Has anyone ever taken these feats? And why?

[AbdulAlhazred]

Particularly with Weapon Focus the key thing to remember is that characters don't gain damage output simply by leveling. Sure you will have more encounter powers and eventually some that do extra W damage and/or (more) multi-attacks, but there are only a few ways to boost overall base damage and Weapon Focus is one of the best ones. It is WELL worth it for any weapon user to take this feat, and usually worth it for arcane casters to pick up a weaplement and Weapon Focus.

If you are a ranger its even more worth it, since you will make almost 2x more attacks than other weapon users and thus get 2x the benefit.

Taking Weapon Proficiency in a superior weapon is going to be generally about the same advantage. For characters focusing on doing damage and most fighters its well worth taking both a better proficiency AND Weapon Focus. WF isn't likely to be the very first feat you take but if you're going for pounding out the damage its usually the 2nd or 3rd best option after Expertise and maybe Proficiency or something like DWT.

In other words you really do want Weapon Focus and when you hit 11th level its pretty much a no-brainer.

The elemental damage boost feats are, as others have said, only good for certain specific builds. In those cases though the argument is about the same but even better in that you likely are hitting multiple targets. They're fairly rare feats to take but not bad.

 

[Obryn]

If you are a ranger its even more worth it, since you will make almost 2x more attacks than other weapon users and thus get 2x the benefit.

Even moreso, Rangers need everything they can get for tweaking out Twin Strike. When you don't add your stat mod to damage, you need to get it from somewhere.

Taking Weapon Proficiency in a superior weapon is going to be generally about the same advantage. For characters focusing on doing damage and most fighters its well worth taking both a better proficiency AND Weapon Focus. WF isn't likely to be the very first feat you take but if you're going for pounding out the damage its usually the 2nd or 3rd best option after Expertise and maybe Proficiency or something like DWT.

Yeah, I remember looking at the math, and it's a bit funny.

* Bonuses to-hit (such as going to a Greatspear) are pretty much always worth it.
* If you're thinking about using a two-handed sword, you owe it to yourself to switch to a Fullblade. It's two steps up from a Greatsword instead of just one.
* At Heroic, Superior Weapon is better if you even have one 2[W] or higher power.
* At Paragon, the math gets funny - Superior Weapon is only getting you a +1 to average damage on your 1[W] powers, but weapon focus is giving you +2. Unless you have a wealth of 3[W] or better powers, Weapon Focus is probably better if you can't take both feats.
* At Epic, the numbers go funny again. Superior Weapons are back in the lead, especially considering your options for increasing crit ranges. If your At-Wills are still only doing 1[W], though, Weapon Focus looks better. But really, by now, most weapon-using PCs will have both.

Caveat: If you're a Swordmage, particularly if you're using 1-handed weapons, Weapon Focus is always better.

This is, of course, not taking into account how much fun the Brutal property is. IMO, that surpasses all other considerations.

-O

 

[blargney the second]

This is, of course, not taking into account how much fun the Brutal property is. IMO, that surpasses all other considerations.

Me rolling damage at the table: "Yeah, I don't really like that 1... let's just reroll it. Woohoo, ghetto crit!"
Wik DMing at that table:
Me watching Wik at the table:

 

[Obryn]

Me rolling damage at the table: "Yeah, I don't really like that 1... let's just reroll it. Woohoo, ghetto crit!"
Wik DMing at that table:
Me watching Wik at the table:

That's pretty much how it goes, too.

Mathematically, I know what Brutal does - it narrows damage ranges and pulls up minimum damage. In play, it's psychologically satisfying in ways I can't fully express.

-O

 

[Knowme]

Me rolling damage at the table: "Yeah, I don't really like that 1... let's just reroll it. Woohoo, ghetto crit!"
Wik DMing at that table:
Me watching Wik at the table:

The very first damage roll I ever made in 4E was snake eyes. With a Mordenkrad.

Sold me on Brutal forever.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Even moreso, Rangers need everything they can get for tweaking out Twin Strike. When you don't add your stat mod to damage, you need to get it from somewhere.


Yeah, I remember looking at the math, and it's a bit funny.

* Bonuses to-hit (such as going to a Greatspear) are pretty much always worth it.
* If you're thinking about using a two-handed sword, you owe it to yourself to switch to a Fullblade. It's two steps up from a Greatsword instead of just one.
* At Heroic, Superior Weapon is better if you even have one 2[W] or higher power.
* At Paragon, the math gets funny - Superior Weapon is only getting you a +1 to average average on your 1[W] powers, but weapon focus is giving you +2. Unless you have a wealth of 3[W] or better powers, Weapon Focus is probably better if you can't take both feats.
* At Epic, the numbers go funny again. Superior Weapons are back in the lead, especially considering your options for increasing crit ranges. If your At-Wills are still only doing 1[W], though, Weapon Focus looks better. But really, by now, most weapon-using PCs will have both.

This is, of course, not taking into account how much fun the Brutal property is. IMO, that surpasses all other considerations.

-O

Yeah, basically its pretty much a toss up. Anyone that really wants to pump out damage will probably take both and which one they go for first is going to depend on what's best in heroic generally.

 

[Wik]

Me rolling damage at the table: "Yeah, I don't really like that 1... let's just reroll it. Woohoo, ghetto crit!"
Wik DMing at that table:
Me watching Wik at the table:

You're a very bad person. The several Balhannoths hidden in the dungeon agree with me.

 

[jbear]

My problem with those feats is the fact that weapon using classes only need one feat with no prerequisite but the energy feats are useful to only a small amount of powers with a required stat that the class might not need for anything else. It's almost a no brainer for me to get a weaplement and use Weapon Focus which works for any implement power. If those feats granted an untyped damage bonus instead I could handle the limited use.

Yes, I was going to mention the ranger as well. Anyone who wants to really get their twin strike working is going to take weapon focus, no questions asked.

 

[Dan'L]

*blink* Sly dodge for an Avenger? A worse-than-tertiary stat (that boosts the same defense your mainstat boosts) for a scaling bonus on that same stat? Ok it it works for you, I guess (you really wanted to train Bluff with a multiclass feat?)

Pretty much, yeah. Also, it's allowed me access to Roundabout Charge (Paragon feat from Martial Power) which helps me get into better position for getting my Oath double roll and syncs up nicely with the Soaring Charge feature of my Unveiled Visage PP.

It's funny, because I hadn't been planning on taking Astral Fire. But when I was looking to Weapon Focus for a potential damage boost I realized I qualified for AF because of the stat choices I'd made for this early, character-driven MC decision. And then I realized that AF suited my needs better than WF.

-Dan'L

 

[DracoSuave]

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.

What.


Now.

Alright. Work with me here.

1d6+1 has the following outcomes, each with the same possibilty of occuring:

2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. The mean of all outcomes is 4.5.

1d8 has eight outcomes, each with the same possibility of occuring:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. The mean of all outcomes is 4.5.

Now if you look very carefully, you'll notice that any outcome 1d6+1 could come up with, 1d8 also comes up with. 2 thru 7 are there. The difference then, is the 1 and the 8 on the end.

The mean damage over any number of rolls is therefore going to be 4.5. No matter what.

-------------------------

The reason the calcuation (min + max) / 2 works is because of some interesting mathematical properties.

Basically, the mean of any number of die rolls is equal to the sum of all the die rolls divided by the number of outcomes.

This looks like this:

m = [1 + 2 + .... + n-1 + n]/n where n is the size of the die.

This can also be expressed as:

m = [1 + n + 2 + n-1 + .... 1 + n/2 + n - n/2] / n

or

m = [1 + n + 1+1 + n-1 + ..... 1 + n/2 + n - n/2] / n

m = [1 + n + [1+n] + [1-1] + ...... [1+n] + [n/2 - n/2]] /n

m = [1 + n + 1 + n + ..... 1 + n] /n

and because half of these are 1s and half of them are ns

m = [1(n/2) + n(n/2)]/n
m = [1/2 + n/2]
m = (1+n)/2

In the case of a dieroll, where it's 1d6+1, the math becomes:

m = (1+6)/2 + 1

This is because over the entire series of outcome to be meaned, you add 1 to each outcome from 1d6. This means you're adding 1 six times, then dividing by six. That means you raise the average by 1X6/6 = 1.

-------

Dag, you do have a point with crits tho. That said, the difference from a crit between 1d6+1 and 2d8 is .05 Dpr. This will make very little practical difference in the number of rounds it takes to down an enemy.