Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tiornys" data-source="post: 5164254" data-attributes="member: 17633">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~</blockquote>

Verification