evilbob
Explorer
A lot of stuff has been said about Weapon/Implement Expertise, and I am inclined to believe that this feat is a rather inelegant way to fix the existing math problem. (If you disagree with this first point, please move counterarguments to the threads pertaining to that topic. This position is assumed for the rest of this post.) Worse yet, I feel like as-implemented, the feat breaks more things than it solves: it gives Halbred/Longspear/etc. users a chance to significantly boost their power rather unreasonably since it stacks with itself, and it doubly-punishes classes/builds that were already given a hard time in the first place (cleric, paly, etc.) with a two-feat tax instead of one.
Given that, I have collected three proposed "fixes" for the feat that are obvious/commonly submitted/etc. The idea of this thread is to figure out which fix seems like the most useful, and other suggested fixes are welcome.
1. Just fix the math and ban the feats: +1/2/3 to hit at levels 5/15/25. This is a very commonly suggested fix.
- Pros: This is easy to implement, even in the Character Builder (just give both versions of the feat once to every character at level 5 for their primary weapon/implement) - although if you are specifically trying to also boost non-weapon, non-implement attacks, you can't. The simplicity of the solution is very appealing. Also completely circumvents feat stacking issues / double costs.
- Cons: No cost whatsoever does make it slightly different than the current implementation (typical cost: 1 feat), leaving a bad taste in the mouths of some. Are you really fixing the math or just boosting your own players? Also, this boosts non-weapon, non-implement attacks (like items and breath weapons) - unless you use the Character Builder - so it is much farther reaching than the feats. (On the other hand, won't these attacks need a boost, too?)
1b. Change monster stats instead (-1/2/3 to defenses for monsters >5/>15/>25) and ban the feats. This is also a somewhat simple (and invisible to the PCs) fix that is so similar to the first idea I didn't give it a different number.
- Pros: No issue with the Character Builder whatsoever. Also completely circumvents feat stacking issues / double costs.
- Cons: More difficult to implement than the first idea as it requires a quick mental check on the part of the DM for every monster/enemy.
2. The also commonly suggested "masterwork weapon/implement" fix: more powerful weapons/implements are found for +2/3, +4/5, and +6 items, which give +1/2/3 to hit, respectively. Possible example: Mithril weapon, minimum enhancement bonus +2, effect: +1 bonus to hit (or +1 to existing proficiency bonus, or whatever).
- Pros: This is close to #1 in practical terms, but it scales more realistically and follows the (admittedly convoluted but already implemented) masterwork armor "fix." Also completely circumvents feat stacking issues / double costs.
- Cons: This is difficult to actually do, as it would require new weapon type names (not really a problem) and keeping track of things not available in Character Builder (more of a problem). Like #1 it also doesn't cost a feat, which is different than the original (developer) solution and may leave a bad taste in the mouths of some.
3. Change the feat to avoid abuses: eliminate "Weapon Expertise" and "Implement Expertise" and replace with one feat: "Expertise." Taking the feat gives a +1/2/3 untyped bonus to weapon and implement attacks at 5/15/25. This feat cannot be taken more than once.
- Pros: Fixes the halbred "stacking" abuse and makes life slightly less suckier for clerics and palys ("double-cost" issue). Also works the way the original feat seems to have been intended (i.e. it still costs 1 feat). It is also easy to implement in Character Builder, as you simply add Weapon/Implement when the other is taken, and don't add additional instances of the feat.
- Cons: Non-standard feat language may leave a bad taste in the mouths of some. Still costs 1 feat, which many just plain don't like.
Personally, I am completely confused as to why the developers did not choose to do #2 (other than the idea that it needed to cost something so people wouldn't get so upset at blatant power creep [too late!]), but for my own games I am leaning toward #3. #2 is just too difficult to implement, especially when you rely on the Character Builder a lot (one downside of this tool is it severely limits your houseruling options if you want to use it). #3 leaves the "cost" in place, but simply fixes the abuses.
Other thoughts, ideas?
Given that, I have collected three proposed "fixes" for the feat that are obvious/commonly submitted/etc. The idea of this thread is to figure out which fix seems like the most useful, and other suggested fixes are welcome.
1. Just fix the math and ban the feats: +1/2/3 to hit at levels 5/15/25. This is a very commonly suggested fix.
- Pros: This is easy to implement, even in the Character Builder (just give both versions of the feat once to every character at level 5 for their primary weapon/implement) - although if you are specifically trying to also boost non-weapon, non-implement attacks, you can't. The simplicity of the solution is very appealing. Also completely circumvents feat stacking issues / double costs.
- Cons: No cost whatsoever does make it slightly different than the current implementation (typical cost: 1 feat), leaving a bad taste in the mouths of some. Are you really fixing the math or just boosting your own players? Also, this boosts non-weapon, non-implement attacks (like items and breath weapons) - unless you use the Character Builder - so it is much farther reaching than the feats. (On the other hand, won't these attacks need a boost, too?)
1b. Change monster stats instead (-1/2/3 to defenses for monsters >5/>15/>25) and ban the feats. This is also a somewhat simple (and invisible to the PCs) fix that is so similar to the first idea I didn't give it a different number.
- Pros: No issue with the Character Builder whatsoever. Also completely circumvents feat stacking issues / double costs.
- Cons: More difficult to implement than the first idea as it requires a quick mental check on the part of the DM for every monster/enemy.
2. The also commonly suggested "masterwork weapon/implement" fix: more powerful weapons/implements are found for +2/3, +4/5, and +6 items, which give +1/2/3 to hit, respectively. Possible example: Mithril weapon, minimum enhancement bonus +2, effect: +1 bonus to hit (or +1 to existing proficiency bonus, or whatever).
- Pros: This is close to #1 in practical terms, but it scales more realistically and follows the (admittedly convoluted but already implemented) masterwork armor "fix." Also completely circumvents feat stacking issues / double costs.
- Cons: This is difficult to actually do, as it would require new weapon type names (not really a problem) and keeping track of things not available in Character Builder (more of a problem). Like #1 it also doesn't cost a feat, which is different than the original (developer) solution and may leave a bad taste in the mouths of some.
3. Change the feat to avoid abuses: eliminate "Weapon Expertise" and "Implement Expertise" and replace with one feat: "Expertise." Taking the feat gives a +1/2/3 untyped bonus to weapon and implement attacks at 5/15/25. This feat cannot be taken more than once.
- Pros: Fixes the halbred "stacking" abuse and makes life slightly less suckier for clerics and palys ("double-cost" issue). Also works the way the original feat seems to have been intended (i.e. it still costs 1 feat). It is also easy to implement in Character Builder, as you simply add Weapon/Implement when the other is taken, and don't add additional instances of the feat.
- Cons: Non-standard feat language may leave a bad taste in the mouths of some. Still costs 1 feat, which many just plain don't like.
Personally, I am completely confused as to why the developers did not choose to do #2 (other than the idea that it needed to cost something so people wouldn't get so upset at blatant power creep [too late!]), but for my own games I am leaning toward #3. #2 is just too difficult to implement, especially when you rely on the Character Builder a lot (one downside of this tool is it severely limits your houseruling options if you want to use it). #3 leaves the "cost" in place, but simply fixes the abuses.
Other thoughts, ideas?
Last edited:
