Excerpts: PHB2 - Heric Tier Feats

[grickherder]

I don't buy this "They intend it to be an errata to give a +1 bonus to all attacks" when they could have easily done that, and explicitly did not.

I don't buy it either. Neither do I buy that it's a must have for all characters at all times. I'm trying to figure out the best way to make a warlock/wizard multiclass and implement expertise isn't on my short list. It's something I'll probably consider for some time in the paragon tier, maybe after level 15. And that assumes there's not going to be better feat options in Arcane Power.

Also, it's pretty close to needless for rogues in the heroic tier as well. They can already get ridiculously good to hit bonuses.

My favorite use of it is for the MAD builds. Sometimes you just want 16 in two stats and a feat that then lets you hit as if one of them was an 18 just makes good sense.

I also see it being taken by those who feel they are missing a little too much. This could be from bad luck or attacking the wrong defense of a particular monster, or because of a sub-optimal build.

 

[frankthedm]

ok maybe i'm just missing something cause i haven't played much 4e, but i don't see the big deal. It's a plus one to hit. even when it scales it's still only a plus three. Big whoop it's a scaling version of 3e weapon focus.

4E is intentionally stingy with bonuses.

Flanking was one of the few bonuses to stay at the 3E amount, but it still got reduced because it has almost nothing left to stack with. Because Combat advantage covers multiple situations in 4E. what would have given over +8 to hit now only gives +2.

• Nothing takes away Dex modifier to AC.
• CA is the same bonus now as being invisible. [in 3E that was its own+2]
• it is the same bonus as attacking a prone foe. [that was +4]

 

[WalterKovacs]

One of the design philosophies of 4E was to make it harder for a person to make an ineffective character. Weapon Expertise and Implement Expertise run counter to this philosophy. Feats are optional choices, and you can't count on someone taking a particular feat, even a "must-have" feat. Plus, it's in a non-Core book, which means those that don't buy the book are going to miss out (unless they find it via a DDI subscription to the Character Builder).

Considering that epic monsters existed before this feat, and those characters were not errata'd to increase their defenses because of this feat, this feat has not made existing characters ineffective because of it's existence. Instead, it allows characters that may have been [or seemed] ineffective to no longer be that way. While the general rule is to increase your attack step at every opportunity, this boost may allow for someone to start out a bit lower, or increase other stats at some points, and end up still farther ahead at the epic tier than before the feat existed.

Unless the argument is that all currently possible options for characters in the epic tier are ineffective since they don't have access to the feat ... it can't be the case that future characters choosing not to take the feat are also ineffective. They may be less effective than their party members, but that is different than ineffective.

The feat isn't going to somehow create an arms race with the monsters where the monsters will increase their defenses by an ammount equal to any new attack bonus the players receive.

How does Wizards account for this in their published modules. Say there's a big Epic adventure to slay Orcus. Does Wizards design this assuming that all the players have +3 to hit with their attacks, or not? Their choice will determine whether some parties are presented with a cakewalk, or a TPK.

Monster design is based on an assumption that monsters increase in attack and defense at each level. PCs increase at 1/2 level, get +4 or +5 to their stats through increases (assuming all bonuses to the same stat, and an epic destiny that increases the same stat), get a +6 magic item at the last level. That currently gives them 26 added to their starting attack numbers, which puts them behind the monsters at that rate. Adding the +3, you have a near perfectly smooth curve. From a math perspective, before the feat, the PCs would be in bad shape against the monsters at the end of epic ... unless they started ahead of the curve from the start, and even then they'd only be less behind. However, it is now easier for a PC to be only as good or bad against relatively levelled monsters as they were at 1st level.

The feat would make epic encounters easier, admitedly, but epic adventures would not be made more difficult, at least in terms of making monsters harder to hit, because of it.

 

[Mr. Wilson]

If that was their intent, then the feat would add a flat +1 to all attacks, instead of a specific weapon/implement. The feat is intended for the character to focus on a particular weapon/implement, just like Weapon Focus. Signature weapons, and all that.

I don't buy this "They intend it to be an errata to give a +1 bonus to all attacks" when they could have easily done that, and explicitly did not.

Assigning intent to developers is something I find to be rather arrogant.

We're gonna have to agree to disagree. At the point where this extra bonus is important (mid paragon and later), most PCs already are specialized in weapons (hammer rythem et al).

Obviously, I can't speak for the developers (hence my op in this thread stating I wanted to hear what they were thinking).

I just think it's more likely that they wanted to fix the flawed math of the game then reward min-maxers, which kinda goes against the basic concept of 4E.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

There is still the decision when to take that feat, and against high level monster you should have powers which also give bonuses and penatlties of at least +4 (an int warlord should be able to give you +4 with half his int bonus alone when you take an action point)

 

[Runestar]

There is still the decision when to take that feat

Given the ease of retraining, probably at any level when you feel like you are no longer hitting as consistently as you should be.

Though given the all-or-nothing nature of most powers, I expect players to eventually take them anyways. You may feel comfortable being able to hit a foe on a 5 or more, until you roll a 2, and then think :"Crud, if I had taken expertise, that miss would have been a hit..."

 

[WalterKovacs]

Given the ease of retraining, probably at any level when you feel like you are no longer hitting as consistently as you should be.

Though given the all-or-nothing nature of most powers, I expect players to eventually take them anyways. You may feel comfortable being able to hit a foe on a 5 or more, until you roll a 2, and then think :"Crud, if I had taken expertise, that miss would have been a hit..."

Perhaps, however there are still characters using +2 prof weapons, giving up accuracy for damage.

Until you hit 15, expertise gives you a 5% increase in accuracy. Until your average on a hit is higher than 20, you increase your average damage per hit by less than 1, making weapon focus, two weapon fighting, backstabber, superior weapon prof, lethal hunter, all the elemental damage boosters, etc ... giving more of an increase to average damage. At paragon, many increase to 2 points, needing your average damage on a hit to be 40 to compare to them.

Once you hit level 15, assuming you are a striker, your average damage on a hit with an at-will is probably going to be at least 20 damage [One example: eldritch blast 1d10 + 2d6 (curse) + 6 (18 + 4 by 14) + 3 (enhancement) = 21.5, and that is likely a conservative one ... other strikers would likely be doing more per hit with at-wills adding striker damage, and this doesn't include feats, etc]. And then you'll definitely be increasing your average damage by increase your to-hit by +2.

I'm a little off on the numbers, but the basic idea is that, for characters with an already good chance of hitting, your damage output will be greater increased by damage increases than accuracy increase.

Another basic example of the math:

Rogue, level 1, 18 DEX and CHA with sly flourish.

Let's put it against one of the harder to hit monsters ... a level 3 hobgoblin solider, so AC 20 is the goal. Assuming the rogue gets combat advantage and is using a dagger he's looking at 10 vs. AC

So, before feats he has:

.55 (1d4 + 8 + 2d6) = .55 (17.5) = 9.625
.55 (18.5) [Weapon Focus] = 10.175
.55 (19.5) [Backstabber] = 10.725
.6 (17.5) [Weapon Expertise/Nimble Blade] = 10.5

In this case, the damage per hit is great enough, and the initial accuracy was low enough, that expertise is an improvement over weapon focus. However, this is an example of a high AC foe. If you are hitting on a 6, for example againt a level 1 soldier that has AC 16, the numbers become:

.75(17.5) = 13.125
WF -> 14.0625
BS -> 14.8125
WE -> 14 on the dot

As the average damage per hit decreases, and the odds of hitting increases, the value of weapon expertise decreases. This means that it's more useful to improve someone that has a hard time hitting than it is for someone that is already optimized.

For a non-striker, their average damage on a hit is much lower, and are more likely to increase their damage through the other feats. Even at level 15, it's possible that they are more focussed on class roles that aren't centered around damage dealing. For example, there are a number of paragon options that improve defenses, a leaders ability to buff/heal the party, a defenders ability to protect his allies (and keep himself alive), and a controllers ability to keep foes locked down.

Arguably the feat is probably going to replace things like toughness/durable/improved iniative as the "I've run out of things to pick" feat choice.

 

[Cadfan]

Perhaps, however there are still characters using +2 prof weapons, giving up accuracy for damage.

Until you hit 15, expertise gives you a 5% increase in accuracy. Until your average on a hit is higher than 20, you increase your average damage per hit by less than 1, making weapon focus, two weapon fighting, backstabber, superior weapon prof, lethal hunter, all the elemental damage boosters, etc ... giving more of an increase to average damage. At paragon, many increase to 2 points, needing your average damage on a hit to be 40 to compare to them.

This is not correct.

A 5% raw increase in accuracy is not the same as a 5% increase in average damage per round.

Lets say I normally hit on an 11+ (it should be lower, probably, but this makes the math easier on me and I'm lazy). My average damage per round with an at will is my chance of hitting ("A" for accuracy), times my average damage on a hit with this at will ("D" for damage). "A" = .5, in this example. "D" equals... lets say it equals 10.

A*D = .5*10 = 5

Now lets give this character weapon expertise as a heroic tier feat. He hits on a 10+, giving him A=.55.

A*D = .55*10 = 5.5

5.5 is 10% larger than 5. He obtained a 10% expected damage per round increase from Weapon Expertise.

Its worth noting that Weapon Focus would have given identical gains, though it wouldn't help with additional affects created by powers, and Expertise is better when you use it for more damaging powers while Focus is a flat bonus to everything.

You could actually graph out these variables for a given accuracy and average damage, but its not really worth the time. Expertise is going to be better for most people at most levels, and they stack anyways so take them both.

 

[DandD]

We know that the developers do read this message board. So, let's ask them if the weapon expertise feat is written correctly.

 

[WalterKovacs]

This is not correct.

A 5% raw increase in accuracy is not the same as a 5% increase in average damage per round.

Lets say I normally hit on an 11+ (it should be lower, probably, but this makes the math easier on me and I'm lazy). My average damage per round with an at will is my chance of hitting ("A" for accuracy), times my average damage on a hit with this at will ("D" for damage). "A" = .5, in this example. "D" equals... lets say it equals 10.

A*D = .5*10 = 5

Now lets give this character weapon expertise as a heroic tier feat. He hits on a 10+, giving him A=.55.

A*D = .55*10 = 5.5

5.5 is 10% larger than 5. He obtained a 10% expected damage per round increase from Weapon Expertise.

Its worth noting that Weapon Focus would have given identical gains, though it wouldn't help with additional affects created by powers, and Expertise is better when you use it for more damaging powers while Focus is a flat bonus to everything.

You could actually graph out these variables for a given accuracy and average damage, but its not really worth the time. Expertise is going to be better for most people at most levels, and they stack anyways so take them both.

I did note in my post I was a little off on my numbers. You add 5% of the expected damage on a hit to the damage per round. The lower your actual accuracy was before, the less of your damage on a hit becomes damage per round.

I'm not arguing people wouldn't take this feat. I'm arguing this feat isn't a "you start with one less feat" option. Wizards and some of the other new classes start with only cloth proficiency. There are some racial feats, and class specific feats that give a lot more than this one does.

Expertise is better than weapon focus at most levels ... arguably there are areas where focus is better (11 to 14 is likely the best). True, you can take both, but ultimately, there are a limited number of feats. Many other feats are better than weapon focus ... weapon focus is often taken latter in heroic, if not delayed until paragon tier when it starts giving more than "just" +1 to damage.

The reaction to weapon expertise is that it is much more than just "better than weapon focus". However, the impact of the feat decreases as the characters accuracy increases. If you need 11 to hit, it's a lot better than if you need 6 to hit.