Weapon and Implement Expertise

[DracoSuave]

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.

There is no class like that that doesn't have multiple options for weapons-that-act-as-implements..

The fact is, 'Focused Expertise' was slated to be printed in PHB3 to solve that problem. It was weaker in terms of selection for such classes, but it could be used for both Weapon and Implement attacks. At some point between the initial playtests and now, that feat was exchange for this new 'Does everything for everyone' feat, obsoleting both Weapon AND Implement expertise for most characters.

-------------------------

So, let's be a bit more realistic. What is Expertise more powerful than? Is it more powerful than other options that increase to-hit on a conditional basis? Yes. But does it stack with them? Yes. The game is filled with stuff like that.

Goliath Greatweapon is a better feat than Weapon Focus... if you're a goliath. Does that make it broken?

---------------------------


The irony here, is that you're simultaneously trying to argue that A) It is too powerful, and B) players should get it for free.

That's a contradictory argument, it's either too powerful, and players should not have it at all, or it's just fine, in which case, if it ain't broke, why fix it?


The fact is, for all the arguments that it's too powerful, there's compounding evidence (Feyborn Charm, Draconic Spellcaster) that not only is Expertise considered balanced in the current state of design... it's the -baseline- for future 'Give a feat bonus to blah' feats... and that lesser bonuses are usually being errata'd to not be feat bonuses (Hellfire Blood, which is a non-typed bonus to attack and damage, thus stacking with other things)

 

[tiornys]

There is no class like that that doesn't have multiple options for weapons-that-act-as-implements..

Mostly printed after the issue came to light. Multiclass characters were another issue, and hybrids exacerbate that aspect of the problem. I suspect that Versatile Expertise was created because Focused Expertise wasn't quite enough to cover all the possible hybrids.

So, let's be a bit more realistic. What is Expertise more powerful than? Is it more powerful than other options that increase to-hit on a conditional basis? Yes. But does it stack with them? Yes. The game is filled with stuff like that.

Goliath Greatweapon is a better feat than Weapon Focus... if you're a goliath. Does that make it broken?

Again, the issue is not that it's more powerful, it's how much more powerful it is, while simultaneously being relatively non-restrictive. Goliath Greatweapon Prowess et. al. are much more restrictive than the Expertise line, which helps balance their power level, and that power level is a significant amount less better than comparable feats when compared with the amount Expertise is better than the conditional to-hit bonuses.

The irony here, is that you're simultaneously trying to argue that A) It is too powerful, and B) players should get it for free.

That's a contradictory argument, it's either too powerful, and players should not have it at all, or it's just fine, in which case, if it ain't broke, why fix it?

It's not a contradictory argument at all; you're just omitting an important piece of it. I believe Expertise is a patch on the fundamental math that informs player hit rates. As a patch on the math, the effect is desirable. As a feat, the effect is dramatically overpowered.

As I've stated many times in many similar discussions: Expertise is overpowered and shouldn't exist in its current, scaling, form (it's reasonable if still slightly overpowered without the scaling at levels 15 and 25). This is true regardless of whether you believe it to be a math patch, or of whether you believe the math needs patching. If you believe that the to-hit math is flawed at higher levels and does need patching, then you should give the effect of Expertise to all attacks without charging a feat, in order to fix the flaw. Otherwise, the feat should either be eliminated or the scaling should be removed.

edit: to put it another way, what's really going on is that I'm conflating two separate arguments. One argument is about whether or not Expertise is overpowered. On that count I believe the only rational conclusion is that yes, they are overpowered. The second argument is about whether or not the math is flawed, and whether Expertise represents a fix to that math. On that argument I believe there are strong reasons for each camp, and I will happily respect those who have differing opinions. As should be obvious, my strong opinion is that Expertise does represent an intended fix to the math, and that fix is a desirable one even if the official implementation is flawed.

The fact is, for all the arguments that it's too powerful, there's compounding evidence (Feyborn Charm, Draconic Spellcaster) that not only is Expertise considered balanced in the current state of design... it's the -baseline- for future 'Give a feat bonus to blah' feats... and that lesser bonuses are usually being errata'd to not be feat bonuses (Hellfire Blood, which is a non-typed bonus to attack and damage, thus stacking with other things)

Feyborn Charm and Draconic Spellcaster both appeared in the splatbook immediately following the release of PHB2. No feats like them have appeared in future supplements. When they issued the errata that changed Expertise to give feat bonuses while simultaneously making many other to-hit feats grant untyped bonuses, they deliberately did not change either of these feats. Given these facts, I think the following conclusions are evident:

1) Feyborn Charm and Draconic Spellcaster were given scaling bonuses in imitation of the Expertise feats.
2) The fact that they stacked with Expertise feats was a mistake that created an undesirable double scaling.
3) Once recognized, the mistake was not repeated.
4) When possible, the mistake was corrected. Feyborn Charm and Draconic Spellcaster now stand as flavorful alternatives to the Expertise line, in which role they are exactly as balanced as the Expertise line itself (i.e. overpowered but possibly providing a desired patch).

I've believed since they were printed that Feyborn Charm and Draconic Spellcaster were mistakes, but until the errata I had only my understanding of game development justify those suspicions. The errata lends credence to my beliefs. Pre-errata, I would have said that either you were correct or that WotC had made a mistake. Post-errata, I can confidently state that WotC made a mistake, and have now corrected that mistake.

t~

 

[DracoSuave]

Mostly printed after the issue came to light. Multiclass characters were another issue, and hybrids exacerbate that aspect of the problem. I suspect that Versatile Expertise was created because Focused Expertise wasn't quite enough to cover all the possible hybrids.

Again, the issue is not that it's more powerful, it's how much more powerful it is, while simultaneously being relatively non-restrictive. Goliath Greatweapon Prowess et. al. are much more restrictive than the Expertise line, which helps balance their power level, and that power level is a significant amount less better than comparable feats when compared with the amount Expertise is better than the conditional to-hit bonuses.

It's not a contradictory argument at all; you're just omitting an important piece of it. I believe Expertise is a patch on the fundamental math that informs player hit rates. As a patch on the math, the effect is desirable. As a feat, the effect is dramatically overpowered.

As I've stated many times in many similar discussions: Expertise is overpowered and shouldn't exist in its current, scaling, form (it's reasonable if still slightly overpowered without the scaling at levels 15 and 25). This is true regardless of whether you believe it to be a math patch, or of whether you believe the math needs patching. If you believe that the to-hit math is flawed at higher levels and does need patching, then you should give the effect of Expertise to all attacks without charging a feat, in order to fix the flaw. Otherwise, the feat should either be eliminated or the scaling should be removed.

edit: to put it another way, what's really going on is that I'm conflating two separate arguments. One argument is about whether or not Expertise is overpowered. On that count I believe the only rational conclusion is that yes, they are overpowered. The second argument is about whether or not the math is flawed, and whether Expertise represents a fix to that math. On that argument I believe there are strong reasons for each camp, and I will happily respect those who have differing opinions. As should be obvious, my strong opinion is that Expertise does represent an intended fix to the math, and that fix is a desirable one even if the official implementation is flawed.

Feyborn Charm and Draconic Spellcaster both appeared in the splatbook immediately following the release of PHB2. No feats like them have appeared in future supplements. When they issued the errata that changed Expertise to give feat bonuses while simultaneously making many other to-hit feats grant untyped bonuses, they deliberately did not change either of these feats. Given these facts, I think the following conclusions are evident:

1) Feyborn Charm and Draconic Spellcaster were given scaling bonuses in imitation of the Expertise feats.
2) The fact that they stacked with Expertise feats was a mistake that created an undesirable double scaling.
3) Once recognized, the mistake was not repeated.
4) When possible, the mistake was corrected. Feyborn Charm and Draconic Spellcaster now stand as flavorful alternatives to the Expertise line, in which role they are exactly as balanced as the Expertise line itself (i.e. overpowered but possibly providing a desired patch).

I've believed since they were printed that Feyborn Charm and Draconic Spellcaster were mistakes, but until the errata I had only my understanding of game development justify those suspicions. The errata lends credence to my beliefs. Pre-errata, I would have said that either you were correct or that WotC had made a mistake. Post-errata, I can confidently state that WotC made a mistake, and have now corrected that mistake.

t~

Actually, Draconic Spellcaster was errata'd so that it gives its bonus to damage rolls as well as attack rolls, so for certain builds it's more powerful and desirable than Expertise.

The fact that Draconic Spellcaster was errata'd so that it can give more benefit than Expertise makes it a mistake?

Here's the problem- On the one hand you are claiming the feats are too powerful and a mistake, while on the other hand, you are claiming they fix a mistake.

So, are they a mistake, or are they a solution?

They DID make a mistake with those feats- making the +1/+2/+3 stuff feat bonuses means that they can make more of them and not worry about stacking problems. They've always been intended to stack with other, smaller bonuses however, which is why they were made untyped to begin with. The mistake was making other, smaller feats, typed bonuses, forcing them to make expertise a non-typed bonus that says 'Hey yo, this don't stack with that, yo'.

Here's an alternate way of looking at it:

Some players DID like Weapon Focus in D&D 3.5, and there was a lot of feedback saying that they wanted to see it. The designers realized there is room in the math for that feat, so they made it.

Then, rather than doing like they did in 3.5, and make each extra bonus a second feat, they did what they did with Weapon Focus and make it tiered. However, because they didn't want 'reach 11th level' to be the huge gain of power that it already is, they delayed the attack bonus bump till level 15, because while -players- have a more tiered development in terms of power, monsters have a smoother curve. This makes the development for players a smoother curve, while still allowing them the intended benefits of a scaling attack feat.

And let's be honest, there are players who find this feat fun.

After trickling in Weapon and Implement Expertise, they found that it really didn't break anything, and that many players actually enjoyed the game a little more. So they introduced a couple new feats that followed the format... but whoops! They stacked with Expertise--this IS a problem! And making new feats like that is difficult, because you can't errata expertise every time you come out with a new scaling attack bonus feat!

So they did the removing of feat bonuses from Hellfire Blood-like feats that Expertise was always meant to stack with, and made Expertise a feat bonus.

And now we're seeing Versatile Expertise, and Weapon and Implement Expertise are obsolete. But whatever, it's like Devoted Paladin vs. Improved Lay on Hands. They've determined the mechanic is strong, it does the job well, and there's a lot of space to have feats that give +1/+2/+3 to attack, and a side benefit to make some builds stand out, space that only recently openned up. The side benefit might not even be good on its own, but desirable as a rider for the specialized feat.

I expect MORE Draconic Spellcasters and Feyborn Charmer-type feats in the future. Not less. I wouldn't be surprised, for instance, if they came out with a version of DWT that gave a scaling bonus to attack, rather than a flat +2 to damage.

Is it more power? Sure. Do lots of characters take it? Absolutely. Do lots of characters take Weapon Focus? If they have a weapon, yes they do, unless they have a better alternative.

You see 'too powerful' but I see 'design space' and it appears with Versatile Expertise (which solves the problem of any character that uses a weapon as an implement, or a weapon AND an implement) they're setting the standard. I mean, why didn't they print Focused Expertise which DOES actually solve the Paladin problem (Crusader's Weapon, amirite?)

 

[tiornys]

Focused Expertise isn't a good fix for a Paladin because locking a Paladin into certain weapon enchantments isn't much better than asking them to spend twice as many feats. And, as noted above, I'm certain that Focused Expertise doesn't cover all of the caster|non-caster hybrid combinations even if you take specific weapons into account.

The Expertise feats are intended as a solution. They are, however, a poor implementation of that solution, which makes them also a mistake. Versatile Expertise is the best implementation we've been given, but it's still poor. It still acts as an effective feat tax (for power level reasons, not functionality ones), and it still does nothing to help attacks that lack both the weapon and implement keywords. As a feat, it is still dramatically overpowered, and its existence still creates confusion about the proper power level of a feat.

So, when you ask "Are they a solution or are they a mistake?", you're asking a question that creates a false dichotomy. That dichotomy is created by your assumption that the effect of the Expertise feats (fixing the to-hit math) is something that needs to appear as a feat. The effect should exist as errata. Failing that, an implementation such as "masterwork weapons/implements" that effectively costs nothing is vastly superior to the feat-based implementation.

WotC made a mistake in the math. They found, and fixed, that mistake with respect to monster hit rates against player AC by creating masterwork armor. That left player hit rates vs. monster defenses and monster hit rates vs. player NADs unfixed. PHB2 gives us a variety of feats that help patch those problems. Having a solution to the initial mistake is good. Having that solution appear in feat form is a second mistake.

t~

 

[Eternal54]

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~

I can not say how much I respect that statement. Too often I see debates turn into an I win / You win or I'm right / Your right scenario when it doesn't call for it. I would like to commend yours and Dracos scholarly approach to these posts and hope others can take note and follow example.

 

[DracoSuave]

Focused Expertise isn't a good fix for a Paladin because locking a Paladin into certain weapon enchantments isn't much better than asking them to spend twice as many feats. And, as noted above, I'm certain that Focused Expertise doesn't cover all of the caster|non-caster hybrid combinations even if you take specific weapons into account.

Actually, I worked it out.

Weapon/Weapon is obviously taken care of, as is Implement/Implement for hybrids.

This leaves Weapon/Implement... but every Implement caster has weapons in one way or another.

Artificer - Staffs
Bard - Songblades
Cleric - Holy Symbol Weapons
Druid - Staffs
Invoker - Staffs
Monk - .....yeah.
Paladin - Holy Symbol Weapons
Psion - Staffs
Shamans - Totemic weapons
Sorcerer - Staffs and Daggers
Swordmages - Light and Heavy Blades
Warlock - Pact Blade/Hammer/Sword
Wizard - Staffs

If I left any out, please point it out.

There literally is no class in the game that cannot use a weapon as an implement through one means or another.

And the 'use a blah as a blah implement' weapons are generally good for that class anyways, and save you item slots if you're taking both types of powers... so they're generally considered the best for you.

They are, however, a poor implementation of that solution, which makes them also a mistake.

The question should actually be... is 'Do some people find Expertise fun?'

The answer is yes.

The idea of the feat being a math fix only occurs if you overanalyze the game; joe blow gamer doesn't. He just wants to smash evil.

And -many- players have found options to give them bonuses to hit to be fun. It'd be a feat in demand even if they did NOT have the math 'disparity.'

I cannot call an option that makes the game more fun for players to be a 'failure'.

[quote
WotC made a mistake in the math.[/QUOTE]

My position is, and always has been, that they didn't fail at the math, but the analyzers stopped at 'the relative to hit to AC doesn't go up so much so math fail' and that it is incomplete, and therefore, poor analysis.

It's similiar to how, yes, monsters get more accurate relative to your AC at higher levels. What doesn't get taken into account with that, however, is that the damage they deal at higher levels gets smaller and smaller and smaller, which means the threat of those attacks actually -worsens- at high level play, not increases.

But, it was an issue in the eyes of some players who actually bothered to look, and they decided there was room to address that issue for those players, while also addressing the issue of hot having feats that flat out boost attack bonus.

To summarize:

The feat IS a fun option for certain players. It makes the attack bonus scale better for players who don't have time for a full analysis (to be honest, I think this is beyond the scope of the vast majority of players' capabilities). It reduces frustration in terms of misses.

I don't guage success by how it makes 'the math' feel in some intellectual domain that resides in the back of a mathemetician's mind. I guage success by how it makes Tommy and Brenda at my table smile more often.

That's the only measuring stick that counts for me.

 

[tiornys]

Actually, I worked it out.

Weapon/Weapon is obviously taken care of, as is Implement/Implement for hybrids.

This leaves Weapon/Implement... but every Implement caster has weapons in one way or another.

...

If I left any out, please point it out.

There literally is no class in the game that cannot use a weapon as an implement through one means or another.

And the 'use a blah as a blah implement' weapons are generally good for that class anyways, and save you item slots if you're taking both types of powers... so they're generally considered the best for you.

Despite the impressively comprehensive list there, many hybrid archetypes are still entirely lacking options to use an applicable weapon as an implement. Any bow/crossbow wielder mixed with any non-holy symbol class has nothing, and in many cases can't even downgrade to a thrown weapon of some kind to compensate. Archer Ranger|Invoker is an example of a very viable combination where Versatile Expertise works but Focused Expertise would not.

Basically, Versatile Expertise does correctly what Focused Expertise tried but failed to do: allow any weapon + implement using character to gain "appropriate" to-hit bonuses with a single feat.

WotC made a mistake in the math.

My position is, and always has been, that they didn't fail at the math, but the analyzers stopped at 'the relative to hit to AC doesn't go up so much so math fail' and that it is incomplete, and therefore, poor analysis.

It's similiar to how, yes, monsters get more accurate relative to your AC at higher levels. What doesn't get taken into account with that, however, is that the damage they deal at higher levels gets smaller and smaller and smaller, which means the threat of those attacks actually -worsens- at high level play, not increases.

But, it was an issue in the eyes of some players who actually bothered to look, and they decided there was room to address that issue for those players, while also addressing the issue of hot having feats that flat out boost attack bonus.

I might buy that argument if not for the existence of masterwork armor. Why is player AC vs. monster hit rate so special compared with player NAD vs. monster hit rate or player hit rate vs. monster defenses? I could try to come up with a reasonable explanation for that, or I could look for an explanation for why the devs noticed the problem for player AC and otherwise missed it. Since masterwork heavy armor would have been necessary regardless (to keep heavy armor competitive with light armor + stat), I can easily see how the devs could have stumbled over the player AC vs. monster issue (while fixing heavy vs. light armors) but missed the related scaling issues.

When I combine that insight with the facts that Expertise violates initial design precepts and that at least one designer is on public record as giving Expertise feats away for free in his games, I find it much simpler to believe that Expertise is a math fix presented in a form that lends itself to wide dissemination than to believe that the devs would allow a feat that is both dramatically above the power curve and in violation of design intent simply to placate a small, vocal minority of gamers (or to make money, or for other similar reasons).

To summarize:

The feat IS a fun option for certain players. It makes the attack bonus scale better for players who don't have time for a full analysis (to be honest, I think this is beyond the scope of the vast majority of players' capabilities). It reduces frustration in terms of misses.

I don't guage success by how it makes 'the math' feel in some intellectual domain that resides in the back of a mathemetician's mind. I guage success by how it makes Tommy and Brenda at my table smile more often.

That's the only measuring stick that counts for me.

These are the reasons I find the effect of Expertise to be beneficial. I just strongly dislike that it exists in the form of a feat.

t~

 

[DracoSuave]

I might buy that argument if not for the existence of masterwork armor. Why is player AC vs. monster hit rate so special compared with player NAD vs. monster hit rate or player hit rate vs. monster defenses? I could try to come up with a reasonable explanation for that, or I could look for an explanation for why the devs noticed the problem for player AC and otherwise missed it. Since masterwork heavy armor would have been necessary regardless (to keep heavy armor competitive with light armor + stat), I can easily see how the devs could have stumbled over the player AC vs. monster issue (while fixing heavy vs. light armors) but missed the related scaling issues.

You don't have to buy it. Look at the situation without Expertise:

You have, obstensibly, -2 to hit at epic vs heroic. So you're hitting 10% less often, so assuming that you're at 50/50 at heroic (you're above 50/50, actually, but let's ignore facts for the sake of argument)... that brings you down to 40/60. So, that in essense reduces your DPR by 20%. However, take level 30... monsters only have 3 times as many hit points, but your damage outlay is more than 3 times as much on average, from higher modifiers, and more encounter and daily power usage... closer to 4 times.

80% of 4 times the damage = 320% DPR increase, which means you're MORE of a threat to a 3 X hit point pool than before. This means that your Damage/Total Hit point ration increases, and -that- is what matters regarding killing monsters.

Monsters, on the other hand DO hit more often, but the percentage of hit points they take from the player decreases dramatically, to the point where monsters can autohit and still not get you to bloodied as fast as they could at level 1. This means they are less of a threat in terms of their damage/total hit points.


The math is not as simple as you'd think from looking at only Attack Bonus vs AC.

 

[Aulirophile]

Any hybrid can use Implements from either class for all their powers, from both classes. So if one class has a weapon-as-implement in the hybrid, they both do. If that weapon is for that particular hybrid... well, most hybrids aren't that great without a lot of optimization. They are very advanced in terms of rolling one up, so people who do so will be aware of the issue. Or roll a terrible one, but that isn't an expertise issue....

 

[tiornys]

You don't have to buy it. Look at the situation without Expertise:

...

The math is not as simple as you'd think from looking at only Attack Bonus vs AC.

I'm well aware of the reasoning you're employing, and I agree that there's far more going on than just hit rates. However, I notice you didn't even attempt to address the question of why player AC got scaled correctly when nothing else did.

I think a lot of the issues you bring up actually come from less rigorous testing of the epic tier than the heroic tier. The PHB1 heroic tier was rather well balanced. Paragon tier had more issues and epic had numerous issues. Most of those issues have since been addressed.

I don't think there was any intention by WotC to have lower monster damage output balanced by higher hit rates, especially since straight damage is generally delivered to AC, and that's the once defense that has always scaled correctly. Similarly, I don't think there was an intent to have the players hit less but deal more damage--missing with your encounter and daily powers isn't fun for most players, and the number of times you get to try landing them doesn't change much from paragon tier to epic tier. If WotC intended the features of epic play that you demonstrate, then they were intending to create grindy epic combats. I prefer to give them more credit than that.

@Aulirophile: implement|implement users are fine. The potential problems arise in non-implement|implement cases where the non-implement user's weaponry can't be used as an implement, such as the Archer Ranger|Invoker I mentioned earlier.

t~