Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WalterKovacs" data-source="post: 4898785" data-attributes="member: 63763">Except weapon keyword = proficiency bonus added. Implement keyword = proficiency bonus not added.&nbsp;&nbsp;They worded Weapon Expertise (and Implement Expertise) differently than Weapon Focus ... so Weapon Focus should work the same? I don't think I can follow the logic there. If anything, they would have to errata Weapon Focus to be like Weapon Expertise if they are meant to work the same. Because it's worded differently, it works differently. Also, attack bonus is better than damage bonus (the various DPR calculations have shown it) and therefore, expertise is more powerful and should be more restricted. Focused Expertise DOES let a swordmage, for example, get the bonus on both weapon and implement powers, but at the cost of further limiting the scope of the feat (you have to pick a SPECIFIC weapon, not a weapon group).&nbsp;&nbsp;They definitely started with the &quot;staffs are weapons and implements&quot; thing, and went from there with more 'weapons as implements and vice versa' without ever really answering all the questions about which powers and properties of magic weapons apply, etc.&nbsp;The biggest problem is that weapons get much better &quot;stuff&quot; compared to implements. There is no implement focus, for example, which would make most weapon focus issues moot (outside of cases like the swordmage and monk which would want &quot;focuses focus&quot; or maybe call it expert focus?). Not to mention stuff like flaming weapons and the like. [There is the issue with the cold weapons and how it makes a rogue more likely to use the cold feats that give vulnerability and combat advantage than a wizard does].</blockquote>

[QUOTE="WalterKovacs, post: 4898785, member: 63763"] Except weapon keyword = proficiency bonus added. Implement keyword = proficiency bonus not added. They worded Weapon Expertise (and Implement Expertise) [i]differently[/i] than Weapon Focus ... so Weapon Focus should work the same? I don't think I can follow the logic there. If anything, they would have to errata Weapon Focus to be like Weapon Expertise if they are meant to work the same. Because it's worded differently, it works differently. Also, attack bonus is better than damage bonus (the various DPR calculations have shown it) and therefore, expertise is more powerful and should be more restricted. Focused Expertise DOES let a swordmage, for example, get the bonus on both weapon and implement powers, but at the cost of further limiting the scope of the feat (you have to pick a SPECIFIC weapon, not a weapon group). They definitely started with the "staffs are weapons and implements" thing, and went from there with more 'weapons as implements and vice versa' without ever really answering all the questions about which powers and properties of magic weapons apply, etc. The biggest problem is that weapons get much better "stuff" compared to implements. There is no implement focus, for example, which would make most weapon focus issues moot (outside of cases like the swordmage and monk which would want "focuses focus" or maybe call it expert focus?). Not to mention stuff like flaming weapons and the like. [There is the issue with the cold weapons and how it makes a rogue more likely to use the cold feats that give vulnerability and combat advantage than a wizard does]. [/QUOTE]

Verification