| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1thewanderer78Oct 14, 2011 20:43:11 | So I recently found out that for an upcoming game my DM is banning the use of Implement Expertise, as he says it makes casters' attack bonuses too high. Am I the only one who thinks this is a bit unreasonable? Many DMs give all characters Expertise just to balance out the harder encounters later on, and without proficiency bonuses I don't see how my sorcerer will be able to get better than a 50/50 hit ratio. Granted, spells tend to roll against defenses that tend to be lower than AC, but there are monsters whose defenses are comparable to their AC. Should I just avoid taking spells that target Fortitude? |
| #2sallaOct 14, 2011 20:44:47 | Yeah, that's pretty unreasonable. I'd recommend focusing on Will-targetting, if at all possible. |
| #3alitainOct 14, 2011 21:09:00 | Well I would maybe suggest sitting down with him and discussing why he feels it makes implement users' atks too high. Because it doesn't, I mean I'm in Salla that is unreasonable and most likely he has some misguided notions. In my experience the Three(Fort, Ref, Will) tend to be the highest defenses of monsters and AC tends to be reasonable or easy for melee characters to hit fine enough. Sadly, sometimes you just can't convince people to see the light. Half of my group has a sudden hatred for Pixies because they feel they're OP because of their Shrink racial power, which basically devolves to Pixies doing as much or lower damage than Small races. They on the other hand feel Shrink means they do more damage meaning they're OP...thus light has failed to be shed so far. But I have no intention on making this another topic about Pixies, just an example of sadly the fate of some arguments, meaning despite you being right you may have to accept you'll lose to the DM. But, as well, I wouldn't necessarily forgo Fort atks, not all monsters have high Forts unless you know for a fact that the only monsters you'll face will have high Forts. I'd just pick powers because they seem good, have great effects, or do awesome damage; however you judge good atks. On the other hand if you can't take the Impl Exp. feat and later on you start being unable to hit anything or you're hitting maybe 25% while everyone else can hit 50% or higher, you may be able to convince the DM at that time. |
| #4Tony_VargasOct 14, 2011 21:46:22 | So I recently found out that for an upcoming game my DM is banning the use of Implement Expertise, as he says it makes casters' attack bonuses too high. Am I the only one who thinks this is a bit unreasonable? Not at all. Expertise is an ugly kludge to begin with, and implement users can quite easily pick powers such that they have options to target any of the three non-AC defenses. The non-AC defenses are typically 2 lower than AC, on average (yes, that just makes up for +2 prof weapons - what about +3 proficiency weapons? well there are Accurate Implements). But if you can figure out the lowest defense it's often 5 (or more) off the highest - that's a lot more than just making up for lack of that +2 prof - and that makes hitting pretty easy. Is he also banning Weapon Expertise? And, are you using the pre-E or Essentials+ versions of Expertise? Granted, spells tend to roll against defenses that tend to be lower than AC, but there are monsters whose defenses are comparable to their AC. Should I just avoid taking spells that target Fortitude? Some monsters will have a defense that is as high, or even slightly higher than their AC. Brutes are notorious for having FORT that high. REF is also sometimes the highest defense. Best thing is to have some attacks that target each. FORT and REF can also each be the creatures lowest defense - lower even than WILL, which is /usually/ the lowest defense for most creatures. Best bet it to be sure to be able to attack all three non-AC defenses. |
| #5frothsofOct 14, 2011 21:48:36 | your dm is a loser |
| #6crowscapeOct 14, 2011 21:53:39 | Granted, spells tend to roll against defenses that tend to be lower than AC... And AC is higher than other defenses to counteract proficiency bonuses, which implement users don't get. AND... weapon using classes often have encounter and daily powers that target defenses other than AC (Reflex in particular). So yes, your DM is nerfing implement users for no good reason. |
| #7CorrinAvatanOct 14, 2011 23:00:07 | Is he banning Weapon Expertise feats? Because if he isn't, he's basically punishing you for playing an implement user. If he's banning all expertise feats, then I see no issue at all: it's highly unlikely that your game is going to go into Epic anyway, when the feat changes from "desirable" to "awesome" to "statistically superior to anything else" If he's only banning implement expertise, but not weapon expertise feats, he obviously doesn't understand the system math. The to-hit math for weapon users and casters is about the same, the only difference being that AC is about 2-3 points higher as weapon users have a +2-3 for using a weapon, and other stats are 2-3 lower as they are being attacked by someone who isn't getting a proficiency bonus. As crow pointed out, there are plenty of weapon powers that target the NADs, so he's essentially allowing weapon users an extra 5% chance to hit over the casters. |
| #8RedSiegfriedOct 15, 2011 6:52:36 | Whoa, a DM that wants (inadvertently or not) mere MUGGLES to have an advantage over spellcasters? What, did I wake up in Bizarro World today? ;) |
| #9defender_xOct 15, 2011 7:23:52 | My group finally got to level 18 and our Bard got versitle expertise finally. His character went from a +17 to a +21 with the feat, stat bonuses and level. Your DM doesn't understand how that will affect implement users at higher levels where some of the creatures have just as high or higher with the other defenses. You can quote me on this, he's an idiot. |
| #10KruskOct 15, 2011 8:26:20 | Wow lotta DM hate.... Just play a caster who doesn't make attack rolls, or doesn't care if the attack roll hits. Walls of fire, clouds of fog, buffing, that sort of thing. Sucks, but if its a good DM otherwise deal with it. If they aren't a good DM why play with them? |
| #11Steely_DanOct 15, 2011 9:36:22 | D'oh. |
| #12Steely_DanOct 15, 2011 9:37:22 | Absolutely nothing wrong with a DM banning a feat from his/her campaign. Not everything printed for this game is appropriate for a campaign. |
| #13frothsofOct 15, 2011 9:39:01 | no. your dm just sucks |
| #14Olrox17Oct 15, 2011 9:49:44 | If he's banning implement expertise while leaving weapon expertise available, he's just being silly. |
| #15Steely_DanOct 15, 2011 9:50:12 | no. your dm just sucks That's a bit presumptuous, maybe they're a masterful DM who simply does not want a certain feat in their campaign. |
| #16GMforPowergamersOct 15, 2011 9:55:33 | I ban people from duplicating builds over multi campaigns... witch means if two characters in a row have expertise, the third will not be allowed to have it. This lead to some teeth gnashing at first (back in 3e) but by the time 4e was out everyone was fine with it. It leads to more varried sharacter builds. It started with magic items (becuse we had a player who went out of his way to have a monk's belt and boots of spring and stride on all characters). my suggestion is play the game, and have fun... |
| #17Elemental_ElfOct 15, 2011 10:02:06 | Whoa, whoa, whoa people! Just because a DM gets rid of a few feats doesn't mean he sucks! What if the player in question is a super power gamer and the rest of his players are all fluff bunnies? In that case, a tooled out Sorcerer would probably seem too powerful - a good way to knock him down a bit would be to ban Implement expertise, especially of he was the only dedicated caster. What we lack here is context. |
| #18frothsofOct 15, 2011 10:07:24 | i can understand flavorful campaign restrictions but screwing a players ability to hit is not flavorful |
| #19NyarlathotepOct 15, 2011 10:11:46 | I wouldn't go so far as to say that disallowing implent expertise, by itself, makes him a bad DM. But its a really bad sign. Largely because, as Froth implied, it seems less like the sort of restriction one makes for flavor and more like the sort one makes because one doesn't understand the rules. If I were in that campaign, I wouldn't drop over it, but it would be a mark against the DM in my mind. |
| #20GMforPowergamersOct 15, 2011 10:21:52 | i can understand flavorful campaign restrictions but screwing a players ability to hit is not flavorful but without knowing the DM you don't know witch it is. I had a DM that made us not start with stats over 16(after race but before 4th level increase), and didn't allow any magic items on our 4th level characters, and told us strikers were a bad idea... we ended up with dragonborn fighter, teifling warlord, elf swordmage, dwarf wizard, and half elf ranger... game one was normal D&D dungeon crawl, but with only 1 magic item as treaure... then when we got back to town the game really begain...as the whole kingdom was effected by an evil necro spell...and all teh dead animated, and 2/3 the living died and animated at midnight... the next few games where spent fighting thousands of undead minons... most below level 4. If one of us came on here and said "My DM is makeing me make 4th level characters but making me buy equipment as if 1st level, and not letting us have anything over 16" it would lead to people saying he sucks...but the game was great...give it a try |
| #21Steely_DanOct 15, 2011 10:23:05 | it seems less like the sort of restriction one makes for flavor and more like the sort one makes because one doesn't understand the rules. I don't think understanding +X to hit really constitutes rules knowledge. |
| #22NyarlathotepOct 15, 2011 10:25:13 | it seems less like the sort of restriction one makes for flavor and more like the sort one makes because one doesn't understand the rules. But understanding the implications of that + to hit, does. |
| #23frothsofOct 15, 2011 10:30:10 | i can understand flavorful campaign restrictions but screwing a players ability to hit is not flavorful well that sucks too |
| #24Steely_DanOct 15, 2011 10:55:09 | it seems less like the sort of restriction one makes for flavor and more like the sort one makes because one doesn't understand the rules. Well now we are getting into the 4th Ed math thing... |
| #25NyarlathotepOct 15, 2011 10:57:54 | it seems less like the sort of restriction one makes for flavor and more like the sort one makes because one doesn't understand the rules. Yep. Whether or not it should be a thing, it's still a thing. |
| #26NyarlathotepOct 15, 2011 11:05:54 | The "math hole" is actually irrelevant for once in this case. Its both, really. |
| #27Steely_DanOct 15, 2011 11:25:31 | Yep. Whether or not it should be a thing, it's still a thing. A thing that should be hardwired in, not a band-aid Feat? |
| #28NyarlathotepOct 15, 2011 11:36:52 | Yep. Whether or not it should be a thing, it's still a thing. Sure, I'd agree with that. But that isn't a good excuse for disalllowing even the band-aid |
| #29Steely_DanOct 15, 2011 11:52:56 | Yep. Whether or not it should be a thing, it's still a thing. So just give every player the +X and be done with it (not a punishment Feat)? |
| #30NyarlathotepOct 15, 2011 11:54:30 | Yep. Whether or not it should be a thing, it's still a thing. And if the OP's DM were doing that, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But it doesn't sound like it is. |
| #31Steely_DanOct 15, 2011 12:01:28 | And if the OP's DM were doing that, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But it doesn't sound like it is. Maybe he/she's adjusting the enemies defences, we don't have all the info. |
| #32NyarlathotepOct 15, 2011 12:06:45 | And if the OP's DM were doing that, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But it doesn't sound like it is. Could be lots of things. But if I were a betting man, My money would be on "DM decided to nerf implement users because one guy playing one was really good at optimization and/or had a really good lucky streak while playing one". Seems to be the more common type of thing, in my experience. |
| #33mysticbelmontOct 15, 2011 12:11:03 | You could take superior implement and grab an accurate implement. |
| #34frothsofOct 15, 2011 12:17:05 | best not to tell the dm though, you wouldnt want him to come up with more 'flavor' on you |
| #35Steely_DanOct 15, 2011 12:18:48 | My money would be on "DM decided to nerf implement users because one guy playing one was really good at optimization and/or had a really good lucky streak while playing one". Seems to be the more common type of thing, in my experience. Well of course that is lame (I was not thinking of a DM biased towards implement users, never heard of anything so ridiculous); the vibe I'm getting (until the next edition), is use Inherent Bonuses and hardwire in the Expertise Feats. Or flip a coin? |
| #36ScatterbrainedOct 15, 2011 14:20:51 | ...implement users can quite easily pick powers such that they have options to target any of the three non-AC defenses. The non-AC defenses are typically 2 lower than AC, on average (yes, that just makes up for +2 prof weapons - what about +3 proficiency weapons? well there are Accurate Implements). But if you can figure out the lowest defense it's often 5 (or more) off the highest - that's a lot more than just making up for lack of that +2 prof - and that makes hitting pretty easy. On the flip side of this, an implement user is always going to have a certain number of attacks that are at a steep penalty to hit because the target has a high fort, ref, or will. A weapon-user targetting AC has equal chances to hit with all attacks, so he can choose the best power for the situation. An implement user can use the power that targets the weak defense, but what if that power just isn't very good? Or at least very good for that moment. Say you're fighting an archer with a low fort and high ref. Yes, you have a higher to-hit with that fort-targetting, proning power, but prone isn't going to help against artillery. Your ref-targetting blinding power would be much more effective, but has a much lower chance to hit. Implement-based powers tend to be situational, and the situation doesn't always match up with targetting the most effective defense. As for the OP who seems to have forgotten all about this thread, either A) weapon expertise is allowed, in which case the DM just doesn't understand how the game works, or B) all expertise is banned, which is fine and ultimately the same as giving it out for free (at least the old versions) since encounters will be balanced according to the strength of the party anyway. I do have to agree that hitting (at least 50% of the time, preferrably 60+)is very important to having fun for most players. There are so many other more exciting ways to make encounters or monsters difficult that chronically upping the party's miss-rate is just poor/lazy DMing. |
| #37Tony_VargasOct 15, 2011 14:33:42 | ...implement users can quite easily pick powers such that they have options to target any of the three non-AC defenses. The non-AC defenses are typically 2 lower than AC, on average (yes, that just makes up for +2 prof weapons - what about +3 proficiency weapons? well there are Accurate Implements). But if you can figure out the lowest defense it's often 5 (or more) off the highest - that's a lot more than just making up for lack of that +2 prof - and that makes hitting pretty easy. Also true. Implement users do tend to have more variety in their powers. A wizard may be able to attack FORT with Thunder Wave or REF with Scorching Burst, for instance. If he's targeting a high-FORT enemy, he'll want to stay away, because Thunderwaving him back is a poor option. Conversely a fighter with Cleave and Tide of Iron can always try to push away an enemy with as good a chance as cleaving into him. On balance, though, I think that the greater variety of implement powers is more an advantage than a disadvantage, even if the occassional bad situation can come up. |
| #38raleelOct 16, 2011 8:12:15 | I think Tony makes a good point that might help you in your argument. The DMG has a nice table on page 184. It's been errataed a bit, but the core of it is still there. The fundamental part of it is that the average monster has lvl + 14 for AC, and lvl + 12 on it's NADs. Weapon users get a proficiency bonus to compensate for this. By specifically denying implement expertise, he is putting implement users on the crappy end of the field because they cannot get the same level of to hit as a weapon user, on average. Now, if he's banning weapon expertises as well, that's different, and probably is just fine. i think I agree with one of the posters in there that said he probably experienced a streak of luck against a weak defense. My guess is a daze/stun/dominate sort of effect against will, as that can be amped up pretty high, is often a low defense, and is particularly frustrating for what I will lovingly call a competitive DM. It very much neuters monsters. I would suggest sitting down and figuring out why. It will take patience, and you will have to listen more than argue. Ask, question his point, find out the logic, get to the core of the problem. My own DM was very unhappy with stuns and dominates. We decided to nerf them against solos and elites. |
| #39GMforPowergamersOct 16, 2011 10:04:55 | i can understand flavorful campaign restrictions but screwing a players ability to hit is not flavorful yea in theory...in practice it was awsome. 70% of his game was minons lower level then the party... if we maxed our selves it would be unplayble easy. He knew what he was doing, knew more then he told us, and ran a great game. We started at 4th level and ran through 7th level and at 7th level he was still loading encounter with level 3 minons... he had 2 bags full of zombie minis, at one point he had ove 100 on the battle mat. |
| #40trebor_rjfOct 16, 2011 15:22:56 | dm's doing petty **** like this is never a good sign. he might be a decent dm deep down (doubt it) but he's not a game designer and banning game fixing feats from only certain classes isnt fair. i'd make your case to him one last time, if he's not willing to listen and be fair to all the players then it's probably not even worth it to join, he'll find more "OP" stuff to ban later and before long your character will be missing with 14's and only be allowed to use dm picked powers. i'm a firm believer in rule 0, the dm has the right to do anything he wants to make the game more fun for everybody. removing implement expertise isnt making the game more fun. it's making it worse for you because now you wont hit anything at higher levels, it's not more fun for your friends to see a member of their party be less effective just because they decided to play an implement class. when someone takes on the role of dm they have a responsibility to be fair and provide everyone with a fun experience. to accomplish this they're given free reign over everything in game. as soon as they misuse this power and do something unfair with it they should be called out on it. |
| #41mysticbelmontOct 16, 2011 15:39:13 | I'd go rogue, than pick the feat that lets you target Reflex. Than lol at him. |
| #42_Mithreinmaethor_Oct 16, 2011 16:21:37 | Its kinda nice to hear of a DM not handing the expertise feats out for free. |
| #43mysticbelmontOct 16, 2011 16:22:33 | Its kinda nice to hear of a DM not handing the expertise feats out for free. He banned them, but only for implement users. |
| #44thewanderer78Oct 16, 2011 23:25:50 | Considering fighters get weapon talent and access to +3 proficiency weapons, the melee characters of my level will have +3-4 more to hit than I will. While I can understand that AC is often higher than defenses, most melee classes have powers that target defenses other than AC, and not every monster has AC higher than its other defenses. I can try to use powers that target lower defenses, but what if my only available powers to target a lower defense also has an energy type a monster is resistant to, or has an effect that is useless to the group? I just don't see the +1 to hit unbalancing things. The sorcerer I'm making for this upcoming game is level 7 and has +9 to hit with Charisma based spells. I rolled a fighter just to see how he compares, and he's rolling at +14 (+3 level, +4 Strength, +3 proficiency, +2 enhancement, +1 Weapon Expertise, +1 weapon talent). NADs are usually not 5 lower than AC. Also, the DM said he's only banning Implement Expertise, not Weapon Expertise. While the fighter's powers don't do as much damage as the sorcerer, it still feels silly to gimp my accuracy. I also don't have the health, defense, or resilience of the fighter, so it just seems like a lazy way to balance a perceived problem. Instead of not allowing the feat, why not make an encounter with monsters who gain some sort of cover, have some sort of magical shield that makes spells more difficult to hit, etc. There just seems like better ways to address this "problem." |
| #45Janx_14Oct 16, 2011 23:48:56 | I ban ALL expertise feats in my game because I dont like the principle of them. My group uses much higher point buy, so I haven't given out the bonuses. I tend to just adjust monsters if there is an issue, but I have considered baking it in. |
| #46XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsekOct 16, 2011 23:57:43 | When a DM bans something it doesn't always have to be for the purpose of flavour. Calling someone an idiot or a bad DM just shows that you aren't on a very high maturity level. If you don't like the ruling then that's all fine and dandy but don't reserve to name calling or bashing someone because they want to run their game a certain way. If you don't like the ruling then don't play. |
| #47rian_kingOct 17, 2011 15:07:33 | Whoa, a DM that wants (inadvertently or not) mere MUGGLES to have an advantage over spellcasters? What, did I wake up in Bizarro World today? ;) There are to many nerd references in this short post...5 yard penalty repeat first down :P |
| #48Tony_VargasOct 17, 2011 16:18:54 | I can understand that AC is often higher than defenses, most melee classes have powers that target defenses other than AC, and not every monster has AC higher than its other defenses. There's not a single monster that has AC as it's lowest defense, and it's not unusual for the lowest defense to be 3 or even 5 or more off the highest (which is most often AC, of course). I can try to use powers that target lower defenses, but what if my only available powers to target a lower defense also has an energy type a monster is resistant to, or has an effect that is useless to the group? You shouldn't have that come up very often at all. Implement users do have much more varied powers than weapon users, in general. It means you worst power for a given situation is probably really bad, but your best is probably pretty good - as long as you can figure out which is which, you'll rarely look bad compared to the weapon-user. I just don't see the +1 to hit unbalancing things. A +1 to hit, by itself, wouldn't seem to. Maybe your DM sees some cumulative issue? Maybe he knows that the sorts of monsters he plans to use will have pretty low non-AC defenses, and he figures you don't need the added boost. Maybe he just doesn't like Expertise. :shrug: The sorcerer I'm making for this upcoming game is level 7 and has +9 to hit with Charisma based spells. I rolled a fighter just to see how he compares, and he's rolling at +14 (+3 level, +4 Strength, +3 proficiency, +2 enhancement, +1 Weapon Expertise, +1 weapon talent). NADs are usually not 5 lower than AC. Sometimes one of them will be. Sometimes being able to use an AE to avoid concealment (including total concealment) or cover will have you hitting better, too. A +3 proficiency weapon is equivalent to an Accurate Implement, so consider one of those. Once you factor out the higher AC and the option of an Accurate-Implement/+3-prof-weapon, the difference is weapon talent - fighters get weapon talent, sorcerers get to pierce resistance (among other things). That really leaves that same +1 to hit that you 'don't see how it's imbalancing.' I guess it's imbalancing when the other guy gets it... Also, the DM said he's only banning Implement Expertise, not Weapon Expertise. That makes a little less sense, but he may still have his reasons. Of course, as a Sorcerer, you could just take weapon expertise with light blades - unless it's been 'clarified' or 'updated,' again - it will add to your sorcerer powers using a dagger (at least, it works on my older copy of CB). There are also feats that'd let a Tiefling or Dragonborn sorcerer get another +1 to hit on some spells (based on keywords). While the fighter's powers don't do as much damage as the sorcerer, it still feels silly to gimp my accuracy. The fighter is a defender, so doesn't need to do as much damage as the Sorcerer, a striker. The fighter does need to hit well, though, for his mark punishment and OAs to support his Defender role - so he does 'need' weapon talent and the like in that sense. Instead of not allowing the feat, why not make an encounter with monsters who gain some sort of cover, have some sort of magical shield that makes spells more difficult to hit, etc. There just seems like better ways to address this "problem." Sure, instead of banning the feat, the DM could use situational things to screw you over even worse. Really, feat-banning is easier to deal with. Consider using an Accurate Implement, taking a different +1 to hit feat (if your race gives you any such option), or see if Weapon Expertise: Light Blade will work with your Dagger (though I suspect your DM will nix that, too, if run it by him...) You could also go the other extreme and game your DM. When a DM does start making house rules that clearly favor or disfavor certain classes, you can probably end up with a very powerful character if you puzzle out the sort of PC the DM favors (probably the kind he'd be playing if he wasn't stuck DMing)... |
| #49MetafictionalOct 18, 2011 6:21:32 | I guess the question is what, exact Expertise Feats he disallows. Versatile Expertise, Staff Expertise, and some of the various Expertise Feats found in Dragon # 402 can all apply to both a weapon AND an Implement. You can really blur the issue by playing a class such as the Swordmage, Bladesinger, or Hexblade, all of which have melee and implement attacks. |
| #50The_JesterOct 18, 2011 9:01:47 | Given the math fix of the expertise feats is only really relevant in Paragon, you have 15 level or somewhere between 25-35 sessions to convince him otherwise. IF the game survives that long, he might see you're not hitting nearly as often as the dagger rogue and about as often as the other classes. Not an issue. |
| #51JRedGiant1Oct 18, 2011 9:23:19 | My suggestion to the OP.... Start DMing. |
| #52dmofthegreenbriarOct 18, 2011 19:04:41 | I've been seeing this alot. I'm a DM and it honestly makes me sads when DM's become to controlling of the game saying players can't do this or that. Your DM is taking away a perfectly reasonable character option that professionals created so the game could have more options for players. That being said, before Implement Expertise was an option, was every Implement user stumbling around missing half the things they were trying to attack? I do think a DM has the right to say which sourcebooks can and can't be used, but I think it's stupid to detract from the power of a certaintype of character, while another kind of character is untouched. |
| #53complete4thOct 18, 2011 19:30:11 | I'd go rogue, than pick the feat that lets you target Reflex. /thread |
| #54TichrimoOct 18, 2011 19:46:26 | I'd go rogue, than pick the feat that lets you target Reflex. Before you hit paragon, take the rogue at-will piercing strike. It targets Reflex, too. |
| #55EinlanzerOct 18, 2011 20:33:10 | Nope, sorry, I'm with a lot of the folks that I generally disagree with- your DM needs to be schooled. Removing Implement Expertise while leaving in Weapon Expertise is not only pointless and unreasonable, but it seriously tampers with the inter-class balance and unfairly punishes anyone who plays an implement user. Everything within the game's basic structure assumes that attack bonuses scale identically for implement users and weapon users, just like NADS and AC scale evenly for all monsters. Anyone using an implement will encounter escalating frustration for no good reason as your party gets higher level. |
| #56Cohen95Oct 21, 2011 18:36:24 | Just take Staff Expertise. It has a benefit that explicitly applies to weapon attacks, therefore it is not purely an Implement Expertise feat. That it provides a benefit when used as an implement is immaterial to the fact. If he bans this, point out that all weapon and implement groups have feats that not only provide attack bonuses, but also provide an additional benefit, and that disallowing those additional benefits only to implement users is patently unfair, and biased. If he does not listen to this reason, find another game, because your DM either fundamentally does not understand the mathematical system underlying 4e, or he is biased against implement users. |
| #57KruskOct 22, 2011 8:23:07 | Just take Staff Expertise. It has a benefit that explicitly applies to weapon attacks, therefore it is not purely an Implement Expertise feat. Similar idea, but play a swordmage. |
| #58KaganfindelOct 25, 2011 14:54:39 | I'd be hesitant to play with a DM who misunderstands the way the game works that profoundly. I'd find a more tactful way of phrasing it than that, but I probably wouldn't play with that person running. |
| #59rian_kingNov 03, 2011 12:18:13 | Also, the DM said he's only banning Implement Expertise, not Weapon Expertise. That makes a little less sense, but he may still have his reasons. Of course, as a Sorcerer, you could just take weapon expertise with light blades - unless it's been 'clarified' or 'updated,' again - it will add to your sorcerer powers using a dagger (at least, it works on my older copy of CB). There are also feats that'd let a Tiefling or Dragonborn sorcerer get another +1 to hit on some spells (based on keywords). That makes a little less sense, but he may still have his reasons. Of course, as a Sorcerer, you could just take weapon expertise with light blades - unless it's been 'clarified' or 'updated,' again - it will add to your sorcerer powers using a dagger (at least, it works on my older copy of CB). There are also feats that'd let a Tiefling or Dragonborn sorcerer get another +1 to hit on some spells (based on keywords).
|
| #60LordOfWeaselsNov 03, 2011 13:08:33 | Yeah it was errated so weapon expertise does not work with weapons used as implements [weapon type] Expertise and Weapon Expertise only apply to weapon attacks, but Versatile Expertise still works. |
| #61Cohen95Nov 04, 2011 13:32:48 | Yeah it was errated so weapon expertise does not work with weapons used as implements Staff Expertise still explicitly applies to both, and has a benefit specifically for weapon users, meaning it could theoretically be considered a weapon exertise feat. |
| #62rian_kingNov 04, 2011 13:43:07 | it's nice that we are trying to get around the banning of the +1 to hit implement feats but I have a feeling that if the OP tries to do this the DM will ban it anyway for him The best way to have the DM change his mind is to show the math. Show him what the percentage to hit and how it doesn't tip the balance to overpowered |