Weapon and Implement Expertise

[tiornys]

Can we get one of the 24 people who voted for "These feats are balanced" to give a logical explanation for their opinion? I have difficulty seeing how a nearly unconditional +2-3 to attacks is on the same power level as the benefits provided by other feats, and I've never seen a well-reasoned argument that even attempted to demonstrate such parity. Did a full third of the voters really vote based on emotion, or are there logical justifications for this viewpoint?

t~

 

[Zaran]

I picked there is another problem altogether with the feats. I think they should be feats but I also think bonuses should be given for free at certain levels. The free bonus are to balance the to-hit vs defense of the game and the expertise feats are to distinguish someone who is slight better than another of the same level.

A feat to correct the mistakes inherent in the game should be free. While feats that distinguish one character from another shouldn't.

 

[DracoSuave]

Can we get one of the 24 people who voted for "These feats are balanced" to give a logical explanation for their opinion?

Because a character with the feats, while more effective at attacking, hasn't installed the 'I win button' that an unbalanced feat would entail. It's a good feat, but it's not broken superpowered.

And if you're suggesting that all feats be exactly the same power level, that's not possible.

Not even 'difficult to implement' but flat out impossible.

Contrast with Ritual Caster, which IS an I win button for many situations. No amount of attack bonus lets you walk through walls.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I have temporarily banned the expertise feats. I haven't gotten any higher than level 9. I might allow them after level 10 if it seems necessary. As it is, the PC's in my campaign have no problems cleaning up, and they only get more powerful as the level up. It's mostly synergy between abilities that you don't see from plain numbers.

 

[Eternal54]

Can we get one of the 24 people who voted for "These feats are balanced" to give a logical explanation for their opinion? I have difficulty seeing how a nearly unconditional +2-3 to attacks is on the same power level as the benefits provided by other feats, and I've never seen a well-reasoned argument that even attempted to demonstrate such parity. Did a full third of the voters really vote based on emotion, or are there logical justifications for this viewpoint?

t~

The feats do give a a greater boon than most but is by no means needed nor broken. They provide a minor combat advantage in heroic tier, where if I am not mistaken most games begin.

The amount of times the feat turns a near miss into a hit should statisticly not be that great. Granted even if it only does so one every other encounter the damage gained would likely out do any other damage feat but not by an overwhelming amount.

Also the feat is only useful in combat. In my opinion a good game should only be focused on combat half of the time, making the feat useful for only half the time.

Would I take the feat with most weapon combat builds, yes, the feat is great. Do i think with out it they are gimped, no, PCs will still hit pleanty and do fine without them.

 

[Blackbrrd]

...
Would I take the feat with most weapon combat builds, yes, the feat is great. Do i think with out it they are gimped, no, PCs will still hit pleanty and do fine without them.

What feat would you take before expertise - especially at level 15+ ? I don't think there are many - if any - that are better?

At levels lower that 15 I can understand your reasoning, +1 to hit isn't that big of a deal.

 

[DracoSuave]

What feat would you take before expertise - especially at level 15+ ? I don't think there are many - if any - that are better?

At levels lower that 15 I can understand your reasoning, +1 to hit isn't that big of a deal.

'What feat would you take before expertise when you have 10 other feats you've already taken?'

Your answer is, the ten feats you took before level 15.

There's lots of class specific feats that are 'must haves' too, but because they're not available to all classes, you don't see them considered with the same scrutiny as Expertise.

Fact is, it's boring, and it only does one thing. It does it well, but it's boring. It doesn't solve problems, it doesn't end challenges, all it does is make one thing slightly more efficient.

Ritual caster DOES solve problems, DOES end challenges, and DOES undo all sorts of potential problems for the party.

Can Implement raise the dead? No.

So it is not more useful than Ritual Caster, not -really-.

And ritual caster isn't even considered overpowered.

 

[tiornys]

Because a character with the feats, while more effective at attacking, hasn't installed the 'I win button' that an unbalanced feat would entail. It's a good feat, but it's not broken superpowered.

And if you're suggesting that all feats be exactly the same power level, that's not possible.

Not even 'difficult to implement' but flat out impossible.

So you're saying that (once past level 15) the Expertise feats are more powerful than any comparable feat, but that's ok because they aren't so much more powerful as to break the game?

t~

 

[DracoSuave]

So you're saying that (once past level 15) the Expertise feats are more powerful than any comparable feat, but that's ok because they aren't so much more powerful as to break the game?

t~

I'm saying that -if- they are the most powerful, they do not break the game. Something has to be most powerful, that's just how it works. You can't avoid that.

If they are the most powerful, do they break the game?

If they don't break the game, there's no problem.

And, obviously, it is felt that Weapon Expertise and Implement Expertise are NOT too powerful... seeing as they've been improved on and made obsolete.

 

[tiornys]

I'm saying that -if- they are the most powerful, they do not break the game. Something has to be most powerful, that's just how it works. You can't avoid that.

While I agree, it's the degree to which these feats become more powerful than other feats that I object to. They certainly don't break the game in the sense that you mean, but they do break the power curve for feats in general, which disturbs game balance. In terms of "levels" of brokenness, I see the Expertise feats as overpowered, bordering on bent at levels 25+.

If they are the most powerful, do they break the game?

If they don't break the game, there's no problem.

And here's where we have a fundamental disagreement about game design/development philosophy. I think that things can easily create problems without causing the game to stop functioning. For example, pre-errata versions of BRV, Marked Scourge, and Dual Strike certainly didn't break the game, but I think they were all problematic and I'm happy with WotC's decision to errata these items.

And, obviously, it is felt that Weapon Expertise and Implement Expertise are NOT too powerful... seeing as they've been improved on and made obsolete.

I don't think Versatile Expertise is an attempt to make something more powerful than Weapon/Implement Expertise. Rather, it is a superior implementation of the math adjustment that I believe the Expertise line represents. Unlike previous versions of Expertise, Versatile Expertise avoids effectively punishing Paladins, balanced Clerics, and other archetypes which use both weapons and (non-weapon) implements, since those archetypes no longer need to spend twice as many feats as others to get the desired hit rate.

In any case, thanks for explaining your position. I may not agree, but I can at least respect your stance, and I was previously having difficulty finding a way to maintain respect for the people who voted as you did.

t~