things i like/dislike about PHB2 - a sort of review

[Arivendel]

I do not really see any room for stacking with itself left in that. The special line makes that quite clear.

But dont weapons with double types (like Kopesh which is a Heavy Blade and an Axe) allow the bonus to stack? I mean you take Weapon Expertise once for Heavy Blades and one for Axe and now you have 2/4/6 bonus to damage when wielding a Kopehs right? same thing for a Fullspear or any weapon with two weapon groups right?


On topic: I like the PHB 2, one of my players is already building a Goliath Earth Strength Warden, god the idea of that beast running around with a mordenkrad is scary, Goliath Greatweapon Prowess bonus to damage is to two handed weapons in general right? or is it limited to just the two handed weapons you gain proficiency through the feat?

 

[Jack99]

But dont weapons with double types (like Kopesh which is a Heavy Blade and an Axe) allow the bonus to stack? I mean you take Weapon Expertise once for Heavy Blades and one for Axe and now you have 2/4/6 bonus to damage when wielding a Kopehs right? same thing for a Fullspear or any weapon with two weapon groups right?

Could you refer me to a page for that rule? I have seen it mentioned before, but been unable to dig it out and see for myself. Since it makes no sense at all.

 

[Arivendel]

Could you refer me to a page for that rule? I have seen it mentioned before, but been unable to dig it out and see for myself. Since it makes no sense at all.

"Some Bonuses are untyped ("a +2 Bonus"). Most of these are situational and add together with other bonuses you have, including other untyped bonuses."
Player Handbook 1, Page 275, Bonuses and Penalties Box
Weapon Expertise
Choose a Weapon Group. You gain a +1 Bonus to Attack rolls with any weapon powers you use with a weapon of that group.
Special: You can take this feat more than once. Each time you select this feat, choose another Weapon Group.
PHB 2.

Of course i did make a mistake in my previous post thinking it was a bonus to damage and not attack, my apologies there, that being said:
A Kopesh is a Heavy Blade and an Axe, so it belongs to 2 weapon groups, i can then Take Weapon Expertise (Heavy Blade) and whenever i wield a Kopesh or any other Heavy Blade have a +1/+2/+3 to my Attack Rolls. I then take Weapon Expertise (Axe), now whenever i Attack with a Heavy Blade or an Axe I have +1/+2/+3, but when i am wielding a weapon that has BOTH Weapon Groups (in this case the Kopesh) i stack both bonuses since they are untyped and stack with each other so now im Attacking with a +2/+4/+6 Untyped Bonus.

Unless of course Weapon Group refers to Simple/Military/Superior or Melee/Ranged in which case i need to start reviewing the impact some feats have in my game

 

[beverson]

Is it just me, or do the epic defense-boosting feats also seem like patches in the guise of feats?

It is all too tempting to pump the 2 key stats for your class and just focus improving them every chance you get, while ignoring your other 4 stats. As a result, most classes will have 2 excellent defenses (by virtue of having 2 good stats) and one crappy defense which most monsters will have no problem overcoming. Those feats seem like an excellent means of shoring up your weak defense.

For example, a half-orc brutal scoundrel who maxed out str and dex will have a crap will defense. So he will probably take iron will at paragon, then retrain it to either robust defenses or indomitable will, while taking epic will at the same time. That +6 to will defense sure helps shore up the +8/+9 disparity between your strong and your crap defense (assuming 10 in all mental stats, and 26-28 for str and dex at lv30). And if he takes epic fortitude/reflexes as well, his already strong defenses will be all the more unassailable.

Feature or bug here?

Some players enjoy running a character who has weaknesses. I am always surprised when I hear people say "who wouldn't take <x feat/skill/class feature>!". Almost none of the people I've gamed with over the past 20 years were serious min/maxers.

Not saying your opinion isn't valid, just saying that nothing is absolute.

 

[Plane Sailing]

"Some Bonuses are untyped ("a +2 Bonus"). Most of these are situational and add together with other bonuses you have, including other untyped bonuses."
Player Handbook 1, Page 275, Bonuses and Penalties Box
Weapon Expertise
Choose a Weapon Group. You gain a +1 Bonus to Attack rolls with any weapon powers you use with a weapon of that group.
Special: You can take this feat more than once. Each time you select this feat, choose another Weapon Group.
PHB 2.

I find that the simplest and sanest route (which is least open to abuse) is to rule that all bonuses derived from feats are, ipso facto, feat bonuses unless expressly called out otherwise.

Thus as far as I'm concerned Weapon Expertise is a feat bonus, because it is derived from a feat.

This neatly prevents any abuses such as the 'dual weapon type' thing.

I understand that this isn't the way that things are written down in PHB2, and I'm surprised that they are so quickly moving feat bonuses to 'untyped' bonuses. Have they so quickly forgotten the lessons they have learned from the end times of 3e?

Cheers

 

[Jack99]

I find that the simplest and sanest route (which is least open to abuse) is to rule that all bonuses derived from feats are, ipso facto, feat bonuses unless expressly called out otherwise.

Thus as far as I'm concerned Weapon Expertise is a feat bonus, because it is derived from a feat.

This neatly prevents any abuses such as the 'dual weapon type' thing.

I understand that this isn't the way that things are written down in PHB2, and I'm surprised that they are so quickly moving feat bonuses to 'untyped' bonuses. Have they so quickly forgotten the lessons they have learned from the end times of 3e?

Cheers

I agree 100% - by definition alone (bonuses that work all the time are feat bonuses, PHB page 192), weapon expertise should have been a feat bonus. If you want to use the feat as is, it ought to be made a feat bonus (which won't interfere with any other feats).

Or you could leave it as an untyped and realize that the whole argument with dual weapons is rules-lawyering to an extreme. There can be no doubt that it was not the intention to allow such use of the feat.

 

[evilbob]

Halberd, glaive, longspear; khopesh, greatspear: all get double weapon Expertise bonuses. (The real kicker: because they made it a weapon group thing, the double sword and urgrosh - arguably already somewhat broken - could technically also qualify twice. Now, a DM could rule that only ONE end of those double weapons can benefit from either of those feats, but strictly RAW, there's nothing against the interpretation that both ends gain both benefits. Even the picture of the double-sword supports the idea that it'd get both with both.)

Making it a feat bonus is fine, but it also makes several other feats really useless. It effectively supersedes/replaces those feats, instead of adding to them. If this is something you don't mind, then cool: but just be aware. I'm pretty sure why they're not feat bonuses to begin with.

The double-expertise stacking "abuse" is something that I honestly wonder if they just didn't think about, or if they think it's ok to shore up unpopular weapons that way. I think if they quickly errata it, we'll know it was the former; otherwise I guess it's the latter.


Runestar: totally agree and said the same thing myself. +2 untyped bonuses to all non-AC defenses for the cost of a feat seems like stealth errata as well. Granted, they're epic feats, so it's harder to tell, but it still feels that way.

 

[evilbob]

Or you could leave it as an untyped and realize that the whole argument with dual weapons is rules-lawyering to an extreme. There can be no doubt that it was not the intention to allow such use of the feat.

That's certainly a valid opinion, but your second sentence is incorrect: there can be and is much doubt. In fact, I have to say that right now, the rules lawyers look right. As-written, there can be no doubt that it works that way. (Ok, that too was an overstatement.)

As for intent: we may never know. (Unless they quickly errata it - then I would agree that you were right.)

 

[Jack99]

That's certainly a valid opinion, but your second sentence is incorrect: there can be and is much doubt. In fact, I have to say that right now, the rules lawyers look right. As-written, there can be no doubt that it works that way.

As for intent: we may never know. (Unless they quickly errata it - then I would agree that you were right.)

I guess it is a question on how you look at the game. A lot of the rules lawyers I have seen quote the RAW in conjunction with this feat have also admitted that no sane DM would/should ever allow it.

Bottom line. What was the intent of the feat? If anyone can honestly claim that the intent of the feat was to break every double-weapon out there and make them so much better than regular weapons, then sure, go ahead and use it that way. But I would love to meet someone who could claim that and keep a straight face.

Making it a feat bonus is fine, but it also makes several other feats really useless. It effectively supersedes/replaces those feats, instead of adding to them. If this is something you don't mind, then cool: but just be aware. I'm pretty sure why they're not feat bonuses to begin with.

Which feats would that be? I did a search in PHB/PHB2/MP and found no other feats that give feat bonuses to your to hit roll.

 

[RyvenCedrylle]

I play a Warlock alongside a Sorcerer and in my experience we're doing two VERY different things. I'm at range 10 within concealment alternately drawing and repelling enemies (Eldritch Blast, Dire Radiance) and gaining pretty +2s to whatever I like when something folds. He's in melee striking range throwing blasts and getting the crap kicked out of him. If we hit with equal accuracy, the Sorcerer's damage output is slightly but noticeably higher. I have better accuracy, though, with my Fate of the Void. The Sorcerer doesn't have the option to pick up temporary HPs or teleports either.

The primary difference between PHBII and PHBI strikers IMHO is mobility. The sorcerer gets almost no help moving or no bonuses when he moves -- a marked difference from the Warlock, Ranger and Rogue. The Barbarian and Avenger do have some mobility built-in but it's generally forward mobility, either in charges or chasing down a single foe. The Avenger's teleports pretty much move him toward an enemy where the Ranger and Rogue can shift any which way they like. Even when they do shift (and this goes for the Barbarian as well), a shift before an attack is much different than a shift after an attack.

I can see some overlap between the tempest fighter, battlerager fighter, two-weapon melee ranger and barbarian, so that may be a legitimate complaint. They're all different points on the same spectrum at least.