LEB Discussion Thread '10

twilsemail · Oct 7, 2010

Non sequiter: when do we measure the "one month" from for release dates? The street date and the dates most LGSs were allowed to sell Essentials differed by 11 days or so.

stonegod · Oct 7, 2010

twilsemail said:
Non sequiter: when do we measure the "one month" from for release dates? The street date and the dates most LGSs were allowed to sell Essentials differed by 11 days or so.

Street date. The measure is for wide availability, not select. No premier stores everywhere.

Walking Dad · Oct 7, 2010

Walking Dad said:
... is the same difference as the expertise feats untl level 15.
And yes, having to use a less familiar weapon will bring less good results.

...

twilsemail said:
When facing Lolth or Ogremoch, I'd rather not be dealing 15% less damage. ...

Walking Dad said:
You face Lolth or Ogremoch before level 15? And why would you face them with not your preferred weapon/implement?

...

twilsemail said:
This is rediculous and provocative.

...

Where were I "rediculous and provocative"? I'm no native speaker so I beg for your pardon, but I responded to your post where you referred about "sucking". Then I argued that the difference is not so high until level 15. You completely ignored my argument and insisted on a high level example.

Walking Dad · Oct 7, 2010

twilsemail said:
...
This is excessive. There's no reason to give extra benefits because Mr. Mearls isn't an accountant. They provided a method to fix the math error. LEB gives out that fix for free.

If the call is going to be that the new feats are that much an essential part of every PCs diet that we need to have them, I'd support Bob in the call to remove the house rule all-together.

Why would be an option to decide between a to hit bonus to everything and a specific feat that give a bonus in one specific case and a little bonus for adhering to one weapon/implement type excessive?

And the feats are no more an essential part than the LEB math fix.

Why it is to remove the house rule or sticking to it? What is wrong or excessive about giving options?

---

Edit: Not making this personal, but your character for example, and other who use dynamic weapons would be either depowered or take weaponmaster expertise by changing the flat bonus to a feat. Don't accuse me that I would "begging for candy".

Otakkun · Oct 7, 2010

Walking Dad said:
Three level 5 fighters, one with axe expertise, the second with hammer expertise and the last with weaponmaster expertise feel more different to each other than everyone gets just the math fix.

Will players take the feats with no bonus when they could also get toughness, marks an exotic weapon? Probably no, and and opportunity to differentiate characters is lost.

This is fixed with the essential expertise feats. You'll see most chargers use spears and take the corresponding expertise feat. Same with light blade weapons and probably the same with other weapons (only seen the 2 feats).

That's why I like the LEB fix. Besides, people tend to specialize in 1 weapon even if they get a bonus with all of them, because having multiple weapons is expensive. Dynamic weapons are encounter based, so not much use.

What is wrong or excessive about giving options?

IMO, I feel that we're not getting an extra punch out of this as it is. If we change that to a bonus feat, then it would feel like a power bump. Choice is a powerful weapon. But then, that's just me... and I'm not a judge =)

As a side note, so far I think that only draconic characters suffer from the expertise problem since they need 2 feats for it otherwise.

twilsemail · Oct 7, 2010

Walking Dad said:
but I responded to your post where you referred about "sucking". Then I argued that the difference is not so high until level 15. You completely ignored my argument and insisted on a high level example.

Check your quote.

It's still a numbers game. 5% less damage is still 5% less damage.

If your accountant screwed up your taxes, you wouldn't send the government the money you owed them and a plate of cookies.

Though, come to think of it, that might not be a bad idea...

Walking Dad said:
Edit: Not making this personal, but your character for example, and other who use dynamic weapons would be either depowered or take weaponmaster expertise by changing the flat bonus to a feat.

The Dynamic weapon is for infiltration, not combat. It doesn't apply to this conversation. At least, it doesn't with Din.

I'm not sure if it's a language thing or what, but I'm not sure where you're heading with the rest of the argument. How is a Dynamic Weapon user at a disadvantage at the moment? They've got the bandaid universally.

twilsemail · Oct 7, 2010

Otakkun said:
As a side note, so far I think that only draconic characters suffer from the expertise problem since they need 2 feats for it otherwise.

If we change the house rule there are tons of classes and concepts at a disadvantage. Picks, Flails, Polarms, Holy Symbols, Tomes, etc. There were plenty of Expertise feats missing in HotFL.

renau1g · Oct 7, 2010

Walking Dad said:
Why would be an option to decide between a to hit bonus to everything and a specific feat that give a bonus in one specific case and a little bonus for adhering to one weapon/implement type excessive?

And the feats are no more an essential part than the LEB math fix.

Why it is to remove the house rule or sticking to it? What is wrong or excessive about giving options?

---

Edit: Not making this personal, but your character for example, and other who use dynamic weapons would be either depowered or take weaponmaster expertise by changing the flat bonus to a feat. Don't accuse me that I would "begging for candy".

I believe our reasoning for the flat +1 was to keep multi-weapon users on par, i.e. artificers juggling wands, melee weapons and ranged weapons, or even a melee warrior not being much less effective with his javelin, which is already probably at least 1-2 enhancement bonus behind.

KarinsDad · Oct 7, 2010

Walking Dad said:
The only easy to find. You could argue that you can use the fullblade as an upgrade to your greataxe.

You could argue that, but it would be an irrelevant argument.

The point is that using a feat to upgrade a +2 proficiency weapon to a +3 proficiency weapon doesn't make that user better than most other weapon users or better than implement users.

Adding a feat to upgrade an implement to accuracy, on the other hand, does make an implement user better than weapon users. The average NAD defense is ~2.5 lower than the average AC. So if the weapon user is at +3 and the implement user is at +1, the implement user has a +0.5 advantage. He also has the additional advantage of being able to target weaker NAD defenses.

And the advantages of +1 to hit over +1 damage for a feat are considerable. For one thing, hitting 5% more often means often putting a disadvantageous condition on a enemy or an advantageous condition on an ally 5% more often. Secondly, most monsters do not end up dying in the 0 to -4 hit point range (the typical range where +1 damage on 4+ hits would result in the monster dying whereas not having the +1 damage feat would not result in that). When monsters die at ~-5 or lower, the +1 to hit is obviously better. Once damage gets up around 20 or higher per attack, the +1 to hit is better every single time. Even in scenarios where +1 damage results in fractionally more average damage, +1 to hit is still typically better.

renau1g · Oct 7, 2010

KarinsDad said:
You could argue that, but it would be an irrelevant argument.

The point is that using a feat to upgrade a +2 proficiency weapon to a +3 proficiency weapon doesn't make that user better than most other weapon users or better than implement users.

No, but I believe it's the only +3 prof reach weapon right? Again, a corner case