LEB Discussion Thread '10

[Luinnar]

What about dual implement spellcaster? Or is your wizard not built for damage?

 

[evilbob]

Why do people HAVE to have the "new more powerful feats"?

Because they really are that good. I hate feats like this same as you, but yes: unless house ruled, everyone should always take them, always.

Ok, first you state that +1 is amazingly huge. Then you state that it's ok for level 1 to 4 to have it. Seems like a bit of a contradiction

Nope. Both are still true. I honestly don't mind giving level 1-4 people a boost and I don't think it's terribly unbalancing.

I don't buy this argument at all.

You don't have to buy it for it to remain true. Just to be clear: I'm not saying we need a power boost, I'm saying that "what's typical for D&D" != "what is typical for PbP". It's worth keeping in consideration.


Re: WD's list, I'd agree with Superior Implement (+to hit), an expertise feat (+to hit), and maybe whatever feat you like that gives +2 AC for 1 feat for wizards (that's debatable). The other three can be switched out depending on build, but they're all good ideas (well, I'd never take toughness, but that's just me).


Here's another thought: HR it so that each expertise feat gives a +1/2/3 feat bonus to ALL attacks, rather than simply a single set of weapons / implements / whatever? I mean, I don't really like it, but at least this solution fixes the problem with needing multiple expertise feats. This way, you still have to pay the feat tax (bad), but you don't need to take multiple expertise feats regardless of your weapon choices (good).

 

[KarinsDad]

But KD, I've seen how you're rolling these days. You need every +1 you can get.

Actually, Grys' problem was that once Serris went to go help Mythra, Grys was pretty much obliged to do the same thing even though he thought it a LOT smarter to fight in the room and have the bad guys come to us instead of taking auto-damage through the zone (granted, Mythra would have died that way, but he did make the mistake of not staying with the group and allowing the DM to ambush him with most of the bad guys ).

If Grys wouldn't have followed Serris, then the party gets split up, cats and dogs fight in the street, it's a real mess. Just because Grys should be hitting 70% of the time and is only hitting 40% of the time doesn't mean that he needs another +1 to hit. It means that the rest of the group has to pick up the slack when the dice are rolling bad for one PC. And, that's what the rest of the team is doing, so that's cool. Grys is busy taking a dirt nap, but he gets the same XP as those doing all of the work at the moment.

 

[Walking Dad]

What about dual implement spellcaster? Or is your wizard not built for damage?

No, he is build for control and not to strike. If I would build a blaster mage he would be either a tiefling fire wizard (Hellfireblood/arcanist) or a Genasi with the Str to damage feat. And a dex of 12. So dual implement would become relevant after the to-hit and special racial feats in my builds.

---

BTW, Axe-Man is not the concept, but a description of a fighting style. I often got a spot in games for my good backgrounds, thanks

---

The longer this discussion goes, the more I would ditch the houserule (or at least allow expertise like feats, but make the house bonus a feat bonus, too, so they wouldn't stack). What sense to forbid expertise at first level and the standard first level feat becomes another feat that increases to-hit (accurate implements, gnome phantasmist, draconic spellcaster)?

 

[evilbob]

What sense to forbid expertise at first level and the standard first level feat becomes another feat that increases to-hit (accurate implements, gnome phantasmist, draconic spellcaster)?

Pretty much.

 

[KarinsDad]

That is the reason why Toughness is the last. II is for the big ally-unfriendly blast at the beginning of the combat

II doesn't work too often though. There are too many monsters with decent DEX and/or a +2 or +4 bonus to init.

For a spell caster to win init, he typically needs to a) have a high DEX, b) have II, and c) have Danger Sense as well. Most casters cannot manage the first one and the third one has to wait until Paragon level.

2 out of 3 of these probably don't cut it. The spell caster only gets one init roll. The monsters get multiple init rolls (assuming the DM rolls for each monster, when he doesn't, II and other early casting options become a lot more viable).

So yeah, a spell caster with II and a decent DEX (but not great) might win init on 1 encounter in 6 or so (if there are 5 monster with good inits and one PC spell caster with a similar init, that's 5 creatures that have a chance at beating the spell caster's init), but is that really worth a feat?

Here on the boards, a feat that allows the spell caster to win init over the monsters about one encounter in six results in a real good advantage once every eight to ten months or so. At a table game, that might be every two sessions.

 

[KarinsDad]

Because they really are that good. I hate feats like this same as you, but yes: unless house ruled, everyone should always take them, always.

...

Here's another thought: HR it so that each expertise feat gives a +1/2/3 feat bonus to ALL attacks, rather than simply a single set of weapons / implements / whatever? I mean, I don't really like it, but at least this solution fixes the problem with needing multiple expertise feats. This way, you still have to pay the feat tax (bad), but you don't need to take multiple expertise feats regardless of your weapon choices (good).

Ok, I had a chance to read the new Essentials Expertise feats.

I don't see a need to change them at all for LEB.

Yes, they are potent and some players might see them as "should always take".

But, who cares? Let's take an example:

Light Blade Expertise

It's +1 to hit, +2 to hit at level 11, and +3 to hit at level 21. It's also +1 damage if the PC has Combat Advantage.

Weapon Focus is +1 damage, +2 damage at level 11, and +3 damage at level 21.

At LEB, the PC that takes Light Blade gains:

+1 to hit at levels 4, 11, 12, 13, 14, 21, 22, 23, and 24. 9 levels out of 26 and it takes two years to get to level 11. He also gains +1 damage when he has CA. This PC does better damage at level 4, might be slightly better at levels 11 through 14, and is probably slightly worse at levels 21 through 24.

The PC that takes Weapon Focus gains +1 damage immediately, +2 damage at level 11, and +3 damage at level 21. This means that this PC does better damage at levels 5 through 10, 15 through 20, probably levels 21 through 24, and definitely levels 25 through 30.

All in all, Weapon Focus is better at most levels.

Since the feat bonus from the free LEB Expertise does not stack with the feat bonus with the new Essentials feats, it means that the PC mostly gets the side benefit, plus he's +1 to hit at level 4 (and possibly levels 11 to 14 if he ever gets there).

That doesn't sound unbalanced, nor does it sound like it needs an LEB house rule to me. I know how I would vote is someone were to propose a +1 flat bonus to hit for the feat. Making the feat more potent than it already is doesn't make sense to me.

 

[EvolutionKB]

IMO the only reason they added the new bennies to the expertise feats is because people on messageboards complained about the expertise feat tax being boring and flavorless.

 

[Walking Dad]

II doesn't work too often though. There are too many monsters with decent DEX and/or a +2 or +4 bonus to init.

For a spell caster to win init, he typically needs to a) have a high DEX, b) have II, and c) have Danger Sense as well. Most casters cannot manage the first one and the third one has to wait until Paragon level.

2 out of 3 of these probably don't cut it. The spell caster only gets one init roll. The monsters get multiple init rolls (assuming the DM rolls for each monster, when he doesn't, II and other early casting options become a lot more viable).

...

I actually want to combine the deva feat that let's you use wis mod+2 instead of dex for initiative, combined with an orb of nimble thoughts (gives an initiative bonus equal to int mod.)
There is a similar feat for tieflings, that uses Cha instead of Wis.

...

Since the feat bonus from the free LEB Expertise does not stack with the feat bonus with the new Essentials feats, it means that the PC mostly gets the side benefit, plus he's +1 to hit at level 4 (and possibly levels 11 to 14 if he ever gets there).

That doesn't sound unbalanced, nor does it sound like it needs an LEB house rule to me. I know how I would vote is someone were to propose a +1 flat bonus to hit for the feat. Making the feat more potent than it already is doesn't make sense to me.

oops, I thought LEB disallows taking Expertise Feats. Not stacking is perfectly ok for me. I have to re-check the wiki if the math fix is a feat bonus. It clerly should be! Thanks KD!

 

[stonegod]

As written, it is not. Could be fixed with a simple proposal. Right now, as written, only the PH2 Expertise feats are forbidden.