Weapon/Implement Expertise: +1 to-hit?! Yuck!

[Mengu]

I was re-reading "Good Feats" design article from dragon 371, and came across a few things:

Many of the feats that ended up in the Player's Handbook are translations of feats in the previous edition, including Alertness, Far Shot, Skill Focus, and Toughness. Because of the amount of time we spent bringing these familiar names forward, I don't think we spent enough time exploring the new territory that feats offer in 4th Edition. Since finishing the Player's Handbook, we've thankfully been exploring that territory more, as shown in the feats in upcoming books, like Player's Handbook 2.

Such as Weapon Expertise? Ah-uh.

And here is number three from their design philosophies:

3) Does it create meaningful differences? While power selection would always remain the primary method of differentiating two characters of the same class, we wanted feats to carry some of that weight as well.

For one, a character with Weapon Expertise has a bunch of +1's added to his attacks. Does that make the character feel different? More powerful, maybe, but different?

Secondly, if this feat is meant to be powerful, how is 80% of the party picking up this feat going to help characters feel different?

This feat certainly does fall into the categories of "easy to understand", "easy to use". I'm afraid it will also fall into the category of "no brainer".

And one last thing I noticed reading the article, is that there is a distinct lack of a mention for balance as a design philosophy or guideline. Maybe it just wasn't in the scope of the article, but I would think it should be part of a basic guideline.

 

[fba827]

As far as the pregens go, don't forget they are just that - pregens.
I'm not saying this is the only reason, but a mechanically simple feat is much easier to get in the small space needed for the sheet and is also simple to understand for a 'newbie.' Therefore, this sort of feat is very appealing to a pregen because it is a pregen for a quick delve. That could be part of the reason.

 

[jgsugden]

I'm sorry, but have we seen the text of this feat, yet?

Putting aside the small chance that it isn't the source of the +1 AB we're seeing, isn't it possible that there is more to the feat than +1 AB?

Perhaps there is a restriction linked to the bonus (something not explicit in the delve characters)?

Perhaps the expertise is only open to certain classes? Perhaps it prevents you from taking other feats?

Perhaps it can't be retrained, and can only be taken once - forcing you to focus on a particular weapon as a signature thing for your PC (which would be somewhat nullified as a penalty by the magic transfering ritual in AV I).

Maybe it has a prerequisite that is a bit inefficient to fufill - making it a way to overcome a theoretically weaker build?

We won't know until we see the text. I think it would be a mistake to have a flat +1 feat bonus to AB with a given implement/weapon group as a heroic feat for all of the reasons listed above - which is why I don't think they did it.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Ok, lets break down how 4e works...


lets assume that the book is balanced for a 16 attack stat and a +2 prof weapon Vs AC, or a 16 att stat alone Vs Nads...Anything else is Bonus...
Now I am going to take the DMG info on monster building...everything for standard monsters AC lie between Level+12 and L+14...and NADS Level +12...to make an elite is +2 to three...and solo is another +2 to three...

Level 1
+5 Vs AC 13-16...up to 20 for solo need 8-11 up to 15 solo
+3 Vs NADs 13...up to 17 for solo need 10 up to 14 solo

Level 11
+3 magic... +1-2 att stat (+3 to the stat) +5 level
+14-15 Vs AC 23-25 up to 29 solo need 8-11 up to 15 solo
+12 Vs NADs 23...up to 27 solos need 11 up to 16 solo

level 30
+30 Vs AC 42-44 up to 48 for solo need 12-14 up to 18 solo
+28 Vs NADs 42 up to 46 solos need 14 up to 18 solo

now assuming that between controlers and defenders giving penilties, and leaders giving bonuses, and getting combat advantage... it basicly come down to the same (Higher level has more powers that do better)

that has not changed...a 20 att stat is +2 better...a +3 prof weapon is +1 better...weapon Expertise is +1 better...
so you can gain 4 pts of bonus...plus targeting off defs...

the monster def is not going up...so it is not needed...it is a bonus... people who already always had +3 prof weapons, and 20 att stats are going to consider it a must have just like that 20 and +3 is...everyone else it will just be another good choice

 

[yesnomu]

the monster def is not going up...so it is not needed...it is a bonus... people who already always had +3 prof weapons, and 20 att stats are going to consider it a must have just like that 20 and +3 is...everyone else it will just be another good choice

Yes, but this makes the 20/+3s that much more powerful, for the relatively minor cost of one feat. It's a gain in power for them with very little tradeoff, which in my mind goes against 4e's basic concepts.

Think of it in terms of opportunity costs. You have to give up a heck of a lot for that 20, and there are plenty of great weapons with a +2 prof (my favorite the Mordenkrad, for example). Those are both a tradeoff, and all things considered I wouldn't necessarily put a 20/+3 ahead of a well-built 18/+2. One feat slot isn't nearly as much of an investment.

Now, granted, W/IE could have severe prerequisites, making choosing it as consequential as the 18/20 or +2/+3 choice. If that's the case, no one will be as thrilled as me. But there doesn't appear to be evidence of that kind of tradeoff yet.

 

[Blizzardb]

Yes, but this makes the 20/+3s that much more powerful, for the relatively minor cost of one feat. It's a gain in power for them with very little tradeoff, which in my mind goes against 4e's basic concepts.

Actually, there was a fairly recent thread theorizing that every extra +1 to attack is worth less than the previous ones. Maybe someone can provide a link?

 

[FireLance]

Actually, there was a fairly recent thread theorizing that every extra +1 to attack is worth less than the previous ones. Maybe someone can provide a link?

Here ya go: d20 Math: AC, To Hit, and Diminishing Returns

 

[Mengu]

Actually, there was a fairly recent thread theorizing that every extra +1 to attack is worth less than the previous ones. Maybe someone can provide a link?

True for DPR, until you start factoring in effects. For instance for a paladin attacking with righteous smite, the difference between hitting annd missing is a difference of doing typical encounter power damage plus giving the party around 40 temporary HP's, vs. nothing. That paladin really wants to hit. For a warlord using Battle On, the difference between a hit and a miss is again some decent damage plus 4-5 saving throws with around a +5 bonus, vs. nothing.

Diminishing returns doesn't really apply when you are looking at encounter and daily powers that you really want to hit with. Edit: Well, it applies, but is not the only deciding factor.

 

[Cadfan]

Its also worth remembering that the returns don't diminish all that fast except on the far tails of the curve.

 

[jgsugden]

A couple points:

1.) Just to reiterate, we have not seen the full text of these feats, so there could be a trade off we're not seeing. A flat +1 to hit is a big deal, but maybe you're given up nearly as much in terms of an associated penalty.

2.) Diminishing returns =/= no value. Spending a weekend with 3 supermodels is less than spending the weekend with 4 supermodels, but it is still friggin awesome. Although there are aspects of diminishing returns to increased AB, any increase in AB is significant. And, there are also aspects of this that make it *more valuable* against tough foes.

In 4E, the roll needed to hit should range between a 3 (a foe 4 levels before you with low defenses (brute, etc...)) to 18 (a solo or elite foe 4 levels above you with a high defense (soldier, etc...)). This is not universally true, but it is a good approximation.

Let's say I do an average of 20 damage on a strike. If I need an 18 to hit normally, but this feat gives me a +1 better chance, I do an average of 1 point more damage per strike. In 4E, that would be an increase in expected damage of ~25% (average damage rising from about 3.5 to 4.5 when you factor in criticals). Against really tough foes, I'm going to do 25% more damage because of this feat.

Let's say we're on the other extreme. There, I'm still going to do an average of +1 more per attack, but that will increase my average damage from 18.5 to 19.5 - just over a 5% increase in damage per target per attack.

Meanwhile, a +1 increase to damage is going to be worth much less extra damage, because it only increases damage by 1 if I hit. If the foe has a really nasty defense, that +1 to damage only increases the average damage per attack by about .15 or .2 damage per target per attack. If the foe has a low defense, I am going to do closer to that full +1 damage, but I'll never get to a full +1 due to the way that critical hits work.

In other words, in all realistic ranges, as long as we're doing a substantial amount of damage, this feat will pretty much always be better at increasing average damage than a +1 to damage.

3.) If these feats are truly +1 with a weapon group / implement group with no drawback, I'm going to just give all PCs one of these feats as a bonus feat - that they can not retrain. I can adjust for it in encounter design, and I like the idea of PCs having specializtion. It also adds some meat to it, as a class like the paladin would still want to spend a feat to get the other one (implement expertise if they have weapon expertise) so that they can get their bonus with both weapons and implements.