CB: Focused Expertise feats - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

CB: Focused Expertise feats

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
Chiba_Monkey
Jun 07, 2009 23:37:15 I was tooling around in the character builder after the update and found a set of feats that are weapon specific, as opposed to weapon-group specific, called Focused Expertise. It gives a +1 to attack rolls with implement or weapon powers using the corresponding weapon.

It appears that these heroic-tier feats stack with Weapon Expertise, which first off strikes me as horribly unbalanced. A lot of people cried "Power Creep!" when the latter came out in the PHB2.

At any rate, the feat says it's source is Dragon Magazine issue 375. I downloaded the compiled issue and searched through there and could not find the feat listed.

Can someone name the article in which I would find this feat?

Alternately, anyone have any thoughts on this feat and wish to discuss?
#2
Mock
Jun 07, 2009 23:50:52
I was tooling around in the character builder after the update and found a set of feats that are weapon specific, as opposed to weapon-group specific, called Focused Expertise. It gives a +1 to attack rolls with implement or weapon powers using the corresponding weapon.

It appears that these heroic-tier feats stack with Weapon Expertise, which first off strikes me as horribly unbalanced. A lot of people cried "Power Creep!" when the latter came out in the PHB2.

At any rate, the feat says it's source is Dragon Magazine issue 375. I downloaded the compiled issue and searched through there and could not find the feat listed.

Can someone name the article in which I would find this feat?

Alternately, anyone have any thoughts on this feat and wish to discuss?

I have no thoughts on the feat itself, but it's part of the Monk Playtest.

Edit: I do have a thought, actually. I imagine that the intent and the execution was not aligned. As I see it, it was invented solely to help out the weapon/implement users (of which the Monk is a beeg one), but they probably ought to have included something like "This bonus does not stack with bonuses from the Implement or Weapon Expertise feats" or something to that effect.
#3
GMforPowergamers
Jun 08, 2009 2:14:56
As I see it, it was invented solely to help out the weapon/implement users (of which the Monk is a beeg one), but they probably ought to have included something like "This bonus does not stack with bonuses from the Implement or Weapon Expertise feats" or something to that effect.

It does say that, and the character builder has it right...it doesn't stack
#4
Mock
Jun 08, 2009 7:13:16
It does say that, and the character builder has it right...it doesn't stack

Oh, DUH. I should work on my reading: the top of the next column in the Monk Playtest says exactly that - it's not cumulative with other expertise feats. My bad.
#5
Chiba_Monkey
Jun 08, 2009 9:33:41 Ah. My bad.

I coudn't find it in the article, and was going solely off the CB. And I didn't check to ee if the CB made its numbers stack, I was going purely off text that both feats were unnamed bonuses.

Thank you.
#6
dorque
Jun 08, 2009 13:09:18 Yeah, that is a really specific exception to "untyped bonuses stack". They could have called them both "Expertise bonus" and saved a lot of confusion.
#7
mrmyth
Jun 09, 2009 9:06:16
Yeah, that is a really specific exception to "untyped bonuses stack". They could have called them both "Expertise bonus" and saved a lot of confusion.

I think adding a new category of named bonuses would be the start of a very slippery path. Given that confusion only arises if one doesn't bother to read the feat, I don't see any real need for change.
#8
Chiba_Monkey
Jun 30, 2009 21:09:08 I think the only reason it was created was to give monks the option to take Expertise in ther unarmed strike, since a monk's unarmed strike doesn't fall in any weapon category, such as heavy/light blade, etc. As such, the monk would be unable to apply any benefit from that feat to their unarmed strike.
#9
mdonais
Jun 30, 2009 21:12:27 The fact that it doesn't stack is more clear in next month's CB release.
#10
lightinfo
Jul 01, 2009 15:04:31
I think adding a new category of named bonuses would be the start of a very slippery path. Given that confusion only arises if one doesn't bother to read the feat, I don't see any real need for change.

What's the problem with adding a new bonus type? It's very simple, clean, and lets you create new, interesting, alternative feats that aren't overpowered... for example, instead of making a (broken) feat that gives you +1 / tier untyped bonus to attack rolls when using an arcane power that has the same keyword as your dragon breath, you could make that same feat give you a +1 / tier EXPERTISE bonus to attack rolls and a +1 / tier FEAT bonus to damage rolls subject to the same conditions. Now you've just created a very interesting feat -- for characters that REALLY want to specialize, they can save one feat (vs taking expertise and weapon focus), but spells that fall outside their specialization are weaker.

Or you can just keep making overpowered untyped bonuses that stack with everything else.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Chiba_Monkey Jun 07, 2009 23:37:15	I was tooling around in the character builder after the update and found a set of feats that are weapon specific, as opposed to weapon-group specific, called Focused Expertise. It gives a +1 to attack rolls with implement or weapon powers using the corresponding weapon. It appears that these heroic-tier feats stack with Weapon Expertise, which first off strikes me as horribly unbalanced. A lot of people cried "Power Creep!" when the latter came out in the PHB2. At any rate, the feat says it's source is Dragon Magazine issue 375. I downloaded the compiled issue and searched through there and could not find the feat listed. Can someone name the article in which I would find this feat? Alternately, anyone have any thoughts on this feat and wish to discuss?
#2 Mock Jun 07, 2009 23:50:52	I was tooling around in the character builder after the update and found a set of feats that are weapon specific, as opposed to weapon-group specific, called Focused Expertise. It gives a +1 to attack rolls with implement or weapon powers using the corresponding weapon. It appears that these heroic-tier feats stack with Weapon Expertise, which first off strikes me as horribly unbalanced. A lot of people cried "Power Creep!" when the latter came out in the PHB2. At any rate, the feat says it's source is Dragon Magazine issue 375. I downloaded the compiled issue and searched through there and could not find the feat listed. Can someone name the article in which I would find this feat? Alternately, anyone have any thoughts on this feat and wish to discuss? I have no thoughts on the feat itself, but it's part of the Monk Playtest. Edit: I do have a thought, actually. I imagine that the intent and the execution was not aligned. As I see it, it was invented solely to help out the weapon/implement users (of which the Monk is a beeg one), but they probably ought to have included something like "This bonus does not stack with bonuses from the Implement or Weapon Expertise feats" or something to that effect.
#3 GMforPowergamers Jun 08, 2009 2:14:56	As I see it, it was invented solely to help out the weapon/implement users (of which the Monk is a beeg one), but they probably ought to have included something like "This bonus does not stack with bonuses from the Implement or Weapon Expertise feats" or something to that effect. It does say that, and the character builder has it right...it doesn't stack
#4 Mock Jun 08, 2009 7:13:16	It does say that, and the character builder has it right...it doesn't stack Oh, DUH. I should work on my reading: the top of the next column in the Monk Playtest says exactly that - it's not cumulative with other expertise feats. My bad.
#5 Chiba_Monkey Jun 08, 2009 9:33:41	Ah. My bad. I coudn't find it in the article, and was going solely off the CB. And I didn't check to ee if the CB made its numbers stack, I was going purely off text that both feats were unnamed bonuses. Thank you.
#6 dorque Jun 08, 2009 13:09:18	Yeah, that is a really specific exception to "untyped bonuses stack". They could have called them both "Expertise bonus" and saved a lot of confusion.
#7 mrmyth Jun 09, 2009 9:06:16	Yeah, that is a really specific exception to "untyped bonuses stack". They could have called them both "Expertise bonus" and saved a lot of confusion. I think adding a new category of named bonuses would be the start of a very slippery path. Given that confusion only arises if one doesn't bother to read the feat, I don't see any real need for change.
#8 Chiba_Monkey Jun 30, 2009 21:09:08	I think the only reason it was created was to give monks the option to take Expertise in ther unarmed strike, since a monk's unarmed strike doesn't fall in any weapon category, such as heavy/light blade, etc. As such, the monk would be unable to apply any benefit from that feat to their unarmed strike.
#9 mdonais Jun 30, 2009 21:12:27	The fact that it doesn't stack is more clear in next month's CB release.
#10 lightinfo Jul 01, 2009 15:04:31	I think adding a new category of named bonuses would be the start of a very slippery path. Given that confusion only arises if one doesn't bother to read the feat, I don't see any real need for change. What's the problem with adding a new bonus type? It's very simple, clean, and lets you create new, interesting, alternative feats that aren't overpowered... for example, instead of making a (broken) feat that gives you +1 / tier untyped bonus to attack rolls when using an arcane power that has the same keyword as your dragon breath, you could make that same feat give you a +1 / tier EXPERTISE bonus to attack rolls and a +1 / tier FEAT bonus to damage rolls subject to the same conditions. Now you've just created a very interesting feat -- for characters that REALLY want to specialize, they can save one feat (vs taking expertise and weapon focus), but spells that fall outside their specialization are weaker. Or you can just keep making overpowered untyped bonuses that stack with everything else.