AngryMojo
First Post
Sorry guys, I have to play devil's advocate. I don't know why I have to, but I have some bizarre compulsion to do so most of the time.
Expertise feats are circumstantial. Weapon expertise, for example, only applies to attacks made with that category of weapon. Now, before you go off on how you'll always have your favored weapon in hand, hear me out.
Let's say you play a fighter. He's a sword and board fighter, and likes being all defendery. In MP, there's a level 1 encounter power called Shield Bash. This is a power that does not have the weapon keyword, and thus would not receive the expertise bonus. Now, let's say that fighter was also a dragonborn. That fighter's breath weapon would also lack the condition for the expertise feat.
This idea of expertise still being circumstantial really starts coming into play when you have a rogue holding a melee weapon and a hand crossbow, or you play a cleric or paladin.
From what I've seen so far, there are many characters who don't have a problem hitting. Weapon talent sword fighters, dagger rogues, high INT wizards, etc. There was breakdown of basic math stating that at level 30, your typical PC has a +31 to hit while your typical monster has an AC of 44, equaling a 35% chance of hitting. This assumed a +2 proficiency bonus, a +8 ability bonus, a +6 weapon and your +15 from level. Meanwhile, if you play a weapon talent fighter with a sword, you're looking at a baseline +33 to hit. Something as simple as combat advantage will end up giving you a 55% chance of hitting. Honestly, if you've gotten all the way up to level 30 and the only tactic you can come up with is flanking, your DM has been way too easy on you.
I understand where the impression of the expertise feats being a math patch come from, I just don't really see it. The expertise feats are good, don't get me wrong, but I don't really see them as being absurdly broken or must-haves. You can concentrate on accuracy in other ways, and use your feats for other coolness.
Expertise feats are circumstantial. Weapon expertise, for example, only applies to attacks made with that category of weapon. Now, before you go off on how you'll always have your favored weapon in hand, hear me out.
Let's say you play a fighter. He's a sword and board fighter, and likes being all defendery. In MP, there's a level 1 encounter power called Shield Bash. This is a power that does not have the weapon keyword, and thus would not receive the expertise bonus. Now, let's say that fighter was also a dragonborn. That fighter's breath weapon would also lack the condition for the expertise feat.
This idea of expertise still being circumstantial really starts coming into play when you have a rogue holding a melee weapon and a hand crossbow, or you play a cleric or paladin.
From what I've seen so far, there are many characters who don't have a problem hitting. Weapon talent sword fighters, dagger rogues, high INT wizards, etc. There was breakdown of basic math stating that at level 30, your typical PC has a +31 to hit while your typical monster has an AC of 44, equaling a 35% chance of hitting. This assumed a +2 proficiency bonus, a +8 ability bonus, a +6 weapon and your +15 from level. Meanwhile, if you play a weapon talent fighter with a sword, you're looking at a baseline +33 to hit. Something as simple as combat advantage will end up giving you a 55% chance of hitting. Honestly, if you've gotten all the way up to level 30 and the only tactic you can come up with is flanking, your DM has been way too easy on you.
I understand where the impression of the expertise feats being a math patch come from, I just don't really see it. The expertise feats are good, don't get me wrong, but I don't really see them as being absurdly broken or must-haves. You can concentrate on accuracy in other ways, and use your feats for other coolness.