Cool so that +1 to hit with my weapon its really going to rock my world when I'm sneaking past the guards... oh wait there's a situation it doesn't matter in. You know when factoring the opportunity cost of something you need to look beyond the proverbial end of your sword.
4E can be used for many things. However, as evidenced both by published modules and the guidelines for LFR module creation, 4E is primarily a combat game. Heck, the LFR guidelines recommend a minimum of two combats in a four hour module - with the average being 3 to 4. Trust me, I like feats like Skill Training...but it's not going to come up nearly as often as that +1 or more to hit.
BTW this is a problem I have with the "Math Gurus" lots of time is spent crunching numbers and comming to the conclusion that there should be an extra +1 at x-level or whatever. Many of my characters played in actual game player are needing <10 normally to hit. Rarely a 10-11.
There are people on both ends of the spectrum. For every super-optimized character that needs less than a 10 to hit, there's the unoptimized character (like the 14 STR Warlord I gamed with not too long ago) that is behind the curve. Furthermore, there's a lot of situations where imposed penalties will make it so you need a high roll to hit. Goblin Hexers are a great example of this in the Heroic tier, able to impose an effective -4 to hit.
The monster's AC going up will not significantly impact the game, and frankly the DM should be looking at the typical attacks of the party and determining monsters appropriately.
Which you can do in a home game, but not published modules and LFR modules. People buy a published module in part because WotC has supposedly done the balancing work for the DM. If the math behind the progression is problematic, then the module will have a different difficulty than is intended...and a feat (which by its nature is optional) is not the way to fix this problem.
But if the argument is that +1 hit is worth sacrificing all other options at x-level (lets say 5 as you can retrain a 4th level feat to Expertise when you supposedly need this pip the first time) then the trend would be that powers that give +2 attack would be premium powers and you would be taking ways to increase their damage or other effects with your feats religously.
Powers are used for two things - delivering damage, and delivering effects. Those that have a built-in bonus to hit have the trade off of lower damage and/or a lack of effects. The reason people want bonuses to hit, besides the frustration of missing an attack and having it do nothing, is to hit with the powers that deliver high damage and/or powerful status effects.
Sure my 20 Int Wizard hits more than my 18 Int one... but my 18 Int one has far more options and the same or better defences at the same level with the same equipment. Hence the opportunity cost of that extra +1 to hit and damage from my 20 Int was higher than it might appear on the surface.
Given that one of my first 4E experiments was the
Iron Mage, I don't think that's a good example to prove your point.
My point is that the feat is not absolutely a must have feat. Its a good feat worth using a slot up on to improve the hit chance of your character if needed.
While 4E is flexible, the game is primarily designed for combat. The core of the combat system is a tiering of powers where the less often you can use them, the greater their effect. In such a system, a flat +1 to hit with all of your powers is very powerful.
The feat is clearly better than a conditional +1 to hit that does nothing else - duh.
Its not clearly better at first level than a feat that gives +1 to hit and damage with an at-will, your encounter and daily. (Tieflings only)
Its not clearly better than feats that have nothing to do with combat that I need for my character to develop as I see them.
Its not clearly better than Muti-class feats that add additional options and give skill training.
For combat, it's better than the first two options you list above. Yes, a Tiefling can theoretically do better if
all of his attacks have the fire and/or fear keywords. Which is great until you encounter one of the more common resistances - fire resistance. Taking Hellfire Blood and building your entire character around it specializes you in such a way that you will be marginalized in some combats because of a lack of diversity in damage types. I don't consider +1 damage worth hamstringing a character against foes with fire resistance.
If your DM focuses on out-of-combat situations (and bravo for him if he does), then a +1 on attacks won't come up as often...but it still will come up frequently. If the DM avoids combat situations like the plague...why in the heck are you playing D&D? You should be playing a story-based game instead...and there are plenty on the market these days.
Yes its better than conditional attack bonuses, and I understand the basic math crunch of why its better than damage bonuses (you hit more so you damage more), but I suspect that isn't as absolutely true as the maths gurus want us to believe in actual game play (if only for fun factor - its hard to say as its moving into subjective realms).
You say "math gurus" like it's an insult. I'm certainly not a guru, but it doesn't take a lot of math skills to realize the essential points of their argument:
- Combat is the most common situation for a character in a typical D&D game.
- The game-changing powers are limited in their use (1/encounter or 1/day)
- It becomes harder to hit as your level increases.
- A flat +1 to hit means you're less likely to waste a limited resource.
- The game offers many feats that give situational bonuses, that are less valuable than an all-the-time bonus.
- By mid-heroic tier, a character has enough feats to cover their essentials, and should look at taking a feat that will improve their effectiveness in the most common situation in the game.
When talking "opportunity cost" one needs to look at the whole picture, not just a little part of it.
I have. You may not agree with my conclusion, but I have.
