# monk preview: another expertise feat - talk about stealth errata!



## evilbob (May 11, 2009)

Focused Expertise:  Choose a weapon that you can wield as an implement. You gain a bonus to attack rolls with any implement or weapon power you use
through that weapon.

WOW.  What a horrible way to fix an obvious problem:  A BETTER FEAT!  So basically, they're saying to all the poor paladins and clerics and other folks who use weapons as implements who had to pay a double feat tax:  OH WAIT!  Never mind, we suddenly realized NOW that this was completely unfair, so here's a fix and pleasedonthateus.  However, it's tucked away in the monk PREVIEW which you have to have a subscription for, as opposed to being included in the PH2 which you already bought...

...Yeah.  Wow.  My confidence in the developers took a huge hit when they released errata for the Expertise feats within a few days to counter an incredibly obvious problem - but it just took an even bigger hit thanks to this stealth errata which fixes another major and quite obvious issue, which by the way you also have to pay for.  Extra suck.


----------



## Nail (May 11, 2009)

Is that the complete text of the Focused Expertise feat?  It's unclear: what bonus?


----------



## chaotix42 (May 11, 2009)

That's pretty much it, Nail. It just goes on to explain how the bonus scales and that it doesn't stack with other Expertise feats.

I'm allowing the Expertise feats in my campaigns for now so I don't mind this feat. It keeps classes like swordmages from having to take both Expertise feats or limit their selection of powers to either weapon or implement powers.



			
				evilbob said:
			
		

> So basically, they're saying to all the poor paladins and clerics and other folks who use weapons as implements who had to pay a double feat tax: OH WAIT! Never mind, we suddenly realized NOW that this was completely unfair, so here's a fix and pleasedonthateus.




Don't paladins and clerics just use both weapons and implements? They're still stuck taking both Expertise feats if they want to mix and match weapon and implement powers. There are those magic weapons in AV that can be used as implements though...


----------



## Tuft (May 11, 2009)

evilbob said:


> WOW.  What a horrible way to fix an obvious problem:  A BETTER FEAT!  So basically, they're saying to all the poor paladins and clerics and other folks who use weapons as implements who had to pay a double feat tax:  OH WAIT!  Never mind, we suddenly realized NOW that this was completely unfair, so here's a fix and pleasedonthateus.  However, it's tucked away in the monk PREVIEW which you have to have a subscription for, as opposed to being included in the PH2 which you already bought...




Nope, this is _not_ the feat for those that both use weapons as weapons and implements as implements, such as e.g. a bard. This is the feat for those that use weapons as implements, such as the monk or the sorcerer, as I read it.

Not sure how weapons that also are implements, such as a songsword, counts in this regard... Are they "weapons that are wielded as implements", or weapons that are wielded as weapons _plus_ implements wielded as implements? The rules definitely could be a lot clearer on this point. Possibly the best way is to see what numbers the character builder spits out on the character sheet, rather than try to understand the rules.


----------



## Nail (May 11, 2009)

Tuft said:


> The rules definitely could be a lot clearer on this point. Possibly the best way is to see what numbers the character builder spits out on the character sheet, rather than try to understand the rules.



Oh lord.

...that sends a shudder down my spine.  The only way to understand the rules is to let the computer program do it?  Ick.


----------



## Mistwell (May 11, 2009)

Nail said:


> Oh lord.
> 
> ...that sends a shudder down my spine.  The only way to understand the rules is to let the computer program do it?  Ick.




He said "best" way (and in context, "best" meant quickest method of computing some numbers), and you read "only" way?

The best way to run some calculations is to use a calculator.  It's not the only way however, and I think that's a virtually identical analogy.


----------



## Elric (May 11, 2009)

I'm waiting for (riffing off of posters on the WotC boards):

"Everything Expertise"
Benefit: Your character gets +1 to hit with all attacks.  At level 15, this increases to +2.  At level 25, this increases to +3.  This bonus doesn't stack with any other "Expertise" feats you have.  If you are level 5 or higher, gain an additional feat.

"Defense Expertise"
Benefit: Your character gets +1 to Fortitude, Reflex, and Will.  At level 15, this increases to +2.  At level 25, this increases to +3.  This bonus doesn't stack with the feats Robust Defenses, Epic Fortitude, Epic Reflexes, or Epic Will.  If you are level 5 or higher, gain an additional feat.


----------



## Nail (May 11, 2009)

In this case, the sentiment remains the same.  "The best way to interprete the rules is to let a computer program do it?"  Yikes!


----------



## Herschel (May 11, 2009)

I'm fine with it. It's simply another choice in building. Do I want more accuracy, defense, speed, HP, surges, initiaive modifiers, damage, superior weapons..........the choice is mine.


----------



## Mengu (May 11, 2009)

Double post.


----------



## Mengu (May 11, 2009)

I was giving expertise as a free feat to everyone for their primary weapons _and_ implements at 5th level anyway, so the "_focused expertise_" feat changes nothing for me. I'm using the 5th level free campaign feature "_mega expertise of impending doom"._ Doesn't even require DDI subscription.


----------



## James McMurray (May 11, 2009)

Is there honestly anyone here that can't read that feat and know what they mean despite the lack of a pointer to which bonuis you should get?

If so, have you told them about it so that the playtest of this class can fix the problem?


----------



## Mengu (May 11, 2009)

James McMurray said:


> Is there honestly anyone here that can't read that feat and know what they mean despite the lack of a pointer to which bonuis you should get?




I can't understand your question, but I understand the feat pretty clearly.

You basically pick a weapon you can wield as an implement, and have your expertise bonus apply to both weapon and implement attack powers. Good for Monks and Swordmages (and I guess Paladins with Holy Avengers, and maybe some others I can't think of right now).


----------



## Alabast (May 11, 2009)

evilbob said:


> ...Yeah.  Wow.  My confidence in the developers took a huge hit when they released errata for the Expertise feats within a few days to counter an incredibly obvious problem - but it just took an even bigger hit thanks to this stealth errata which fixes another major and quite obvious issue, which by the way you also have to pay for.  Extra suck.




Did they errata the expertise feats already?  If so, I missed them.


----------



## Mengu (May 11, 2009)

Alabast said:


> Did they errata the expertise feats already? If so, I missed them.




Yeah, the errata fixes doubleweapon sillyness where you were getting expertise with axes and spears for twice the benefit with an Urgosh for instance.



> Addition (3/27/2009)
> Add the following sentence to the end of the Benefits section: “Even if a weapon qualifies for this bonus more than once, you can apply the bonus only once when using that weapon.”




One might wonder, if Focused Expertise (Axe) and Weapon Expertise (Spear) would stack or not. Fortunately this bit takes care of it I think



> This bonus is not cumulative with the one provided by Implement Expertise or Weapon Expertise.


​​​​


----------



## KarinsDad (May 11, 2009)

Elric said:


> I'm waiting for (riffing off of posters on the WotC boards):
> 
> "Everything Expertise"
> Benefit: Your character gets +1 to hit with all attacks.  At level 15, this increases to +2.  At level 25, this increases to +3.  This bonus doesn't stack with any other "Expertise" feats you have.  If you are level 5 or higher, gain an additional feat.
> ...




Along with:

"Weakest NAD Expertise"
Benefit: Your character gets +1 to a third ability score on levels 4, 8, 14, 18, 24, and 28. This bonus can only be applied to an ability score if a different ability score that modifies the same non-AC defense has not been modified. For example, the PC could not add +1 to Wisdom with this feat if +1 was already added to Charisma. If you are level 4 or higher, gain an additional feat.


----------



## Alabast (May 11, 2009)

Oh, I got excited, thinking maybe they balanced the feat.  Silly me.


----------



## Ryujin (May 11, 2009)

chaotix42 said:


> I'm allowing the Expertise feats in my campaigns for now so I don't mind this feat. It keeps classes like swordmages from having to take both Expertise feats or limit their selection of powers to either weapon or implement powers.




So far the only character that is stated to use this new feat is the Centered Breath Monk, so no joy for Swordmages or Warlocks who use longswords


----------



## evilbob (May 11, 2009)

As some have pointed out, my original statement was partially in error:  this does not help the poor paladin or cleric, who use different items for implements and weapons, but it is more for sorcs, swordmages, wizards, and the like, who would use one item as both.  (And now, the monk, apparently.)

At this point I honestly expect the Divine Power book to include another Expertise feat to help the poor divine classes out.  It also means all the folks who have implemented some sort of house rule to fix this horrid feat(s) are even more justified in ignoring it and implementing their house rule.

It really is hard to believe how poorly this math fix has been implemented across the board.  This stealth errata, combined with the quick errata when the feat came out, plus the massive grumbling across various message boards pretty much seals the fact that the devs were not fully aware of what they were doing.


----------



## evilbob (May 11, 2009)

Ryujin said:


> So far the only character that is stated to use this new feat is the Centered Breath Monk, so no joy for Swordmages or Warlocks who use longswords



I don't see why they couldn't use it.  I mean, it's in Dragon magazine, "everything is core" (also stated explicitly in the same magazine), and as of May 24(?) this should be available in the character builder.  There are no prereqs.


----------



## chaotix42 (May 11, 2009)

Ryujin said:


> So far the only character that is stated to use this new feat is the Centered Breath Monk, so no joy for Swordmages or Warlocks who use longswords




The Centered Breath monk uses the feat because he has both Weapon and Implement powers. That doesn't mean some other class can't use the feat too - it has no pre-reqs at all so anyone can take it if they find it useful.


----------



## Ryujin (May 11, 2009)

chaotix42 said:


> The Centered Breath monk uses the feat because he has both Weapon and Implement powers. That doesn't mean some other class can't use the feat too - it has no pre-reqs at all so anyone can take it if they find it useful.




That, or they just screwed up and left out the prereq line.


----------



## Caliber (May 11, 2009)

Ryujin said:


> That, or they just screwed up and left out the prereq line.




Why would the default assumption be that a feat presented without any prereqs has prereqs that were simply not included?


----------



## Mithreinmaethor (May 11, 2009)

The next character builder update will be on Tuesday June 2nd.  It will have the Hybrid Characters in it and it is being discussed that it will have the Monk playtest as well.


----------



## Tuft (May 11, 2009)

Ryujin said:


> So far the only character that is stated to use this new feat is the Centered Breath Monk, so no joy for Swordmages or Warlocks who use longswords




It may be listed as a Centered Breath feat, but it in fact has no stated prerequisite - another thing that can be misinterpreted in the article.


----------



## mneme (May 11, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> "Weakest NAD Expertise"
> Benefit: Your character gets +1 to a third ability score on levels 4, 8, 14, 18, 24, and 28. This bonus can only be applied to an ability score if a different ability score that modifies the same non-AC defense has not been modified. For example, the PC could not add +1 to Wisdom with this feat if +1 was already added to Charisma. If you are level 4 or higher, gain an additional feat.




Actually, the monk has this (in a more elegant fashion -- as part of the class design).  One wonders if later designs will follow this pattern (and if so, if they'll ever add them to previous ones).  Specifically, the centered breath monk gets a +1 (on top of the class bonuses) to Fort, and it scales with tier.

It's -very- clear that Focused Expertise is intended as a general feat, btw -- the only connection to the Monk is that the Centered Breath monk -template- suggests that you get that feat.  That's it.


----------



## jasin (May 12, 2009)

Herschel said:


> I'm fine with it. It's simply another choice in building. Do I want more accuracy, defense, speed, HP, surges, initiaive modifiers, damage, superior weapons..........the choice is mine.



Do I want +1 to opportunity attacks from Combat Reflexes, or +1 to all weapon attacks rising to +2 and +3 later from Weapon Expertise? Or, on second thought, maybe +1 to all weapon and implement attacks rising to +2 and +3 later from Focused Expertise?

Delicious choices!


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 12, 2009)

jasin said:


> Do I want +1 to opportunity attacks from Combat Reflexes, or +1 to all weapon attacks rising to +2 and +3 later from Weapon Expertise? Or, on second thought, maybe +1 to all weapon and implement attacks rising to +2 and +3 later from Focused Expertise?
> 
> Delicious choices!




It depends as a fighter I would want weapon expertice and combat reflexes


----------



## FireLance (May 12, 2009)

jasin said:


> Do I want +1 to opportunity attacks from Combat Reflexes, or +1 to all weapon attacks rising to +2 and +3 later from Weapon Expertise? Or, on second thought, maybe +1 to all weapon and implement attacks rising to +2 and +3 later from Focused Expertise?
> 
> Delicious choices!



The choice between Combat Reflexes and Weapon Expertise is a no brainer. However, the choice between Weapon Expertise and Toughness is not (at low levels, at least).


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (May 12, 2009)

I am still unconvinced that the math requires fixing and, until I am, all the expertise feats are currently banned from my game until my group plays an entire campaign from level 1 to level 30. This new feat is no exception.

Of course, if at some time in the future I become convinced that the math does need fixing, then I will grant the bonus to all characters...


----------



## chaotix42 (May 12, 2009)

jasin said:


> Do I want +1 to opportunity attacks from Combat Reflexes, or +1 to all weapon attacks rising to +2 and +3 later from Weapon Expertise? Or, on second thought, maybe +1 to all weapon and implement attacks rising to +2 and +3 later from Focused Expertise?
> 
> Delicious choices!




I might choose both.


----------



## Nail (May 12, 2009)

Amphimir Míriel said:


> I am still unconvinced that the math requires fixing ..



You've done the math then, I take it.


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (May 12, 2009)

Nail said:


> You've done the math then, I take it.




Well, my current experience is that heroic level characters don't need the feat.

This might change when my groups hit paragon or epic.


----------



## tiornys (May 12, 2009)

Amphimir Míriel said:


> Well, my current experience is that heroic level characters don't need the feat.
> 
> This might change when my groups hit paragon or epic.



My group started noticing the hit-rate decay at high heroic and early paragon.  That may be somewhat early since we're typically fighting against +level enemies (and have been since about level 2), but I'd expect it to be noticeable for most groups by mid paragon (assuming the DM doesn't start adjusting the encounters differently).

t~


----------



## ForbidenMaster (May 12, 2009)

Nail said:


> You've done the math then, I take it.




I think I have, but if someone wouldnt mind double checking it for errors that would be great:

Average Monster AC = 14+Level
Average PC Attack Bonus = Mod+Proficiency+1/2 level+Magic

Assumed PC attack vs average monster AC at level 1:

4+2+0+0=6 vs. 15=14+1

Chance to hit = 55%

Assumed PC attack vs average monster AC at level 15:

6+2+7+3=18 vs 29=14+15

Chance to hit = 45%

Assumed PC attack vs average monster AC at level 25:

7+2+12+6=27 vs 39=14+25

Chance to hit = 40%

Assumed PC attack vs average monster AC at level 30:

8+2+15+6=31 vs 44=14+30

Chance to hit = 35%

Now with expertise:

Average Monster AC = 14+Level
Average PC Attack Bonus = Mod+Proficiency+1/2 level+Magic+Expertise

Assumed PC attack vs average monster AC at level 1:

4+2+0+0+1=7 vs. 15=14+1

Chance to hit = 60%

Assumed PC attack vs average monster AC at level 15:

6+2+7+3+2=20 vs 29=14+15

Chance to hit = 55%

Assumed PC attack vs average monster AC at level 25:

7+2+12+6=30 vs 39=14+25

Chance to hit = 55%

Assumed PC attack vs average monster AC at level 30:

8+2+15+6+3=34 vs 44=14+30

Chance to hit = 50%


----------



## mach1.9pants (May 12, 2009)

Amphimir Míriel said:


> Well, my current experience is that heroic level characters don't need the feat.
> 
> This might change when my groups hit paragon or epic.




Yeah my guys at 8th seem to be hitting fine, although the martial guys had trouble against an ettin, the others didn't!

However I am allowing them to pick the feats anyway, I don't see the _need_ for expertise feats yet, but I do see the _want_. But only 2 of the 4 PCs have chosen them so they are not a feat tax IMC.


----------



## jasin (May 12, 2009)

chaotix42 said:


> I might choose both.



Which would you choose first, the one in PHB1 or the one in PHB2?

Assuming your answer is PHB2, doesn't this reversal strike you as odd?


----------



## Starfox (May 12, 2009)

Elric said:


> I'm waiting for (riffing off of posters on the WotC boards):
> 
> "Everything Expertise"
> Benefit: Your character gets +1 to hit with all attacks.  At level 15, this increases to +2.  At level 25, this increases to +3.  This bonus doesn't stack with any other "Expertise" feats you have.  If you are level 5 or higher, gain an additional feat.
> ...




Then you grant this feat as a bonus feat to everyone. Scaling problem solved!


----------



## jasin (May 12, 2009)

Starfox said:


> Then you grant this feat as a bonus feat to everyone. Scaling problem solved!



I think you missed the final clause in Elric's feats.


----------



## CapnZapp (May 12, 2009)

Elric said:


> I'm waiting for (riffing off of posters on the WotC boards):
> 
> "Everything Expertise"
> Benefit: Your character gets +1 to hit with all attacks.  At level 15, this increases to +2.  At level 25, this increases to +3.  This bonus doesn't stack with any other "Expertise" feats you have.  If you are level 5 or higher, gain an additional feat.
> ...



QFT!

I really really want to hear WotCs explanation why this wasn't included in errata, instead of us to go out having to buy PHB14 to get these feats!!


----------



## KarinsDad (May 12, 2009)

CapnZapp said:


> I really really want to hear WotCs explanation why this wasn't included in errata, instead of us to go out having to buy PHB14 to get these feats!!




WotC explain? When was the last time WotC explained anything? They had a good dialog with their customers before 4E came out and then after that, the only thing I've seen is comments about new products.

Does anyone have a link to some type of forum or something where WotC explains anything (other than the FAQ which is pretty old and limited)?


----------



## James McMurray (May 12, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> WotC explain? When was the last time WotC explained anything? They had a good dialog with their customers before 4E came out and then after that, the only thing I've seen is comments about new products.
> 
> Does anyone have a link to some type of forum or something where WotC explains anything (other than the FAQ which is pretty old and limited)?




Try Dragon and Dungeon magazines. You'll find plenty of explanatory articles, podcasts, and interviews.


----------



## Nail (May 12, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> WotC explain? When was the last time WotC explained anything? They had a good dialog with their customers before 4E came out and then after that, the only thing I've seen is comments about new products.
> 
> Does anyone have a link to some type of forum or something where WotC explains anything (other than the FAQ which is pretty old and limited)?






James McMurray said:


> Try Dragon and Dungeon magazines. You'll find plenty of explanatory articles, podcasts, and interviews.




Uh-huh. 

Which article explains Expertise (or a related subject)?


----------



## jasin (May 12, 2009)

Nail said:


> Uh-huh.
> 
> Which article explains Expertise (or a related subject)?



... even for very wide definitions of related: epic defense feats, items which boost F/R/W from Adventurer's Vault, why sorcerers get +Dex to all damage while warlocks get +1d6 1/round, two-bladed swords vs. rapiers, battle ragers, invoker At-Wills vs. wizard At-Wills. All of these have been criticized as either math patches in the guise of options, or gross power creep, or both.

There is a running series on skill challenges, much of which is predicated on the assumption (realization?) that skill challenges as written, even after errata, don't work. So the criticism of stealth errata can apply there too.


----------



## chaotix42 (May 12, 2009)

jasin said:


> Which would you choose first, the one in PHB1 or the one in PHB2?




Expertise, of course! 



> Assuming your answer is PHB2, doesn't this reversal strike you as odd?



Odd? Yeah, I thought the feats were too good to be true at first, what with the rather barren selection of to-hit bonuses in the PHB1, but I'm just not troubled by them now. Call me laid-back, I guess? Or maybe a munchkin?


----------



## Nail (May 12, 2009)

jasin said:


> ..There is a running series on skill challenges, much of which is predicated on the assumption (realization?) that skill challenges as written, even after errata, don't work. So the criticism of stealth errata can apply there too.



That bugs me more than the expertise line of feats; you'd think that at least post-errata, skill challenges would work.

So...what do the dragon magazine articles say about running skill challenges?  I'd love to hear what advice they give, and whether it differs substaintially from the way I've been running them (house ruled).


----------



## James McMurray (May 12, 2009)

Nail said:


> Uh-huh.
> 
> Which article explains Expertise (or a related subject)?




I was responding to a question regarding them explaining "anything". They've explained a lot of things.


----------



## Nail (May 12, 2009)

Okey-dokey.  I agree they have explained some things, and that I've enjoyed reading their explanations.  (I *really* enjoy reading thier explanations that differ widely from the apparent facts, but that's another matter.)

Now I want them to explain "X" Expertise feats.


----------



## jasin (May 12, 2009)

Nail said:


> So...what do the dragon magazine articles say about running skill challenges?  I'd love to hear what advice they give, and whether it differs substaintially from the way I've been running them (house ruled).



I'm not a subscriber, so I've haven't read the articles in detail, but there were skills grouped by role and ability score (to make it easier to pick an even spread rather than have the rogue rolling Bluff, Diplomacy and Streetwise while everyone else waits for him to finish), advice about aiding (since, as the article admits, aiding completely wrecks the whole idea), stuff like that. Mostly (very insightful) advice on how to run the game when non-combat challenges are concerned, rather than the new subsystem that seemed to be promised before the books came out.


----------



## jasin (May 12, 2009)

Nail said:


> Okey-dokey.  I agree they have explained some things, and that I've enjoyed reading their explanations.  (I *really* enjoy reading thier explanations that differ widely from the apparent facts, but that's another matter.)



What, specifically, are you thinking about here?


----------



## Nail (May 12, 2009)

jasin said:


> I'm not a subscriber, so I've haven't read the articles in detail, but there were skills grouped by role and ability score (to make it easier to pick an even spread rather than have the rogue rolling Bluff, Diplomacy and Streetwise while everyone else waits for him to finish), advice about aiding (since, as the article admits, aiding completely wrecks the whole idea), stuff like that. Mostly (very insightful) advice on how to run the game when non-combat challenges are concerned, rather than the new subsystem that seemed to be promised before the books came out.



I should see if I can't find those articles.  They are very recent?


----------



## jasin (May 12, 2009)

Nail said:


> I should see if I can't find those articles.  They are very recent?



The series is still running, having started some six months.

Dungeon: Ruling Skill Challenges Archive


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 12, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> WotC explain? When was the last time WotC explained anything?




the same moment the playtest that revaled that monks where psionic they put up a design and development in order to explain what happened to ki...that was this week.

        does that count?

Mike merls also said they were writeing an articule on expertise and attack upping feats for later this year...so just wait


----------



## DrSpunj (May 12, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> Mike merls also said they were writeing an articule on expertise and attack upping feats for later this year...so just wait (many sics!)




I'm not going to hold my breath, but I, too, am anxiously waiting to read articles such as these!

Do we even have a ballpark guess on when they'll be published? This month? next? the fall?

Thanks


----------



## KarinsDad (May 12, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> the same moment the playtest that revaled that monks where psionic they put up a design and development in order to explain what happened to ki...that was this week.
> 
> does that count?




No. For people like myself, rules are more important than fluff. I can build my own fluff. I expect the rules to be playtested and with few weaknesses.



GMforPowergamers said:


> Mike merls also said they were writeing an articule on expertise and attack upping feats for later this year...so just wait




He said that a week or two after PHB II came out. That was about 6 weeks ago.

On something this controversial, I do not consider it good customer service to wait months for a reply.

Maybe you feel differently.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 12, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> No. For people like myself, rules are more important than fluff. I can build my own fluff. I expect the rules to be playtested and with few weaknesses.



yea...I should guessed it didn't count, but had they said nothing I am sure it would have been evadance of lack of communcation...beutiful thing about already makeing up your mind is anything that dissagrees doesn't count...



> He said that a week or two after PHB II came out. That was about 6 weeks ago.
> 
> On something this controversial, I do not consider it good customer service to wait months for a reply.
> 
> Maybe you feel differently.



 I do...you see he said it to me (my post asked for it) about a week before this months calander was due up...so I NEVER expected it before next month.  I also realize that there are reasons to delay it...like to answer more quastions they know are comeing (Like they had to know about the monk feat back then) like maybe things in divine and primal power that work like the ones in arcane power (race + type attack prereq +1/2 at 15/3 at 25th) and want to wait to say "see here are multi options for you and here is why"

      as I have said in another post as we see more and more we mayb realize it is just a new type of feat...and yes maybe everyone will someday have one of them...but the choice makes you diffrent

      (Example: My orb wizard always uses an ord I have expertise in it....Jim's wiazard has a couple of tombs, an orb, and a whole bunch of wands he switchs between but they are all fire based, so he has the dragonborn arcane feat...Lisa her gnome has a orb and a staff but mostly illusions, she took the illusion gonem feat...Mike's swordmage took the new feat form the monk playtest becuse he has half implment half weapon attacks, but ...Jack's swordmage multi classed into wizard and so has abunch of implments, so he didn't take any)


----------



## KarinsDad (May 12, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> yea...I should guessed it didn't count, but had they said nothing I am sure it would have been evadance of lack of communcation...beutiful thing about already makeing up your mind is anything that dissagrees doesn't count...




I already stated in my original post that you responded to that WotC has no problem discussing new products. I do not disagree with you on that.

The people here are talking about WotC discussing stealth game design and philosophy changes, not future monk features.

So, I think your example does not disprove my point in any way, rather it supports my POV.

Care to try again with an example about core game mechanic changes where WotC came out and talked about why they changed them? The only one I can think of is the Skill Challenge errata that really didn't fix the problem.


----------



## Pickles JG (May 12, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> The people here are talking about WotC discussing stealth game design and philosophy changes, not future monk features.




I am not sure WOTC see it like that. There was a comment from Mr Mearls ages ago (post release design article?) how one of the great things about 4e modularity was the ease with which it could be patched.  I assumed they might mean feats & hoped for thing like the 1/2 elf paragon feat for its diletante power, or a really strong feat that made tieflings good infernal warlocks, or a couple of powers that made the Star pact paragon path fear save penalty have some actual effect, for examples. This last dead end reminds me of CCG design where a weak inital theme is left to wither rather than being developed. At least jank powers take up less space than jank cards.

I was not expecting these horrible, stupid OP (or are they maths fix?) expertise feats.


----------



## Solodan (May 13, 2009)

Meh.  Nice feat.  Very nice for level 15 swordmages I guess, meh all around otherwise.


----------



## Artoomis (May 14, 2009)

Nail said:


> In this case, the sentiment remains the same.  "The best way to interprete the rules is to let a computer program do it?"  Yikes!




Off-topic, but...

Yes, using the tool wherein the game designers have implemented their interpretations of the rules can be a great way to interpret the rules.  Since many rules interpretations might not get posted anywere else, this can be a great way to find out the "offical" rules. 

On the other hand, you must take things in the Character Builder with a grain of salt because sometimes there are errors and they may not get corrected for a month or two (or possibly longer).  On the other, other hand (the third hand?) those items get noted in the Character Builder FAQ.


----------



## KarinsDad (May 14, 2009)

Artoomis said:


> On the other hand, you must take things in the Character Builder with a grain of salt because sometimes there are errors and they may not get corrected for a month or two (or possibly longer).  On the other, other hand (the third hand?) those items get noted in the Character Builder FAQ.




They do? I'll have to go look.

I know of about 6 or so bugs in Character Builder that although reported, never seem to get fixed.

But, they seem to have no problem adding new functionality like putting melee and ranged basic attacks onto the power sheets (which doesn't really buy much for anyone).

The main problem I have seen is that some new feats do not modify anything. The PC acquires the new feat and the character sheet does not change. This does not happen for most feats, but its fairly annoying when it happens because the player has to pencil in the change, sometimes in several places (that is if the player notices it, not all players are math geeky enough to check all of their numbers). There are also bugs where feats from the splat books are not in the list. Problems where campaign settings change with new updates, etc.


----------



## cmbarona (May 14, 2009)

Yeah, I do wish there was better houserule functionality for the Character Builder, such as a feat-building option whose math would be reflected in the program.

At the very least, I'm hoping one of the official responses is to acknowledge the +1/2/3 at 5/15/25 scaling, and allow that as an option in the Character Builder.


----------



## Nail (May 14, 2009)

@ cmbarona:  That (the +1/2/3 at 5/15/25 in CB) would be nifty.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (May 15, 2009)

I think what some of you guys completely miss is that rules tweaks have a very low priority with WotC. 95% of the people playing 4e wouldn't even know what you were talking about if you started going on to them about "stealth errata" and "math bugs". They just play the game with their friends every week or two. Most of them probably rarely to never read stuff on forums at all, don't really see a few small variations in this or that number as important, etc.

They're the VAST majority of the people playing this game. All they really want is a steady diet of new material to use in their adventures and new classes, races, powers, etc to play with. THAT is priority #1 for WotC. It occupies just about 99.9% of the D&D staff there. Explaining everything they do and think to critics is pretty much down their on the list of things Mike Mearls is interested in doing 1 step up from a root canal.

Furthermore they will always prefer to update the game by putting in new material instead of issuing errata to old material. Again the VAST majority of people that play the game will never pay attention to the errata and half of them probably haven't a clue that errata even exists. If they want to get things into the hands of most players then putting it in a product, preferable one most players are likely to have access to, is in their view vastly to be preferred over sticking it in an errata.

Finally these guys are BUSY. No company gives their employees less than a full plate of stuff to work on every day and I seriously doubt WotC is some special exception. Explaining WHY a certain feat was added to the game to satisfy a few 100 power gamers probably isn't at the top of their list of fires to put out today. Nor is spending a bunch of pages of Dragon on technical discussions of the rules probably something they want to do very often. It is just going to put most of the audience to sleep because they mostly just don't care. They would REALLY rather see another article about some game setting or whatever.

Not that I think the developers don't consider the power gamers to be valuable customers. They probably see them as individually the most valuable customers. Your just outnumbered 50 to 1 by the maybe slightly less valuable casual gamer customers. Like it or not those people overall bring in the vast majority of the income and if it is a choice of pleasing them or pleasing the people in this thread, you guys will lose almost every time.


----------



## Elric (May 15, 2009)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Furthermore they will always prefer to update the game by putting in new material instead of issuing errata to old material. Again the VAST majority of people that play the game will never pay attention to the errata and half of them probably haven't a clue that errata even exists. If they want to get things into the hands of most players then putting it in a product, preferable one most players are likely to have access to, is in their view vastly to be preferred over sticking it in an errata.




Given that WotC printed the updated stealth rules in the back of PH-II, this seems simply wrong.  They could have easily issued errata to increase to-hit bonuses (and FRW defenses), and pointed the errata out somewhere very obvious in PH-II.  Perhaps in the feats chapter.  "Expertise: We were thinking of printing a feat to fix the to-hit scaling math, but decided to issue errata to the Player's Handbook instead.  See the rules update on page..."

Then everyone who bought PH-II would see it, and everyone who didn't buy PH-II but checked the online errata would also have it.  As it is, if you don't get PH-II you won't have the Expertise feats, and checking the online errata won't tell you anything.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 15, 2009)

Ok, this is my thoughts from another post, but I figured maybe someone here can comment on it, since it pretty much got ignored on the other thread...



GMforPowergamers said:


> We have seen and herd form group who played through all three teirs of play H,P,E and never found themselves in this slump of "I can't hit" lets call them group A
> We have seen and herd from groups who played to paragon and felt the defences went up to much and the game watered down...lets call them group B
> We have seen and herd form groups who in epci felt the monsters got to tough. we will call them group C.
> We have seen people complain (I may be bias but I give this group the least amount of slack) that right from day one 1st level the game is too hard. we will call them group D.
> ...


----------



## IanB (May 15, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> I already stated in my original post that you responded to that WotC has no problem discussing new products. I do not disagree with you on that.
> 
> The people here are talking about WotC discussing stealth game design and philosophy changes, not future monk features.
> 
> ...




Late 3.5e, polymorph change (the same people were in charge then, so it should count.)


----------



## KarinsDad (May 16, 2009)

IanB said:


> Late 3.5e, polymorph change (the same people were in charge then, so it should count.)




You do realize that you had to go back over 3 years for that one, right?

Design & Development: The Polymorph Problem


----------



## LuckyAdrastus (May 16, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> Along with:
> 
> "Weakest NAD Expertise"
> Benefit: Your character gets +1 to a third ability score on levels 4, 8, 14, 18, 24, and 28. This bonus can only be applied to an ability score if a different ability score that modifies the same non-AC defense has not been modified. For example, the PC could not add +1 to Wisdom with this feat if +1 was already added to Charisma. If you are level 4 or higher, gain an additional feat.




Actually, the Playtest Monk gets this as a class feature.  For reals.  It's called "Mental Equilibrium" which gives +1/+2/+3 Fort at 1st/11th/21st levels.  It's part of the "Centered Breath" build the playtest provides, which is a Dex/Wis build (i.e. had Fort as the Weakest FRW).

Double stealth errata yo!

Excuse me if this was already noted later in the thread (I just started reading from the 1st page).


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 16, 2009)

LuckyAdrastus said:


> Actual, the Playtest Monk actually gets this as a class feature.  For reals.  It's called "Mental Equilibrium" which gives +1/+2/+3 Fort at 1st/11th/21st levels.  It's part of the "Centered Breath" build the playtest provides, which is a Dex/Wis build (i.e. had Fort as the Weakest FRW).
> 
> Double stealth errata yo!




or...maybe someone looked at the monk in 3.5, saw the good saves across the board, and said "How do we do that in 4th" then came upp with a unque feature for the monk...my bet is that the Str build has it for ref...


----------



## notMe (Jun 17, 2009)

I'm guessing that the final entry for Focused Expertise will look something like the following:

 Focused Expertise  
Benefit: Choose a weapon that you can wield as an implement. You gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls with any implement or weapon power you use through that weapon. The bonus increases to +2 at 15th level and +3 at 25th level.​ 
​ Even if a weapon qualifies for this bonus more than once, you can apply the bonus only once when using that weapon.​ 
​ Special: You can take this feat more than once.  Each time you select this feat, choose another weapon group.​ 
​ This bonus is not cumulative with the one provided by Implement Expertise or Weapon Expertise.​


----------

