Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 mudbunny Aug 16, 2010 13:09:43	wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg... Enjoy!!
#2 mellored Aug 16, 2010 14:05:26	Ohh, nice.  Odd that it has the Wis/Cha prereq though, Buffing your strong attribute instead of your weak one.
#3 GhostStepper Aug 16, 2010 15:11:10	A feat that helps people with a low Will defense, but requires that your Will abilities scores aren't low. Really?
#4 Janx_14 Aug 16, 2010 15:52:18	So, the intent of this feat is to make those good in a particular stat even more defended? And it stacks with epic will which will probably have to be errata'd to be useless.
#5 Matthew_AC Aug 16, 2010 18:09:44	I like it a lot. It seems to really fall into under that umbrella of story driven mechanics. By that I mean it helps create that heroic archetype of the guy who just can't be rattled. He's too focused or too tough to be messed with in the head . . .
#6 malisteen Aug 16, 2010 18:58:11	poor design, imo.  Takes one of your already good saves and makes it better, while forcing the nerf of a feat that used to be good for propping up a bad save.  Sad.
#7 Gazra Aug 16, 2010 20:05:46	We can't say it's bad design without knowing what other feats exist. There might be a vanilla version with no prerequisites which doesn't have the save benefit. Then it would be like how you can take weapon focus to get more weapon damage, or you can take something like Githzerai Blade Master or Gnome Weapon Training.
#8 Thomson Aug 17, 2010 2:40:38	poor design, imo.  Takes one of your already good saves and makes it better, while forcing the nerf of a feat that used to be good for propping up a bad save.  Sad. this. They took a ton of effort to fix the current rules, and now they release tons of new crap that has to be fixed later. Sad. Very sad.
#9 frothsof Aug 17, 2010 8:02:08	We can't say it's bad design without knowing what other feats exist. There might be a vanilla version with no prerequisites which doesn't have the save benefit. Then it would be like how you can take weapon focus to get more weapon damage, or you can take something like Githzerai Blade Master or Gnome Weapon Training. what is this 'we'? its YOU. ONLY you. Terribly overpowered feat that makes no sense, it does TWICE what a current LEVEL 8 magic item does, and it is free. Neither I or anybody else needs to see ANY OTHER FEAT to know this heres a question, what other feats would need to exist for you to ever not like one single thing about essentials?
#10 Thomson Aug 17, 2010 8:34:44	[ Neither I or anybody else needs to see ANY OTHER FEAT to know this Well adding 1 (A defender who has two key stats that boost the same defense) and 1 (A feat that buffs a good defense and makes it totally uber) together we get 2: The people responsible for essentials don't seem to have the slightest idea what the main problem of this game is: *You need three defenses but get only 3 stats buffed regularily* and *Will is the most important defense* This feat basically makes every class that hasn't Wis or Cha as key stat obsolete. Funny that both Fighter builds in *essentials* don't have neither Wis nor Cha as key stats. If they want to give us 4.essentials they at least should have made sure that the new stuff works together. But from this feat and the little what we know from the new builds we already know that they did not do their job *again* I fully understand if you make mistakes. But repeating the same mistake (rushing releases, skipping playtesting, letting people do game design that are lacking in math skills...) again and again and again becomes boring.
#11 mellored Aug 17, 2010 9:17:44	Neither I or anybody else needs to see ANY OTHER FEAT to know this Actually we really do need to know what other feats there are.  Since it seems to me that their just trying to make the "math tax" feats more interesting by giving them riders.  So i expect they'll be choices to make as to how you get your +feat bonus to NAD.  Like a +2/3/4 feat without prereqs and without a bonus.  Or perhaps a +1/2/3 bonus to all NADS. *You need three defenses but get only 2 stats buffed regularily* (fixed)Again, we havn't seen all the feats yet, and you still "need" +3-4 to the stats you bump.  I sort of expect feats that let you use another stat for another defense, like use Con for Ref, and such. 15(half level) + 6 (enhancement) + 4 (stat bump) + 4 (feat). = 29 *Will is the most important defense* IMO, AC is the most importaint.  It get's attacked 50% of the time.  The NAD's get attacked 15-20% of the time. This feat basically makes every class that hasn't Wis or Cha as key stat obsolete. I expect one for Ref and one for Fort.  And yes, that makes some previous "math tax" feats obsolete.  They said as much. Funny that both Fighter builds in *essentials* don't have neither Wis nor Cha as key stats. It also has the warpriest and thief (mage?) who are.  So i'm not sure what this has to do with anything.  I also don't know why you assuming there only the Will feat.
#12 Janx_14 Aug 17, 2010 10:49:50	If these are math fix feats then they still fail because: 1) This would be the time to fix the math. Not creating new feat patches. 2) You now need certain stats and to take all 3 to get their benefit. Why can't they just errata some of the old feats to make them scale better, instead of making replacement feats that may or may not stack, and create more clutter and strange interactions.
#13 yellerSumner Aug 17, 2010 10:58:21	I have to ask, at what level does the broken math make itself evident to someone not crunching the numbers?
#14 mellored Aug 17, 2010 11:08:10	I have to ask, at what level does the broken math make itself evident to someone not crunching the numbers? 15(half level) + 6 (enhancement) + 4 (stat bump) + 4 (feat). = 29 So without the feat bonus... somewhere in mid paragon, where your 2 points behind, or early epic where your 3 points behind.
#15 yellerSumner Aug 17, 2010 11:24:22	But without doing the math, is someone going to realize through playing the game that they're behind.... something?
#16 Janx_14 Aug 17, 2010 11:35:39	They'll miss more, but they probably won't have anything but a hunch unless they record their hits/misses, which is still math. Also depends how leniant a DM is if he sees players missing alot. My group doesnt use expertise at all, I'm somewhat using them to test lacking it. That said, I do tend to be leniant, and if i see a player miss for most the fight, and then miss by like 1 point of attack, i often let it hit. Player NADS tend to lag more than player attack from what i've seen. The AC being 2-3 points higher than NADS for players is usually only true for 1-2 defences, and then they have one that is usually kinda sad.
#17 mellored Aug 17, 2010 11:55:55	But without doing the math, is someone going to realize through playing the game that they're behind.... something? They game will just get tougher.  You'll hit less, and be hit more.
#18 frothsof Aug 17, 2010 12:07:46	But without doing the math, is someone going to realize through playing the game that they're behind.... something? if you dont notice a +2 to will, then your dm surely will
#19 AvonRekaes Aug 17, 2010 13:38:41	I never ran a game without Expertise, but I can tell you that in upper epic when they were only hitting on 15+, I sure as hell was noticing how awful it would have been to play without them. Hitting on an 18+? If a PC has a 19-20 crit range, then they're more likely to crit than land a regular hit. If they have 18-20, then it becomes all-or-nothing. The realization that Expertse was essentially *required* to make combats playable at the end-game of my campaign convinced me to houserule my next campaign and give everyone whatever Expertise feats they required for free at 5th level. Note though, that this is anecdotal evidence of my own personal table experience. Your mileage may vary.
#20 GMforPowergamers Aug 17, 2010 15:50:39	I never ran a game without Expertise, but I can tell you that in upper epic when they were only hitting on 15+, I sure as hell was noticing how awful it would have been to play without them. Hitting on an 18+? If a PC has a 19-20 crit range, then they're more likely to crit than land a regular hit. If they have 18-20, then it becomes all-or-nothing. The realization that Expertse was essentially *required* to make combats playable at the end-game of my campaign convinced me to houserule my next campaign and give everyone whatever Expertise feats they required for free at 5th level. Note though, that this is anecdotal evidence of my own personal table experience. Your mileage may vary. also anecdotal, but I played as a PC and ran as a DM 2 epic games only 1 was still going whent he expertise 'tax'hit... and we never saw a problem        I was a 27th level warlord with a str 23 with a longsword... and I hit relible
#21 Gazra Aug 17, 2010 16:20:21	what is this 'we'? its YOU. ONLY you. Terribly overpowered feat that makes no sense, it does TWICE what a current LEVEL 8 magic item does, and it is free. Neither I or anybody else needs to see ANY OTHER FEAT to know this heres a question, what other feats would need to exist for you to ever not like one single thing about essentials? Where in my post did I say I like it? Here's a clue: I didn't. You assumed that I did just like you're assuming this feat is badly designed. But apparently if anyone even makes a suggestion that we might not want to go ahead and just say this feat is horridly designed since we don't know what other balancing factors will be made available along with it, then that person must be called out and branded as the WotC lackey who mindlessly praises everything his corporate masters give him. Seriously, that got old a long time ago.
#22 greatfrito Aug 17, 2010 16:22:52	But without doing the math, is someone going to realize through playing the game that they're behind.... something? They game will just get tougher.  You'll hit less, and be hit more. Toss in the varieties of leaders, and I think it's just going to be all over the chart.  The high-paragon and epic-tier games we've played/run have had warlords (they're popular) of various types, and I think they really skew results - even Inspiring Warlords can give out crazy bonuses to attacks. But if the party had, instead, something like a Cleric... I'm curious how it would work.  In theory, it shouldn't get more difficult - just differently difficult (if a healing and defensive leader is on par with an attack boosting / granting leader). That my theory, anyways.
#23 Thomson Aug 18, 2010 2:31:26	Actually we really do need to know what other feats there are.  basically, that's my last hope that this mess makes sense if we know the whole picture. But IMO they have to errata every single monster for this to make sense (basically reducing to hit vs NADs and limiting Daze to Elite/Solo and Stun to Solos alone) Also they have to make sure to explain in the Rules Companion what happens if I am dazed until escape from a grapple and then I save vs the daze (Am I dazed again immediately since I am still grappled? Is the grapple ended, too? I can guess that they just want the daze to end, but the current wording is ambiguous at best) *Will is the most important defense* IMO, AC is the most importaint.  It get's attacked 50% of the time.  The NAD's get attacked 15-20% of the time. Usually attacks vs AC just deal damage, some knock you prone (which is nasty). Few of them daze, very few stun. Currently there are tons of attacks vs will that do horrible things to your character. While running around with singe digit hit points and hoping for the leader to toss the heal before you drop or activating your last resort utilities to survive to take your second wind can be a lot of fun, skipping your turn because you are stunned or having to run just to miss with your charge attack because you are dazed is not. (Dominate has at least some fun twist in it, while it's still nasty) It also has the warpriest and thief (mage?) who are.  So i'm not sure what this has to do with anything.  I also don't know why you assuming there only the Will feat. Well, basically as a defender or leader you have the biggest problem with daze (while stun is bad for everyone) Melee only strikers with a close second. Leaders need minor actions and most defenders need immediate and opportunity actions. From what I have seen the Knight isn't as badly affected by a daze than the PHB I fighter (well just because he is not much better than a dazed PHB I fighter... at least from what we know) So yes, warpriest is an other build I would skip - if there is no feat for the non Wis/Cha builds that basically does a similar thing. However, if there is a feat, I ask myself why they did not make a feat that does it for all characters with no prerequisites instead of making several similar feats which just make things more complicated. And about math in the game: Toss in the varieties of leaders, and I think it's just going to be all over the chart.  This. I am playing a Taclord with subpar strength and he has no problems because he basically just tosses around bonuses, messes the monsters up by switching initiative order and letting others move/attack. But if you don't have a leader that gives you insane to hit bonuses you are basically screwed without expertise. On the other hand, if you don't have a leader that gets you out of dazes/stuns you are screwed if you don't have exeptional Will defense. So usually most people notice if the math of the game is wrong - because the game just is not fun anymore. Being perma stunned and not hitting anything anymore is certainly not fun. However, there is that thing we call "coincidental correctness": For some groups some bugs cancel each other out and the game works for them :P
#24 Haldrik Aug 18, 2010 11:28:05	Mello: 'Actually we really do need to know what other feats there are.'    Agreed. This feat in clearly only meant for characters to express the flavor of 'superior' will power. A feat to pad a low Will may look different, and may even stack with 'superior' Will. 'Since it seems to me that their just trying to make the "math tax" feats more interesting by giving them riders.'    I appreciate the attempt to make flat bonuses more flavorful. Shaking off a daze or stun is a useful and interesting way to convey the sense of will power.
#25 Neutronium_Dragon Aug 20, 2010 19:45:46	This feat only requires you to put a 13 in the stat in Heroic. That is not particularly difficult even if it's an off-stat for your class. Your two generic +1 all stat increases at 11th and 21st will then ensure that you qualify at Epic, which is also when it applies its full bonus. If you start with more than 13, or invest a point or two of other ability increases into the stat, then you'll qualify for the feat earlier, but with a reduced effect. This is almost certainly one of those feats that would have previously been "flat +4, requires 21st level". The only real difference now is that you can reach it earlier if you're even moderately interested in doing so.
#26 Tony_Vargas Aug 20, 2010 20:35:53	A +4 @ 21st level feat would be function to give characters a chance to catch up a bit in their off defense, which is at worst, a math-kludge. The way this feat is set up, any 1st level character with the apropriate stat primary could take it, probably making one of his non-AC defenses /higher/ than his AC.  That could definitely distort things a bit.  So /if/ the idea if for characters to put a 13 in a stat for an off non-AC defense and take this feat at 21st, it's a very bad design.  If the intent is to let a character with WIS primary be just supremely resistant to WILL attacks, then it's a good design - of a bad idea. I suppose it could be that, somehow, along with all the other changes coming in October, this could some how 'shake out' in a way that's reasonable and balanced all things considered.  I can't imagine how, but I've been surprised before...