So, about Expertise...

[KarinsDad]

I think your math is off...

A +1 to-hit from any source benefits someone with a lower chance of hitting more than it benefits someone with a higher chance of hitting.

As an example, if character A has a 50% chance of hitting, a +2 to-hit improves his chances of connecting by 20%.

If character B has an 80% chance of hitting, a +2 to-hit improves his chances of connecting by 12%.

Yes, of course it helps specialists. But it helps generalists more.

-O

I think your math is off...

Don't let percentages fool you.



The generalist (16 stat) has a 50% chance of doing x points of damage.

The specialist (20 stat) at +2 (only, not 30% like your example) has a 60% chance of doing x+2 points of damage.

Let's pick a reasonable number for x (like 10 to keep it simple).

A: 50% * 10 = normally 5, but goes to 6 with 60%. Net gain: 1 point of average damage.

B: 60% * 12 = normally 7.2, but goes to 8.4 with 70%. Net gain: 1.2 points of average damage.

No matter which x you pick, the specialist gets a greater increase in average damage: x = 20, A gains 2 (10 to 12), B gains 2.2 (13.2 to 15.4).

Yes, of course it helps generalists. But it helps specialists more.

 

[Obryn]

Yes, of course it helps generalists. But it helps specialists more.

...because they're already doing more damage in the first place, and this helps them do that increased damage some more?

Of course they're doing a tad more damage. Hitting and landing those rider effects is important, too, and shouldn't be overlooked.

-O

 

[grickherder]

A: 50% * 10 = normally 5, but goes to 6 with 60%. Net gain: 1 point of average damage.

B: 60% * 12 = normally 7.2, but goes to 8.4 with 70%. Net gain: 1.2 points of average damage.

For completeness sake, let's make an 18 stat one as well:

C: 55% * 11 = normally 6.05, but goes to 7.15 with 65%. Net gain: 1.1

But what does one have to give up to get that 18 or 20? Not much for an 18. If your race gives you bonuses to both your primary stat and your seconday, you can get 18, 18 without much trouble. If you're alright with a secondary of 16, the third higest stat can be a 15.

But that 20, that takes doing. The most you secondary stat will be at that point is a 14 (+2). So that's 1 or 2 less every time a secondary stat would give you something (and between pretty much all the PHB2 classes, rangers, many rogue powers, fighter opportunity attack rolls, paladin powers and lay on hands, warlock powers, and warlord stuff, that's a lot of the time). And if it's not constitution, then you've got a 12 left over hit points, assuming you don't need it somewhere else to qualify for feats later on. That's an awful lot to give up to get an extra .2 points of damage per attack out of Expertise at level 15.

As for what works with D&D, 16 can get you by. 18 is pretty much the default and 20 works for some builds, but is not wise for most. 16 will get you by if what you're gaining in exchange is worth it-- and that gets pretty specific build by build. An extra lay on hand can make the difference at the right time. Would I recommend 16? Nope, but I consider it a viable minimum and won't discourage someone from trying a build with a 16 as their primary attack stat.

 

[Danceofmasks]

I posted a rant elsewhere, and I figured I'll post it here, too.
Apologies if most of the points have already been made, as the rant was meant to sum up the power creep issue.

So <Weapon/Implement> Expertise.
Ok, +1 to hit means a lot.
Much more than most players think, but I'll leave them to their delusions at heroic tier, and focus on epic tier.
+3 hitroll is a 15% swing in the odds of inflicting status conditions, up to and including the ideal "dead" condition.

It's huge. It's so huge that having players with and without on the same table is a catalyst for disgust at the necessity of retraining.
Perhaps it's to compensate for PCs getting +26 hitroll over 29 level gains, whilst their foes get +29 to all defenses over those same 29 level gains.
They stuffed up the maths, and rather than admit their mistake and apply errata, they're trying to do the same thing with a feat.
In a book that costs money.

If it's a computer game, it'd be tantamount to "charging me $40 to un@#$%! my game."

So it widens the gap between haves and have-nots, the very definition of power creep and unbalanced supplementary material.
What was it WotC said about 4e, sweet spots, and fundamental game mechanics?
Now, I usually despise house-ruling but right now, the rather common "I'll just give all my players that boost to all their attacks" is a great idea.

Irregardless, in campaigns, tournaments, and in other by-the-book settings, PCs will have to have these feats at least once.
At least.

And that there is the other problem.
The feat doesn't apply to all your possible attack rolls.

Rather than the supplement providing options for being cooler at what you do, it becomes more of a chokehold on builds.
So we have twice as many feats to choose from, but having a half dozen nigh-necessary feats make these choices moot.

Maybe my point isn't immediately apparent, so I'll use a classic example: the cha paladin.

Used to be, they already had issues having to invest in holy symbols as well as weapons. Why, now it's not just an investment in gear, it's an investment in feats, too. Ok, fine ... so they always had that issue with their damroll, but 3 points of damroll at epic tier is a small slice of total damage output, whilst 3 points of hitroll is an enormous gap in effectiveness ... partly because total potential damage output is so much higher.
Used to be, they had problems doing melee basic attacks. You now have a feat to .. use cha instead.
Throw in a few other choice feats based on race or class, such as healing hands, and what happens?

The available pool of "feats your character wants" ends up being smaller than before the release of PHB2.
I reiterate. Smaller pool of desired feats.
That is a sign of unbalance, don't you think?

Not that I'm surprised at the way it's turning out, the very fact that material in PHB1 is unbalanced against other material in PHB1 means it was always going to happen.
But no feat should ever be so disgustingly overpowered that it's a case of "have it or be sub-optimal."

 

[CapnZapp]

Although I think it's a good and important discussion, let's keep on topic and not discuss the defense tier gap (which can instead be found here).

I started a thread where we can collect all the feats and items and such that impact the "base math" of the game:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/252766-index-attack-defense-boosters.html (both for attack and defenses)

Even if we end up not removing them, it's still nice to know what we're dealing with.

 

[darkInertia]

Wizard's has already removed the double-dipping of weapons with multiple groups:

Add the following sentence to the end of the Benefits section: “Even if an weapon qualifies for this bonus more than once, you can apply the bonus only once when using that weapon.”

source

 

[Regicide]

Wizard's has already removed the double-dipping of weapons with multiple groups:

Add the following sentence to the end of the Benefits section: “Even if an weapon qualifies for this bonus more than once, you can apply the bonus only once when using that weapon.”

source

I'd say it's funny that they made the exact same mistake and errata with a very similar feat in the Player's Handbook 2 for 3.5E (called "Melee Weapon Mastery"), but it isn't really funny. Okay, it is a bit.

 

[keterys]

I've several times gotten the impression that WotC designs and tests for normal games, rather than "I am trying to break the game" games.

Maybe they just don't have enough people of the right temperament, or they're too goodhearted (gullible)

 

[Bolongo]

I'm lucky in that when I described the feat/s to my players they all responded the same way: that it's a boring way to design a feat, that they would all feel obligated to spend a feat slot on it, and that they would be happy if I banned it.

So I did.

 

[Lauberfen]

I'm lucky in that when I described the feat/s to my players they all responded the same way: that it's a boring way to design a feat, that they would all feel obligated to spend a feat slot on it, and that they would be happy if I banned it.

So I did.

Case closed.


Amusing that they moved so quickly (many people getting their book through Amazon don't even have it yet [at least here in the UK]), but still no official response about why they made the feats in the first place, and about the (supposed) attack/defense gaps.

Any more word on an official response?