Expertise justification?

[GMforPowergamers]

I'm having some difficulty following your post. Could you clarify a bit?

It seems that you are claiming a +1 bonus is only a small increase in the chance to hit.....and I don't know that anyone is arguing that.

my argument at it's most basic is this:

It is one of the most powerful combat feats in the game, BUT it is not the only feat in the game that is very powerful. It is not a non choice becuse we have played X months with out it, and did fine. I belive that the math only shows it to be what it is, the best feat for increasing damage. There will always be best, good, and ok choices, this is just another one.

I also argue that as other feats like it come out we will see more and more custmization (Gnomes with illusions, fey with charm, Dragonborn with there breathweapon type of damage, fighters with there chosen weapon)

How every Rit caster and Alcomy are both the same type of feat, rit caster is clearly more powerful...that is not a problme as long as both are funat the table

I see no problem with these feats as written, I feel they are just a new tool in the kit.

A +1 is +5% lets never forget this...a +3 is +15% and YES 15% is a low %....however it is enough to effect about 11% of the game over the game.

If I make a Warlord, and you make a Druid, and we have the same bonus to hit except you have this feat and I do not, you have on avrage over 30 levels (and 60+ games) hit 11% more then me. If we are only compairing to hit you are better by (What I consider to be) a reasnable amount...however that leaves every other thing, and I am afeat ahead of you.

 

[Nail]

Ah! I understand what you're saying (FWIW). Thanks for the clarification.

If the only difference between two characters is +5% on the attack roll, I agree that we might not notice much. Assuming ~525 attack rolls over the Heroic tier (10 encounters per level, 3/4 are combat; ~7 rounds per encounter), the PC with the +1 better attack will hit only 26 more times than the other PC.

IME, those sort of differences are noticed only a little bit.....but if the difference is +2 (Paragon) or +3 (Epic), it's noticed pretty easily.

YMMV, of course.

 

[Lauberfen]

[FONT=PrimaSans BT,Verdana,sans-serif]

[5% is not much, etc]

I'm under no illusions about the scale of this bonus, and you'll find me
citing the 5% difference within the last few pages. However a question
of scale is not really relevant here- something could still be the best
feat, and only offer a small bonus such as this. Further, expertise is
already clearly better than every conditional bonus to hit, which is
about 5 feats so far.

Inless you are a warlord specilizing in
giveing other people attacks...

Maybe, although here you're talking about 1 at-will. Virtually all other
warlord powers require you to actually hit something.

Ok, so you chose what feat to complair
it to...easy to make an argument that way isn;t it...try compairing it
to rit caster, toughness, and frost touched...or how about
backstabber

Ok. Ritual caster- minor use outside encoutners, at best a small part of
a normal D&D game, almost guaranteed to be pointless as someone in the
party will be able to cast rituals already- times I've seen this feat
taken over about 20 characters with 2-9 levels each? Zero.

Toughness- now this is a tough one (badoom tish!), and in my group
toughness is almost a feat tax. However for most ranged characters it's
pointless, whereas expertise gives that steaedy 5%.

Frost touch- I'm unaquainted with this feat. We only play PHB and PHB2. However I doubt this is a feat that is useful for more than a few characters.

Backstabber- Seems like it might be good, especially
as rogues have a good bonus to hit already. However if
you're sneaking, your damage is so high that missing costs you lots of
damage. Backstabber is often a bit better when you're sneaking, ignoring extra effects of hitting with powers (e.g. all the control elements). However any time you're not sneaking (around half the time in my experience) backstabber is useless.[/FONT]


[FONT=PrimaSans BT,Verdana,sans-serif]To repeat myself again- I'm not claiming that expertise is the best feat for every character in every situation. Merely the best feat that is universally applicable for more effectiveness in combat.
[/FONT]


[FONT=PrimaSans BT,Verdana,sans-serif]

[/FONT]but what if my character is accurat enough and does enough damage without it...can't I choose to tak another feat to round out my character in a diffrent way.[FONT=PrimaSans BT,Verdana,sans-serif]

[/FONT]


[FONT=PrimaSans BT,Verdana,sans-serif]Well sure you can choose to be less effective in combat if you want. But that has no bearing on how powerful expertise is.
[/FONT]

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I'm under no illusions about the scale of this bonus, and you'll find me
citing the 5% difference within the last few pages. However a question
of scale is not really relevant here- something could still be the best
feat, and only offer a small bonus such as this. Further, expertise is
already clearly better than every conditional bonus to hit, which is
about 5 feats so far.

so it is a really great feat. read my last post...

Maybe, although here you're talking about 1 at-will. Virtually all other
warlord powers require you to actually hit something.

my 5th level warlord has two at wills that rant attacks, and 2 dailys...although I can't find a low level encounter.

Ok. Ritual caster- minor use outside encoutners, at best a small part of
a normal D&D game, almost guaranteed to be pointless as someone in the
party will be able to cast rituals already- times I've seen this feat
taken over about 20 characters with 2-9 levels each? Zero.

how often do you see groups without wizards???

Toughness- now this is a tough one (badoom tish!), and in my group
toughness is almost a feat tax. However for most ranged characters it's
pointless, whereas expertise gives that steaedy 5%.

I have only seen 1 pc take toughness, it is kinda funny

Frost touch- I'm unaquainted with this feat. We only play PHB and PHB2. However I doubt this is a feat that is useful for more than a few characters.

PHB I and heroic teir...look it up it was for a while being thrown around as a broken feat...

Backstabber- Seems like it might be good, especially
as rogues have a good bonus to hit already. However if
you're sneaking, your damage is so high that missing costs you lots of
damage. Backstabber is often a bit better when you're sneaking, ignoring extra effects of hitting with powers (e.g. all the control elements). However any time you're not sneaking (around half the time in my experience) backstabber is useless.

Have you played with a rouge??? The ones i have seen have CA 7 times out of 10...infact in my tuesday game my friend kurt takes great pride in explaining 3 diffrent things giving him CA almost every turn. What does sneaking have to do with it...

[FONT=PrimaSans BT,Verdana,sans-serif]To repeat myself again- I'm not claiming that expertise is the best feat for every character in every situation. Merely the best feat that is universally applicable for more effectiveness in combat.
[/FONT]

OK, but now that we are seeing more feats of that level, isn't it just evning out (Dragonborn, fey, and gnome feats)

Well sure you can choose to be less effective in combat if you want. But that has no bearing on how powerful expertise is.

So if I hit often, and I do alot of damage, and I am say...the wizard. Why do I need it to be less effective if I pick up other feats. I never said it wasn powerful I said it wasn't broken/non-choice

 

[Plane Sailing]

Frost touch- I'm unaquainted with this feat. We only play PHB and PHB2. However I doubt this is a feat that is useful for more than a few characters.

He probably meant Wintertouched (CA against those vulnerable to cold or something?)

Its the feat that seems useful for certain cheesy Rogue builds, but not so much else

 

[GMforPowergamers]

He probably meant Wintertouched (CA against those vulnerable to cold or something?)

thats it

Its the feat that seems useful for certain cheesy Rogue builds, but not so much else

that is why I love useing it as my example...the char op board and all the number crunchers were throwing it around as a 'must have' and 'broken' feat for a while...

 

[Ginnel]

The two Expertise feats are just plain horrible, they just shouldn't exist as they are.


Add +1 to hit in the leveling up process somewhere
Or
Put highish stat requirements on it and don't make it increase over levels (like armor expertise)
Or
Make it a power and a feat bonus

Or maybe all of the above.

just not a horrible super non typed bonus o'doom , not sure how anyone can justify these feats as they are clearly superior to every other damage and to hit feat currently in the game, making them in my definition a must have. Currently the DM in the game I'm playing in is making weapon focus or one of the elemental damage feats a prereq for the expertise feat (I'm still not overjoyed about this but it's better than nothing)

They should have taken the advice from 3rd ed for when you were creating a new spell which goes along the lines of "if you can't see a caster not wanting to take the spell you created at that level either increase it's level or tone it down a bit"

 

[Trevelyan]

The expertise feats have another use which people seem to be entirely overlooking. Laying aside the potential for combat monsters to take these feats and run around gleefully bashing everything that move without fear of failure, expertise, of one form or another, is very useful for less optimised characters and and certain MAD builds.

Consider first of all the scope that expertise gives to a player who wants a less than optimal race/class combo. Such a charcter will likely start with a primary stat of 16 and an expertise feat gives him a convenient leg up.

What about the guy who wants to make a character without regard to optimal, or even nearly optimal build. I wouldn't recommend making, for example, a low strength fighter, but weapon expertise enables a player to compensate for a low ability mod which is otherwise in keeping with his vision for the character, thereby freeing 4E from accusations that the appropriate build is necessary for balanced play.

And what about those classes that currently suffer from serious MAD issues? For example the starlock torn between Con and Cha, or better still the cleric chosing between Str and Wis - picking up an expertise feat allows either character to progress his attack bonus with one of those abilities at the same rate he would if spending a point on the stat at each increase while still leaving the point free to spend somewhere else and so meet feat prerequisites too.

 

[Pickles JG]

.....or better still the cleric chosing between Str and Wis - picking up an expertise feat allows either character to progress his attack bonus with one of those abilities at the same rate he would if spending a point on the stat at each increase while still leaving the point free to spend somewhere else and so meet feat prerequisites too.

They are doubly screwed as they now have to take it twice.

Same for "hybrid" rangers - royally done over by the plethora of stuff that only boosts either their melee or their ranged.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

They are doubly screwed as they now have to take it twice.

Same for "hybrid" rangers - royally done over by the plethora of stuff that only boosts either their melee or their ranged.

I think you missed the point.
Lets say I am a cleric with a 16 Wis and a 13 Str, and I take all implment powers. Then I see a cool weapon/Str power. I can pick up Weapon Expertise and get +1/2/3 to hit with my str attacks.

Or my 2 weapon ranger has a 16 Str 15 Dex 14Wis...I plan to up my str and wis every chance...well Weapon Expertise Bow will help alot.

lets look at 5th 17 Str+3 15Dex +2(+1 with bow) at 15th 20 Str +5 Dex 16 +3 (+2 with bow) at 25th 23 str +6 17 Dex +3 (+3 with bow).

no need to take it for the melee weapons, I have a good str, but now my bow I am just as likly to hit.

Infact being a two scimitar ranger with a bow would be great, scimitar dance uses dex...hm maybe that will even be my next idea...