Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DracoSuave" data-source="post: 5164879" data-attributes="member: 71571">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?)</blockquote>

Verification