I understand your point. I am just saying that "baby sitting" an Implement and a Weapon as a Paladin, Cleric or the like isn't made any worse by Expertise. I wold argue that it is indeed made less obnoxious. I now have the option to worry less about the Item I'm using.
How so? If I have Weapon Expertise only, that makes me reluctant to use Implement attacks, and vice versa. If I'm spending two feats to acquire both, that's clearly more obnoxious than only spending one.
But if you're arguing that the hit chances are balanced without Expertise then I don't see how Expertise makes the hit chances worse. If you think that feats are "extras" added to your character then Expertise allows you to focus your character more.
I'm arguing that one of two things is true: either a) hit chances are balanced without Expertise, in which case Expertise is ridiculously overpowered, or b) hit chances need Expertise to be balanced, in which case Expertise is ridiculously poorly implemented.
The same argument can be made for any feat bonuses what-so-ever.
But no other feat is as powerful and as global as Expertise is.
So rather then remove feats that make one attack better then another. Add a feat that can bring those other attacks up to par. The purpose of feats, in my opinion, is to further differentiate your character from characters of your Race/Class combo. It can also help develop a niche for such Race/Class combos.
That works for a home game, but does nothing for an official one. And, it only exacerbates the feat tax issue.
It is the very nature of feats that your character has to choose whether he's going to better at this, that or the other.
It's also the nature of feats that taking one is supposed to be comparable to taking another. Feats with more powerful effects are supposed to also be more situational. Expertise defines its own power class among feats: it is extremely powerful and (for most characters) not situational at all.
Again I don't see how giving a Paladin a free Weapon/Implement Expertise is in fact penalizing him. It is my opinion that the hit chance in a void is too low. Looking at my relatively min-maxed spread sheet the chance to hit is rather low. And that's looking at your better case scenario. If you're then looking at a less effective secondary attack (implement or stat wise) then those chances are even less.
It's only penalizing him relative to the free Expertise feat that you're giving the Fighter. You're boosting all of the Fighter's powers for free, but only half of the Paladin's powers for free.
I'm not arguing the balance of hybrid classes. I'd be using completely different evidence to argue that on a class by class basis. I also will totally admit that I am not completely familiar with classes that my players or I have yet to play or build.
Ok, I need to know what you mean by "hybrid classes". "Hybrid" is a term that refers to a new type of multiclassing that will be introduced in the PHB3, which has nothing to do with the points I'm making. I refer to the Warlock, Cleric, Ranger, and Paladin as dual-primary classes, but these classes are also not what I'm concerned with. One of my areas of concern is classes that have both weapon and implement powers, which includes the Swordmage, Monk, Bard, and Avenger in addition to the Paladin and Cleric.
I am wanting to focus my discussion on the negative trend in the success rate of ALL attacks as a PC levels up. That's weapon, natural, implement and otherwise based attacks all receive a cumulative penalty as you increase in power.
I agree that this trend is bad, and should be fixed.
I understand that what I consider a relative "fix" for this - Weapon/Implement Expertise - to be mostly effective does not benefit all powers and all attacks. So if you have a suggestion that would do so please put it forth. But banning expertise because it doesn't effect all attacks that a character makes while at the same time arguing that it is overpowered is talking out of two sides of your face (and thus an ineffective argument).
See my above explanation of my two-pronged argument. The
effect that Weapon and Implement Expertise are attempting to have is, IMO, positive. The
implementation through feats is horribly flawed. Personally, I favor a house rule of eliminating the feats entirely and adding +1 to all character attacks at level 5, scaling to +2 at 15 and +3 at 25.
As such your arguments that it makes some attacks better then others agrees with my statement. Just as Action Surge makes Action Point attacks better and Combat Reflexes makes opportunity attacks better then your normal basic attacks. Does this mean that they should be banned as well?
Those feats are sufficiently situational that their power level is fine. One applies to approximately one attack per 1 1/2 encounters. The other applies to basic level attacks that you have no control over obtaining. Expertise is nothing like situational; it applies to every attack that most characters make.
t~
)
