Has anyone ever taken these feats? And why?

[DracoSuave]

Your example is actually why those feats would be better. Weapon focus (for example) is part of the weapon damage and would be count in x[W] damage effects, while Sneak Attack is a separate effect and would not be.

Those feats are also unconditional: use X power or Y weapon, get the bonus. Backstabber requires CA, Deadly Quarry (or whatever the Ranger version is) required your Quarried opponent.

They definitely aren't a first choice for most builds, but neither are they a "never take".

There is something tho to be said for the simplicity and elegance of such simple feats.

If all feats were conditional like Backstabber, then you'd see charop-heads saying builds were subpar because Wizards didn't support them with a damage feat.

'Why are you taking cunning sneak rogue, when beast master ranger has an actual bonus for damage?'

Making certain types of feats (like this) open allows for more character options.

Sure, it's -easy- to minmax, but that's not a bug, that's a feature.

 

[DracoSuave]

That multiple +1 damage is the same, and sometimes more than, your suggestion of increasing die size when you consider averages. Average d6 is 3.5, average d8 is 4.5; so it's the same when it's d6+1 and better when it becomes d6+2 (5.5 or d10 equivalent). Plus your minimum is better, since you don't roll 1s anymore, technically you roll 2s then 3s.

......

That's not how the math works.

The average of a die roll is [min+max]/2. Increases the max by 2 is the same, on average, as adding one.

The argument 'But you raise the minimum by 1 when you add 1' is countered by 'But you raise the maximum by 2 when you increase the die size.'

 

[malcolm_n]

......

That's not how the math works.

The average of a die roll is [min+max]/2. Increases the max by 2 is the same, on average, as adding one.

The argument 'But you raise the minimum by 1 when you add 1' is countered by 'But you raise the maximum by 2 when you increase the die size.'

True, but that's assuming you'll only ever roll minimum or maximum. Since over the course of a hypothetical 100 rolls, you'll get an average of (in the case of a d6) 3.5 damage per die, adding a definite 1 to that number is a really good option; not too good to make it an obvious choice every time, but still good. If I could roll a guaranteed 2 or 7 on my d6, instead of 1 or 8 on my d8, it becomes a choice of whether I want higher damage when I crit or more consistent damage over the course of the fight.

 

[Wik]

As an aside, we've known all along that this campaign would end mid-paragon. With that end nigh, I'm bummed that we won't get to level up much more because I've finally taken the essential feats to make my character work the way he's supposed to. From here on out I can start taking more interesting feats... but "here on out" is most likely just 1 more feat at this point!
-blarg

I've got good news for you, my friend. Operation "Double XP until the end of the campaign, so we can see what early epic looks like" goes into effect on monday.

It coincides with Operation "Wik wants to use epic level monsters".

 

[blargney the second]

That's awesome! I've always wanted to get a character to epic, and to see what the reeeeeaaally nasty monsters are like too!

 

[Xeterog]

blah, I fail a comprehension...

 

[malcolm_n]

2d6 average is 7 + 1 = 8 /2 = 4
( x + 1)/2 = 4
x + 1 = 8
x = 7
2d6 becomes the equivalent of 2d7. As opposed to 2d8 which is
average 9. so on 2dx weapons, the +1 isn't as significant.

Overall, the main point is that the +1 is a decent enough choice (and at paragon/epic +2/+3 respectively) that some people would be willing to take it, myself included.

 

[Solvarn]

Power Attack

Power Attack is a pretty decent feat in Paragon if you are a 2h user. -2 to hit for +6 to damage isn't too shabby.

 

[Garthanos]

Power Attack is a pretty decent feat in Paragon if you are a 2h user. -2 to hit for +6 to damage isn't too shabby.

Power attack is also statistically viable for an Avenger in Heroic Tier as well and I think there was another power that made it work.

Buts its a odd Avenger build that puts that much in to strength.

 

[eamon]

In defense particularly of Weapon Focus, it's a great feat meta-game wise. If you invest heavily in feats that are optionally useful, impose extra tracking, or require specific triggers, then eventually, you'll need to track a lot during combat and/or take extra actions.

All those options and actions may be nice, but they slow down the game; and it's questionable how much better or flavorful then n-th such feat is.

By contrast, doing extra damage just becomes part of your character sheet and power cards, and directly (though minutely) contributes to reducing the number of rounds a combat takes.

So, in general, I'm quite in favor of simply feats/items/abilities that grant flat bonuses, even when (like weapon focus) they're arguably neither "optimal" nor particularly flavorful.