Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="keterys" data-source="post: 5553895" data-attributes="member: 43019">I haven't made an argument about the level gain / hit progression (not lately, anyways). I did make a point about the feats themselves, that was actually entirely neutral to that debate.I also pointed out the flaws in your own math and arguments... I might not have, but I'd rather have headed things off before mistakes spawn pages of their own arguments.Of course. I just think they're deeply flawed. You're perfectly fine with characters being +2 to +4 hit apart from each other, through difference in system mastery or willful disregard for it. That's perfectly fine, but it doesn't necessarily lead to a better system. If the expertise feats were +10 to hit, you could still make that same argument, but the feats themselves would be even more ludicrous. And if people without the feats actually needed a "20" to hit without them then the system would be despairingly broken.Thankfully, the game doesn't go to level 100, so we can dodge that entire problem.Depends a bit on what weapons folks wield, but +1 push/slide, or damage with combat advantage or charging, or immunity to opportunity attacks and a little better reach, all seem to cement things even for the non-optimizers. Staff Expertise in particular seems to show up nice and early. Master at Arms for swapping ranged and such has been pretty popular too.I've only seen one character not take one by 11th level since Essentials... and that's because he's a bard so can't pick a single feat. Kicking up to +2 at 11th, on top of the extra benefit, seems to really throw things askew.Well, it is a feat (weapon proficiency) to use a weapon that's worse than a military weapon (-1 attack, -.5 damage), that makes you less likely to hit (and for warlords, hitting is the critical part more than damage so you trigger the benefits). If you were using a dagger, at least you could throw it too, but not so much on a kukri. If you were using a rapier, he wouldn't complain about the light blade expertise. If a dagger or short sword, he might still complain, but at least you wouldn't really be giving up much (a feat, downgrading attack bonus, possibly gaining a thrown option).It's basically the same argument as before - you _can_ intentionally make decisions that make your character less effective, such as not taking expertise once you're in the +2 to +3 range, but it's disingenuous to make arguments about it on messageboards as if that's a valid system decision. Any more than you'd suggest to a new player that they take a 10 Str as a fighter, cause hitting's not terribly important as long as they have a high Con. There are ways to make that work, but you better be really explicit about how or you're misleading someone who doesn't know better.If anything, it's actually a serious system flaw how big of a gap that exists between optimizers and not at the moment. (And one that was reported to WotC as part of the "What works, what fails" questions they asked)</blockquote>

Verification