they were going to do this, they should just stop pretending that these feats add customizability. They don't. They should just rename Weapon Expertise to "Expertise" and have it grant a flat +1 attack. Weapon Focus? Rename it "Focus" and grant the damage bonus everywhere. Stop pretending that your focusing on a trademark weapon when you're really just grinding your way up a power curve.
Expertise is both very powerful and quite flavorless. It's near about everything feats in 4e weren't supposed to be. I'm not happy with it.
GMforPowerGamers: At least from where I sit, the reason those feats kind of suck the fun out of the game system is that they don't actually customize your character in any meaningful way. They're just flat numerical bonuses to things that all characters do. So taking them becomes an obvious choice.
some people like flat number bonuses (Not me...I agree like you that it shoud be cool customization)...so take the feat you want...I just posted my drow rogue fighter...what feat should I ditch for this 'must have feat'
I mean, name a build, and I'll tell you a build that should be taking +1 attack for a feat by level 4.
I have named sevral in this post who needs all of there feats...
maybe my fighter will take the rit caster feat...and multi into wizard...6 feats in 10 levels 1 to multi 3 for power swap...1 for rit caster...one for a cool race feat (whatever race I am)...and 1 feat to go... so what is a better gish feat? expertise...or toughness...or Bastard sword...or maybe something else...maybe a new feat from PHB2 we haven't seen yet...
wait what about my Drow rogue/fighter
16 str 17 Dex 8 Wis
11 Con 10 Int 16 Cha
Artful Dodger
1st Backstabber [Rogue]
2nd Weapon Proficiency (Two bladed sword)
3rd Student of the Sword
4th Novice Power rain of blows
6th Slaying Action
yea...I took 1 of those "Must have feats"....let me guess this sucks becuse a +1 to hit is better then what I have here...
You mentioned Skill Focus: Endurance. I don't think that feat should automatically be worthless! But guess what, it kind of is. Or at least its getting there. Who wants to improve a trademark skill when they need to be taking +X attack feats and +X damage feats and upgrading their weapon and adding hit points?
I don't think SF: endurence was ever a good choice...but Skill focus usn't bad in and of it self...Perception, Stealth, and Insight are all great uses of the feat....
Honestly, if they were going to do this, they should just stop pretending that these feats add customizability. They don't.
FOR YOU!!!! I still think they are...I am sorry you feel that you must take 1 feat...don't make it sound like you are the only one that matters though...Some of us STILL have choices
They should just rename Weapon Expertise to "Expertise" and have it grant a flat +1 attack. Weapon Focus? Rename it "Focus" and grant the damage bonus everywhere.
what point does this serve again???
Stop pretending that your focusing on a trademark weapon when you're really just grinding your way up a power curve
OR we could just choose the feats we like, and let other players choose feats they like...and gasp...wait to see if there is a problem in game...
or becuse some people think they know what is ALWAYs going to be taken, and if people disagree they are told they are wrong...I am just waiting for someone to tell me I am too dumb to post here...
This is why I say it's starting to look like the errata forums. A character that has no trouble hitting will not take this feat because to hit bonuses suffer from the law of diminishing return.
not non choice...it is a CHOICE....
just becuse it is good dosn't make it mandatory...if you want to argue it is part of a problme show the porblme..don't throw around BS like NON CHOICE witch Realy means "I want it"...
I should clarify -- when I say 'non-choice' I don't mean that perfectly literally. What I mean to imply is that it's the best choice statistically, by a clear margin. You can, of course, always choose something that doesn't empower your character as much. But if you've any desire to have a strong character... then this feat is the obvious choice, for every character.
Every feat is a choice...if you crunch the numbers to find the best feat don't complain that you found what you looked for...
I know this isn't any kind of attack on me, and I don't take offense, but I think it might be necessary to dispel the myth that everyone objecting to powerful feats are powergamers. I'm not a powergamer; when I play, I play a dexterity wizard who doesn't wear leather armor, and who focuses on magic missiles. (Even if I were, it would be a moot point. And if I were, why would I be objecting??)
The reason I object to a feat like this is because I don't want all the other feats to be outshone. I want my players to be able to choose something that helps to define their character further, in a unique way, without being tempted by the siren call of the best feat.
(Of course, in very specific circumstances, there are better feats. Were I playing a dwarf, I would take Dwarven Weapon Training first. (I would take expertise shortly after.) The reason Expertise is so egregious an offender is because it applies to every character.)
...It's going to be hilarious when we find out this feat does something totally different.
The down side to this is say I'm a Fighter who loves Heavy Blades. Now I have to stick with a single heavy blade and would have to trade it out later in my career if I wanted to switch to axes over 2-handed swords. Etc.
Actually, you only pick a single weapon group -- at least, if the barbarian character sheet is to be believed, as it says "Weapon Expertise (Heavy Blades)".
So what's the net effect? He's a little more behind the power curve than he would otherwise be and he may not know why. His character is neat on paper but frustrating in play sometimes. Not cool.
Agreed. It's exactly this sort of "rewarding system mastery" that was supposed to be dead and gone after 3E.
Expertise is both very powerful and quite flavorless. It's near about everything feats in 4e weren't supposed to be. I'm not happy with it.
Seconded.
This is why I say it's starting to look like the errata forums. A character that has no trouble hitting will not take this feat because to hit bonuses suffer from the law of diminishing return.
Yea like I said before gee...my rouge dagger master is hitting on 6+ more often then not...and my warlord on 12+...if both take the feat it become 5+ and 11+....or the rogue could take a diffrent feat...
You know what I am sick of people calling 'broken' or 'Power creep' or 'non chocie' or any of the 100 other stupid things without trying them first...and in this case I know for a fact noone complain has...becuse the rule isn't avalible yet...IF you think something is a problme you MAY be right, or you may be wrong...the only way to tell is to see if people come on here in 6-8 months saying "Every player took this feat at level 1"...and so far it hasn't happened yet... On the errata board I herd how the adventures vault had all of these broken items...yet no one posts "For some reason every player takes X at Y level" why are these 'non choices' that are sooo obviuse to you guys not showing up time and time again... Why does every player in LFR not have the same feats and items...they are non choices after all???seriesly what makes you think you know better sight unseen, or glancing at a rule book then people who PLAYTEST?
/rant
...It's going to be hilarious when we find out this feat does something totally different.
best part of this argument...it might be completly for nothing... we have to wait and see...
I do wonder what the WotC guys think when they see this sort of thing...
If the feat is as assumed a constant +1 bonus, every player in the game I run and every player in the game I play in will take the feat. No other feat is this powerful. This would literally be the most powerful feat in the game, and one that every character can benefit from. That is a problem, and that's why posters are characterizing the feat as a non-choice. It is, and if it is what it appears to be, I will HR it. I think a correctly balanced "expertise" feat could give a +1 to all encounter attacks. At-wills see too much use for the +1 to be balanced, and dailies usually have a mitigating effect on a miss. A bonus to hit with encounter attacks helps enough characters to be worth a feat without being a feat that is absolutely the most powerful choice for every character.
seriesly what makes you think you know better sight unseen, or glancing at a rule book then people who PLAYTEST?
/rant
Amen. Praise the Raven Queen.
I'm also sick of these "BROKEN!!!!!!" fads. First the tempest was broken, then they quieted down; then the battlerager, now they've quieted down; before them the Ritualist Ring, they've quieted down. And so on and so forth.
Some things DO need errata (orb wizards or Orb wizards feats such as Improved Orb of Imposition). Others need clarifications like the rules for double weapons, as they pertain to feats and other things, but no errata (although I'm actually pretty close to the fence on double weapons)
best part of this argument...it might be completly for nothing... we have to wait and see...
I do wonder what the WotC guys think when they see this sort of thing...
We've seen the math of the feat apply to every power listed with no conditional expressions, so either: the playtest powers are using a simpler version of the feat that will be released; the feat gets changed thanks to public outcry, or its Exactly what we think it is.
You say we should wait and see to complain, but this isn't something like a Vorpal weapon effect or Hammer Rhythm that are conceptually complex, this is +1 hit all the time- we could have easily played games tinkering with hit values.
We've been comparing the value of a class/race combo with and without the primary attribute bonus since the game came out- Being 1 modifier below the "ideal" build is workable, but starting any lower and the power gap becomes very noticable. You're expanding the gap between the "best optimized" and the "worst non-stupid optimized"- and that'll be bad for the game in the long run.
For your Rogue build, you can hold off on Backstabber till paragon (worth 2 damage assuming you Sneak attack every round in heroic) or probably Slayer's action (I don't remember what it does, but it's likely an AP trigger which doesn't happen enough to compare to a static bonus).
To another post, Hit "doesn't" have diminishing returns in the absolute sense until there is no miss without a critical failure. "Relative improvement" isn't a good way to measure the effects of percentile gains.
We've seen the math of the feat apply to every power listed with no conditional expressions,
we have seen characters and tried to back enginer them...last time we did this we found the characters were full of mistakes...I am just saying it is funny to argue that you know how something works that you have yet to see...
we could have easily played games tinkering with hit values.
ok, so did you???
We've been comparing the value of a class/race combo with and without the primary attribute bonus since the game came out- Being 1 modifier below the "ideal" build is workable, but starting any lower and the power gap becomes very noticable. You're expanding the gap between the "best optimized" and the "worst non-stupid optimized"- and that'll be bad for the game in the long run.
Ok so 2 characters... 1 is a fighter 20 str dragon born with a Longsword...the other is a warlord 16 str half elf with a battle axe...now you go up to level 11...the dragon born has a +3 magic weapon...the half elf has +2 XXX battle axe...
the diffrence is +5 to hit... is that game breaking??? what if the fighter took kensi... OMG +6 to hit diffrent...the system can't handle this...they must all be within 1 or 2...how can this happen...
For your Rogue build, you can hold off on Backstabber till paragon (worth 2 damage assuming you Sneak attack every round in heroic) or probably Slayer's action (I don't remember what it does, but it's likely an AP trigger which doesn't happen enough to compare to a static bonus).
I can hold off on my second feat...one that changes my class feature from 2d6 to 2d8...I think not...try again...I would NEVER give up backstabber
some people like flat number bonuses (Not me...I agree like you that it shoud be cool customization)...so take the feat you want...I just posted my drow rogue fighter...what feat should I ditch for this 'must have feat'
That's easy. The multiclass stuff or Slaying Action. Either one is a legitimate choice. The multiclass is fun flavor, but ultimately unnecessary. And Slaying Action is good, but not obligatory.
I do concede that its possible that this feat has some restriction that we aren't seeing. But I don't think its likely, because we couldn't find any disadvantages on the previewed character sheets, and more than half of them had this feat.
New rogue default power gamer build: Brutal Scoundrel with a two bladed sword, backstabber, nimble blade, weapon expertise, and toughness. I think this is a problem.
.
I do concede that its possible that this feat has some restriction that we aren't seeing. But I don't think its likely, because we couldn't find any disadvantages on the previewed character sheets, and more than half of them had this feat.
I am just saying we don't know...it could be an unnamed bonus +1 per tier or + 1/2 level or a multi class fighter feat, or a new type of feat...or have some pre req...it could be totaly broken...or fine...WE DON't KNOW...
New rogue default power gamer build: Brutal Scoundrel with a two bladed sword, backstabber, nimble blade, weapon expertise, and toughness. I think this is a problem.
so becuse power plays change over time...that is bad???
wont the power plays change every 6-8 months between dragon and new books anyway??
Yet you could, and if you did, you'd be better for it- increasing your hit is a 5% increase in total damage, not including when it gets you a sneak attack that would have missed and power side effects, compared to 2 sneak attack damage. That's why expertise is bad in a feat, thanks for proving my point.
{hit gap}
A 5 difference in attack bonus is huge, Total Concealment huge, or attacking from a Run action huge. The Fighter is arguably hitting twice as often and this feat would make the spread worse.
That said, your example is bad for the following reasons:
The enhancement bonus difference is temporary, existing only at threshold levels and can be prevented by awarding the warlord's preferred weapon first as treasure.
The class and paragon features are choices that are comparable to their alternatives, in contrast to a new feat that offers so much more than anything that came before it.
Picking a +2 proficency weapon is not intelligent when you know you are low in the attack stat and your class isn't even damage centered.
{Backstabber}
Yet you could, and if you did, you'd be better for it- increasing your hit is a 5% increase in total damage, not including when it gets you a sneak attack that would have missed and power side effects, compared to 2 sneak attack damage. That's why expertise is bad in a feat, thanks for proving my point.
I like rolling d8's better then d6's
A 5 difference in attack bonus is huge
,
yea, and totaly possible by PHB
The enhancement bonus difference is temporary, existing only at threshold levels and can be prevented by awarding the warlord's preferred weapon first as treasure.
ok...make it 4 instead of 5...
Picking a +2 proficency weapon is not intelligent when you know you are low in the attack stat and your class isn't even damage centered
so what would you say to a player who built a Str 16 Warlord with an Axe...
"you too dumb to play...let me make character for you!!!"
A 5 att diffrence is NOT the end of the world...and guess what...built into the system...lets go with a real example...
We had a 20th level fighter still useing a +1 sword...the reason he kept useing his mony to buy other items...he had every slot full, and a bunch of wondrus items...and guess what... he still had fun...
see this is where you think YOU can decide what is best for everyone...you can not...stop pretending you can...
+2 proficency weapon is not intelligent
is exactly the ttype of number crunching that ruins games...not +1's to hit
Let's say that WotC did realize that many, many monsters had too high of defenses. Obviously, wanting their product to keep improving and be fun, they'd want to rectify this. One method they could use is errata. In which they would release new defenses for a large portion of the monsters in the Monster Manual. This would be a huge document and so unwieldy in use by DMs, who would then have to reference it to see whether or not there's a change for every monster they would add to an encounter, that it wouldn't be hard to imagine that a lot more people leave 4th edition and return to 3.5 (if not leave D&D and WotC for another RPG).
A second avenue using errata would be to simply say that every monster should have its defenses lowered by one. Once again, this is something the DM has to keep in mind, and all the entries in the Monster Manual would be innaccurate. Also, some monsters might have "the sweet spot" for their defenses, and this sweeping general errata would put them at a difficulty lower than they were intended to be.
However, (and remember, this is purely a hypothetical and not a statement of certainty in this feat's intention) adding a feat that gave players a +1 to attack would be far easier and, instead of creating the huge amount of negative feedback errate would surely incite, it would be welcomed and used happily by many players. Not only that, but it works within the system, instead of the system re-write that is errata. As such, it's easier to remember (players just have to add 1, and the math is done using the area on the character sheet). Of course, monsters with "sweet spot" defenses are slightly weakened, but there would be no perfect solution if the defenses were truly off from their intended difficulties.
As to why all the demo characters have this feat? First, it's a good feat. Second, WotC probably wants to showcase the benefits of feats that are also in the PHB2. I really doubt there are as many feats in that book than in the first PHB, so it's not hard to see why the same (admittedly good) feat would be used for each build. In addition, when you're making a couple characters for nothing more than showcasing the new class' abilities, simple feats that give a simple +1 are favorable to feats whose benefits add extra bookkeeping or may even be confused as a class' abilities.
is exactly the ttype of number crunching that ruins games...not +1's to hit
QFT
Seriously, a feat which makes combat reflexes, hellfire blood, all the +1/+2/+3dmg feats, and improved elven accuracy (why bother with a conditional +2 on 1 roll when you can have a flat +1 for all rolls) etc which have been taken in perfectly viable builds, look bad in comparison, needs to be relooked.
This here is my biggest concern. This feat just jumped in front of a lot of feats that give a conditional attack bonus. Look at:
Combat Reflexes
Elven Precission
Hellfire Blood
Moradin's Resolve
Nimble Blade
Bracing Breath
Halfling Stalwart
Offensive Resilience
Prime Strike
These feats can still be useful, but only after you get weapon/implement expertise (I'm sure there are more examples, but these are all I could dig up at the moment).
The feat really needs some restriction, like once per encounter, as a free action, you gain a +1 to attack rolls with your chosen implement or weapon group until the end of your turn. That would be an interesting feat. Sort of like Student of the Sword, except with out the multiclass and marking benefits, but applying to all attacks during your turn.
Combined with an action point, one could get a lot of milage out of this feat. A Dragonborn Fighter could combine this with breath weapon, Passing Attack, action point, Sweeping Blow and get great bang out of that +1 attack. A wizard could Sustain Mordenkainen's Sword, Toss a Fireshroud, use an action point and toss a Fireball.
I really don't understand the need for the blanket +1 to *all* attack rolls. Puts this feat head and shoulders above other attack related feats.
is exactly the ttype of number crunching that ruins games...not +1's to hit
The math is there, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. The defences of monsters are high. Higher then they should be. This feat, if it is what it is (and don't bust out a 'we don't even know' argument - if that's your position pull the plank out of your eye and go read some other thread, we know we're discussing a hypothetical, if likely, situation here), if this feat is as speculated, then it smacks of patching a system problem with a feat, and that's no good.
Let's take a wizard, played by a player who has no head for maths, or just doesn't find it enjoyable, and so doesn't pay attention to it. That's fine, he shouldn't have to. We probably agree here, I think.
That player looks in the PHB, sees battle wizard described, thinks 'that sounds fun' and takes a bunch of damage powers Then he takes feats that sound cool to him. He doesn't take expertisse, because the feat is boring, and he doesn't want to pay enough attention to the math to know why it's important.
Well, the system math is off. All of his powers hit against defences that are just as high as AC, even though he doesn't get a proficiency bonus to hit. He's missing all the time. And the designers release expertisse and think 'well, we dodged that bullet!' Bologna!
Where as opti-steve the opti-mizer sees how the math works, takes the right feats (expertisse), the right powers (ones that target will) so he can actually hit with his wizard.
This isn't about comparing fighter to warlord, it's about looking at that 16 strength warlord with the +2 proficiency weapon who needs to hit with his attacks to have any effect. It's about seeing how little fun he has in the supposedly exciting boss fight against the +2 level soldier solo when he realizes he needs a sixteen just to hit it, and he watches his dailies and encounters slide by uselessly. How was he supposed to know that he was supposed to have 18 strength, that he was supposed to be fighting with a longsword, and that he was supposed to have taken weapon expertisse? It's not his fault. He's not a munchkin, and he shouldn't have to be.
If we really were just power-gaming munchkins, we would love this feat. We'd be hoping it's not a feat bonus, and wondering if we could stack weapon expertisse and implement expertisse with our dagger weilding sorcerer. We're not.
If the games defences are too high, they need to be lowered. If they aren't, a +1 to hit feat shouldn't exist in the first place. It really is a feat that rewards system mastery in a way that D&D 4e wasn't supposed to.
See? Problem solved. Well, it will be solved once they errata that "Featastic!" can't be retaken as one of your "Featastic!" feats.
so what would you say to a player who built a Str 16 Warlord with an Axe...
"you too dumb to play...let me make character for you!!!"
I wouldn't say that, but yes, his character would be objectively worse at fighting than a character who used a sword or had an 18 or both. If his goal was to create a character who was good at fighting, and he didn't know any better, then the system just screwed him. I'd talk to him and give him advice on how to fix his character so that it actually did what he wanted it to do.
If he DID know better, and he intentionally chose to make a character who sucks worse than it needs to when he could have easily elected to take a longsword and fix the problem, I'd make sure our group had a second leader class. We're going to need it if one of our experienced players thinks that it counts as roleplaying to use an axe instead of a sword even though it screws us.
is exactly the ttype of number crunching that ruins games...not +1's to hit
No, designing a game where the numbers are crunchable is the problem. If you don't want people crunching the numbers and coming up with answers, make sure that the feats you design aren't directly crunchable. Don't give everyone crunchable rules and then whine if they crunch.
There's a certain thing that happened to 3e, and I knew it would happen to 4e as well, but this just really slams it home. When 3e first came out, you could play with your feats a bit. You might take Weapon Focus or a must-have like Weapon Finesse for a Rogue, but once you did you could play around. Maybe you'd take Quick Draw for your Fighter, just because it was cool to have in surprise rounds. Maybe your wizard would take Skill Focus: Arcana. But after a while, that stopped happening because there were more must-have feats. Fighters stopped taking things like Quick Draw because they were so busy piling stackable bonuses onto their favorite attack maneuver. Wizards stopped taking Skill Focus: Arcana because they were too busy building a metamagic trick. I'm going to miss the days when I had extra feats and could take things like Long Jumper without my character falling behind the accepted power curve.
I really wish that WOTC had not permitted you to retrain heroic tier feats into paragon tier feats. That would have ameliorated a fair amount of this.
{Backstabber}
Picking a +2 proficency weapon is not intelligent when you know you are low in the attack stat and your class isn't even damage centered.
Remember that the Weapon Proficiency bonus is only one reason to pick a weapon group.
There is also the secondary/tertiary stat bonus needed to pick the paragon/epic feats (e.g. Mastery feats, Hammery Rhythm, Deadly Axe, Scimitar Dance, etc).
Not every PC will have Dexterity as their second stat, and not every PC will be able to afford a 15 as a third stat. Which is what is required to take Heavy Blade Mastery (the requirement is even higher for Light Blades and Flails).
It is pretty simple for those Races with a +2 Con to take a 13 in Con as a third stat (upped to 15 by the race) to qualify for Axe Mastery. Or a Dwarven melee type may want to take Hammer Rhythm and Bludgeon Master.
Maybe, if we're lucky, those feats can't be taken with +3 Prof Weapons.
GH
Let's take a wizard, played by a player who has no head for maths, or just doesn't find it enjoyable, and so doesn't pay attention to it. That's fine, he shouldn't have to. We probably agree here, I think.
That player looks in the PHB, sees battle wizard described, thinks 'that sounds fun' and takes a bunch of damage powers Then he takes feats that sound cool to him. He doesn't take expertisse, because the feat is boring, and he doesn't want to pay enough attention to the math to know why it's important.
Well, the system math is off. All of his powers hit against defences that are just as high as AC, even though he doesn't get a proficiency bonus to hit. He's missing all the time. And the designers release expertisse and think 'well, we dodged that bullet!' Bologna!
and here is why...your player took an idea, then found it wasn't fun...there is a solution...and it isn't hidden in only system mastry (Find power targeting best save)...but a simple feat he can swap out for...+1 to hit...
Now system masters say take powers that synergize, get CA, and target Nads....Non system mastry says "Here is a feat that makes me hit better"
That is why it is a good thing it is NOT hidden...it is right there...TAKE THIS TO HIT MORE...
Where as opti-steve the opti-mizer sees how the math works, takes the right feats (expertisse), the right powers (ones that target will) so he can actually hit with his wizard.
and he will never need help he has masstered the system...he dosn't need a feat that says "THIS HELPS YOU HIT MROE"...but he can take it if he wants...
This isn't about comparing fighter to warlord, it's about looking at that 16 strength warlord with the +2 proficiency weapon who needs to hit with his attacks to have any effect. It's about seeing how little fun he has in the supposedly exciting boss fight against the +2 level soldier solo when he realizes he needs a sixteen just to hit it, and he watches his dailies and encounters slide by uselessly. How was he supposed to know that he was supposed to have 18 strength, that he was supposed to be fighting with a longsword, and that he was supposed to have taken weapon expertisse? It's not his fault. He's not a munchkin, and he shouldn't have to be.
So when this happens it doesn't take a munchkin or a number cruncher to see the problme...he needs to hit better...gee a feat that gives a bonus to hit would help him woudn't it...
If the games defences are too high, they need to be lowered. If they aren't, a +1 to hit feat shouldn't exist in the first place. It really is a feat that rewards system mastery in a way that D&D 4e wasn't supposed to.
WRONG...feats that give bonus to hit Do NOT requare mastery...they are in the open...now you want mastery...tell me this your beast master ranger takes Sure strike instead of twin strike becuse it helps him hit better...it makes sense + to hit means hit more...inless you do the math and see twin strike is better...it is hidden in the powers...this is not hidden it is not mastery it is +1 to hit...
While this idea's been mentioned before, this feat could have been introduced in response to the feedback WotC received about how monster defenses are at a level where the chance of hitting them is lower than intended. I especially see this on my Starlock (at level 7 with a 19 Charisma and a +1 rod, I only get a +8 to my attacks). Of course, this is only anecdotal, but the math worries me more than my memories of constantly missing.
One method they could use is errata. In which they would release new defenses for a large portion of the monsters in the Monster Manual. This would be a huge document and so unwieldy in use by DMs, who would then have to reference it to see whether or not there's a change for every monster they would add to an encounter
A second avenue using errata would be to simply say that every monster should have its defenses lowered by one. Once again, this is something the DM has to keep in mind, and all the entries in the Monster Manual would be innaccurate.
adding a feat that gave players a +1 to attack would be far easier and, instead of creating the huge amount of negative feedback errate would surely incite, it would be welcomed and used happily by many players. Not only that, but it works within the system, instead of the system re-write that is errata.
yes yes yes...lots of people complained about lack of attack and missing too often...so they found a fix...not everyone needs it...but if you want it here is a feat to give a little bonus...
to restate : SYSTEM MASTERY IS HIDDEN THIS IS NOT!!!!
Well then... and I was 99% sure that it would be +1 damage/tier to finally be rid of those silly elemental damage feats. So much for +hit being the sacred stat in 4e, something you had to fight tooth and nail to get.
1 feat is hardly making +hit easy to get.
Those powers will likely be changed to +1 feat bonus so that they don't stack.
What if it was a +1 untyped, but -1 to everything else?
what if you got to round up instead of down on the 1/2 level part...so level 1=+1...2+1...3++2 ect.
so the level 3 pre gens had attacks as if they were level 4...
cool benfit on odd levels...no benfit on even...
edit: no then people would be swaping it out every other level...talk about system mastery
I like rolling d8's better then d6's
Just because you like rolling red dices, does not make a feat "You gain +10 feat bonus to all your d20 rolls, but you must make them with a blue dice." any more balanced that it is.
We are arguing that this feat goes against anything that 4E stands for from purely mechanical point of view. Your subjective reasons are very true, but that does not make them any less irrelevant for the thing that we are arguing here.
to restate : SYSTEM MASTERY IS HIDDEN THIS IS NOT!!!!
Yes, that is one of the problems in this feat. IT IS FOR EVERYONE.
Reducing monster defenses is fine and if its needed - now is the time before even more books are out. Helping warlocks and wizards is fine. Helping characters with spread ability scores is fine.
This feat is not fine. Its a sloppy design and we are not whining because its grossly overpowered or because it will break the system and the game. We are whining because it goes against the 4E principals, because we don't want it to be followed by another feats of its kind and because we want WotC to realize the problem and to change it before PHBII is out and to change similar design decisions before PHBII is out.
-- increase the normal level bonus characters add to their d20 rolls & defenses by one at level 11 and level 21
-- remove feat
-- increase the normal level bonus characters add to their d20 rolls & defenses by one at level 11 and level 21
If the attack disparities are a problem (couldn't say, as I haven't played in Epic), this is exactly how I would prefer they approach it, rather than tacking on a feat (and using up resources) to patch the game.
If the feat does work as expected (and we've no reason to believe it won't, given the character sheets), and it is intended to fix a problem, I'm... really quite disappointed (but not surprised).
I don't think this feat was intended to adjust the alleged disparity. Its probably either the product of a serious review of the way that WOTC has weighed attack bonuses, or, it was intended from the start and held back for PHBII in order to spread out the meat and potatoes feats a little.
Just because you like rolling red dices, does not make a feat "You gain +10 feat bonus to all your d20 rolls, but you must make them with a blue dice."
funny...
We are arguing that this feat goes against anything that 4E stands for from purely mechanical point of view. Your subjective reasons are very true, but that does not make them any less irrelevant for the thing that we are arguing here.
it is only irrelevant if you argue the math in a vacume...it is part of a game that has wAy too much complexity to be just math...
Yes, that is one of the problems in this feat. IT IS FOR EVERYONE.
so the problme is people can choose to hit better if they want too...I am not seeing it
Reducing monster defenses is fine and if its needed - now is the time before even more books are out. Helping warlocks and wizards is fine. Helping characters with spread ability scores is fine.
no it is not errataing the entire run up till now of monsters is NOT an option...
This feat is not fine. Its a sloppy design and we are not whining because its grossly overpowered or because it will break the system and the game. We are whining because it goes against the 4E principals, because we don't want it to be followed by another feats of its kind and because we want WotC to realize the problem and to change it before PHBII is out and to change similar design decisions before PHBII is out.
so your opion is it is too much, mine is it is just right...ok, both are opions based on our own uniqe way of thinking...don't tell me I am wrong...becuse I have as much facts on myside as you do... oh and we STILL haven't seen the write up of the feat....
If this feat was meant to address the alleged disparity in attack rolls versus defenses at higher levels, it would be a paragon or epic feat. That would help adjust the curve. This doesn't alter the curve, it just shifts it one space.
I don't think this feat was intended to adjust the alleged disparity. Its probably either the product of a serious review of the way that WOTC has weighed attack bonuses, or, it was intended from the start and held back for PHBII in order to spread out the meat and potatoes feats a little.
Well, that, or it's a stupid idea that didn't get checked quite well enough.
I'm hoping it's not that one... but... I've little faith in WotC.
I still think that if it would have been released in PHBI there would be no uproar.
it could have been a +2 in PHBI and everyone would except it as the good feat...
it could have been a +2 in PHBI and everyone would except it as the good feat...
I'm agreeing with you too much. As a self-defense macanismi I will interpret your reply as sarcasm and call you unworthy of participating in the Errata for unrealeased products Forums
it could have been a +2 in PHBI and everyone would except it as the good feat...
No, people wouldn't "accept" it for the same reason we oppose it now, it's too good compared to any other feat you can pick, especially ones like Tiefling's attack bonus with fire, and widens the system mastery gap.
-See Blade Cascade and Orb lock from the PHB.
Just because it's obvious doesn't mean the non-master won't miss it.
We can errata the player creation rules like was posted above very easily and not have to reprint monsters. A feat is not the answer, and should NEVER be the answer, to global system concerns.
Just because it's obvious doesn't mean the non-master won't miss it.
Particularly if the non-master doesn't have DDI or PHB2.
I agree with the above, if the disparity between to-hit and defenses in the latter two tiers need patching, a flat +1 per tier might be the medicine. Not a feat in a splat book.
it could have been a +2 in PHBI and everyone would except it as the good feat...
There is no feat that is as universally good in PHBI as this feat is. You could argue that Weapon Focus is similar to this feat, but truth be told there are plenty of viable alternatives to Weapon Focus in the Heroic tier depending on your role. Most weapon wielders will have it by paragon, and just about all of them will have it by epic, but it really isn't a "must take" feat, it's just that there aren't any better options after a certain point.
There is literally no one that possesses anything approaching system mastery and wants to optimize their character for combat that will not have Expertise by level 4. That's the difference; it has nothing to do with which book it came out in.
And yes, I realize that there ARE people that don't have system mastery and/or don't care to optimize their characters for combat. But if Expertise gets changed, those people are at the very worst unaffected, and at the best no longer at a further disadvantage than they would have been previously.
The only class I've played where it seemed tough to hit often was a Warlock character that I played; I noticed that I wasn't hitting nearly as often as the rogue or the ranger who were in the group at the time.
Particularly if the non-master doesn't have DDI or PHB2.
I agree with the above, if the disparity between to-hit and defenses in the latter two tiers need patching, a flat +1 per tier might be the medicine. Not a feat in a splat book.
and then whaat if non master doesn't have errata??? same problme...
and then whaat if non master doesn't have errata??? same problme...
Errata = Free
New books DDI =/ Free.
Errata = Free
New books DDI =/ Free.
New books= lot of people buy them
Errata= only some people bother...
I can do this all day...
Builds that can already hit without trouble don't need this. and may be better served picking other kinds of feats.
If anything the only thing that bothers me about this feat is that it didn't appear in PHBI, it should have appeared there because it's such a *******ed simple feat.
I still think that if it would have been released in PHBI there would be no uproar.
There would have been grumbling rather than an uproar: grumbling about a feat that everyone (in any game where mechanics matter) must take right, and right in the edition's very first book!
grumbling about a feat that some people will take, and right in the edition's very first book!
fixed that for you...
This here is my biggest concern. This feat just jumped in front of a lot of feats that give a conditional attack bonus. Look at:
Combat Reflexes
Elven Precission
Hellfire Blood
Moradin's Resolve
Nimble Blade
Bracing Breath
Halfling Stalwart
Offensive Resilience
Prime Strike
These feats can still be useful, but only after you get weapon/implement expertise (I'm sure there are more examples, but these are all I could dig up at the moment).
...
I really don't understand the need for the blanket +1 to *all* attack rolls. Puts this feat head and shoulders above other attack related feats.
Seriously, everyone who took any 1 of the 9 feats listed above will end up retraining for Expertise. It reduces character variety by simply condensing the 9 feats into 1 option.
Sure you can stack the feats and still have some variety, but opportunity costs is now a lot higher.
My Cleric (balanced between WIS and STR) will definitely be retraining Weapon Focus out for Weapon Expertise, to keep pace with the rest of the party he cannot afford to spend feats on both weapon and holy symbol as he can't afford the feat slots.
As a result, he will never wield anything other than a Disrupting Weapon, Crusaders Weapon or a Holy Avenger, because he had already gimped himself once by choosing a sub-optimal build in the first place.
CHA-paladins and most paragon-multiclassers are hit in the balls by this change, as they have 2 implements that could use the feat.
fixed that for you...
How rude.
My Cleric (balanced between WIS and STR) will definitely be retraining Weapon Focus out for Weapon Expertise, to keep pace with the rest of the party he cannot afford to spend feats on both weapon and holy symbol as he can't afford the feat slots.
why does it matter what the rest of your party has for ann attack bonus?
As a result, he will never wield anything other than a Disrupting Weapon, Crusaders Weapon or a Holy Avenger, because he had already gimped himself once by choosing a sub-optimal build in the first place.
Sub optimal doesn't matter...do you have fun playing with it???
CHA-paladins and most paragon-multiclassers are hit in the balls by this change, as they have 2 implements that could use the feat.
so eaither choose 1, or just choose a diffrent feat...
How rude.
I am just sick of people saying "everyone" even when they have people disagreeing with them...witch means it can't be "Everyone"
Problem : This feat is too good, OMG!
Solution : This feat instead lowers your attack bonus by 1, attempts to retrain the feat turn all your feats into this feat.
Or y'know, house rule it out. I know stuff shouldn't be broken right out of the box, but obviously they want RPGA/LFR/Lxx to have it, but you don't have to put up with it at home.
New books= lot of people buy them
Errata= only some people bother...
I can do this all day...
At the end of the day, Errata is a better way to fix a system then a new book. As errata is free and easily available.
New books are expensive and not all places have it available instantly, not all DMs allow the books in et cetra. You would be hardpressed to find a DM who denies his party errata meant to boost them that would A). have a party or B). be able to enforce the blade cascade fix.
Edit> again I bring up Palladium (partly as I know you play it): Before RUE came out, the haphazzard updates by book were used in about 15% of games, even if the books were used close to universally.
fixed that for you...
What you changed my post to wasn't what I meant, GMforPowergamers. I gave my caveat very specifically: this is a feat that everyone in any game where mechanics matters must take. Or if you like, a feat that everyone who significantly values mechanical effectiveness must take. I'm not claiming that this feat is a non-choice for players who don't care about mechanical effectiveness.
The problem with your reasoning is that it destroys the entire concept of game balance. What if Expertise gave a +2 to attack rolls? It still wouldn't be a non-choice by your definition. Should such a feat be permitted? By your reasoning, absolutely. What if it gave a +3 bonus to attack roles? Players who don't care much about mechanical effectiveness still might not take it. So, it must be an acceptable addition to the game.
The problem with this line of thinking is evident immediately. A feat that gives a +3 bonus to attack is so mechanically effective that every player who cares about mechanics (or, to put it differently, every player in a game where mechanics matter) just has to take it. The alternative is deliberately and foolishly gimping himself, and as a result, having less fun. The exact same reality is in place with our +1 bonus to attack here, it's just less drastic and so, for whatever reason, several posters on this thread don't see it.
What you changed my post to wasn't what I meant, GMforPowergamers. I gave my caveat very specifically: this is a feat that everyone in any game where mechanics matters must take. Or if you like, a feat that everyone who significantly values mechanical effectiveness must take. I'm not claiming that this feat is a non-choice for players who don't care about mechanical effectiveness.
The problem with your reasoning is that it destroys the entire concept of game balance. What if Expertise gave a +2 to attack rolls? It still wouldn't be a non-choice by your definition. Should such a feat be permitted? By your reasoning, absolutely. What if it gave a +3 bonus to attack roles? Players who don't care much about mechanical effectiveness still might not take it. So, it must be an acceptable addition to the game.
The problem with this line of thinking is evident immediately. A feat that gives a +3 bonus to attack is so mechanically effective that every player who cares about mechanics (or, to put it differently, every player in a game where mechanics matter) just has to take it. The alternative is deliberately and foolishly gimping himself, and as a result, having less fun. The exact same reality is in place with our +1 bonus to attack here, it's just less drastic and so, for whatever reason, several posters on this thread don't see it.
:surrender fine I give up...everyone takes it...total broke...I give up there is no such thing as free will
:surrender fine I give up...everyone takes it...total broke...I give up there is no such thing as free will
I'm not saying its broken, I am just saying defending as 'fixing the system' is flawed. To be fair I have MANY concerns about the feat. It seems on the surface too good not to have by paragon tier.
If it only applied to basic attacks, then it would be fine. But that's not how it works.
There, that proves it. There is a feat which gives a +1 bonus to opportunity attack rolls. Sure, this bonus is untyped, but Weapon Expertise is flat-out better than Combat Reflexes. Circumstantial feats should always have a higher bonus than constant feats. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to take Combat Reflexes over Weapon Expertise, which proves 100% that it is an unbalanced feat within the current system.
To be fair, Expertise is limited to one weapon group or implement. It's a terrible justification as players are specifically punished for specializing in a particular weapon or implement how often? Maybe once a tier? But the supposed weakness is there.
There, that proves it. There is a feat which gives a +1 bonus to opportunity attack rolls. Sure, this bonus is untyped, but Weapon Expertise is flat-out better than Combat Reflexes. Circumstantial feats should always have a higher bonus than constant feats. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to take Combat Reflexes over Weapon Expertise, which proves 100% that it is an unbalanced feat within the current system.
If it only applied to basic attacks, then it would be fine. But that's not how it works.
Actually if it only applied to basic attacks its still Much better than CR. As an OA is (at least through paragon for heavy blade wielders) a basic attack.
To be fair, Expertise is limited to one weapon group or implement. It's a terrible justification as players are specifically punished for specializing in a particular weapon or implement how often? Maybe once a tier? But the supposed weakness is there.
Depends are they a cleric/paladin or a normal character?
I'm not saying its broken, I am just saying defending as 'fixing the system' is flawed. To be fair I have MANY concerns about the feat. It seems on the surface too good not to have by paragon tier.
to be fair I have concernes too...I just feel that people cry wolf way too fast around here...
to be fair I have concernes too...I just feel that people cry wolf way too fast around here...
I agree, I am reserving final judgment until I see the feat. I'm also allowing it in a Scales of War campaign I am about to start up on Maptools, to see if there is a big change from its exsistance or not. As on paper +1 to hit is a lot, but in practice it might be nothing.
At the end of the day, Errata is a better way to fix a system then a new book. As errata is free and easily available.
New books are expensive and not all places have it available instantly, not all DMs allow the books in et cetra. You would be hardpressed to find a DM who denies his party errata meant to boost them that would A). have a party or B). be able to enforce the blade cascade fix.
Edit> again I bring up Palladium (partly as I know you play it): Before RUE came out, the haphazzard updates by book were used in about 15% of games, even if the books were used close to universally.
Not to mention errata will likely make it's way into future prints of the core books.
And even if it does turn out to be +1 attack...what the heck is the big deal? it won't increase over your adventuring career, you probably won't be able to stack it, or take it multiple times. I absolutely fail to see how this is real power creep, or how it becomes necessary to every single character ever built. The ONLY reason I see this feat being a necessary, non-choice, only mentally backwards people don't take this kind of feat is because some people on this forum say it is. I, for one, DO care about mechanical effectiveness in any game I play, but I don't think this feat is going to be the be all, end all of heroic tier feats. (I also don't think 3E haste was broken, but that's a different story).
Just because something grants a great benefit doesn't mean that everybody and their mother will use it. I suspect those DDXP characters only had it because Wizards wanted to show off their new feats.
Really, am I the only one who saw something like this coming from the beginning? I'm so confused; why is this such a big deal? Someone please tell me
Ok, look, its quite simple here people. Its a decent feat that probably is more limited than you all think. Its a basic feat and you're complaining that everyone will NEED to take it. I disagree, every powergamer will want to take it, because its a good feat, like a number of other feats.
So far I have seen a number of characters getting by just fine with out this feat, so its not a need, your character will survive with out it.
Why didn't I think of that...hoiw can anything be a musthave/nonchoice if we went 8 months without it and our characters were fine????
I think everyone (and by everyone I mean all the 3e players that are concerned with numbers above everything else) is more upset that this wansn't in the phb1 and they are having to buy the phb2 to get it.
yea, I have been getting that
These feats do not break the system, they are not so spectacular that you have to take them or your character will fail.
if it was built into the sysetem you NEED +1 more then it would be a problme...one that would have come up time and time again...but it is not, this is just a way to make you better at what you do...
Why didn't I think of that...hoiw can anything be a musthave/nonchoice if we went 8 months without it and our characters were fine????
I don't know. I ran a game that started at 20th level. The Paladin needed to roll a 14 to hit against many monsters, when the low level paladin in a different game was hitting on rolls of 8. Character to-hits are grossly low at high levels.
-- remove feat
-- increase the normal level bonus characters add to their d20 rolls & defenses by one at level 11 and level 21
I'm with this one, ladies and gentlemen.
I wonder if similar arguments cropped up when WotC decided to place the 'Natural Spell' feat in the 3.5 PHB.
Yes. Yes, they did.
Quote from OOTS: "You mean there are druids that don't take Natural Spell?"
People on this forum have a hard time differentiating between optimum and viable.
It's not that. It is 99% better than an existing feat we already have (Combat Reflexes). The only "balancing factor" to Weapon Expertise is that you have to choose a weapon group and you're stuck with it for a level. But there is the transfer magic ritual, and no random treasure tables any more; there is no reason what-so-ever for a DM to give your Heavy Blade expertise fighter a battle axe other than simply not wanting the fighter to use it.
Heck, the way stats align with weapons, it is assumed that players will generally focus in a weapon anyway (especially if they're a martial class). Fighters can focus in their weapons easily because their secondary stat for powers ties in with the secondary stat for the weapon types. Brawny Rogues can focus in light blades with no problem (trickster rogues have to work for it a little), and Str/Dex rangers can focus in light or heavy blades with no problem. The Warlord is the only one out in the cold here.
-- remove feat
-- increase the normal level bonus characters add to their d20 rolls & defenses by one at level 11 and level 21
That's exactly what I suggested months ago when Xeviat-DM was saying that the level curve makes epic characters hit less and get hit more than heroic characters. If characters getting nerfed by the level curve is the problem, this is the solution, not a feat that turns several other feats into nonviable choices.
Ok, look, its quite simple here people. Its a decent feat that probably is more limited than you all think. Its a basic feat and you're complaining that everyone will NEED to take it. I disagree, every powergamer will want to take it, because its a good feat, like a number of other feats. So far I have seen a number of characters getting by just fine with out this feat, so its not a need, your character will survive with out it. I think everyone (and by everyone I mean all the 3e players that are concerned with numbers above everything else) is more upset that this wansn't in the phb1 and they are having to buy the phb2 to get it. Thats just WotC being WotC and doing their typical irritating things just to make more money, just like they've been doing since they bought out TSR, and looking at M:tG did you expect any better from them? These feats do not break the system, they are not so spectacular that you have to take them or your character will fail. Stop complaining just to complain which is what this topic boils down to.
No, you're missing the point. The point is not, in fact, that your character will fail if you don't take this feat, and those of you arguing the opposing point seem to keep getting hung up on this. The point is that a feat is an opportunity cost, and a blanket +1 to hit with one implement or weapon is so much better than every other choice that by its existence it makes several other feats nonviable. Why would you ever take Combat Reflexes when you can take Weapon Expertise? Why would you ever take Hellfire Blood when you can take Implement Expertise? There is no class or build that does not gain a huge benefit from taking this feat; in fact it is the optimal and the correct choice for every class and build. Every class and every build is making an optimal choice if they take this feat during the heroic tier. That in itself is a reason not to publish it.
to be fair I have concernes too...I just feel that people cry wolf way too fast around here...
Because its more or less the only thing from PHBII that we know of and think that it does not belong there.
It is not terribly wrong, it is not tremendously broken, the sky is not falling...but it is obviously wrong. And it is wrong on very basic level.
We also want the designers to realize our concern - one post in each sub forum seems like two much but it will get noticed, unlike single post on the third page of future releases that says: "Post#1: I'm Afraid this feat is too good if it is what it seems. Post#2: I agree, but lets wait and see. End".
Yes, we haven't seen the feat. We also have very good reason to suspect what it does. In the end - it doesn't matter. We are not crying that Weapon Expertise is unbalanced. We are crying that +1 unconditional bonus to attack for the price of one feat is unbalanced. We are calling that Weapon Expertise just for convenience.
This feat won't shatter the game in two, but it will be a step in the direction of that happening.
Yes, there is such thing as free will. We are not discussing free will though - we are discussing rules. Weather you will exploit or take advantage of some rule has nothing to do with weather the rule is good or bad. This feat has to be changed and since we can't sit by the fireplace and discuss it with the designers in a civilized manner - we are left with the next best thing - flaming each other at the forums.
On unrelated note I will once again repeat that a feat is NOT the right way to fix system issues...
Assuming nobody does anything actively stupid like dump an attack stat, what's an acceptable level of power difference between a hardcore optimizer and a casual player? At what point do you start feeling punished for picking what fits the character rather than what fits the math?
Will the expertise feats cause the game to break? No. Will the next bit of power creep, or the bit after that? Unlikely. Will these bits added together give the optimizer a very solid edge? That's something to keep in mind.
And while there will always be some options more powerful than others, my biggest beef with the expertise feats is how dull they are. If a system only has so much tolerance for overpowered stuff, I'd rather the developers risk that tolerance on tactically or mechanically interesting options.
It's not that. It is 99% better than an existing feat we already have (Combat Reflexes).
Have you ever stopped to think that the problem may not lie with Weapon Expertise, but with the feats you are comparing it to? You may in reality be comparing a balanced feat (Weapon Expertise) to an underpowered feat (Combat Reflexes). When you compare Weapon Expertise to other non-underpowered feats you see that it ends up comparable. Look at Superior Weapon Proficiency, the benefit granted by upgrading from a Military to a Superior weapon is on several occasions an "untyped" +1 to hit, similar to what Weapon Expertise possibly grants.
Have you ever stopped to think that the problem may not lie with Weapon Expertise, but with the feats you are comparing it to? You may in reality be comparing a balanced feat (Weapon Expertise) to an underpowered feat (Combat Reflexes). When you compare Weapon Expertise to other non-underpowered feats you see that it ends up comparable. Look at Superior Weapon Proficiency, the benefit granted by upgrading from a Military to a Superior weapon is on several occasions an "untyped" +1 to hit, similar to what Weapon Expertise possibly grants.
You sound like a few of my players, who complain that "there aren't any good feats". ;)
Granted, it's the warlock and the wizard saying this, so they do have something of a point...
I must note, however, that getting a superior weapon usually results in a bonus to damage, not to hit. And I think we're all in agreement that that's substantially less powerful?
Have you ever stopped to think that the problem may not lie with Weapon Expertise, but with the feats you are comparing it to? You may in reality be comparing a balanced feat (Weapon Expertise) to an underpowered feat (Combat Reflexes). When you compare Weapon Expertise to other non-underpowered feats you see that it ends up comparable. Look at Superior Weapon Proficiency, the benefit granted by upgrading from a Military to a Superior weapon is on several occasions an "untyped" +1 to hit, similar to what Weapon Expertise possibly grants.
You know, this was the best example to date. +2 1d10 versatile military weapon is balanced against a +3 1d8 versatile military weapon; taking superior weapon proficiency upgrades a longsword to +3 1d10; that means that going from a battleaxe to a bastardsword does net you +1 to hit. Thus, as Ultimatecalibur says, Combat Reflexes is a weak feat.
I'm sold. I concede that I was wrong.
And Bolongo, getting an increase in a weapon die size is actually more powerful than +1 to hit in many circumstances until very high levels when at-wills are slightly better if you have more to hit. That level is reduced when you are a striker with extra dice of damage, but non-strikers benefit more from weapon die size than to hit.
At least that's what my tests showed.
I must note, however, that getting a superior weapon usually results in a bonus to damage, not to hit. And I think we're all in agreement that that's substantially less powerful?
No. The power of a feat that increases damage depends heavily on how it increases damage. Except in cases of powers that make multiple attacks, small flat damage bonuses (such as those granted by Weapon Focus and the Racial Weapon Feats) are considered inferior to die size increases due to the multiple [W] of most powers. A +1 bonus to damage stays a +1 bonus to damage no matter how many [W] a power has; on the other hand, a die increase from d6 to d8 is an increase of +1 damage per [W] or +2 damage per [W] on a critical hit. That is a substantial difference in damage dealt, and the main reason many builds choose a Superior Weapon Proficiency as one of there first feats.
And here are some examples of Military to Superior upgrades that do the +1 to hit:
Broad Sword (+2 d10 heavy blade) => Bastard Sword (+3 d10 heavy blade)
Flail (+2 d10 flail) => Triple-Headed Flail (+3 d10 flail)
Long Spear (+2 d10 reach polearm/spear) => Great Spear (+3 d10 reach polearm/spear)
I DM for a lot of powergamers. This feat will be a no-brainer pick. It obsoletes so many other feats. a +1 to hit on a longsword with weapon expertise is so much more valuable than even switching up to a bastard sword. Bastard sword and triple headed flail being the feat of choice for almost every character I see currently. Followed by all of them wearing veteran's armor.
I think the designers realize one or both of the following:
A) People do not hit as often as they like, which hurts pretty badly with daily powers.
B) Monster defenses are inconsistent at every tier of play.
This feat helps both. It also means that my 17STR Tiefling Warlord is going to have much more leeway in actually hitting and I won't need to worry about always wielding a flaming weapon.
Someone mentioned adding a +1 inherent bonus at 11th level and increasing it to +2 at 21st to attack and defenses, and I think that it's an elegant solution but the designers won't go for it. I don't think they want to admit they made such a massive mistake in the core rules, and they certainly don't want to release errata for every monster in MM1.
I think MM2 will show whether or not they learned their lesson with monster design, or at least whether to follow their own rules.
Personally, I hope the feat gives an untyped bonus and increases it to +2 at 21st level.
Also, all of the comments about how the people who don't understand or don't care about the math behind the awesomeness of a feat like this don't seem very relevant. I don't need to understand math to know that hitting more = good, and playing for even 2-3 levels will let you know about how often you're hitting. If you don't understand at that point that maybe if you made a 14-16 Int wizard you should take the +1 attack feat, maybe you're better off playing a game that does all the calculations for you, or maybe you should let someone else build your character if you're so intent on "roleplaying" your party into the ground.
In case it needs explanation: Higher AC means you take less dmg therefore you don't need Toughness etc.
Getting a +1 to hit is the single most powerful thing in the game, hands down. Characters would be better off taking this feat than any other feat. If you fail to see that, I can't help you.
It's why people move around and take risks for prime shot, that's why people use teamwork to help their buddies flank, that's why warlords and clerics giving bonuses is so valuable. It's why it's such an agonizing decision to take an axe over a longsword.
Giving people a simple across the board +1 to attack with a feat ruins the game for me. I think a lot of people agree. I wish there was a poll we could put on the boards.
Choosing Toughness or Durable vs something that boosts your AC is a tough choice.
In case it needs explanation: Higher AC means you take less dmg therefore you don't need Toughness etc.
Getting a +1 to hit is the single most powerful thing in the game, hands down. Characters would be better off taking this feat than any other feat. If you fail to see that, I can't help you.
It's why people move around and take risks for prime shot, that's why people use teamwork to help their buddies flank, that's why warlords and clerics giving bonuses is so valuable. It's why it's such an agonizing decision to take an axe over a longsword.
Giving people a simple across the board +1 to attack with a feat ruins the game for me. I think a lot of people agree. I wish there was a poll we could put on the boards.
Indeed, this feat is so powerful that people will stop trying to flank and nobody will roll clerics or warlords.
Also: Toughness v. AC boost isn't nearly as tough a choice as you make it out to be. With a good defender in the party, a given character might not need either.
Giving people a simple across the board +1 to attack with a feat ruins the game for me. I think a lot of people agree.
"Ruins the game"? Hardly. A mistake, yes. A mistake compounded by the talk of "premiums" on attack bonuses (since the release of the core rules), yes. A supplemental feat hardly "ruins the game" for me. It makes me question the direction WotC is taking the game (if it pans out to be what we think it will be), and it may force me to begin houseruling around WotC's own design choices (which I haven't personally had to do yet).
But it doesn't "ruin the game."
Choosing Toughness or Durable vs something that boosts your AC is a tough choice.
In case it needs explanation: Higher AC means you take less dmg therefore you don't need Toughness etc.
Getting a +1 to hit is the single most powerful thing in the game, hands down. Characters would be better off taking this feat than any other feat. If you fail to see that, I can't help you.
It's why people move around and take risks for prime shot, that's why people use teamwork to help their buddies flank, that's why warlords and clerics giving bonuses is so valuable. It's why it's such an agonizing decision to take an axe over a longsword.
Giving people a simple across the board +1 to attack with a feat ruins the game for me. I think a lot of people agree. I wish there was a poll we could put on the boards.
Indeed, this feat is so powerful that people will stop trying to flank and nobody will roll clerics or warlords.
Also: Toughness v. AC boost isn't nearly as tough a choice as you make it out to be. With a good defender in the party, a given character might not need either.
fine don't let them roll clerics or warlords, watch the parties drop like flies and they'll quickly realize how much they still need us
though i don't think this will happen. You're over-reacting and they would have chosen strikers and defenders anyways.Besides, +1 attack < leader bonuses. +1 always is wonderful but those massive bonuses leader classes can give just dwarfs that piddly +1 POS.
fine don't let them roll clerics or warlords, watch the parties drop like flies and they'll quickly realize how much they still need us
Besides, +1 attack < leader bonuses. +1 always is wonderful but those massive bonuses leader classes can give just dwarfs that piddly +1 POS.
I was being sarcastic. I absolutely agree with you. Anyone who really thinks this is ruining the game is overreacting to a massive degree.
lets assume that the book is balanced for a 16 attack stat and a +2 prof weapon Vs AC, or a 16 att stat alone Vs Nads...Anything else is Bonus...
Now I am going to take the DMG info on monster building...everything for standard monsters AC lie between Level+12 and L+14...and NADS Level +12...to make an elite is +2 to three...and solo is another +2 to three...
Level 1
+5 Vs AC 13-16...up to 20 for solo need 8-11 up to 15 solo
+3 Vs NADs 13...up to 17 for solo need 10 up to 14 solo
Level 11
+3 magic... +1-2 att stat (+3 to the stat) +5 level
+14-15 Vs AC 23-25 up to 29 solo need 8-11 up to 15 solo
+12 Vs NADs 23...up to 27 solos need 11 up to 16 solo
level 30
+30 Vs AC 42-44 up to 48 for solo need 12-14 up to 18 solo
+28 Vs NADs 42 up to 46 solos need 14 up to 18 solo
now assuming that between controlers and defenders giving penilties, and leaders giving bonuses, and getting combat advantage... it basicly come down to the same (Higher level has more powers that do better)
that has not changed...a 20 att stat is +2 better...a +3 prof weapon is +1 better...weapon Expertise is +1 better...
so you can gain 4 pts of bonus...plus targeting off defs...
the monster def is not going up...so it is not needed...it is a bonus... people who already always had +3 prof weapons, and 20 att stats are going to consider it a must have...everyone else it will just be another good choice...
Weapon Expertise (Rapier) vs. Nimble Blade
Weapon Expertise (Rapier) gives me a +1 to hit wth a rapier, and nothing more
Nimble Blade gives me a +1 to hit with all light blades and gaurentees me combat advantage wth all light blades, which is actually an effective +3 to hit
Both feats are heroic, which would you rather take?
what you want to compare is weapon prof. rapier vs weapon expertise light blade and assume you keep a dagger. A similar thing was done in an earlier post. Hitting raises your avg damage more than almost anything, not to mention hitting is important for powers that only have an effect on a hit.
Read some of the other feats people, I can eaisly point out feats better than this. Lets take this example:
Weapon Expertise (Rapier) vs. Nimble Blade
Weapon Expertise (Rapier) gives me a +1 to hit wth a rapier, and nothing more
Nimble Blade gives me a +1 to hit with all light blades and gaurentees me combat advantage wth all light blades, which is actually an effective +3 to hit
Both feats are heroic, which would you rather take?
Weapon Expertise applies to weapon groups, not individual weapons. So Weapon Expertise (Light Blades) is what you'd take.
So your choice is a feat that gives +1 attack with light blades, and a feat that gives +1 attack with light blades if you have combat advantage.
The first is strictly better than the second.
Of course, Nimble Blade gives an untyped bonus, so you could take both. With combat advantage a human rogue at level 1 with a dagger could swing a +12 v Reflex dagger attack with only an 18 dexterity. Make the spellcasters cry.
Nimble Blade gives me a +1 to hit with all light blades and gaurentees me combat advantage wth all light blades, which is actually an effective +3 to hit
Yeah, you totally misunderstood that. Nimble Blade gives you +1 attack IF you have Combat Advantage. It DOES NOT grant you Combat Advantage.
With combat advantage a human rogue at level 1 with a dagger could swing a +12 v Reflex dagger attack with only an 18 dexterity. Make the spellcasters cry.
where I play most spell casters would love for the rogue to have that...but we play as a team and enjoy eachother doing wwell...maybe we are just diffrent then most...
where I play most spell casters would love for the rogue to have that...but we play as a team and enjoy eachother doing wwell...maybe we are just diffrent then most...
How nice of you to be so supportive.
Look, if WOTC designed a feat entitled "Merry Christmas, Rangers!" that gave a ranger +20 damage per hit, being happy for the player in your group who's PC is a Ranger might be a good coping mechanism. It would probably make you a much happier person than someone who sees that feat and has his blood pressure double.
Thing is, the person who's blood pressure doubled would make a better game designer, because he'd know not to write that feat.
How nice of you to be so supportive.
Look, if WOTC designed a feat entitled "Merry Christmas, Rangers!" that gave a ranger +20 damage per hit, being happy for the player in your group who's PC is a Ranger might be a good coping mechanism. It would probably make you a much happier person than someone who sees that feat and has his blood pressure double.
Thing is, the person who's blood pressure doubled would make a better game designer, because he'd know not to write that feat.
wow why is it every example has to be so huge...+20 damage...oh becuse the small bonus +1 isn't enough to be huge so you need to pick a fight you know you can win instead of the one we are having...let me try:
Yea and a feat that gives all elves +1 to perception for search in forrests is too weak...
now that is a fight I can win easy...
the post I responded to said:
With combat advantage a human rogue at level 1 with a dagger could swing a +12 v Reflex dagger attack with only an 18 dexterity. Make the spellcasters cry.
right now it is +11 becuse the +1 feat is the only diffrence...+11 compaired to +12...NOT A BIG DEAL compaired to
+20 per hit/twin strike...
You know, this was the best example to date. +2 1d10 versatile military weapon is balanced against a +3 1d8 versatile military weapon; taking superior weapon proficiency upgrades a longsword to +3 1d10; that means that going from a battleaxe to a bastardsword does net you +1 to hit. Thus, as Ultimatecalibur says, Combat Reflexes is a weak feat.
combat reflexes isn't that weak, it allows fighters to lower their wisdom since its an untyped bonus, or allows swordmages/paladins to be a tad more sticky. Thats its purpose.
You know, this was the best example to date. +2 1d10 versatile military weapon is balanced against a +3 1d8 versatile military weapon; taking superior weapon proficiency upgrades a longsword to +3 1d10; that means that going from a battleaxe to a bastardsword does net you +1 to hit.
so in PHBI there is a feat that gives you a +1 to hit...intresting...
so in PHBI there is a feat that gives you a +1 to hit...intresting...
Yeah, its a GREAT argument for even more of them, all designed to stack. Sure. Maybe someday we can clutter the game to the point where no one ever has to spend a feat in the heroic tier on anything other than +X attack, +X damage, +X AC, and +X hit points.
The fact that there are feats who gives +1 to hit does not mean that there is no problem in having more of them and making them stack.
Also going from battle axe to bastard sword is not just as simple as getting +1 attack with whatever you are using. You are giving axe specific feats, powers and magic weapons. Its not a simple... "Hey I'm just like before but 10% better."
You know, this was the best example to date. +2 1d10 versatile military weapon is balanced against a +3 1d8 versatile military weapon; taking superior weapon proficiency upgrades a longsword to +3 1d10; that means that going from a battleaxe to a bastardsword does net you +1 to hit. Thus, as Ultimatecalibur says, Combat Reflexes is a weak feat.
I'm sold. I concede that I was wrong.
And Bolongo, getting an increase in a weapon die size is actually more powerful than +1 to hit in many circumstances until very high levels when at-wills are slightly better if you have more to hit. That level is reduced when you are a striker with extra dice of damage, but non-strikers benefit more from weapon die size than to hit.
At least that's what my tests showed.
Huh? O_o superior weapon proficiency? Where is that feat? Q_Q I have a phb and I don't see it. martial power maybe?
A feat for +1 to hit in the phb? Besides nimble blade I don't know what you are talking about E_E
so in PHBI there is a feat that gives you a +1 to hit...intresting...
Very situationally.
Yes, if you're married to the idea of using (say) a d10 weapon, then taking proficiency with a superior weapon will let you wield one that has +3 prof bonus rather than +2.
Or... you could decide that you'd rather get a d12 and stick with the +2. I'm wiling to accept the argument that increasing your damage die is (at least) as good as +1 to attack, so either way this feat is in many ways as good as Weapon Expertise seems to be.
But:
a) There's a cap here - if you're already using a +3 weapon, your to hit will not increase.
b) WE just raises the cap slightly across the board. It does nothing to ameliorate the disparity between weapon users and caster. For that, we would need the equivalent of superior weapon feats for casters.
(Maybe something like this: http://www.penny-arcade.com/uploads/2009/01/16/grim.jpg)
Weapon Expertise (Rapier) gives me a +1 to hit wth a rapier, and nothing more
There is nothing to suggest the existance of such a limited feat. WE (Light Blades) includes rapiers, katars, parrying daggers, kukri etc.
I think MM2 will show whether or not they learned their lesson with monster design, or at least whether to follow their own rules.
The introduction of WE means they have to design MM2 and MM3 etc. monsters exactly the same way as MM1 monsters.
Heck, regardless of WE they can't publish new monsters whose defenses are weaker than the baseline set by MM1 without a blanket errata for the old monsters. If they did, no self-respecting DM would use the new, wussier monsters unless they house-ruled up their defenses...
Huh? O_o superior weapon proficiency? Where is that feat? Q_Q I have a phb and I don't see it. martial power maybe?
He just said the name wrong. He meant weapon proficiency, with the player choosing a superior weapon. I say it wrong all the time because of the way that 3e used exotic weapon proficiency versus martial weapon proficiency. I keep assuming that there are different feats for each, and there aren't.
Yeah, its a GREAT argument for even more of them, all designed to stack. Sure. Maybe someday we can clutter the game to the point where no one ever has to spend a feat in the heroic tier on anything other than +X attack, +X damage, +X AC, and +X hit points.
Not to mention Supieror weapons weigh more, cost more starting gold, and lose weapon benefits that are specific to the non-superior version (Eladrin Solder or Mace Rogues for example). But those are minor compared to the aforementioned fact that your weapon Proficency is never higher than 3 before we consider expertise.
Read some of the other feats people, I can eaisly point out feats better than this. Lets take this example:
Weapon Expertise (Rapier) vs. Nimble Blade
Weapon Expertise (Rapier) gives me a +1 to hit wth a rapier, and nothing more
Nimble Blade gives me a +1 to hit with all light blades and gaurentees me combat advantage wth all light blades, which is actually an effective +3 to hit
Both feats are heroic, which would you rather take?
Weapon expertise as its weapon groups not indvidual weapons.
So Weapon Expertise (light blades) gives me a +1 to hit with light blades ALL the time. Nimble blade, so long as I start with CA will grant +1 to hit.
Ergo: WE applies in more situations and is inherently better.
although technically, WE: Is +1 feat bonus and NB: Is +1 untyped. (unless I am forgetting something where feats automatically grant feat bonuses).
So by level 2 I can have +1 all the time and +2 with CA (Effectively doubling the effects of CA).
Hmmm
Beastranger using lizard setup to force monster to either give him an OA, or give the lizard an OA, with Blade opportunist, nimble blade, CR, and WE: Lightblades. (Man this makes me glad there is no reach light blade)
+2+1+1+1 = +5 to hit on OA's. +2 to hit otherwise...
Huh? O_o superior weapon proficiency? Where is that feat? Q_Q I have a phb and I don't see it. martial power maybe?
A feat for +1 to hit in the phb? Besides nimble blade I don't know what you are talking about E_E
Four feats in the PHB And a feat for +2 to hit.
superior weapon proficency is a proficency in a single weapon that is superior, going from say broad sword (+2 1d10 heavy blade) to bastard sword (+3 1d10) is +1 to hit.
Combat reflexes is +1 to hit with OA's (untyped)
Blade Opportunist is +2 to hit with OA's (untyped, requires heavy/light blades)
Nimble blade is +1 to hit with CA (untyped requires light blades).
Hellfire blood is +1 to hit and +1 damage (requires tiefling race)
So properly setup, you can get a +5 to hit from the PHB (Requires OA and CA and using of light blades and being tiefling and 4 feats).
Edit> Or switching to a bastard sword from +2 weapon and OA/Tiefling.
Four feats in the PHB And a feat for +2 to hit.
superior weapon proficency is a proficency in a single weapon that is superior, going from say broad sword (+2 1d10 heavy blade) to bastard sword (+3 1d10) is +1 to hit.
Combat reflexes is +1 to hit with OA's (untyped)
Blade Opportunist is +2 to hit with OA's (untyped, requires heavy/light blades)
Nimble blade is +1 to hit with CA (untyped requires light blades).
Hellfire blood is +1 to hit and +1 damage (requires tiefling race)
So properly setup, you can get a +5 to hit from the PHB (Requires OA and CA and using of light blades and being tiefling and 4 feats).
Edit> Or switching to a bastard sword from +2 weapon and OA/Tiefling.
Hellfire Blood is a feat bonus, so it doesn't stack. If you already have a flaming weapon, I guess it's a little better than Weapon Expertise.
I expect that anyone who took any of the other feats is likely to retrain into Weapon Expertise.
Hellfire Blood is a feat bonus, so it doesn't stack. If you already have a flaming weapon, I guess it's a little better than Weapon Expertise.
I expect that anyone who took any of the other feats is likely to retrain into Weapon Expertise.
The +5 is Before weapon expertise.
Hmmm
Beastranger using lizard setup to force monster to either give him an OA, or give the lizard an OA, with Blade opportunist, nimble blade, CR, and WE: Lightblades. (Man this makes me glad there is no reach light blade)
+2+1+1+1 = +5 to hit on OA's. +2 to hit otherwise...
Almost forgot about beastmaster rangers. This puts them back a little bit, unless there is a Beast Expertise feat too. And then they have one feat to boost their pet and one for their own attacks. Awesome.
Take the Sorcerer
+4 ability modifier from Charisma
+1 for 1/2 level
+1 for magic implement
Total +6....
Acid Orb +6 vs Ref...am i missing something? I see no where on these sheets anything that would indicate a +1 to attack feat
The tiefling is the same, the barbarian has a mystery +1 but that could be from that Goliath Greatweapon thing
Ok so this is the first im hearing of these new feats, but can someone perhaps tell me where my math is wrong as i've been trying to figure it out.
Take the Sorcerer
+4 ability modifier from Charisma
+1 for 1/2 level
+1 for magic implement
Total +6....
Acid Orb +6 vs Ref...am i missing something? I see no where on these sheets anything that would indicate a +1 to attack feat
The tiefling is the same, the barbarian has a mystery +1 but that could be from that Goliath Greatweapon thing
+4 ability modifier from Charisma
The +4 is the ability check modifier. It includes the +1 from 1/2 level.
Bel
On the other hand, we still don't have a real equivalent for Weapon Focus or superior weapons for implement users yet. Maybe in the AV2 or *Power books for each source we'll see these added.
You know, this was the best example to date. +2 1d10 versatile military weapon is balanced against a +3 1d8 versatile military weapon; taking superior weapon proficiency upgrades a longsword to +3 1d10; that means that going from a battleaxe to a bastardsword does net you +1 to hit. Thus, as Ultimatecalibur says, Combat Reflexes is a weak feat.
I'm sold. I concede that I was wrong.
And Bolongo, getting an increase in a weapon die size is actually more powerful than +1 to hit in many circumstances until very high levels when at-wills are slightly better if you have more to hit. That level is reduced when you are a striker with extra dice of damage, but non-strikers benefit more from weapon die size than to hit.
At least that's what my tests showed.
For me at least, the issue isn't actually that the feat is unbalanced; it's that it's not good design. There are a couple of reasons I feel this way:
1) Learning to use a Fullblade might be mechanically better than this feat, but it's totally awesome too. Most people don't think to themselves "man, I totally want these other cooler sounding feats but I guess I'd better pick up Fullblade Proficiency instead."
2) On a related but not identical note, this feat doesn't promote character customization at all. This is ostensibly the major goal of feats. You are never going to see a breakdown of how the various weapon group expertise feats stack up against each other, nor are you going to see any threads in CharOp titled "Help me optimize my weapon expertise fighter".
3) The existence of this feat further penalizes characters that have both an implement and a weapon (off the top of my head it's mostly going to affect cha paladins and gish multiclassers, and depending on the wording of the feats potentially swordmages as well).
It is also pretty bad news for some PHB feats. Granted, combat reflexes just isn't a very good feat, but I don't think hellfire blood deserves to become obsolete.
I've changed my opinion on the balance of the feat. I only don't like it cause it's a little boring. Heck, I don't like the superior weapons cause they're boring (except for the net, bolas, and whip from Dragon).
At least most implement/weapon classes can get ahold of a magic weapon that functions as a holy symbol pretty early (there's the Crusader's Weapon in AV that functions as a weapon and a holy symbol, and it's low level). But other than that, you're right that Weapon/Implement classes have a hard time.
I've changed my opinion on the balance of the feat. I only don't like it cause it's a little boring. Heck, I don't like the superior weapons cause they're boring (except for the net, bolas, and whip from Dragon).
I'm swayed me as well. Not OP, just boring design.
The thing I don't get is that most people (or what seems to be most) are agreeing that these feats are somewhat needed in paragon and epic tiers, so we're all complaining that the feat is too early?
The complaint is that the feat is a no brainer, or that it is "necessary". There are many of us from the 3E Psionics days that subscribed to a concept known as "feats should be nice but not required". 3E Psionics had a lot of flaws, and the designers of the Wizards' site feature "Minds Eye" made a number of feats to fix the various balance problems of the psionic classes. They were great, they made the classes competent, but the feats were so good that no psions went without them; thus they might as well have taken away your first 3 feats and made the feats automatic abilities.
PCs need more AC, NADs, and Attack at high levels. Monsters scale +1/level instead of the way PCs scale to make up for their lack of feats. The designers obviously expected players to pick up the AC and NAD feats to keep even with monsters. I've complained about this before, because it's effectively reducing player options because those choices are "required".
The complaint is that the feat is a no brainer, or that it is "necessary". There are many of us from the 3E Psionics days that subscribed to a concept known as "feats should be nice but not required". 3E Psionics had a lot of flaws, and the designers of the Wizards' site feature "Minds Eye" made a number of feats to fix the various balance problems of the psionic classes. They were great, they made the classes competent, but the feats were so good that no psions went without them; thus they might as well have taken away your first 3 feats and made the feats automatic abilities.
Good example. That's precisely my complaint with the feat.
PCs need more AC, NADs, and Attack at high levels. Monsters scale +1/level instead of the way PCs scale to make up for their lack of feats. The designers obviously expected players to pick up the AC and NAD feats to keep even with monsters. I've complained about this before, because it's effectively reducing player options because those choices are "required".
You know, I've heard this a lot in this thread and elsewhere, but I have to ask (unrelated to the current feat of discussion for the most part), isn't the margin supposed to be made up by the increased potency of leader buffs (and increased potency of the party overall) as well as by the assortment of miscellaneous magic items?
You know, I've heard this a lot in this thread and elsewhere, but I have to ask (unrelated to the current feat of discussion for the most part), isn't the margin supposed to be made up by the increased potency of leader buffs (and increased potency of the party overall) as well as by the assortment of miscellaneous magic items?
I don't believe so (that sounds so much nicer than me just saying "No", doesn't it? LOL), at least not fully.
First, not every party has a Leader. It's smart, and it's probably best, but it shouldn't be a necessity (again, my opinion). Even if every party has a leader, not every leader selects every single power that grants an attack bonus; Tactical Warlords have a lot of attack bonus powers, but Inspiring Warlords have only a few (the most prevalent being their at-will).
As for magic items, there are several items that will shore up AC and NAD weaknesses, but I can't really recall too many that grant attack bonuses. With attack bonuses as low as they are, leaders aren't going to hit with their powers to start giving out attack bonuses.
Remember, the designers told us that you could throw out all magic items except for the default magic weapons, implements, armor, and amulet of protection, and you'd be fine. But magic items are needed to shore up these weaknesses (especially the +3 epic defense items, like boots that grant +3 item to Reflex), so the other options immediately become less enticing if those items are expected.
Making it a feat becomes a feat tax. It's treats the symptom, but not the disease.
so in PHBI there is a feat that gives you a +1 to hit...intresting...
I woulnd't say it this way.
If +3/1d8 is the basetype then you're first trading away accuracy for damage with chosing the the +2/1d10 option. After that you merely buy back your ordinary accuracy by paying with the WP-feat tp get +3/d10. It doesn't give an extra +1 to hit, it merely restores the +1 to hit you previously lost.
I woulnd't say it this way.
If +3/1d8 is the basetype
It isn't the base math was for +2 prof...+3 is extra +1 accurat
Ok, lets break down how 4e works...
lets assume that the book is balanced for a 16 attack stat and a +2 prof weapon Vs AC, or a 16 att stat alone Vs Nads...Anything else is Bonus...
Now I am going to take the DMG info on monster building...everything for standard monsters AC lie between Level+12 and L+14...and NADS Level +12...to make an elite is +2 to three...and solo is another +2 to three...
Level 1
+5 Vs AC 13-16...up to 20 for solo need 8-11 up to 15 solo
+3 Vs NADs 13...up to 17 for solo need 10 up to 14 solo
Level 11
+3 magic... +1-2 att stat (+3 to the stat) +5 level
+14-15 Vs AC 23-25 up to 29 solo need 8-11 up to 15 solo
+12 Vs NADs 23...up to 27 solos need 11 up to 16 solo
level 30
+30 Vs AC 42-44 up to 48 for solo need 12-14 up to 18 solo
+28 Vs NADs 42 up to 46 solos need 14 up to 18 solo
now assuming that between controlers and defenders giving penilties, and leaders giving bonuses, and getting combat advantage... it basicly come down to the same (Higher level has more powers that do better)
that has not changed...a 20 att stat is +2 better...a +3 prof weapon is +1 better...weapon Expertise is +1 better...
so you can gain 4 pts of bonus...plus targeting off defs...
the monster def is not going up...so it is not needed...it is a bonus... people who already always had +3 prof weapons, and 20 att stats are going to consider it a must have...everyone else it will just be another good choice...
The Mace is the baseline: +2/1d8. Not everyone has martial weapon proficiencies; that's supposed to be something nice. Monster attack bonus is 2 higher for attacks against AC, so +2 is the assumed proficiency bonus.
+2 is only the baseline for people without un-feated access to +3 weapons. If you are able to use a battleaxe and a longsword out of the box, there are two possibilities:
Hit is more important than a damage die size. You use a longsword without a feat, and take a feat for a bastard sword.
A damage die size is more important than +1 hit. You use a battleaxe without a feat, or take a feat and use a waraxe.
Basically, because a character with military weapon proficiencies has the option of an extra +1 hit or an extra damage die, but superior weapon proficiency only increases the ceiling for damage dice, the net benefit of a superior weapon feat is only a damage die. Assuming that you would receive the benefits of going from a broadsword to a bastard sword is wrong, because if you choose a bastard sword with your superior weapon feat you would NOT have been using a +2 military weapon.
This is of course ignoring all weapon group specific feats as reasons for taking a weapon.
If there's a "math problem" in monster defense vs. player offense, wouldn't the solution be to errata proficiency bonuses to one point higher and to add a proficiency bonus of +1 to implements?
Making it a feat becomes a feat tax. It's treats the symptom, but not the disease.
Feat taxes were one of the sore spots for me in 3E and 3.5. If the reason for expertise feats is to patch attack bonuses being too low (or defenses being too high, particularly if they're too high b/c level guidelines weren't followed), then the solution itself is a problem.
Expertise (Implement or Weapon)
Prereq: 15 ability score, Additional feat (not sure what), Paragon
+1 to hit untyped bonus (so the other feats aren't useless) this bonus improves to +2 at 21st level
The bonus only applies against enemies of an equal or higher level than the character.
I think you are all jumping the gun a bit on calling a heroic feat that grants +1 attack bonus power creep. Do people call foul at the fighters one-handed and two-handed weapon talents? As long as the bonus granted does not increase and only grants a +1 feat bonus when using a specific weapon group or implement over all 30 levels of the game it should be fine.
I agree. And I don't think its so bad for a Tiefling. It could mean you don't HAVE to have a Flaming weapon just to take advantage of the bonus of Hellfire Blood. It opens up your magic weapon options considerably.
I am truly amazed at how many people aren't looking at the enchantment bonus of the characters' weapons.
Um. No we are.
+3 (cha 16)+1 (Dagger)+1(level) = +5
Yet sorcerer has a +6
I agree. And I don't think its so bad for a Tiefling. It could mean you don't HAVE to have a Flaming weapon just to take advantage of the bonus of Hellfire Blood. It opens up your magic weapon options considerably.
Yet sadly it makes Infernalocks a sub-optimal choice for Tieflings, which is just wrong.
(Hellfire blood doesn't stack with Either implement finesse or astral fire).
(Hellfire blood doesn't stack with Either implement finesse or astral fire).
how do you know what will and wont stack with a feat not avalible for review yet??
A +1 to hit represents (approximately) a 5% bonus. That means that unless you are fighting a whole lot of enemies that have EXACTLY one point higher ACs than what you ALWAYS roll, this +1 will only help you on one out of every 20 swings.
Compare that to a feat that, although doesn't give you a bonus to hit, may give your PC something that they use more than once every 20 rolls of the die. IF so, then this other feat is better for you than a measley +1 to hit.
If my competitor took this +1 to hit on every swing, and he and I were trying to see which of our PCs was more successful. This +1 would only give him a 5% advantage on to hit rolls only. If I took my feat and spent it on something that I could use in combat AND non combat encounters, then I've gotten far more use out of my feat than he got from his.
SInce everyone seems to like Toughness, let's look at that feat. Toughness gives +5 hp. That means that a PC that takes Toughness can absorb one more weapon hit per fight (on average) than someone without it. If a fight lasts 20 weapon swings from each player (playing otherwise identical PCs), then the person who took TOughness and the person who took Weapon/Implement Expertise break even... If the fight lasts less than 20 weapon swings, then the toughness PC comes out ahead (5% = 1 in 20).... If the fight lasts more than 20 swings, but less than 40, the toughness PC still comes out ahead... The only time the toughness PC falls behind, is if the fight lasts over 40 weapon swings, cause then the PC that takes I/WE will do more damage than the toughness PC has extra hp.
Now, considering that toughness also increases your bloodied hp, and the amount you get from healing surges (since your max hp that's used to figure out those values goes up by 5), toughness is FAR better than a measley +1 to hit will ever be.... Oh, and lookee here... that +5 hp becomes +10 at Epic and +15 at Paragon, whereas that +1 to hit remains just a +1 to hit.
Debate over. A +1 to hit doesn't break anything, and is only important to those who build PCs who are one trick ponies (fights only).
three letters DPR... (damage per round)...
people have been useing an avrage of roll/avrage of damage to compair characters...the problme being avrages lie...(Ok not really but they don't tell the whole story)
Over the cource of an avrage fight howmany attack rolls do you make...probly between 10-30...with most falling into the 16 17 range...you have 10 'encounters' to level...so lets say 200 swings per level...on avrage ( you know not the whole story guy)...do your dice always in 200 rolls of a d20 come up 1 10 times, and 20 10 time, and 16 10 times...no not in the least...
If me and my friend ross both play characters with DPR damages of 7.9 for ross and 6.4 for me, does that mean I am doing less damage...or is less then 1 on DpR avrages so little that it comes down to the rolls??
Now I understand we can't compair luck, so we go with DPR...but you see bonus to hit is a BIG part of DPR...and so these things look BIG on paper...not so much in a real game...
Lots of people are freaking out over nothing.
A +1 to hit represents (approximately) a 5% bonus. That means that unless you are fighting a whole lot of enemies that have EXACTLY one point higher ACs than what you ALWAYS roll, this +1 will only help you on one out of every 20 swings.
10% normally. And it will come up apromixically as often as crits, what you are saying is that taking away crits has no impact on the game.
Compare that to a feat that, although doesn't give you a bonus to hit, may give your PC something that they use more than once every 20 rolls of the die. IF so, then this other feat is better for you than a measley +1 to hit.
If my competitor took this +1 to hit on every swing, and he and I were trying to see which of our PCs was more successful. This +1 would only give him a 5% advantage on to hit rolls only. If I took my feat and spent it on something that I could use in combat AND non combat encounters, then I've gotten far more use out of my feat than he got from his.
Yes but if your competitor had nimble blade and this feat, and you had neither he has +2 Or 20% hitting better than you. Not to mention a +1 to hit makes a large impact difference with dailies/encounter powers, as those smacking 10% more often is MUCH better for almost all characters.
SInce everyone seems to like Toughness, let's look at that feat. Toughness gives +5 hp. That means that a PC that takes Toughness can absorb one more weapon hit per fight (on average) than someone without it. If a fight lasts 20 weapon swings from each player (playing otherwise identical PCs), then the person who took TOughness and the person who took Weapon/Implement Expertise break even... If the fight lasts less than 20 weapon swings, then the toughness PC comes out ahead (5% = 1 in 20).... If the fight lasts more than 20 swings, but less than 40, the toughness PC still comes out ahead... The only time the toughness PC falls behind, is if the fight lasts over 40 weapon swings, cause then the PC that takes I/WE will do more damage than the toughness PC has extra hp.
Um. No.
First level Goblin Blackblade: 9 damage (with CA).
First level 10 con wizard: 20HP downed in 3 hits without Toughness
Downed in 3 hits with toughness. (bad damage rolls will make it 4. Still has 2 points from the average Goblin Blackblade's damage).
Second level:
Elf Archer: 9.5
Second level wizard: 24 lasts: 2 hits.
29 with toughness: 2 hits, sometiems 3.
Toughness doesn't have the impact you would think. As other classes have more HP, so the differences from before toughness and after is even more minute.
Now, considering that toughness also increases your bloodied hp, and the amount you get from healing surges (since your max hp that's used to figure out those values goes up by 5), toughness is FAR better than a measley +1 to hit will ever be.... Oh, and lookee here... that +5 hp becomes +10 at Epic and +15 at Paragon, whereas that +1 to hit remains just a +1 to hit.
Debate over. A +1 to hit doesn't break anything, and is only important to those who build PCs who are one trick ponies (fights only).[/color]
Debate not over for this reason.
Debate over due more to Xevarit's math proving that the DPR increase from +1 to hit is more akin to a weapon focus feat than anything particular. Also due to the fact we don't know its requirements (if any) or limitations (if any).
Not because you seem to think that Toughness is more viable then Weapon Expertise.
I think I hit on the problme (pun intended)
three letters DPR... (damage per round)...
people have been useing an avrage of roll/avrage of damage to compair characters...the problme being avrages lie...(Ok not really but they don't tell the whole story)
No they don't, but as the game should be balanced for the majority of people, averages work. I do agree stating silly things like 3d4 = 1d12 brutal 2 as the minimum maximum and averages are the same is wrong.
Over the cource of an avrage fight howmany attack rolls do you make...probly between 10-30...with most falling into the 16 17 range...you have 10 'encounters' to level...so lets say 200 swings per level...on avrage ( you know not the whole story guy)...do your dice always in 200 rolls of a d20 come up 1 10 times, and 20 10 time, and 16 10 times...no not in the least...
Hmmm it depends really, its usually 10 hits per monster, 4 monsters so 40 hits, spread between 5 players so yeah 16 is about right, with wizards and other AOE classes hitting around 20-30.
If me and my friend ross both play characters with DPR damages of 7.9 for ross and 6.4 for me, does that mean I am doing less damage...or is less then 1 on DpR avrages so little that it comes down to the rolls??
1.5. And I don't know to be honest, probably you would see some differences, but if Ross's damage mostly comes from crits and yours is consistent it would be best to call Ross the Ron Howard of your team (Go Big or Go Home) while you are more like Gonzo, where you consitently achieve for the team. But if you play indentical characters, you would see Ross doing better than you do.
Now I understand we can't compair luck, so we go with DPR...but you see bonus to hit is a BIG part of DPR...and so these things look BIG on paper...not so much in a real game...
Thats part of why I am waiting on my final verdict about it. Right now it seems slightly powerful, but as I went through and saw the number of feats that give unnamed bonuses to attack (most with OA's) I became less concerned about it.
[color=#650000]Lots of people are freaking out over nothing.
What I'm unhappy with is not that this feat is broken and will have PC's steamrolling through every encounter. No, +1 to hit will not do that.
I'm unhappy about the fact that this feat cuts in front of the line compared to a number of feats that give a conditional attack bonus, such as Combat Reflexes and Nimble Blade. Strictly speaking, this feat is better than any other feat with a conditional bonus because it has no (consequential) condition. Perhaps those feats are not obsolete because they might stack, but any character with one of around 9 such feats, is likely to retrain and get Weapon Expertise. That's sign of a bad design.
Yet sadly it makes Infernalocks a sub-optimal choice for Tieflings, which is just wrong.
(Hellfire blood doesn't stack with Either implement finesse or astral fire).
At heroic tier perhaps. If you make Astral Fire your tenth level heroic tier feat or if you retrain for it during paragon tier then its not so bad.
At heroic tier perhaps. If you make Astral Fire your tenth level heroic tier feat or if you retrain for it during paragon tier then its not so bad.
I think you don't understand what I am saying.
Up till now, Hellfire blood could be used by Tieflings to get a +1 to hit balancing out starting with a 16 con.
However, now they don't get that compared a half elf/Dwarf/Human/Warforged/et cetra with IE: Rod/Wand
Against humans they fall behind as humans can also pick Astral Fire or others to get +1 damage with fire, at first level, AND have 18 Con AND have +1 to hit.
I think you don't understand what I am saying.
Up till now, Hellfire blood could be used by Tieflings to get a +1 to hit balancing out starting with a 16 con.
they still can...
However, now they don't get that compared a half elf/Dwarf/Human/Warforged/et cetra with IE: Rod/Wand
so what?
if in youur game you are a 1st level warlock with hellfrie blood, and a 16 con, and in my game I have a 1/2 elf with a 20 con and implmetn expertise...how does that effect you???
the game is based on a 16 stat...ANYTHING over that is a bonus...sorry that you don't understand that...but what has changed...
Against humans they fall behind as humans can also pick Astral Fire or others to get +1 damage with fire, at first level, AND have 18 Con AND have +1 to hit.
Ok but they are not teflings...maybe if you chose your stuff on concept instead of math you would have more choices...
they still can...
so what?
if in youur game you are a 1st level warlock with hellfrie blood, and a 16 con, and in my game I have a 1/2 elf with a 20 con and implmetn expertise...how does that effect you???
the game is based on a 16 stat...ANYTHING over that is a bonus...sorry that you don't understand that...but what has changed...
Ok but they are not teflings...maybe if you chose your stuff on concept instead of math you would have more choices...
Kay
18 con > 16 Con by +1
Hellfireblood grants a FEAT +1 hit +1 Damage with fire powers.
Up until now Tiefling warlocks remained competitive 16 Con and HB
Now they will ALWAYS be behind the 18 Con.
Of course, Hellfire blood is now essentially a worthless feat.
Kay
18 con > 16 Con by +1
Hellfireblood grants a FEAT +1 hit +1 Damage with fire powers.
Up until now Tiefling warlocks remained competitive 16 Con and HB
Now they will ALWAYS be behind the 18 Con.
Of course, Hellfire blood is now essentially a worthless feat.
still not getting this...
16 con = 3+1/2level
18 con = 4+1/2level
20 con = 5+1/2level
16 is the expected number...that is why the defualt array is a 16 as it's hgih stat...
having a 16 was good enough on day 1...it still is.
having an 18 is better then a 16...was on day 1 still is.
having a feat give a +1 to hit is a BONUS (aka not needed)
how often do you have two warlock in the same game compeating with eachother???
the reason I ask is becuse the monsters are not any diffrent tody then they were 8 weeks ago...
Before IE: Tieflings could make up not starting with ideal stats with a feat.
After IE: The feat for Tieflings is rendered useless, 1/2 of the feat is covered by another feat the 1/2 of the feat dates itself by level 11.
GM, I don't know how you are misinterupting what I am saying.
Before IE: Tieflings could make up not starting with ideal stats with a feat.
After IE: The feat for Tieflings is rendered useless, 1/2 of the feat is covered by another feat the 1/2 of the feat dates itself by level 11.
ok so what are you mesureing this teifling against...becuse the monsters have not changed...
DWT: Superior Weapon Prof+Paragon WF
ES: Superior Prof+Paragon WF
HB: W/I E+Heroric WF.
There is nothing that makes Hellfire blood special anymore. It went from a good feat that allowed a particular class to be good despite not having bonuses in the right stats (Hellocks) to not even being behind everyone by level 11.
ok so what are you mesureing this teifling against...becuse the monsters have not changed...
Feat: You gain a +1 hit and damage feat bonus
Feat: You gain a +1 hit feat bonus
Feat: You gain a +1 damage per tier bonus.
The first feat is eclipsed by the other two.
This feat as is, makes Hellfire blood useless as a feat except for the first ten levels of a person's career.
GM LISTEN.
Feat: You gain a +1 hit and damage feat bonus
Feat: You gain a +1 hit feat bonus
Feat: You gain a +1 damage per tier bonus.
The first feat is eclipsed by the other two.
This feat as is, makes Hellfire blood useless as a feat except for the first ten levels of a person's career.
so swap it for a paragon feat at 11...I still don't get it...1 feat gives +1 to hit...one gives +1 to damage per teir...one gives +1 to BOTH for circumstances...
sounds balanced to me same bonus as 2 feats, but with a limit...fire only...
and since you seam to have missed my quastion
ok so what are you mesureing this teifling against...becuse the monsters have not changed...
GMforPowergamers (aptly named) doesn't care whether one race is balanced against another. What matters to him/her is whether PCs will do better or worse against monsters than they did before. In other words, power creep is a meaningless issue for him/her.
Aluman does compare races to one another. His/her opinion is that you should be able to use just about any race/class combination and not feel like you've made a poor choice. He/she believes that the game is weakened if people who want to make optimal characters will have limited options.
Get it?
GMforPowergamers (aptly named) doesn't care whether one race is balanced against another. What matters to him/her is whether PCs will do better or worse against monsters than they did before. In other words, power creep is a meaningless issue for him/her.
wrong first I hate power creep...I just don't see this as any Meaningful amount of power creep
what I don't understand is how adding anything invaladates things that already work...lets take a Warlock/Wizard tefling who has both a wand and a rod, heck maybe a cool staff too...if most of his powers are fire based (not hard) isn't Helfire blood the better feat?
and since we know NOTHING of how the feat works remember we are all guessing...
so swap it for a paragon feat at 11...I still don't get it...1 feat gives +1 to hit...one gives +1 to damage per teir...one gives +1 to BOTH for circumstances...
sounds balanced to me same bonus as 2 feats, but with a limit...fire only...
and since you seam to have missed my quastion
Ok lets look at other Racial feats from PHB that are equilivent of 2 feats (I have already done this in this thread but for your sake)
ES: Superior Weapon (Only 1 as you will unlikely use more than one superior weapon at a time) and Paragon level WF
DWT: Superior Weapon (Same as a above) and Paragon level WF.
Now Hellfire blood: I/W Expertise and Heroic Level WF.
So suddenly because of a new feat, the Tiefling feat is devalued.
So suddenly because of a new feat, the Tiefling feat is devalued.
what if it stacks...then it wouldn't devalue it...
14 out of the original 31 constitution based powers are fire or fear. 5 of the original 29 charisma based powers are the same. Of those, 9 of 22 are infernal, 9 of 18 are star, and 1 of 19 is actually fey. Minions of malbolge was counted only in the pacts since it has no attack roll, while eldritch blast was counted twice, only in the attack stats since it has no pact.
I am not sure Implement/Weapon Expertise as a +1 Feat bonus to attacks will be much of a hurtful power creep overall. I think it is sensible as long as it doesn't scale with tiers of play. If it does scale then its importance will be greater inflated.
what if it stacks...then it wouldn't devalue it...
If it stacks, then we have an even bigger problem. Say, a warlock with a pact blade double sword with Weapon Expertise (Heavy Blade), Weapon Expertise (Light Blade), and Implement Expertise (Pact Blade). It has to be a named bonus or else that kind of shenanigan will work.
If it stacks, then we have an even bigger problem. Say, a warlock with a pact blade double sword with Weapon Expertise (Heavy Blade), Weapon Expertise (Light Blade), and Implement Expertise (Pact Blade). It has to be a named bonus or else that kind of shenanigan will work.
if...and I am saying if becuse we have no info...that is possible I will lead the 'broken' charge...
1. if it increases by tier is abusrdly broken.
2. if its a feat bonus to makes hellfire blood useless by level 11.
3. if its not a feat bonus urgosh/doublesword/kopesh become much more powerful.
After looking at the sheets for the characters, I have to wonder: has anyone considered the possibility that the Expertise feats may give +1 attack only to people who start with a 16/17 or less in their main attack stat?
See the Warden 18 str WE Heavy blades.
Prereq : You have less than an 18 in your attack stat.
The feat quickly has to be traded out.
See the Warden 18 str WE Heavy blades.
Ah, I only saw the 3 sheets linked in the OP, all of which had 16s for their attack stat. Frankly, that's how I would have balanced it, but apparently WotC chose otherwise...
Ah, I only saw the 3 sheets linked in the OP, all of which had 16s for their attack stat. Frankly, that's how I would have balanced it, but apparently WotC chose otherwise...
What would you have done when they hit level 21 and have 18 or above in their attack stat?
Edit> And its more likely to hit at level 8.
What would you have done when they hit level 21 and have 18 or above in their attack stat?
Edit> And its more likely to hit at level 8.
Starting attack stat. If it was <18 at level 1, you can use the feat. Or maybe just say you can only take it if you have lower than an 18, but raising the stat above that doesn't invalidate the feat.
Starting attack stat. If it was <18 at level 1, you can use the feat. Or maybe just say you can only take it if you have lower than an 18, but raising the stat above that doesn't invalidate the feat.
The easiest way to do that is to require 3 16+ ability scores. That way the feat is either put off for a few levels (which is fine, because it makes more sense as a paragon feat) or only available to builds that spread their stats around.
Any of those requirements are a little too gamey for my tastes. But that doesn't matter, since the character sheets we've seen don't even hint at stat requirements.
The easiest way to do that is to require 3 16+ ability scores. That way the feat is either put off for a few levels (which is fine, because it makes more sense as a paragon feat) or only available to builds that spread their stats around.
Any of those requirements are a little too gamey for my tastes. But that doesn't matter, since the character sheets we've seen don't even hint at stat requirements.
/shrug
Dunno about you, but I have no problem house-ruling it. I'll probably make Weapon Expertise only apply to attacks whose attack stats started below 18 as mentioned above (so an 18str 10dex con-fighter could take it, but it would only boost his ranged basic atk and any later attacks he picked up that used something that started under 18), and make Implement Expertise have no such limitation but not apply to attacks vs will. And maybe make them both paragon tier feats.
emwasick made the best call so far, since starting with three 16s also may represent having "the right mix of ability" to reach a new level of prowess with your weapon.
Problem is, this is not going to be the case.
I'd say the only prerequisite of this kind that there might be would be "not starting with 20 in your primary stat". But it would really not make sense once you advance and reach the 20 and have this feat. Logically speaking.
Another thing I had hinted at that nobody discussed, is that the feat could work "always except when...", for example deactivating when you're dazed, slowed, immobilized and so on.
Another thing I had hinted at that nobody discussed, is that the feat could work "always except when...", for example deactivating when you're dazed, slowed, immobilized and so on.
You'd think such limits would be put on the pregen character sheets, though. Granted, most of the feats are simple enough they just merge into the stats, but the sorcerer's 'Blade Channeling' feat does have some amount of explanation tacked on.
If it stacks, then we have an even bigger problem. Say, a warlock with a pact blade double sword with Weapon Expertise (Heavy Blade), Weapon Expertise (Light Blade), and Implement Expertise (Pact Blade). It has to be a named bonus or else that kind of shenanigan will work.
That's easily resolved by having a feat called "Weapon Expertise (Double Weapon)", or specifying that only ONE feat can be taken with something like "Weapon Exertise - When taking this feat you select a weapon group to apply this to, the feat cannot be taken more than once".
Regardless of how it's done though, you're jumping the gun a bit because no one has seen the actual write-up of the feat yet. So there's no way to tell what limitations are in place to prevent such cheese. Even without double weapons such shenanigans would still apply to things like the Halberd or the Great Spear, so I'm sure that something is in place preventing you from taking the ability multiple times for multiple weapon groups.
That's easily resolved by having a feat called "Weapon Expertise (Double Weapon)", or specifying that only ONE feat can be taken with something like "Weapon Exertise - When taking this feat you select a weapon group to apply this to, the feat cannot be taken more than once".
Yeah lets really screw over those darn paladins and clerics thinking its ok to have both a implement AND a weapon.
Regardless of how it's done though, you're jumping the gun a bit because no one has seen the actual write-up of the feat yet. So there's no way to tell what limitations are in place to prevent such cheese. Even without double weapons such shenanigans would still apply to things like the Halberd or the Great Spear, so I'm sure that something is in place preventing you from taking the ability multiple times for multiple weapon groups.
Its more than likely +1 feat bonus.
Yeah lets really screw over those darn paladins and clerics thinking its ok to have both a implement AND a weapon.
Ummm...those are two different types of items, I was just talking about weapons. When it comes to the issue of weapons that ARE implements though, that's a different story. It may specify that only one or the other will apply. Meaning that you could have Implement Expertise and Weapon Expertise, but if you were using a Pact Blade only one of them would apply.
Its more than likely +1 feat bonus.
It's more than likely something that you nor I have read. Your head is less than likely to be a tomato, but I haven't seen so I can't say for sure. When you haven't seen something, all you're doing is guessing...which means that essentially this thread is just 10 pages of guessing. Good job internets!!! ;)
Yeah lets really screw over those darn paladins and clerics thinking its ok to have both a implement AND a weapon.
how is saying you only get a BONUS to one not both screwing...
oh let me guess becuse you feel they should get double the benfit...even though they are more versitle...
how is saying you only get a BONUS to one not both screwing...
oh let me guess becuse you feel they should get double the benfit...even though they are more versitle...
No read what he suggested. He wants to make it where you can only have ONE feat of the Expertise nature. Which would screw over the clerics and paladins and anything else that has Weapon and Implement.
(bolded for emphasis)
That's easily resolved by having a feat called "Weapon Expertise (Double Weapon)", or specifying that only ONE feat can be taken with something like "Weapon Exertise - When taking this feat you select a weapon group to apply this to, the feat cannot be taken more than once".
No read what he suggested. He wants to make it where you can only have ONE feat of the Expertise nature. Which would screw over the clerics and paladins and anything else that has Weapon and Implement.
(bolded for emphasis)
so what...you would have to choose 1 to get the bonus...the other doesn't get worse...it is the same it is today or last week or when every you made the character...
so what...you would have to choose 1 to get the bonus...the other doesn't get worse...it is the same it is today or last week or when every you made the character...
Compare it other characters.
Fighters: specialize in one weapon group all their powers benefit
Wizards: specialize in one implement all their powers benefit
Rogues: specialize in one weapon group all their powers benefit
Warlord: specialize in one weapon group all their powers benefit
warlocks: specialize in one implement all their powers benefit.
If a feat lowers the effectiveness of one class or one power source you will see less and less of that class/power source, and before long we get the 'why do clerics suck' threads.
I don't have issue with what we know about the feat, I have concerns. The guy who wants to make it where you can have only one feat, is taking a feat that already favors specialization over weapon/implement and making worse for those classes.
Fighters: specialize in one weapon group all their powers benefit
inless he has two weapons...
Wizards: specialize in one implement all their powers benefit
what if they weild all three implments..heck at paragon they can even have matery in 2...
If a feat lowers the effectiveness of one class or one power source you will see less and less of that class/power source, and before long we get the 'why do clerics suck' threads.
you do realize that cleric can be just one or the other...I just started a new LFR character that is a Elf Cleric with a 8 str...I don't think it will weaken that character to specilize in holy symbols...
you can't argue someone chooseing versatility over focus isn't as focused...there is well rounded and pointed...you get benfits from both...I hate when people want to be as good at multi things as someone who specilizeing in only 1
inless he has two weapons...
what if they weild all three implments..heck at paragon they can even have matery in 2...
you do realize that cleric can be just one or the other...I just started a new LFR character that is a Elf Cleric with a 8 str...I don't think it will weaken that character to specilize in holy symbols...
you can't argue someone chooseing versatility over focus isn't as focused...there is well rounded and pointed...you get benfits from both...I hate when people want to be as good at multi things as someone who specilizeing in only 1
Your hypotheticals are far more unlikely than the chances a Paladin (or possibly Avenger) will want to use both power types. Verstile attackers already deal with lower attack mods and having nearly no points left to give to secondary stats and off-defenses, they don't need feats to make the gap worse.
If that were the case, then I would think these would be well balanced. You'd basically be giving up versatility through multiclassing for becoming more specialized. That would make this a great choice for say, a Fighter who never had any intention of picking up a second class. It would make him even more "Fighter-y". :D
You know, I was just thinking... Since I didn't see anything about people seeing the actual feat, just the +1 and the name, is it possible that these work like some of the other Weapon Mastery feats that have come out in DDI? Namely, that they're actually multi-class feats and take up your multi-class feat slot?
If that were the case, then I would think these would be well balanced. You'd basically be giving up versatility through multiclassing for becoming more specialized. That would make this a great choice for say, a Fighter who never had any intention of picking up a second class. It would make him even more "Fighter-y". :D
My god... You're a genious... I just hope that then every feat would include power-swap options though, or it becomes a little wasted... And more than anything I hope you're right.
Well I don't see why you would need Power Swap options though... That's the whole point of what I'm saying. You're giving up on any ability to multiclass or power swap, and in return you're getting a +1 to-hit (and hopefully more) with your chosen weapon. I think that's a relatively fair trade there.
Edit: I assume that by "power swap" you're meaning the Novice, Acolyte and Adept feats from the PHB that allow you to take Encounter, Utility and Daily powers from your second class...right? In which case, if you used a multiclass feat to gain Expertise in something you wouldn't have a second class to swap powers from. As I said, you're trading versatility for specialization. Currently, the only upside to not multiclassing is a few extra feat slots...this solution (if it's what they're actually intending) would give you something to spend those feats on.
Well I don't see why you would need Power Swap options though... That's the whole point of what I'm saying. You're giving up on any ability to multiclass or power swap, and in return you're getting a +1 to-hit (and hopefully more) with your chosen weapon. I think that's a relatively fair trade there.
Edit: I assume that by "power swap" you're meaning the Novice, Acolyte and Adept feats from the PHB that allow you to take Encounter, Utility and Daily powers from your second class...right? In which case, if you used a multiclass feat to gain Expertise in something you wouldn't have a second class to swap powers from. As I said, you're trading versatility for specialization. Currently, the only upside to not multiclassing is a few extra feat slots...this solution (if it's what they're actually intending) would give you something to spend those feats on.
No, I referred to Weapon Mastery (in this case Expertise) powers, like those we have seen for whip, net, bolas, and now spiked chain... So I was thinking, a character that takes Weapon Expertise (Flails) may have a chance to swap a power of his class for a flail specific attack and so on.
I see it unlikely though, because Implement Expertise would be a little difficult to characterize this way (what kind of rod-specific powers would you make after all, for example?).
And if it's not like this, many many characters will find the Expertise feat a bit of a waste: prevents multiclassing without giving what even the Weapon mastery feats give, that is alternative powers to exploit the weapon/implement you specialize in...
A simple way to do it (heck it would even work well as a house rule if it doesn't turn out to be like this) would be making 3 standard powers for any Weapon Expertise and 3 standard powers for Implement Expertise. They would act as "You do a basic attack with your weapon/implement but you also deal additional 2W damage (or 2d8 if it's an implement) and daze the target". Just an example.
EDIT: For now the hypothesis of Expertise feat being multiclass can't be discarted, since the only character seen with it and other multiclass feats is a bard (a friend showed it to me, 11th level) who has Multiclass Versatility.
I see it unlikely though, because Implement Expertise would be a little difficult to characterize this way (what kind of rod-specific powers would you make after all, for example?).
Swap a daily power- gain an additianal use of an item daily?
I've never sat there and bemoaned to my fellow gamers how I thought my fighter sucked because my buddy's fighter hit 5% more often or that it somehow made the game less enjoyable. If this is truly how people obsess over the game's mechanics and worry about insignificant things like this, I think perhaps they've lost sight of the real aim of the game.
Now we see how easy it is to screw up the "all important balance". To me it's amazing that so many people would get worked up over a +1 to attack...is this really how people play D&D and make characters now a days? I can't really see how gaining a measly +1 to hit is a big deal? I guess I've had the pleasure of playing with the right groups or perhaps good luck, but nobody I've ever gamed with from 1e A&D on up has every worried or complained about their character being unbalanced, etc. We made a cool character concept, played the game, and had fun.
I've never sat there and bemoaned to my fellow gamers how I thought my fighter sucked because my buddy's fighter hit 5% more often or that it somehow made the game less enjoyable. If this is truly how people obsess over the game's mechanics and worry about insignificant things like this, I think perhaps they've lost sight of the real aim of the game.
You misunderstand some of the reasons people are opposed to the feat. My personal gripe is that because the feat (if it is what I suspect it is) is so useful for every character, it'll be taken universally. It's not an issue of balance, it's an issue of wanting my players to make unique characters, rather than feel pressured to focus specifically on across-the-board performance. I want them to go for the cool concept, play the game, and have fun, without feeling like their characters are making very suboptimal choices.
Swap a daily power- gain an additianal use of an item daily?
Great idea, even for weapons I guess, but more flavorful for implements. But do you see it possible that these Expertise feats are really multiclass chains?
My Wis20 elf cleric would not take this feat (what's the point? My attack bonus is already high), but my Str16 Eladrin Fighter will most likely consider it. But which feat on my build will I get rid of to accomodate this? If I can't answer that adequately, I won't get it.
The one good thing I see about this feat, is that builds with a 16 primary becomes a decent option now.
Until Arcane Power comes out, I expect a lot of wizards to get this option. They are seriously lacking in feats.
You know, I was just thinking... Since I didn't see anything about people seeing the actual feat, just the +1 and the name, is it possible that these work like some of the other Weapon Mastery feats that have come out in DDI? Namely, that they're actually multi-class feats and take up your multi-class feat slot?
If that were the case, then I would think these would be well balanced. You'd basically be giving up versatility through multiclassing for becoming more specialized. That would make this a great choice for say, a Fighter who never had any intention of picking up a second class. It would make him even more "Fighter-y". :D
This would be a totally awesome solution.
I doubt they did it like this though.
Edit> Not to mention really screwing over Weapon+Implement classes (Paladins/Clerics).
The way 4E scales, there is no such thing as "too much attack bonus" that is possible right now.
This smells too much like a "must have" feat to me. I hope there are some tough limitations on it.
Improve the Prof. bonus of your weapon by +1 (to a max of +3).
I know some of the guys using +3 weapons would be upset and this would be difficult to explain why someone using a greatsword couldn't benefit from it but I think it would make it a little more balanced and relieve some of the worries of those insane min/maxed atk bonuses. Mind you most of the people who would want to take this are probably already using a +2 weapon so really it is a moot point. It would just let you use some of the more flavorful +2 weapons without sacrifiing the atk bonus.
This is a much better feat than weapon focus. Everyone knows you do 0 damage if you don't hit (typically), so weapon focus doesn't even help in those situations.
Our party is at level 16 and we are already way too powerful for the adventures as written.
Our party is at level 16 and we are already way too powerful for the adventures as written.
really? I have not seen that yet, although I will admit one of the two times I made it that high was a 1 level per session kick the tires game...so we didn't have a lot to know about our characters...
what do you find? Do you hit too regulary?? Do monsters not hit you??? Have you gone multi encounters with out being bloodied???? Have you one shoted ( 1 round) any non minnon monsters?????
Our party is at level 16 and we are already way too powerful for the adventures as written.
The group I DM for is only lvl 12 now, but I've seen this the whole way through the published adventure series.
But I think it's down to two factors:
1) They burn through a lot of resources. A typical adventuring day is 3 encounters.
2) Some encounters in these adventures are poorly set up. It's like the designers are learning this stuff as they go along. And so am I - I haven't yet gained the skill to tell at a glance whether an encounter is strong or weak...