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: 5000453" data-attributes="member: 43019">This poll isn't about whether someone playing a level 25+ character would spend one of their feats for +3 attack.Barring some oddities from the DM (always throwing lower level critters) _and_ being something like an Avenger, they're failing to understand how valuable +3 to hit is. Unfortunately, that's one of the traps of making the fix +3 - and one of the things that WotC said they'd be taking out of the system (the reliance on system mastery) Once we're talking about their 14th feat, they're almost assuredly mistaken, but it is possible that with enough homeruled stuff they might have 14 better options. For example, a feat that gave +4 to hit instead. Or one that let their attacks autohit.Of course not. It's a boring feat. It is unfortunate that some people will look at their level 25+ character and make the mistake of thinking +3 to attack is no big deal and they can take Linguist a third time instead.In some extraordinarily rare cases, such as when there are fourteen other better options - most likely in a game with lots of non-WotC feats - you're absolutely correct.In the rest... you're not. I'm sorry. That doesn't make those characters un-fun necessarily - though some people will object to missing that much more often. It doesn't make them horrible - obviously they can be quite competent. They're just a notable percentage less competent than if they'd taken Expertise. Probably in the 10-20% relative range, though potentially up to 30% depending on power choices - usually not nearly that high though. It's not a tripling or quadrupling of effectiveness... but it's also only one choice, out of many. The more each choice matters, the more likely it is that you can take two characters and the difference between the optimized and not is that tripling of effectiveness. Which is bad. A bit better, absolutely.</blockquote>

Verification