Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tiornys" data-source="post: 5164957" data-attributes="member: 17633">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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; They are, however, a poor implementation of that solution, which makes them also a mistake.&nbsp; Versatile Expertise is the best implementation we've been given, but it's still poor.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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 &quot;Are they a solution or are they a mistake?&quot;, you're asking a question that creates a false dichotomy.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; The effect should exist as errata.&nbsp; Failing that, an implementation such as &quot;masterwork weapons/implements&quot; that effectively costs nothing is vastly superior to the feat-based implementation.WotC made a mistake in the math.&nbsp; They found, and fixed, that mistake with respect to monster hit rates against player AC by creating masterwork armor.&nbsp; That left player hit rates vs. monster defenses and monster hit rates vs. player NADs unfixed.&nbsp; PHB2 gives us a variety of feats that help patch those problems.&nbsp; Having a solution to the initial mistake is good.&nbsp; Having that solution appear in feat form is a second mistake.t~</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tiornys, post: 5164957, member: 17633"] 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 [i]should[/i] 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~ [/QUOTE]

Verification