Tools of Two Trades (Weapliment Expertise) Article Up

[Bold or Stupid]

There still is an issue with non-weapon, non-implement attacks (Dragon's Breath for Dragonborn is the most blatant example). Redoing the chart of what you get each level to include a "+1 to attack rolls" at levels 1/11/21 or 5/15/25 would be fix the issue entirely with no feat required.

Of course, this has been said before (on the CharOp boards before the game even came out IIRC) and the feat-tax feats are obviously here to stay since they're too entrenched already.

I see your point howver I don't think Dragon's Breath is a great example, it's minor action area attack, I've always seen it be effective enough even on early elites and solos with their def buffs from levels 1-30. If it was a standard action or provoked I'd worry about it more.

Disgression over - I like the feats in the article (mostly) but they all appear a little corner case, maybe the author wrote them for the oddities in his home game, but they need some thing a tad more generic that lets you swap between them free action, and a couple of weapon class weapliment ones - Blades and axes/hammers maybe.

 

[Matt James]

This article makes me sad. Like WotC just hires people who have no idea what the game needs or the players want.

A reminder that this is a playest document. No need to make personal attacks.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

A reminder that this is a playest document. No need to make personal attacks.

The whole Expertise feat concept should just go away. Nobody actually needs to bonuses except to keep up with the other guy that already has them.

 

[Klaus]

A reminder that this is a playest document. No need to make personal attacks.

I'll add my voice to Matt's reminder. Send feedback to WotC and odds are very good they'll listen. Heck, there was a "R&D At Your Service" seminar at GenCon, so they *are* looking for customer feedback.

 

[Zaran]

It's an open playtest document. It's probably best to treat it as such. This is remarkable for WotC to do. Please don't kill it for everyone.

I'm happy they are giving us the chance to give input, but at the same time, it feels like they didn't do any research to begin with. Maybe it's because this was from fans instead of actual developers. This just feels like Unearthed Arcana grade material when we were told that they are giving these articles the same R&D as their books. I mean that was their excuse when we got so many delays at turn of the year.

This article was too focused. I have a Sentinel Druid that uses some Core Druid spells. That means she uses a spear for her Easy-Button attacks and a totem for her others. There wasn't a single expertise feat here that would work. So now I have to fall back on the Old-World Versatile Expertise. I really don't understand why they refuse to errata those old expertise feats. The people who choose not use the new ones are the same one who will not read the errata.

 

[Mirtek]

The whole Expertise feat concept should just go away. Nobody actually needs to bonuses except to keep up with the other guy that already has them.

And the monsters whose defenses have grown by 3 points more than your attacks

 

[TwoSix]

And the monsters whose defenses have grown by 3 points more than your attacks

I never understood the whole point of this complaint. While this may be true for a simple attack bonus vs defense comparison, aren't the buffs and debuffs provided by other characters also increasing in magnitude?

 

[Matt James]

Maybe it's because this was from fans instead of actual developers.

Chad and James both have extensive experience as designers. I'm not sure your inference is valid to improving the playtest.

I highly encourage you to participate in the dialog of improving what was presented. Logical and quality suggestions are sure to help improve the final document, yes?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Chad and James both have extensive experience as designers. I'm not sure your inference is valid to improving the playtest.

I highly encourage you to participate in the dialog of improving what was presented. Logical and quality suggestions are sure to help improve the final document, yes?

It is so much easier to just assume it is all easy and imagine that you could do better though Matt! Well, maybe YOU can, maybe some other people can, but I've long since concluded that your average forum poster simply has no idea what it takes to put out professional content or what sorts of constraints one has to work under. Perfectly understandable, but human nature being what it is, people always imagine it is easy and everyone that actually does it is just an inept idiot. Ah well, nothing is going to change that!

Really, none of the stuff in this article is stunningly amazing. It is an adequate response to an existing need implemented within the parameters of what has come before. We really have no idea what other things are being decided over at WotC in terms of some other approach, nor what the vast majority of people who just play the game are saying they want. Most of them don't have a whole lot of concern about game design considerations etc. They just want to play their guy that uses a weapon and a holy symbol and not get borked for it. This stuff will answer many of their needs, so it is a perfectly reasonable approach, and the rough edges can be smoothed off before it becomes official.

 

[Erudite Frog]

Im not good at finding old posts but werent users hollering that wotc never had play tests like paizo? Now people want to complain???????