+ Log in or register to post
Results 21 to 30 of 63
Wednesday, 13th October, 2010, 02:29 PM #21
Superhero (Lvl 15)
You know the versatile expertise feat? It is no problem to choose holy symbol and a weapon type. Do we really need a proposal to help weapon and implement users, to use many types of weapons or implements at once?
And yes, if he is also a dragonborn, both heavy blade and holy symbol would get a bonus from versatile expertise, but not his breath weapon. I still think the breath weapon is a good racial bonus, even without one more feat to add an expertise bonus.
Powers that benefit neither from weapon, nor implement enhancements should also get no expertise bonus.Signature
- EN World
- has no influence
- on advertisings
- that are displayed by
- Google Adsense
Wednesday, 13th October, 2010, 02:45 PM #22
Thaumaturgist (Lvl 9)
WD: A dragonborn's breath attack still needs the +1/2/3 to hit. It is horrible without it. Versatile Expertise can only fix so much of the problem, and honestly with the newest (much more powerful) expertise feats out Versatile Expertise is worse again.
The math fix is required for all attacks: that math doesn't change. Let's fix the math. +feat bonus.
Wednesday, 13th October, 2010, 03:10 PM #23
Myrmidon (Lvl 10)
And if the dragonborn's breath is errata'd to be like the minotaur's gore and already incorporate the math?
Do PP powers and racial powers that do take into account the math get bumped down, or do they just stay mathematically superior options?
edit: Nevermind, minotaur's gore doesn't actually include the revised math (that's what I get for trusting Renau1g ;-) ) It's just got a +2 proficiency bonus built in since it's vs. AC. So basically we're looking at a few racial attacks and a handful of PP powers that are non-weapon, non-implement. I guess, is there some reason those attacks specifically couldn't get the bonus, and the feat remain for the weapon and implement attacks?
That way specialization is still rewarded with increased skill, but decreased versatility; and generalization doesn't fall behind in the math, and the flexibility it allows is its own reward.
Last edited by hafrogman; Wednesday, 13th October, 2010 at 03:32 PM.
Wednesday, 13th October, 2010, 03:26 PM #24
Thaumaturgist (Lvl 9)
Frankly, those abilities are still bad even with the math fix, so I sure don't mind.
But even if WotC goes back and fixes all of them, you still have a dual-wielder (like a paladin) to worry about. The new expertise feats are so good that versatile expertise is left in the dust.
Guys, the problem with the expertise feats is going to suck no matter what. It sucks because WotC made it suck. Our goal is to find a solution that sucks the least to make it less sucky. Nothing will be perfect, I can promise you, because if there WAS a perfect solution it would have been done by now. My opinion is that this proposal fixes the sucky problem with expertise in the least sucky way. The other option - what we already have - is also a very good solution, but I just personally think it sucks ever so slightly more. We're not going to all win or all lose here no matter what we do.
Wednesday, 13th October, 2010, 04:53 PM #25
Superhero (Lvl 15)
In regard of racial abilities: Character Optimizers seem to like them, so they cannot be that bad
Wednesday, 13th October, 2010, 07:32 PM #26
The Great Druid (Lvl 17)
Really? Charopers love Dragon's Breath? Not that I've seen. Really, once you get up in levels, the minor action to use DB is usually not worth it. I have not seen a single build on their boards where someone super-optimized DB or mino-gore. If they did it would likely be a super-niche build that trades tons of versatility and other stuff for this. Like the build that has Hybrid monk//avenger, paragon hybrid or Mc or whatever to get both Armor of Faith and the Monk bonus to AC... sure they get high AC, but they lose out on a few feats, their attacks have two different ability scores, their HP will be low, their Fort is weak, and they lose their PP abilities. Usually I hear the Char-Oper's talking how the racials fail to keep up properly with the math and therefore are useless as you level.
Now, if you're talking Elven Accuracy or the Dwarven second wind as a minor, or the human feats, or Gith weapon feat...yeah those are good, but they're not attack powers so they aren't affected.
Races with attack powers that would not be covered by Versatile Expertise:
5) Fire/Caustic Genasi
Really, the only one that is played here in any sort of number is the Dragonborn. So, in the aggregate, no I don't think that giving a +1 to hit on Dragon's Breath is really that big of a deal.
re: power creep on dwarven weapon training - can't have creep when it was in the first book The power creep came in Essentials when dwarves (already top-tier for many melee classes) got to bump Str as an option. Gith weapon training is good, but the race isn't well supported so it's kind of a trade-off. 1 great feat....and little else.
Wednesday, 13th October, 2010, 10:31 PM #27
Gallant (Lvl 3)
I'll be honest, as a player I'd rather see all house rules regarding expertise feats vanish than have to propose new ones every 3 months because of new information from WotC. It gets hard to keep up with.
I think the last proposal is fine (the current house rules). It helps to cover the fact that there is at least one PP that requires a particular feat, and so allows people to work towards that. It seems reasonable that if one exists, more might happen.
I would not like to see this current proposal because it would once again tamper with such PPs. Although this proposal doesn't ban you from taking the feat, it does make it sort of wasted.
I understand that there is a math problem and so people feel compelled to try and fix it, and do so in the fairest way possible. However, I feel that keeping up with WotC's changes is hard enough. The current rules are adequate, in my opinion, and if there is any further change I feel it should be to do away with house rules. I realize that I am in the minority in that, but I still feel it important to voice my opinion.
Wednesday, 13th October, 2010, 11:40 PM #28
Enchanter (Lvl 12)
A feat that us required for a PP is not a feat tax; it's a build choice. Having the fixed bonus does not after that as that feat is required for that build. Should other PP that require feats be given for free?
Me, I'm up for waiting until the next Expertise book comes out to limit reretweeking.
Thursday, 14th October, 2010, 12:24 AM #29
Myrmidon (Lvl 10)
I agree with you Lady Law. Peel away all the house rules with regards to this situation. L4W PC's already get extra points to use on ability scores during character creation.
In home games that have this rule and here, there is a feeling that the DMs have to 'ramp' it up to make it challenging for the PCs. Well you don't have to make it more challenging if the PCs weren't capable to hand such a challenge. In the end, it just becomes an arms race of stat bonuses.
Thursday, 14th October, 2010, 03:04 AM #30
Waghalter (Lvl 7)
The kreen being slightly problematical as their attack power actually scales properly as written. (Shock!)
Why is the proposed rule better than the existing rule?
--It helps with weaponless, implementless attacks, which mostly don't scale properly.
--It reduces power creep, because the new expertise feats give benefits besides patching the math. Yes, Githzerai Blademaster is a powerful feat, but we don't give it away for free. We shouldn't give Staff Expertise away for free either.
--It's truer to the intent of the house rule, which is to fix the attack math, and not to give out free feats for build purposes.
Papolstaanas (babbling kobold); Pharodeys (living statue); Scarmiglione (singing kenku)
By Falling Icicle in forum D&D and Pathfinder Rules & DiscussionReplies: 12Last Post: Thursday, 3rd January, 2013, 08:14 PM
By elecgraystone in forum Living 4th EditionReplies: 94Last Post: Monday, 11th October, 2010, 11:39 PM
By Oni in forum Living 4th EditionReplies: 59Last Post: Thursday, 11th March, 2010, 04:45 AM
By Joshua Randall in forum D&D and Pathfinder Rules & DiscussionReplies: 9Last Post: Thursday, 26th October, 2006, 04:36 PM
By Janx in forum D&D and Pathfinder Rules & DiscussionReplies: 4Last Post: Friday, 11th August, 2006, 06:34 PM