GMforPowergamers
Legend
well you have to wait a bit, inless I am way farther behind the curve then I think I am, I belive there aren't even 11th level LFR characters yet...
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Expertise justification?
- Thread starter Nail
- Start date
well you have to wait a bit, inless I am way farther behind the curve then I think I am, I belive there aren't even 11th level LFR characters yet...
It'll be a long while.Wouldn't the loss of warding make it significantly easier to drop him those other 5 times? That usually puts the pain on any swordmage in my campaigns.
DrSpunj
Explorer
I apologize, I'm not sure I follow you. I don't remember exactly when our Swordmage respec'd to Ensnarement, but I hope 4e isn't so tenuously balanced that I have to worry about which build my players choose for their PCs. I can see the logic in having balanced roles, not necessary but a definite boon for the party to be well-rounded. And builds play into that some, sure. But I hope I don't have to ask the Swordmage not to play a specific build because the other Defender is a battleraging Fighter.
I probably missed what you were going for here, so again, I apologize!
Please clarify and I'll try and check back later tonight.
Fundin Strongarm
First Post
After a Swordmage recovers from being unconcious he loses a +2 (I think) AC bonus until he rests (short or extended). (I'm not quite sure about the logic of why it works that way, but it is a class feature and not a build option.) Maybe that is what he was talking about???
Oh, it affects all swordmages. The warding class feature that gives you +1 or +3 to ac. You lose it if you go unconscious and it stays lost till short or long rest. Swordmage kisses ground EVEN ONCE and they are suddenly a wizard without a staff.
Relevant text from DnD compendium, as I don't have the book with me:
GMforPowergamers
Legend
I belive there was a dev going around before the forgotten realms book came out saying it was a rituel of defence that could not be done in combat...
however since I play a swordmage in LFR trust me...it is very sucky...I have been thinking about carrying a non magic sheild with me...but that costs a feat.
Old Gumphrey
First Post
Wow, that's terribad. It's not like swordmages are so powerful they need that penalty...
Robert_Goodfellow
First Post
Negative Trend
View attachment 4.0 Math.xls
It was said that I have only opinion and have no "facts" to back them up. So I took my time to pull out factual statistical information to support my first major point about the basic mathematics of 4.0.
I have attached a working spread-sheet to which I will be referring for the rest of this post. Please open it so that you may follow along.
Before we get started I would like to explain some assumptions made in creation of this spread-sheet.
1. I'm hoping to create as close to a control as possible when collecting this data. I am doing this to show the base trend in a void.
2. Ability Stat: I am assuming your wanting your character to be successful at their given role, so I am also assuming she has an 18 in her primary stat and that she will increase it at every level possible.
3. I am also assuming your character is using a weapon and attacking AC. I am assuming that your proficiency bonus is a +2. I am making both of these assumptions because they are the most likely scenarios. In the event that you are not using a weapon then you are probably not attacking AC either. This would mean that the defense rating is about 2 lower than the target's AC (and thus the loss of the +2 from proficiency is moot). I am also assuming the +2 proficiency because most weapons give you a +2.
4. I am assuming that the monster's AC is a moderate AC (Level +14). I came to this by looking at the average of the 6 monster roles and coming to the conclusion that the moderate difficulty will normally be the one used most often.
5. Except at 1st level I am assuming a best case scenario when it comes to an enchantment bonus on your weapons. So starting at 2nd level the enhancement bonus increases at the minimum level necessary to create said weapon (2nd, 6th, 11th, 16th, 21st, 26th).
6. Therefore the PC's total to hit is assumed to be Level/2 + Ability Mod + Proficiency + Item.
Fact #1: There is a negative trend when it comes to hit success as you level up. Your basic chance to successfully hit your target decreases due to a differentiation in the progress of monsters versus PCs.
Fact #2: Adding Weapon/Implement Expertise does not remove this trend. It does, however, modify it. It reduces the slope of the trend but does not eliminate it.
So the initial question at hand is simple enough:
"Is Weapon/Implement Expertise a broken feat that should not be allowed."
The answer, however, is no where near as simple.
In standard WotC Keyword style we must first define "broken."
Possible Definitions:
1. Unbalancing to game mechanics.
2. Better then any other feat.
These are the two most common that I've seen and I will use the above information to refute them. To the best of my ability.
A simple look a the numbers will show that it is the opposite of unbalancing but in fact more game balancing. Considering there should be little to no PvP in your 4.0 game the only comparison of stats that you should be truly worried about is the PCs versus the Monsters. Therefor one player having a Expertise doesn't directly negatively affect another player.
I have heard the argument from both developers and other DMs that the growing "miss gap" is filled with synergistic bonuses from various party members, items and effects. Though I can understand the want for these factors to become more important as you level up and your party becomes more accustomed to how the game plays as well as have more tricks up your sleeve. The simple fact is that most those bonuses and effects only occur on successful hits. Reducing the percent chance to hit to a base 35% (in extreme cases) makes it highly unlikely they'll ever get that extra 5% chance to hit.
Even if the synergy does begin to build it is unlikely that it will meet the success rate established at lower levels, let alone exceed it. Looking at the hit chance with Weapon/Implement Expertise actually shows a much smaller (but still existant) gap that needs to be filled with party tactics. Your looking at a difference between a 35% degredation incomparison to a 10% degredation. That 10% loss is a whole lot more managable.
As far as better then any other feat out there. This I will not refute, but cause that's more of a fact then opinion. My only arguement is that is better then most other feats out of necessity. I have a gut feeling that it's introduction to the game was more of a stealth patch then a power creep. Most of the power creep content I have seen was published in Forgotten Realms (don't get me started on Darklocks and Swordmages) and will no doubtly be added to in the Eberron books.
When designing powers, feats and the like I have always had three questions I asked to try and ensure game balance: Why would I take this? Why wouldn't I take this? What previously unfilled purpose does it serve? When I put most of the base feats through these (before ever reading PHB2) questions I came up with the simple feeling that most of the basic feats suck. Now my only meter stick to this was 3.5 stuff. After I got used to the idea that +Hit was crazy "expensive" it became even more obnoxious that my +Hit was going to become less useful with ever level.
Many people have complained about it feeling like a Feat Tax, meaning a feat that a character MUST take to able to participate. I tend to feel the same way, I'm just not bitter about it. My initial thought on feats was that they were next to useless. There are number of other PHB1 Feats that I think are extremely underpowered even without having that mean other "power creep" books out to compare to. The way that I have remedied this with my party is that I have given them all one Weapon/Implement Expertise of their choice.
I have heard arguements against this that basically suggest I should just adjust the stats on all the monsters I use against my party if I think their Defenses are too high. This is a very viable option. But it's a whole lot more work on my end then I really care to put into every encounter. Instead I just give my players one free feat and move on with my game.
As such I feel that it is not only a good addition to the game but a necessary one. It balances out the basic math of the game while not reducing the effeciency or necessity for other aspects of the game (i.e. team work and tactics). It helps your players feel that their character is cool and effective at it's role. It lessons the necessity of your characters having an 18 in their primary stat. And it reduces the amount of tweaking the DM has to do each monster s/he puts the party against.
View attachment 4.0 Math.xls
It was said that I have only opinion and have no "facts" to back them up. So I took my time to pull out factual statistical information to support my first major point about the basic mathematics of 4.0.
I have attached a working spread-sheet to which I will be referring for the rest of this post. Please open it so that you may follow along.
Before we get started I would like to explain some assumptions made in creation of this spread-sheet.
1. I'm hoping to create as close to a control as possible when collecting this data. I am doing this to show the base trend in a void.
2. Ability Stat: I am assuming your wanting your character to be successful at their given role, so I am also assuming she has an 18 in her primary stat and that she will increase it at every level possible.
3. I am also assuming your character is using a weapon and attacking AC. I am assuming that your proficiency bonus is a +2. I am making both of these assumptions because they are the most likely scenarios. In the event that you are not using a weapon then you are probably not attacking AC either. This would mean that the defense rating is about 2 lower than the target's AC (and thus the loss of the +2 from proficiency is moot). I am also assuming the +2 proficiency because most weapons give you a +2.
4. I am assuming that the monster's AC is a moderate AC (Level +14). I came to this by looking at the average of the 6 monster roles and coming to the conclusion that the moderate difficulty will normally be the one used most often.
5. Except at 1st level I am assuming a best case scenario when it comes to an enchantment bonus on your weapons. So starting at 2nd level the enhancement bonus increases at the minimum level necessary to create said weapon (2nd, 6th, 11th, 16th, 21st, 26th).
6. Therefore the PC's total to hit is assumed to be Level/2 + Ability Mod + Proficiency + Item.
Fact #1: There is a negative trend when it comes to hit success as you level up. Your basic chance to successfully hit your target decreases due to a differentiation in the progress of monsters versus PCs.
Fact #2: Adding Weapon/Implement Expertise does not remove this trend. It does, however, modify it. It reduces the slope of the trend but does not eliminate it.
So the initial question at hand is simple enough:
"Is Weapon/Implement Expertise a broken feat that should not be allowed."
The answer, however, is no where near as simple.
In standard WotC Keyword style we must first define "broken."
Possible Definitions:
1. Unbalancing to game mechanics.
2. Better then any other feat.
These are the two most common that I've seen and I will use the above information to refute them. To the best of my ability.
A simple look a the numbers will show that it is the opposite of unbalancing but in fact more game balancing. Considering there should be little to no PvP in your 4.0 game the only comparison of stats that you should be truly worried about is the PCs versus the Monsters. Therefor one player having a Expertise doesn't directly negatively affect another player.
I have heard the argument from both developers and other DMs that the growing "miss gap" is filled with synergistic bonuses from various party members, items and effects. Though I can understand the want for these factors to become more important as you level up and your party becomes more accustomed to how the game plays as well as have more tricks up your sleeve. The simple fact is that most those bonuses and effects only occur on successful hits. Reducing the percent chance to hit to a base 35% (in extreme cases) makes it highly unlikely they'll ever get that extra 5% chance to hit.
Even if the synergy does begin to build it is unlikely that it will meet the success rate established at lower levels, let alone exceed it. Looking at the hit chance with Weapon/Implement Expertise actually shows a much smaller (but still existant) gap that needs to be filled with party tactics. Your looking at a difference between a 35% degredation incomparison to a 10% degredation. That 10% loss is a whole lot more managable.
As far as better then any other feat out there. This I will not refute, but cause that's more of a fact then opinion. My only arguement is that is better then most other feats out of necessity. I have a gut feeling that it's introduction to the game was more of a stealth patch then a power creep. Most of the power creep content I have seen was published in Forgotten Realms (don't get me started on Darklocks and Swordmages) and will no doubtly be added to in the Eberron books.
When designing powers, feats and the like I have always had three questions I asked to try and ensure game balance: Why would I take this? Why wouldn't I take this? What previously unfilled purpose does it serve? When I put most of the base feats through these (before ever reading PHB2) questions I came up with the simple feeling that most of the basic feats suck. Now my only meter stick to this was 3.5 stuff. After I got used to the idea that +Hit was crazy "expensive" it became even more obnoxious that my +Hit was going to become less useful with ever level.
Many people have complained about it feeling like a Feat Tax, meaning a feat that a character MUST take to able to participate. I tend to feel the same way, I'm just not bitter about it. My initial thought on feats was that they were next to useless. There are number of other PHB1 Feats that I think are extremely underpowered even without having that mean other "power creep" books out to compare to. The way that I have remedied this with my party is that I have given them all one Weapon/Implement Expertise of their choice.
I have heard arguements against this that basically suggest I should just adjust the stats on all the monsters I use against my party if I think their Defenses are too high. This is a very viable option. But it's a whole lot more work on my end then I really care to put into every encounter. Instead I just give my players one free feat and move on with my game.
As such I feel that it is not only a good addition to the game but a necessary one. It balances out the basic math of the game while not reducing the effeciency or necessity for other aspects of the game (i.e. team work and tactics). It helps your players feel that their character is cool and effective at it's role. It lessons the necessity of your characters having an 18 in their primary stat. And it reduces the amount of tweaking the DM has to do each monster s/he puts the party against.
Robert_Goodfellow
First Post
Swordmage... the name says it all...
Since the conversation has moved towards that. The Swordmage is one of the worst designed classes I've ever seen (in any system).
There was obviously little forethought into what the idea, options or niche of this class would be. There are very few character design or personalization options that are available and those that are don't seem worth taking.
While on the other hand they receive a handful of deceptively overpowered features that make the design even more wonky. A melee mini-fireball that makes cleave look like waste of time combined with up to a free 10 Teleport ever round is nuts.
The "fandom" feel of the sword implement and other factors makes me wonder what slash fiction site the lead designer of that class cut his teeth on.
After a six pack and jam session some of my players and I bashed out a few ideas that would make it far more playable, but after the realization that they'll never rework or reprint the class we put the notes in our campaign binder and moved on. Which reminds me... what horrible publishing behavior of WotC. You shouldn't refer to a non core book in your core expansion. Shame on you.
SHAME.
Since the conversation has moved towards that. The Swordmage is one of the worst designed classes I've ever seen (in any system).
There was obviously little forethought into what the idea, options or niche of this class would be. There are very few character design or personalization options that are available and those that are don't seem worth taking.
While on the other hand they receive a handful of deceptively overpowered features that make the design even more wonky. A melee mini-fireball that makes cleave look like waste of time combined with up to a free 10 Teleport ever round is nuts.
The "fandom" feel of the sword implement and other factors makes me wonder what slash fiction site the lead designer of that class cut his teeth on.
After a six pack and jam session some of my players and I bashed out a few ideas that would make it far more playable, but after the realization that they'll never rework or reprint the class we put the notes in our campaign binder and moved on. Which reminds me... what horrible publishing behavior of WotC. You shouldn't refer to a non core book in your core expansion. Shame on you.
SHAME.
Similar Threads
Pathfinder 2E
What Are The Changes In Pathfinder Remastered?
