# Excerpts: PHB2 - Heric Tier Feats



## catsclaw227 (Mar 6, 2009)

Here's a list of new Heroic tier feats in the PHB2.

Player's Handbook 2 Excerpts: Feats

There's a lot of good ones in there.  I'd like to read the specific text to see the details.

Some I like (not just mechanical, but for flavor)
Combat Medic - you must be trained in Heal and you can Stabilize the dying as minor action, +2 to Heal checks.
Melee Training - no prereq, Change ability used for melee basic weapon attacks.


----------



## Minigiant (Mar 6, 2009)

Melee Training. I gotta see the full text ...NOW!!
Weapon Expertise and Restful Healing too.


----------



## Matopi (Mar 6, 2009)

I really don't know what they were thinking with Weapon and Implement Expertise.  It's like adding to the game the text "all characters begin with either Weapon or Implement Expertise; reduce the number of feats you will choose in the game by one."

I'd like to see these nixed for RPGA play, at the very least.  For variety's sake, if nothing else.

The rest of it looks exciting, though!


----------



## catsclaw227 (Mar 6, 2009)

Matopi said:


> I really don't know what they were thinking with Weapon and Implement Expertise.  It's like adding to the game the text "all characters begin with either Weapon or Implement Expertise; reduce the number of feats you will choose in the game by one."



We don't know the detail text. unless the bloggers who got the prerelease version want to comment.

Wasn't it going to only count on Encounter and Daily powers?


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 6, 2009)

I've read the detail text from the guys who got early copies.  Its just a straight +1.

Technically it works on "attack powers" or some such language, but I remember that however it was worded it encompassed basically everything you might want to do with a weapon.  Even a basic attack is an attack power.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Mar 6, 2009)

It'll be nice to get a clarification from WOTC on that.


----------



## grickherder (Mar 6, 2009)

Flickr: niceguyjools' Photostream


----------



## Mr. Wilson (Mar 6, 2009)

Matopi said:


> I really don't know what they were thinking with Weapon and Implement Expertise. It's like adding to the game the text "all characters begin with either Weapon or Implement Expertise; reduce the number of feats you will choose in the game by one."
> 
> I'd like to see these nixed for RPGA play, at the very least. For variety's sake, if nothing else.
> 
> The rest of it looks exciting, though!




Normally, I don't fish for WoTC explanations, but this one is crying out for it.

Why not simply errata a +1 hit bonus to everyone at levels 5, 15, 25 instead of forcing us to take a feat to make up for the math issue found by the number crunchers?


----------



## Minigiant (Mar 6, 2009)

hey guys. Are you missing how awesome Melee training is.

My Cha based halfelf pally will be happy when I get to play her. 
*dumps Dex*


----------



## ppaladin123 (Mar 6, 2009)

Mr. Wilson said:


> Normally, I don't fish for WoTC explanations, but this one is crying out for it.
> 
> Why not simply errata a +1 hit bonus to everyone at levels 5, 15, 25 instead of forcing us to take a feat to make up for the math issue found by the number crunchers?




Yeah it looks a lot like errata disguised as crunch. It might be better to house rule this to do as you said.

In other news, melee training (as seen on flickr) will certainly benefit charisma-based paladins specifically and rogues in general. There was a thread recently about how MAD paladins are. This significantly alleviates those concerns for cha-paladins and gives Str-paladins further reason to hope for some love in Divine Power.


----------



## Mr. Wilson (Mar 6, 2009)

ppaladin123 said:


> Yeah it looks a lot like errata disguised as crunch. It might be better to house rule this to do as you said.





Oh, I agree, IMC I'll be houseruling the fix and then banning the feat.


----------



## Minigiant (Mar 6, 2009)

ppaladin123 said:


> In other news, melee training (as seen on flickr) will certainly benefit charisma-based paladins specifically and rogues in general. There was a thread recently about how MAD paladins are. This significantly alleviates those concerns for cha-paladins and gives Str-paladins further reason to hope for some love in Divine Power.





other benefit.
Backrow classes can side-defender if they have lots of healing surges *cough*warlocks*cough*bow rangers*sneeze*.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 6, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> We don't know the detail text. unless the bloggers who got the prerelease version want to comment.
> 
> Wasn't it going to only count on Encounter and Daily powers?




Some people in Japan got their copies early from Amazon.jp.  In their thread on rpg.net they stated that the text goes:

Weapon Expertise
Benefit: Choose a weapon group. You gain +1 bonus to attack rolls with any weapon power you use with a weapon from that group. The bonus increases to +2 at 15th lvl and to +3 at 25th lvl.
Special: You can take this feat more than once. Each time you select this feat, choose another weapon group.


----------



## Branduil (Mar 6, 2009)

An untyped bonus? I look forward to that being errata'd within days.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 6, 2009)

No, it will stay untyped.

Its clearly intended as a feat that everyone takes (even the math impaired will realize they need to take it by epic tier).  No point in having that if you can't stack other more interesting feats on top of it.


----------



## Sir Osis of Liver (Mar 6, 2009)

ok maybe i'm just missing something cause i haven't played much 4e, but i don't see the big deal. It's a plus one to hit. even when it scales it's still only a plus three. Big whoop it's a scaling version of 3e weapon focus.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 6, 2009)

Sir Osis of Liver said:


> ok maybe i'm just missing something cause i haven't played much 4e, but i don't see the big deal. It's a plus one to hit. even when it scales it's still only a plus three. Big whoop it's a scaling version of 3e weapon focus.



Its not 4e specific.

Its just that +3 is a very, very big part of the 20 points on a d20's distribution.


----------



## Sir Osis of Liver (Mar 6, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> Its not 4e specific.
> 
> Its just that +3 is a very, very big part of the 20 points on a d20's distribution.




ok, sorry if i'm comming off dense, but i still don't see why everyone would automatically want/have to take this. Seems like melee training is much more valuable.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 6, 2009)

Sir Osis of Liver said:


> ok maybe i'm just missing something cause i haven't played much 4e, but i don't see the big deal. It's a plus one to hit. even when it scales it's still only a plus three. Big whoop it's a scaling version of 3e weapon focus.




Pluses to hit are a big deal in 4e.  They are very hard to get.  And because the math is so carefully made, they make a big deal.  Say you have a +9 to hit at first level(20 STR fighter with a +3 prof weapon, say a fullblade).  You are fighting an AC 16 monster.  You do an average of 8.05 damage per round without the feat and 8.625 damage per round with the feat.  It gives you more than half of the effect of Weapon Focus(the 4e version) on at-wills while also giving you a 5 percent extra chance of doing all the secondary effects of your powers.

If the math stays the same and you are hitting with 4w attacks at 30th level(and you still hit on a 7), then you do 29.4 damage per round without the feat and 35.7 damage per round with it.  It gives you over double the effect of Weapon Focus at that level.  While it also gives you a 15% extra chance of using your secondary effects of your powers, and not missing with encounters and dailies.

When you apply the bonus to attacks that hit multiple targets, it has even more effect.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 6, 2009)

Sir Osis of Liver said:


> ok, sorry if i'm comming off dense, but i still don't see why everyone would automatically want/have to take this. Seems like melee training is much more valuable.



It IS more valuable if you are a non-STR based class who likes to go into melee and expects to make basic attacks on a regular basis.  Which is very few classes(Paladin, Rogue, Swordmage, Avenger, Bard, some Rangers, and a small number of Warlocks).  I'm certain it will be a popular feat as well.  However, when you take Melee Training at 1st level, what are you taking at 2nd?  The answer for a lot of people is going to be Weapon/Implement Expertise.


----------



## Branduil (Mar 6, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> No, it will stay untyped.
> 
> Its clearly intended as a feat that everyone takes (even the math impaired will realize they need to take it by epic tier).  No point in having that if you can't stack other more interesting feats on top of it.




The problem is that Glaive and Double-weapon users can take this feat twice and it will stack with itself.


----------



## Sir Osis of Liver (Mar 6, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> It IS more valuable if you are a non-STR based class who likes to go into melee and expects to make basic attacks on a regular basis.  Which is very few classes(Paladin, Rogue, Swordmage, Avenger, Bard, some Rangers, and a small number of Warlocks).  I'm certain it will be a popular feat as well.  However, when you take Melee Training at 1st level, what are you taking at 2nd?  The answer for a lot of people is going to be Weapon/Implement Expertise.




ok, i see the gawd awful mind breaking (at least at quarter after two in the morning ) math supports what you're saying, but it seems pretty bland to make your characters that way. I guess if your a hard core power gamer...


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 6, 2009)

Branduil said:


> The problem is that Glaive and Double-weapon users can take this feat twice and it will stack with itself.



Now THAT I expect to get errataed.

Remember back when 4e was coming out, and some of us were breathing a sigh of relief at the promise of a game that no longer had to be interpreted like some arcane talmudic tome?  I knew that couldn't last.  Because gamers WILL interpret game rules that way, whether the designers want them to or not.


Sir Osis of Liver said:


> ok, i see the gawd awful mind breaking (at least at quarter after two in the morning ) math supports what you're saying, but it seems pretty bland to make your characters that way. I guess if your a hard core power gamer...



You don't have to be a hard core power gamer to want a +3 to your attack rolls.  Do you like hitting everything on an 11+?  Wouldn't you rather hit on an 8+?  Its that simple.

And this basically illustrates why its sad that they had to patch the game by means of a feat.  There will be people out there who think like you and don't take the feat.


----------



## Branduil (Mar 6, 2009)

What I don't understand, if they just wanted to sneak in a math fix, why not just make the feat apply to all attacks, whether with an implement or a weapon? I mean, it's a must-have anyway, why make it so that it just screws over melee Clerics, melee Rangers, and Staladins?


----------



## Mr. Wilson (Mar 6, 2009)

Branduil said:


> What I don't understand, if they just wanted to sneak in a math fix, why not just make the feat apply to all attacks, whether with an implement or a weapon? I mean, it's a must-have anyway, why make it so that it just screws over melee Clerics, melee Rangers, and Staladins?




I think we're all kinda stumped atm, which is why I wish WoTC would explain the design process behind this feat.  

As I side note, Ghostcrawler posting on the WoW forums about designer logic might be spoiling me ;p.


----------



## Branduil (Mar 6, 2009)

Mr. Wilson said:


> I think we're all kinda stumped atm, which is why I wish WoTC would explain the design process behind this feat.
> 
> As I side note, Ghostcrawler posting on the WoW forums about designer logic might be spoiling me ;p.




Well, it seems like there are a million ways they could have fixed the math problem, and they went out of their way to choose the worst one possible. It's pretty amazing actually.


----------



## Sir Osis of Liver (Mar 6, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> Now THAT I expect to get errataed.
> 
> Remember back when 4e was coming out, and some of us were breathing a sigh of relief at the promise of a game that no longer had to be interpreted like some arcane talmudic tome?  I knew that couldn't last.  Because gamers WILL interpret game rules that way, whether the designers want them to or not.
> 
> ...




I dunno, I guess. I mean yes hitting on a lower number is absolutely better then hitting on a higher one. I just don't see this feat being the end all be all of the feat world. Given the option i'd rather take something that gives me more interesting options, or enhances my abilities in differant ways. Not to say it's not a very good option, it just isn't an absolute nessesity no matter what. At least from  my pov.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 6, 2009)

Sir Osis of Liver said:


> I dunno, I guess. I mean yes hitting on a lower number is absolutely better then hitting on a higher one. I just don't see this feat being the end all be all of the feat world. Given the option i'd rather take something that gives me more interesting options, or enhances my abilities in differant ways. Not to say it's not a very good option, it just isn't an absolute nessesity no matter what. At least from  my pov.




And I agree.  I can see SOME characters not taking this.  But, by the end, there will be some level where you compare it to the rest of your choices and it seems like a better idea.  My fighter doesn't want it more than Polearm Momentum and Eladrin Soldier but at level 4 I took Durable.  I'm for sure retraining out of it or taking Weapon Expertise at level 6.

My priority(and I think many people's priority) when taking feats is "How often is this going to benefit me?"  I could take the feat that gives me +2 to init and the ability to shift as a minor action during the first round of combat.  But it adds 2 to one die roll per combat that doesn't matter all that much.  Compared to +1 to all my attack rolls(which is about 12 per combat), it's kind of a no-brainer.

If it didn't scale up to +3, I'd say it was a take it or leave it sort of feat.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 6, 2009)

Right.  And at epic tier, when you're hitting on a 12+ while your allies hit on a 9+, you will either change your mind, or grow steadily more frustrated without realizing why.  You'll have a dim sense that you fail more often than everyone else, and that everyone else is better than you.  You personally will probably then take the feat, but there's a lot of people out there who will blame their character class or their DM or otherwise not understand that this feat wasn't really optional if they wanted to not suck in comparison to the rest of their party.


----------



## Sammael (Mar 6, 2009)

Out of academic interest, isn't it a bit repetitive for 12 out of 31 feats to provide a circumstantial bonus to attack and/or damage?


----------



## Mr. Wilson (Mar 6, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> Right. And at epic tier, when you're hitting on a 12+ while your allies hit on a 9+, you will either change your mind, or grow steadily more frustrated without realizing why. You'll have a dim sense that you fail more often than everyone else, and that everyone else is better than you. You personally will probably then take the feat, but there's a lot of people out there who will blame their character class or their DM or otherwise not understand that this feat wasn't really optional if they wanted to not suck in comparison to the rest of their party.




I think this is another interesting point.  The Boards are going to be inundated by "My class is broken" posts once this feat is published when all of a sudden their friends are hitting 5-15% more then them during combat.


----------



## ppaladin123 (Mar 6, 2009)

I don't think you need to take weapon/implement expertise at first or second level. The math on the "to-hit" modifiers is such that characters start to fall behind versus enemy defenses in late paragon, early epic levels. It can probably wait until then but it eventually becomes crucial.

The problem is that as it stands characters are going to have to roll a 14-15+ to hit epic level threats (like the ancient red dragon). This feat looks like a way to restore the "hit on 11+" assumption that the game is supposedly based on.

I should point out that there are ways to get around this already in place. The most obvious is to get combat advantage (harder for ranged classes) and to use action points in the presence of a tactical warlord. Of course, your party shouldn't need a tactical warlord just to get by in the epic tier.


----------



## ryryguy (Mar 6, 2009)

I agree with most of the comments about weapon expertise.  I'm not sure I'm fully cognizant of the math problem, but is it basically a weapon attack vs. AC issue?  It'd be easiest to fix by dropping monster AC by 1,2 or 3 across the board, wouldn't it?  Though I suppose it would be difficult to errata that efficiently - you can't errata every other monster...

The feat only applying to a certain weapon group seems like a pretty weak limitation.  What characters routinely use weapons from different groups?  I guess characters who use weapons but don't specialize to favor particular weapons with particular powers or feats might use whatever the latest best magic weapon found as treasure, but it's still pretty weak. 

I'm a little disappointed by Improved Grab which is only listed as giving a +4 on grab attempts.  Not that I miss 3e grapple, but I'd like to see more grapple related options.  Maybe I'll just have to wait for the monk.


----------



## Shadeydm (Mar 6, 2009)

I hope the +3 initiative bonuses listed on Thirst for Battle and Wild Senses are feat bonuses and not untyped.


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 6, 2009)

ppaladin123 said:


> Yeah it looks a lot like errata disguised as crunch.




A very worrisome trend.

Like the +2 masterwork armors added to AV - these should have been added to PHB errata!!


----------



## Minigiant (Mar 6, 2009)

Shadeydm said:


> I hope the +3 initiative bonuses listed on Thirst for Battle and Wild Senses are feat bonuses and not untyped.




Stackable +3 init isn't that bad really. You'll rarely stack higher than +7 ATM.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 6, 2009)

CapnZapp said:


> A very worrisome trend.
> 
> Like the +2 masterwork armors added to AV - these should have been added to PHB errata!!




Except, in the case of the masterwork armors, I always got the impression that they didn't fit into the PHB.  It was like they had always planned to have those armors, but ran out of space in the PHB and just felt that they could just move them to the AV.

Of course, I've been told that all of the masterwork armors from AV are reprinted in the PHB 2 by the people who have it in the thread at rpg.net.  It seems they feel they need to have them around to correct the math and more people will have it this way.


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 6, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Of course, I've been told that all of the masterwork armors from AV are reprinted in the PHB 2 by the people who have it in the thread at rpg.net.  It seems they feel they need to have them around to correct the math and more people will have it this way.



That only strengthens my resolve, of course:

Errata should come free, end of story.

You should not be expected/forced to buy additional books just to get errata.

Publishing those masterworks armor in PHB2 resolves this issue as little as publishing them in AV2.

I realize you're thinking "AV is a supplement while PHB2 is core, and many people are going to buy all the core books".

That doesn't change the fact that both issues we're discussing now have an impact on those customers who only play with PHB1, and have no plans on ever getting any more books than the original three.

So WotC: put those masterworks in the PHB errata!
(And while you're at it errata that feat so you get +1 at 5th level, +2 at 15th and +3 at 25th level for your fav grouping of weapons or implements for free, no feat required!)


----------



## vagabundo (Mar 6, 2009)

I'm not sure that this is going to be a problem for most groups - most wont play into the late paragon or early epic IMO anyway - but the the disparity with equipment, other feats, class features and combat situations will probably disguise it.

This all goes to hell in a hand basket if you have one or more min-maxers in your group though. But, as a DM, they wreak my head anyway.


----------



## Nymrohd (Mar 6, 2009)

hmm does an untyped bonus stack with itself even when it comes from the same source? Not sure about it.

Anyway, weapon expertise is most certainly errata disguised as a fix. The thing is, a characters attack bonus already is anything but linear. It is too damn jumpy yet everything included (magic weapons, weapon expertise, ability increases) your character gains close to 30 points of attack power as he levels up (27 or 28 if he gains a +2 from ED). Would it not be better/cleaner if the attack bonus only scaled with level? I am seriously considering house ruling it like this: http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-fan...s/251862-forked-thread-fix-stat-polarity.html


----------



## andarilhor (Mar 6, 2009)

If that lists all the heroic feats in PHBII, I am missing a lot of feats presented into the classes previews:
Primal Instinct
Primal Fury
Insightful Preservation
Invoker Defense
Advantage of Cunning
Shared Healing Spirit
Stalker Spirit Adept
Arcane Spellfury
Crushing Earthstrength
Wildbood Cunning


----------



## Nymrohd (Mar 6, 2009)

PHB2 uses additional tables for class feats


----------



## Shadeydm (Mar 6, 2009)

Minigiant said:


> Stackable +3 init isn't that bad really. You'll rarely stack higher than +7 ATM.




Since Improved init and Quick Draw do not stack this would represent more power creep imo.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 6, 2009)

Weapon/Implement Expertise? 







Why hello *Robot of Accidental Suck*! I haven't seen you in about a year! A picnic with you sounds like a great idea, but make sure you pack the exact right food, or it'll suck once we get out there!

...Oh, who'm I kidding! It'll suck, accidentally! 

(cue laugh track, lighthearted theme music...fade into opening credits).


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 6, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Weapon/Implement Expertise?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Thog not get reference


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 6, 2009)

> Thog not get reference




Oh, I'm just borderline insane. 

Accidental suck is what happens when your character ends up not being as good as you want it to be, because of some obscure or crazy rule that causes you to not be as effective at challenging the baddies you face at higher levels. It was very rampant in 3e (spellcaster multiclassing, for instance), but 4e had gone the extra mile to help make sure it didn't happen.

Weapon/Implement expertise, because of the whole "I keep missing more often!" problem mentioned above, re-introduces a level of accidental suck to 4e.

And that robot was just a random image to characterize Accidental Suck as saying hello to us 4e players. He's been away, and now he's back! 

Everything else is just my borderline insanity...

*gslgslgslNO!* Not here.


----------



## jasin (Mar 6, 2009)

Minigiant said:


> hey guys. Are you missing how awesome Melee training is.
> 
> My Cha based halfelf pally will be happy when I get to play her.
> *dumps Dex*



I'm not seeing how you get very much from Melee Training, unless you find yourself making an inordinate amount of opportunity attacks or or charges.


----------



## Shroomy (Mar 6, 2009)

What I find most interesting about the expertise feats are the unusual rates of progression (+2 at 15th, +3 at 25th).  Still, I'm not sure if my character will end up taking it; I don't have any real problems with hitting targets, and neither does the fighter or ranger in my party.  Now, our warlock, he's affected by self-inflicted MAD; he would really benefit from the implement expertise feat.


----------



## Jack99 (Mar 6, 2009)

jasin said:


> I'm not seeing how you get very much from Melee Training, unless you find yourself making an inordinate amount of opportunity attacks or or charges.




It allows a paladin to go full CHA, and still be able to hit on a charge and an OA - both being rather useful for a defender.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 6, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Oh, I'm just borderline insane.
> 
> Accidental suck is what happens when your character ends up not being as good as you want it to be, because of some obscure or crazy rule that causes you to not be as effective at challenging the baddies you face at higher levels. It was very rampant in 3e (spellcaster multiclassing, for instance), but 4e had gone the extra mile to help make sure it didn't happen.
> 
> ...



I understand "accidental suck", but I didn't understand the robot (and to be honest, I still don't). But that's okay,  if you're a little insane. Nobody is perfect.




Shroomy said:


> What I find most interesting about the expertise feats are the unusual rates of progression (+2 at 15th, +3 at 25th).  Still, I'm not sure if my character will end up taking it; I don't have any real problems with hitting targets, and neither does the fighter or ranger in my party.  Now, our warlock, he's affected by self-inflicted MAD; he would really benefit from the implement expertise feat.



The rate of the progression probably fits the area of levels where the monster/PC discrepancy in bonuses become most noticeable. At 11th and 21th level, people get extra ability points, so there is a good chance your attack already goes up. Around level 15 and 25, not much is happening.

I wouldn't be surprised if many characters will wait for paragon or epic tier (e.g. level 15 or level 25) till they get the feat. At Heroic Tier, there might still be a lot of other feats you might want to have. (Multiclass Feats, Skill Training, Ritual Caster and may racial feats). I still wouldn't be surprised if they turn into must-haves for most characters, but you can probably afford it. 


I doubt that the designers did "miss" the 4-5 points of difference at epic levels between PCs and NPCs. They either believed that the powers and paragon/epic features would balance this out, and found it didn't, or this feats were planned for the beginning, but they delayed them to PHB 2. I don't like that, to be honest. I think it's okay to not have the Adventures Vault Masterwork armors in the PHB - you still cover most levels - but these feats effect are not hinted at in the PHB I. 

Nobody "Gummibärchen helfen auch" Ridcully


----------



## evilbob (Mar 6, 2009)

Matopi said:


> "all characters begin with either Weapon or Implement Expertise; reduce the number of feats you will choose in the game by one."



Quoted for truth.  Others have already gone into this, and I agree it's not necessarily a level one thing, but they may as well have said everyone gets 1 fewer feat, and +1 to attacks at 5, 15, 25.  The only "balance" this gives is to further screw double-stat characters like the poor paly or cleric, since they'll need this one twice.

I think there needs to be a new rule in the PHB2:  "Whenever a new book is released, the rules for retraining are temporarily ignored and the moment you purchase the book you are free to change every aspect of your character in order to account for the power creep inherent in our new releases."    Seriously, I will ask my DM to allow insta-changes the moment this comes out, because I will need to dump a feat for an Expertise feat.  In fact, maybe I should show him the page so I can change for the next session...


----------



## twilsemail (Mar 6, 2009)

So, reading over this thread, and debating it in my own head I've thought of a possible solution to the problem, without just giving a flat bonus to PCs.  Are Masterwork Weapons and Implements a horrible idea?  +1 for a +2/+3 item, +2 for a +4/+5 Item and +3 for a +6 item?

I'm offended by this near mandatory feat and I don't really like the clunky fix of "+1 at appropriate times during the rules."  The fix just means it's another item for PCs to think of when leveling up.  The Masterwork is just a neat add on.

Comparison:
Fix:  Well, you hit level 5, add another +1 to your sheet
Masterwork:  You've found a Mithril Fullblade, it grants a +1 Masterwork bonus to attacks made with it.  Look, it's shiny.


----------



## Klaus (Mar 6, 2009)

My rogue will be taking Distant Advantage, Melee Training and Weapon Expertise ASAP! w00t!


----------



## infocynic (Mar 6, 2009)

Masterwork bonuses are a pain for any class with two weapons and/or implements:
TW Rangers, Tempest Fighters (but please, feel free to screw them ), Melee Clerics & Paladins w/o Holy Avengers... OK, that's all I have at the moment.

It has a slight benefit for classes that use weapons as implements (Swordmage, maybe Bard or Druid)... but it's easier just to put it in the rules. If you're using the character builder, just give yourself the feat(s) at level 5, oh noes, your character is now house-ruled... panic...


----------



## Mengu (Mar 6, 2009)

My favorites of the lot are:

Anger Unleashed (depending on wording, the +2 bonus could apply 3-4 times in one combat between their encounter power, regenerating powers and the occasional healing, not to mention action points and the occasional free attack from a warlord with good timing).

Distant Advantage (good for rogue, but especially good for archer ranger and warlock)

Goliath Greatweapon Prowess (almost no brainer for the Goliath Barbarian)

Markings of the Victor (early and reliable use of some encounter or daily powers can make a big difference in an encounter)

Melee Training (for rogues and charisma paladins who like to charge, especially if they have a warlord who grants free basic attacks)

Thirst for Battle (for the half-orc brutal scoundral)

Timely Respite (for the resilient dwarf builds)

I'm ignoring the existence of the expertise feats at the moment. Haven't decided what to do about them yet.


----------



## twilsemail (Mar 6, 2009)

infocynic said:


> Masterwork bonuses are a pain for any class with two weapons and/or implements:
> TW Rangers, Tempest Fighters (but please, feel free to screw them ), Melee Clerics & Paladins w/o Holy Avengers... OK, that's all I have at the moment.




Every build I've seen with these classes, though, has had magic items at higher levels.  Also, I really don't think that the first two are really going to need any help.  Paladins without Holy Avengers or something similar seems a bit shocking to me.  I don't think I can picture an Epic Paladin without some kind of Holy Sword... That's mostly fluff though, I guess.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 6, 2009)

I thought the masterwork armor just smoothed out the AC curve, without significantly increasing the overall power level of the game?  Am I wrong?  I'll have to go look at that again.


----------



## evilbob (Mar 6, 2009)

It's interesting to me how more new books actually _take away_ options.

That goliath two-hander feat is just another example:  there, now you've limited the goliath down two more feats, since they have to take Weapon Expertise as well.  So warrior-type goliaths have 3 feat choices at heroic level instead of 6 (since you're going to take Weapon Focus, too).  And you've got your only armband item already pre-determined as well (Iron Armbands of Power).  Pretty soon, there will be only a couple of simple choices left, and you'll have the same cookie-cutter character that everyone else has, too.  I wonder what mandatory feats or loot will be introduced with Arcane Power?  Since wizards haven't gotten much love yet, I'm guessing a few.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Mar 6, 2009)

CapnZapp said:


> (And while you're at it errata that feat so you get +1 at 5th level, +2 at 15th and +3 at 25th level for your fav grouping of weapons or implements for free, no feat required!)



Not sure this would work as a "free" item. 

You can retrain feats if you want, and if a PC gets a cool weapon that isn't part of their Weapon Group, they can simply retrain at the next level and change the weapon group.  

Now...  this assumes that the DM isn't using wish lists and providing items appropriate to the PC.  

But retraining would be effective if someone wants a specific artifact like Sword of Kas.


----------



## SteveC (Mar 6, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> It allows a paladin to go full CHA, and still be able to hit on a charge and an OA - both being rather useful for a defender.




It also allows a rogue to make basic attacks and have a chance to hit. Many times my rogue might find himself placed in the perfect situation for a sneak attack and then the warlord will give it to someone else because he knows I'm just going to miss with it. I know I'm picking it up ASAP!

--Steve


----------



## catsclaw227 (Mar 6, 2009)

I thought of another thing...

What if the developers thought that the PCs were getting too many feats by Paragon level or something like that. 

They realized they need to fix the math, and they wanted to drop the number of feats for each PC by one.

Solution: Introduce a feat that is a no-brainer must!  It will fix the attack bonus scaling, and use up a feat slot as well!  Cheese and Crackers for everyone!

Seriously, though, using up a feat for this is no big deal.  What if we had one less feat when the game was released?  Would we even notice that it was an issue, or would the math-monsters and balance-masters cry out for an extra feat to make the game "just right"?

They way I look at it, they errata'd the feat count you get by one less.  And fixed the attack bonus math at the same time.


----------



## Jack99 (Mar 6, 2009)

SteveC said:


> It also allows a rogue to make basic attacks and have a chance to hit. Many times my rogue might find himself placed in the perfect situation for a sneak attack and then the warlord will give it to someone else because he knows I'm just going to miss with it. I know I'm picking it up ASAP!
> 
> --Steve




My 15th level rogue has as much str as dex, so it has never been a problem for him, and suffice to say, he absolutely loves the taclord in the party.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Mar 6, 2009)

Also based on the short description, Melee Training makes a swordmage feat (Intelligent Blademaster) obsolete since it allows you to switch your basic melee attack to be based on ANY of your abilities, not just Intelligence.

Yep... everyone will take Weapon Expertise or Implement Expertise.  (Do swordmages need to take both?)


----------



## Rechan (Mar 6, 2009)

jasin said:


> I'm not seeing how you get very much from Melee Training, unless you find yourself making an inordinate amount of opportunity attacks or or charges.



Cough commander's strike cough.

Also, if you're a caster of any kind, and you suddenly get jumped, having a non-ranged attack is nice.


----------



## Beckett (Mar 6, 2009)

Maybe it means I have to give up my aspirations for the title "powergamer", but I don't think Weapon Expertise is a must have feat. Currently, I'm playing a dragonborn fighter (with halberd). Sure, a bonus to hit is nice, but I seem to hit plenty. And already I've got more feats I want than slots (my warlord/warlock tiefling is even worse off for feats, so she'll get by with her current attack bonus).

Another fighter in one of the games I run was built to hit. High strength, using a bastard sword, he is a hitting machine. In the last adventure, he typically needed a 4 to hit. Being paragon, he's only need 2s with the feat; great, almost never miss, but to get that, he'd have to give up something, and all of his feats seem pretty handy right now.

On the other hand, the party barbarian has a very high whiff factor. And a striker than can't hit isn't doing a lot of good. So he will probably be taking the feat.

One advantage I do see to the expertise feats though, there can be less emphasis on a high primary stat. Rather than shoving all those points into an 18, you can get by with a 16 or a 14, boost up your other stats, and only spend a feat.


----------



## Rechan (Mar 6, 2009)

I think the Expertise feats will be most important to those focusing on +2 prof weapons. And implements.

But, I'm more a fan of just giving a flat +1 bonus at the appropriate levels, and come up with a story reason for it. "You all receive a boon from the Stag King. Flat +1 to hit for ever."


----------



## Mengu (Mar 6, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Cough commander's strike cough.
> 
> Also, if you're a caster of any kind, and you suddenly get jumped, having a non-ranged attack is nice.




Hmm, with a staff implement, you could go to town with your staff when your warlord tells you to as well. Many of their encounter/daily powers require melee attacks. Add Staff Fighting, Shield utility, a decent Con, and maybe Youghness, you could even "tank" for a couple rounds where needed.

Wizards don't have a lot of great feats at the moment, so this could be an interesting option with the right group.


----------



## Shroomy (Mar 6, 2009)

My 10th level feat is definitely coming from the PHB2; my character is an artificer, who regularly drops burst powers on top of my allies, so its Coordinated Explosion for the win!  Speed Loader and Distant Advantage would also work really well for me, since I use a crossbow and am a multi-classed rogue.


----------



## The Little Raven (Mar 6, 2009)

Mr. Wilson said:


> Why not simply errata a +1 hit bonus to everyone at levels 5, 15, 25 instead of forcing us to take a feat to make up for the math issue found by the number crunchers?




Because that flat +1 hit would apply to all attacks (including stuff like Bull Rush, which does not factor in weapons but would factor in the flat +1 bonus), and it seems the intent is to provide more focus on a single weapon/implement type.


----------



## The Little Raven (Mar 6, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> Yep... everyone will take Weapon Expertise or Implement Expertise.  (Do swordmages need to take both?)




Weapon Expertise would only apply to powers with the Weapon keyword, and Implement Expertise would only apply to powers with the Implement keyword.

So, yes, a Swordmage would need to get both if he wants the advantage of both.


----------



## Anguirus (Mar 7, 2009)

> Why not simply errata a +1 hit bonus to everyone at levels 5, 15, 25 instead of forcing us to take a feat to make up for the math issue found by the number crunchers?




Because most people don't read errata.



> That goliath two-hander feat is just another example: there, now you've limited the goliath down two more feats, since they have to take Weapon Expertise as well.




My goliath warlock doesn't care about Greatweapon Training.

Just like my dwarf wizard didn't care about Dwarven Weapon Training.

At what point was it decided that "feats should provide a small, static bonus" translated to "feats should not adjust the power level of your character?"  Because that's awfully close to "there should be no optimal feat choices," and that, for me, pretty much translates to "feats aren't interesting."

As for "accidentally sucking..."

Player:  Hey, my character isn't hitting as often as I'd like.
DM:  I suggest acquiring this feat here.

Guys, I sympathize with everyone whose soul hurts a little because of this feat, but some of the doomsaying is quite off-the-wall.


----------



## Runestar (Mar 7, 2009)

You will eventually want to take the feat at paragon level, even if you think that you can live without it at heroic. +2 to +3 to-hit is simply to tempting to give up - no other feat even comes close to replicating such a benefit! 

I wonder if there will come a day when PCs find themselves missing only on a natural 1...


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 7, 2009)

> As for "accidentally sucking..."
> 
> Player: Hey, my character isn't hitting as often as I'd like.
> DM: I suggest acquiring this feat here.




That's kind of a strawman, though. The situation rarely plays out like that, and even if it did, asking the player to spend resources to patch a problem with the game's math is pretty much how 3e ALSO solved the problem of accidental suck -- and it was as unsatisfying then as it is now.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Mar 7, 2009)

The Little Raven said:


> Weapon Expertise would only apply to powers with the Weapon keyword, and Implement Expertise would only apply to powers with the Implement keyword.
> 
> So, yes, a Swordmage would need to get both if he wants the advantage of both.



Well, crap dang!

Gramma, my Swordmage needs all the help he can get!


----------



## Rechan (Mar 7, 2009)

Shroomy said:


> My 10th level feat is definitely coming from the PHB2; my character is an artificer, who regularly drops burst powers on top of my allies, so its Coordinated Explosion for the win!



I noticed that little trick, yes. Any class with "All enemies" in an area, or powers that hurt enemies/help allies (Cleric, Invoker) are going to enjoy that. 

I do like the feat that lets you effect monsters with fire resistance. That makes the Infernal warlock almost useful, imho.


----------



## Mr. Wilson (Mar 7, 2009)

The Little Raven said:


> Because that flat +1 hit would apply to all attacks (including stuff like Bull Rush, which does not factor in weapons but would factor in the flat +1 bonus), and it seems the intent is to provide more focus on a single weapon/implement type.





I fall into the camp that finds this feat is errata disguised as crunch, so I disagree with your explanation.  Obviously, YMMV.



			
				Anguirus said:
			
		

> Because most people don't read errata.




This is an interesting explanation as to why it was made a feat.  I don't agree with WoTC taking that stance, but I can understand why they would feel that way, if indeed this is why the feat was made.


----------



## Zsig (Mar 7, 2009)

Yeah, Weapon/Implement Expertise is not what I'd call a smart decision.

There were other ways they could have used to patch the math.

I posted one possible idea on the house-rules forum, but I guess it wouldn't hurt if I posted it here...

Basicly, since they added the Masterwork Armors from AV into the PHB2, it wouldn't be a problem to also introduce Masterowrk Weapons/Implements along with them. They'd work exaclty the same way Masterwork Armors do, which means, adding a bonus to hit as long as the weapon/implement meets the minimum enhancement bonus requirement.

Something like this:

```
[B][B][B]Weapon[/B][/B][/B]/Implement........[B][B][B]Masterwork Bonus[/B][/B][/B]..........[B][B][B]Minimum Enhancement Bonus[/B][/B][/B]
Ordinary.......................--............................+0
"Superior".....................+1............................+2
"Masterwork"...................+2............................+4
"Made by the Gods".............+3............................+6
```

Alternatively, they could simply make them add bonus to the Proficiency bonus from weapons, then there wouldn't be a need to create yet another bonus type, though then they'd firstly need to rule that Implements have an effective Proficiency bonus equal to zero.

It's easier to place the patch where the players can manage without having to sacrifice an already very limited resource.


I like some if not most of the feats from PHB2 (specially Versatile Master), but I feel sorry for now, Str Paladins are standing way below the curve... at least until Divine Power...


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 7, 2009)

Zsig said:
			
		

> Basicly, since they added the Masterwork Armors from AV into the PHB2, it wouldn't be a problem to also introduce Masterowrk Weapons/Implements along with them.




Woah.

This idea makes so much bleedin' _sense_ that I'm boggled as to why it wasn't done.

I mean, they've gotta give us Masterwork Weapons sooner or later, no? Why not with the masterwork armor?


----------



## catsclaw227 (Mar 7, 2009)

The problem is.... if they introduce the Masterwork weapons now, then the new feats become way too powerful.

I agree, it should have been done as Masterwork weapons.  I might house rule this and ban those two feats.


----------



## blargney the second (Mar 7, 2009)

Runestar said:


> I wonder if there will come a day when PCs find themselves missing only on a natural 1...



Our party's dagger rogue has been doing that since first level.
-blarg


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 7, 2009)

blargney the second said:


> Our party's dagger rogue has been doing that since first level.
> -blarg




Of course, that has to be an exaggeration.  Even if a 20 dex and the feat that gives you +1 to hit with CA, you can get +12 at most.  Most 1st level enemies still have 15+ AC.  Although,  I have to admit that hitting on a 3 is still pretty close.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Mar 7, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Of course, that has to be an exaggeration.




Piercing Strike allows a Rogue to attack reflex.

I think this feat would still be attractive to Rogues. A problem that eventually arises for all class is the soldier several levels above the party: the epitome of grind. Hitting isn't a huge problem against most enemies, but it's a really big problem for some.


----------



## Fedifensor (Mar 7, 2009)

*Subject:*  Implement Expertise/Weapon Expertise

Dear LFR players,

Buy the PHB 2, or be marginalized.

Sincerely, WotC

P.S.  We don't like well-rounded characters, so those with both weapons and implements will be down two feats instead of one.


----------



## infocynic (Mar 7, 2009)

Not being familiar with all the rules for LFR, do you actually have to own the book to use the feat? In my home games of course, any feat you can find in an official source, even if you drag your DM to the store and point it out in the book... that's fair game.


----------



## darjr (Mar 7, 2009)

infocynic said:


> Not being familiar with all the rules for LFR, do you actually have to own the book to use the feat? In my home games of course, any feat you can find in an official source, even if you drag your DM to the store and point it out in the book... that's fair game.




No.


----------



## Mr. Wilson (Mar 7, 2009)

Zsig said:


> Basicly, since they added the Masterwork Armors from AV into the PHB2, it wouldn't be a problem to also introduce Masterowrk Weapons/Implements along with them. They'd work exaclty the same way Masterwork Armors do, which means, adding a bonus to hit as long as the weapon/implement meets the minimum enhancement bonus requirement.





That's a great solution to the problem.  Much better than the route WoTC choose, IMHO.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Mar 7, 2009)

The most annoying thing about Weapon/Implement Expertise is that now I have a House Rule which makes all the numbers printed from the Character Builder off by 1/2/3. 

Grrrrr.  Me no likely proofing character sheets for fiddly math stuff.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Mar 7, 2009)

Irda Ranger said:


> The most annoying thing about Weapon/Implement Expertise is that now I have a House Rule which makes all the numbers printed from the Character Builder off by 1/2/3.
> 
> Grrrrr.  Me no likely proofing character sheets for fiddly math stuff.




just hit add bonus feat, and apply it...seams easy enough


----------



## blargney the second (Mar 7, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Of course, that has to be an exaggeration.






Scholar & Brutalman said:


> Piercing Strike allows a Rogue to attack reflex.



Bingo, S&B.  She's got an at-will to target Reflex and a couple of encounter powers that attack Will.  Will in particular is frequently much much lower than any other defence.
-blarg


----------



## TwinBahamut (Mar 7, 2009)

I'll echo the idea that, assuming the new Mastery feats were indeed designed to fix the math (which seems likely), it would have been much better to have created Masterwork Weapons rather than a necessary Feat.

I mean, in addition to not creating an annoying feat tax, Masterwork Weapons could have opened up some room for more flexibility and more choices, the way the added non-AC oriented Masterwork Armors from the Adventurer's Vault added choices. And it would have been based on an existing system, so it wouldn't even have added any real complexity to the game.

This whole thing really is a weird mess.


----------



## Nymrohd (Mar 7, 2009)

Between Melee Training and Weapon Expertise I came up with a house rule to take both of them out and intergrate them with probably my first 4E houserule I'm actually excited about and planning to use on games:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-fan...s/251862-forked-thread-fix-stat-polarity.html


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 7, 2009)

the problem with the game is, that every player is assumed to hit 50% of the time if he is top equipped and maximized at all levels...

this is a problem, because it takes away choices. The default assumption for monsters should have been an increase of 3/4 bab per level. This would make it possible for PCs to be slightly ahead or slightly behind, depending on choices.

and thus, a feat like weapon expertise, masterwork armor and armor specialization wouldn´t be necessary for every character concept.

I think they have made following mistake when they designed the game:
their playtesters tested everything with optimized characters. They forgot, new players maybe don´t optimize characters so much... and so there was a bit diappointment on too low chance to hit... and a too big chance to beeing hit, leading to grinding battles...

so, what can you do to correct it:
use lower level encounters, ban those feats. Just use encounters 2 or 3 levels lower, this also makes advancement on higher levels more slowly, which is also a good effect... problem solved...


----------



## Nymrohd (Mar 7, 2009)

50% is a little low I think. It is probably higher not counting for leaders.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 7, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> I thought the masterwork armor just smoothed out the AC curve, without significantly increasing the overall power level of the game?  Am I wrong?  I'll have to go look at that again.




Yes, that is correct. I think it shows the designers were aware of the "problem" for AC. AV also introduced items that affected other defenses. 

The interesting question: 
- Why wait till now to fix it? Did they intentionally wait (basically an example of what it "means" that the PHB/DMG/MM 2 are "core books")? Did they think powers, paragon and epic features or something like that would compensate in hiding? 
- Why a feat, why not Masterwork weapons?


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 7, 2009)

Fedifensor said:


> Buy the PHB 2, or be marginalized.
> 
> Sincerely, WotC



QFT!!



(And oh; I don't buy that ridiculous "noone reads errata" spiel. That's worse marketspeak than WotC could have come up with themselves. So you're seriously suggesting we should stop demanding errata and instead be content with having to buy new books just to get corrections to the ones we already have?   )


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 7, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> AV also introduced items that affected other defenses.



Hang on, could you explain what items you're thinking of here?

I mean if you're thinking of the neck slot items which give their enhancement bonus to Fort/Ref/Will those weren't introduced by AV.

I'm asking because if you don't, then I've apparently missed something I need to hand out to my players?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 7, 2009)

I just noticed that there is a kind of "precedent" for feats that "fix math" - the Iron WIll/Lightning Reflexes/Great Fortitude feats are PHB I Paragon feats and add a +2 to your defenses. And of course, just like attack bonuses, defenses also suffer from the PC/NPC differences over level. 

We didn't associate these feats with "fixing" math, maybe because they seem so... weak compared to a +1/+2/+3 to attacks. But still, aren't they very similar in that regard?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 7, 2009)

CapnZapp said:


> Hang on, could you explain what items you're thinking of here?
> 
> I mean if you're thinking of the neck slot items which give their enhancement bonus to Fort/Ref/Will those weren't introduced by AV.
> 
> I'm asking because if you don't, then I've apparently missed something I need to hand out to my players?




1) Armor that grants bonus to individual defenses (replacing a higher AC bonus, though)

2) A few other items (non-neck-slot) that increase defenses. I don't know the names off-hand and off-book.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Mar 7, 2009)

My first thought sprang from the _Flame Surge_ feat, which immediately reminded me of Sean Reynold's rant on Fewer Absolutes..

 Hey look, the FireLasher, a raging creature composed of fire and air... takes more damage from your fire....

Why didn't they do that as a 'Penetrating Flame: targets resistance to fire is decreased by X' instead of boosting the damage? Now we will have the sillyness of a fire power that penetrates the fire resistance via _Irresistable Flame_ {or its ilk} AND deals more damage 

Oh well


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 7, 2009)

beacuse you so more damage when the enemy thinks he is immune and doesn´t do anything to dodge...

also his morale will sink even more than that of a creature who expected to be burnt...

he feels agony totally unknown to him...

thus: more damage!


----------



## Zephrin the Lost (Mar 7, 2009)

Also it's not essential that the fire damage being dealt is actually burning the elemental or what have you. The magical flames disrupt the creature's strange form or some other fluff.


----------



## Zsig (Mar 7, 2009)

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> so, what can you do to correct it:
> use lower level encounters, ban those feats. Just use encounters 2 or 3 levels lower, this also makes advancement on higher levels more slowly, which is also a good effect... problem solved...



You don't need to lower the encounter level, that wouldn't fix the problem as it would still be possible to throw impossible monsters against the characters.

Instead, lower the monsters' level, and while doing that, increase the number of them.

So, for instance, instead of throwing 5 lvl "X" monsters against a lvl "X" party, use 7 or 8 lvl "X-2" monsters. 

That wouldn't change the encounter level, while making it possible for players to hit with their attacks.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Mar 7, 2009)

It's possible that all this is by design.

PCs aren't supposed to start out balanced to the monsters.  They are purposefully behind, and feats and magic items are there so that the PCs can make choices about what to raise up to a balanced state and what to overcompensate to become advantageous.

These new feats sorta give everyone an opportunity to get closer to "balanced" if they like.  Other feats are there to aid power effects, add specialty bonuses or act as other non-to-hit and non-defense feats.

This may be an attempt to "fix math", maybe.  Maybe it's another set of feats to give to the classes that don't already have a huge to-hit advantage.  Maybe its a sinister plot to take a feat away from the players and cloak it in a "fix the math" veil.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 7, 2009)

Technically Flame Surge might not actually make you deal more damage to fire enemies with your fire powers.  You might deal "more damage," but still apply the fire resistance.  It doesn't say that you negate the resist fire ability, after all.  You don't get that until epic tier.

So if this feat gives you, say, +1d6 damage versus fire resistant enemies, and your enemy has fire resist 5, you might still be dealing less damage.


----------



## Fedifensor (Mar 7, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> This may be an attempt to "fix math", maybe.  Maybe it's another set of feats to give to the classes that don't already have a huge to-hit advantage.  Maybe its a sinister plot to take a feat away from the players and cloak it in a "fix the math" veil.



One of the design philosophies of 4E was to make it harder for a person to make an ineffective character.  Weapon Expertise and Implement Expertise run counter to this philosophy.  Feats are optional choices, and you can't count on someone taking a particular feat, even a "must-have" feat.  Plus, it's in a non-Core book, which means those that don't buy the book are going to miss out (unless they find it via a DDI subscription to the Character Builder).

How does Wizards account for this in their published modules.  Say there's a big Epic adventure to slay Orcus.  Does Wizards design this assuming that all the players have +3 to hit with their attacks, or not?  Their choice will determine whether some parties are presented with a cakewalk, or a TPK.


----------



## Obergnom (Mar 7, 2009)

You know, they 'might' still fix the feat with eratta... maybe it is a missprint. It could, for example, only apply to daily powers...

well... or maybe it will stay this way and make a lot of people really sad, as it breaks some of the best aspects of 4e... like the "no unoptimal characters" rule... I loved that while it lasted.


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome (Mar 7, 2009)

Fedifensor said:


> Plus, it's in a non-Core book




The cover of PHII says "Core Rules". WotC was upfront from the beginning that the yearly core addendum would be considered part of the baseline of the game.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 7, 2009)

It is a feat which you can take with a single classed character... actually it may have worked well if it qualified as a multiclass feat...

one reason not to multiclass at all...

even now it is a choice if you multiclass: or which implement you take it first...

My grief is: its is always better than other feats which give a precious +1 feat bonus only in certain situations...


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 7, 2009)

UngeheuerLich said:


> My grief is: its is always better than other feats which give a precious +1 feat bonus only in certain situations...



Its not a feat bonus.

Most attack bonuses aren't, actually.


----------



## The Little Raven (Mar 7, 2009)

Mr. Wilson said:


> I fall into the camp that finds this feat is errata disguised as crunch, so I disagree with your explanation.




If that was their intent, then the feat would add a flat +1 to all attacks, instead of a specific weapon/implement. The feat is intended for the character to focus on a particular weapon/implement, just like Weapon Focus. Signature weapons, and all that.

I don't buy this "They intend it to be an errata to give a +1 bonus to all attacks" when they could have easily done that, and explicitly did not.

Assigning intent to developers is something I find to be rather arrogant.


----------



## grickherder (Mar 7, 2009)

The Little Raven said:


> I don't buy this "They intend it to be an errata to give a +1 bonus to all attacks" when they could have easily done that, and explicitly did not.




I don't buy it either.  Neither do I buy that it's a must have for all characters at all times.  I'm trying to figure out the best way to make a warlock/wizard multiclass and implement expertise isn't on my short list.  It's something I'll probably consider for some time in the paragon tier, maybe after level 15.  And that assumes there's not going to be better feat options in Arcane Power.

Also, it's pretty close to needless for rogues in the heroic tier as well.  They can already get ridiculously good to hit bonuses.

My favorite use of it is for the MAD builds.  Sometimes you just want 16 in two stats and a feat that then lets you hit as if one of them was an 18 just makes good sense.

I also see it being taken by those who feel they are missing a little too much.  This could be from bad luck or attacking the wrong defense of a particular monster, or because of a sub-optimal build.


----------



## frankthedm (Mar 7, 2009)

Sir Osis of Liver said:


> ok maybe i'm just missing something cause i haven't played much 4e, but i don't see the big deal. It's a plus one to hit. even when it scales it's still only a plus three. Big whoop it's a scaling version of 3e weapon focus.



4E is intentionally stingy with bonuses. 

Flanking was one of the few bonuses to stay at the 3E amount, but it still got reduced because it has almost nothing left to stack with. Because Combat advantage covers multiple situations in 4E. what would have given over +8 to hit now only gives +2.


_Nothing_ takes away Dex modifier to AC.
CA is the same bonus now as being invisible. [in 3E that was its own+2]
it is the same bonus as attacking a prone foe. [that was +4]


----------



## WalterKovacs (Mar 8, 2009)

Fedifensor said:


> One of the design philosophies of 4E was to make it harder for a person to make an ineffective character. Weapon Expertise and Implement Expertise run counter to this philosophy. Feats are optional choices, and you can't count on someone taking a particular feat, even a "must-have" feat. Plus, it's in a non-Core book, which means those that don't buy the book are going to miss out (unless they find it via a DDI subscription to the Character Builder).




Considering that epic monsters existed before this feat, and those characters were not errata'd to increase their defenses because of this feat, this feat has not made existing characters ineffective because of it's existence. Instead, it allows characters that may have been [or seemed] ineffective to no longer be that way. While the general rule is to increase your attack step at every opportunity, this boost may allow for someone to start out a bit lower, or increase other stats at some points, and end up still farther ahead at the epic tier than before the feat existed.

Unless the argument is that all currently possible options for characters in the epic tier are ineffective since they don't have access to the feat ... it can't be the case that future characters choosing not to take the feat are also ineffective. They may be less effective than their party members, but that is different than ineffective.

The feat isn't going to somehow create an arms race with the monsters where the monsters will increase their defenses by an ammount equal to any new attack bonus the players receive. 



> How does Wizards account for this in their published modules. Say there's a big Epic adventure to slay Orcus. Does Wizards design this assuming that all the players have +3 to hit with their attacks, or not? Their choice will determine whether some parties are presented with a cakewalk, or a TPK.




Monster design is based on an assumption that monsters increase in attack and defense at each level. PCs increase at 1/2 level, get +4 or +5 to their stats through increases (assuming all bonuses to the same stat, and an epic destiny that increases the same stat), get a +6 magic item at the last level. That currently gives them 26 added to their starting attack numbers, which puts them behind the monsters at that rate. Adding the +3, you have a near perfectly smooth curve. From a math perspective, before the feat, the PCs would be in bad shape against the monsters at the end of epic ... unless they started ahead of the curve from the start, and even then they'd only be less behind. However, it is now easier for a PC to be only as good or bad against relatively levelled monsters as they were at 1st level. 

The feat would make epic encounters easier, admitedly, but epic adventures would not be made more difficult, at least in terms of making monsters harder to hit, because of it.


----------



## Mr. Wilson (Mar 8, 2009)

The Little Raven said:


> If that was their intent, then the feat would add a flat +1 to all attacks, instead of a specific weapon/implement. The feat is intended for the character to focus on a particular weapon/implement, just like Weapon Focus. Signature weapons, and all that.
> 
> I don't buy this "They intend it to be an errata to give a +1 bonus to all attacks" when they could have easily done that, and explicitly did not.
> 
> Assigning intent to developers is something I find to be rather arrogant.




We're gonna have to agree to disagree.  At the point where this extra bonus is important (mid paragon and later), most PCs already are specialized in weapons (hammer rythem et al).

Obviously, I can't speak for the developers (hence my op in this thread stating I wanted to hear what they were thinking).

I just think it's more likely that they wanted to fix the flawed math of the game then reward min-maxers, which kinda goes against the basic concept of 4E.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 8, 2009)

There is still the decision when to take that feat, and against high level monster you should have powers which also give bonuses and penatlties of at least +4 (an int warlord should be able to give you +4 with half his int bonus alone when you take an action point)


----------



## Runestar (Mar 8, 2009)

> There is still the decision when to take that feat




Given the ease of retraining, probably at any level when you feel like you are no longer hitting as consistently as you should be. 

Though given the all-or-nothing nature of most powers, I expect players to eventually take them anyways. You may feel comfortable being able to hit a foe on a 5 or more, until you roll a 2, and then think :"Crud, if I had taken expertise, that miss would have been a hit..."


----------



## WalterKovacs (Mar 8, 2009)

Runestar said:


> Given the ease of retraining, probably at any level when you feel like you are no longer hitting as consistently as you should be.
> 
> Though given the all-or-nothing nature of most powers, I expect players to eventually take them anyways. You may feel comfortable being able to hit a foe on a 5 or more, until you roll a 2, and then think :"Crud, if I had taken expertise, that miss would have been a hit..."




Perhaps, however there are still characters using +2 prof weapons, giving up accuracy for damage.

Until you hit 15, expertise gives you a 5% increase in accuracy. Until your average on a hit is higher than 20, you increase your average damage per hit by less than 1, making weapon focus, two weapon fighting, backstabber, superior weapon prof, lethal hunter, all the elemental damage boosters, etc ... giving more of an increase to average damage. At paragon, many increase to 2 points, needing your average damage on a hit to be 40 to compare to them.

Once you hit level 15, assuming you are a striker, your average damage on a hit with an at-will is probably going to be at least 20 damage [One example: eldritch blast 1d10 + 2d6 (curse) + 6 (18 + 4 by 14) + 3 (enhancement) = 21.5, and that is likely a conservative one ... other strikers would likely be doing more per hit with at-wills adding striker damage, and this doesn't include feats, etc]. And then you'll definitely be increasing your average damage by increase your to-hit by +2. 

I'm a little off on the numbers, but the basic idea is that, for characters with an already good chance of hitting, your damage output will be greater increased by damage increases than accuracy increase. 

Another basic example of the math:

Rogue, level 1, 18 DEX and CHA with sly flourish.

Let's put it against one of the harder to hit monsters ... a level 3 hobgoblin solider, so AC 20 is the goal. Assuming the rogue gets combat advantage and is using a dagger he's looking at 10 vs. AC

So, before feats he has:

.55 (1d4 + 8 + 2d6) = .55 (17.5) = 9.625
.55 (18.5) [Weapon Focus] = 10.175
.55 (19.5) [Backstabber] = 10.725
.6 (17.5) [Weapon Expertise/Nimble Blade] = 10.5

In this case, the damage per hit is great enough, and the initial accuracy was low enough, that expertise is an improvement over weapon focus. However, this is an example of a high AC foe. If you are hitting on a 6, for example againt a level 1 soldier that has AC 16, the numbers become:

.75(17.5) = 13.125
WF -> 14.0625
BS -> 14.8125
WE -> 14 on the dot

As the average damage per hit decreases, and the odds of hitting increases, the value of weapon expertise decreases. This means that it's more useful to improve someone that has a hard time hitting than it is for someone that is already optimized. 

For a non-striker, their average damage on a hit is much lower, and are more likely to increase their damage through the other feats. Even at level 15, it's possible that they are more focussed on class roles that aren't centered around damage dealing. For example, there are a number of paragon options that improve defenses, a leaders ability to buff/heal the party, a defenders ability to protect his allies (and keep himself alive), and a controllers ability to keep foes locked down.

Arguably the feat is probably going to replace things like toughness/durable/improved iniative as the "I've run out of things to pick" feat choice.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 8, 2009)

WalterKovacs said:


> Perhaps, however there are still characters using +2 prof weapons, giving up accuracy for damage.
> 
> Until you hit 15, expertise gives you a 5% increase in accuracy. Until your average on a hit is higher than 20, you increase your average damage per hit by less than 1, making weapon focus, two weapon fighting, backstabber, superior weapon prof, lethal hunter, all the elemental damage boosters, etc ... giving more of an increase to average damage. At paragon, many increase to 2 points, needing your average damage on a hit to be 40 to compare to them.



This is not correct.

A 5% raw increase in accuracy is not the same as a 5% increase in average damage per round.

Lets say I normally hit on an 11+ (it should be lower, probably, but this makes the math easier on me and I'm lazy).  My average damage per round with an at will is my chance of hitting ("A" for accuracy), times my average damage on a hit with this at will ("D" for damage).  "A" = .5, in this example.  "D" equals... lets say it equals 10.

A*D = .5*10 = 5

Now lets give this character weapon expertise as a heroic tier feat.  He hits on a 10+, giving him A=.55.

A*D = .55*10 = 5.5

5.5 is 10% larger than 5.  He obtained a 10% expected damage per round increase from Weapon Expertise.

Its worth noting that Weapon Focus would have given identical gains, though it wouldn't help with additional affects created by powers, and Expertise is better when you use it for more damaging powers while Focus is a flat bonus to everything.

You could actually graph out these variables for a given accuracy and average damage, but its not really worth the time.  Expertise is going to be better for most people at most levels, and they stack anyways so take them both.


----------



## DandD (Mar 8, 2009)

We know that the developers do read this message board. So, let's ask them if the weapon expertise feat is written correctly.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Mar 9, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> This is not correct.
> 
> A 5% raw increase in accuracy is not the same as a 5% increase in average damage per round.
> 
> ...




I did note in my post I was a little off on my numbers. You add 5% of the expected damage _on a hit_ to the damage per round. The lower your actual accuracy was before, the less of your damage on a hit becomes damage per round. 

I'm not arguing people wouldn't take this feat. I'm arguing this feat isn't a "you start with one less feat" option. Wizards and some of the other new classes start with only cloth proficiency. There are some racial feats, and class specific feats that give a lot more than this one does. 

Expertise is better than weapon focus at most levels ... arguably there are areas where focus is better (11 to 14 is likely the best). True, you can take both, but ultimately, there are a limited number of feats. Many other feats are better than weapon focus ... weapon focus is often taken latter in heroic, if not delayed until paragon tier when it starts giving more than "just" +1 to damage. 

The reaction to weapon expertise is that it is much more than just "better than weapon focus". However, the impact of the feat decreases as the characters accuracy increases. If you need 11 to hit, it's a lot better than if you need 6 to hit.


----------



## twilsemail (Mar 9, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> The problem is.... if they introduce the Masterwork weapons now, then the new feats become way too powerful.
> 
> I agree, it should have been done as Masterwork weapons. I might house rule this and ban those two feats.




This is exactly what I proposed to my players about a week ago.  It's been well received so far and we're voting on it on Thursday.  I can't see any reason they'd rather have the feat instead of a masterwork bonus.  And, at least to me, it feels less clunky.


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 9, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> 1) Armor that grants bonus to individual defenses (replacing a higher AC bonus, though)
> 
> 2) A few other items (non-neck-slot) that increase defenses. I don't know the names off-hand and off-book.



Np, I've found them:

Boots of Quickness, Belt of Vim and Circlet of Indomitability. All three give untyped bonus (up to +3 for level 28 items) to either F, R or W. All three from AV.

And all three boring...

Either the math needs them, in which case each character needs them all, meaning the feet, waist and head slots are no longer available. In this case, hiding them away in the AV is incredibly irritating.

Or it doesn't, in which case the bonuses should probably have shared types with other stuff, as to present a real choice. Alternatively, there could be a rule allowing any single character to benefit from only one of these items at any given time. For example.


----------



## SteveC (Mar 9, 2009)

First of all, I really like the idea that's been floated here of Masterwork Weapons. When the PHB had Masterwork Armor, my first thought was, "well where are the weapons?" I'm surprised they weren't already in AV.

On the Expertise Issue, I think that we might be blowing this out of proportion just a little bit. In heroic games, this is a good feat, and sort of a no-brainer for classes that don't have a lot of specific feats targeted at them. For classes that do, the feat really isn't that spectacular until you get to that +2 bonus at Paragon level.

I play a Drow Rogue in Living Forgotten Realms, and I'll be choosing to use my Dexterity for Base Attacks long before I take Expertise. Why? Because my typical adventuring party includes two warlords, and they both have the ability to give me bonus attacks, which I ignore because the difference between my strength and dexterity on a to-hit roll is _5 points_. I will eventually pick up Expertise, about the same time as I would have bought Nimble Blade, but there are so many feats that are more useful to a heroic and early paragon Drow character that I'll use first.

A +1 bonus to hit at heroic levels is nice, but it's also not the end of the world if I don't have it. For other types of characters, the feat is much more useful: I'd take it before any of the situational +1 bonuses, especially since it will stack with them.

Is this errata? Sure looks like it. Is it bad design? I'd say no, but I'd also prefer it if they would have introduced Masterwork Weapons/Implements instead.

Just my $.02.

--Steve


----------



## infocynic (Mar 11, 2009)

Masterwork weapons/implements (and this feat) still leave "natural attacks" like a minotaur's Goring Charge or a Dragonborn's Dragon Breath out cold. While those attacks have built-in scaling to compensate for the missing enhancement bonus, it still means that they will lag behind the to-hit curve simply because defense scales enough that there is a gap (as proven and discussed repeatedly elsewhere). That's one of the best reasons to favor the errata "everyone gets +1 at 5/15/25" (that and not screwing swordmages, paladins, clerics, etc. who would need both feats).


----------



## Lord Zardoz (Mar 11, 2009)

jasin said:


> I'm not seeing how you get very much from Melee Training, unless you find yourself making an inordinate amount of opportunity attacks or or charges.




An earlier post implied that it worked with nearly every weapon based attack roll despite the summary text.

Even if that is not entirely accurate, it does make your character much more effective in the presence of a Tactical Warlord who uses Commanders Strike very often.

END COMMUNICATION


----------



## evilbob (Mar 11, 2009)

infocynic said:


> Masterwork weapons/implements (and this feat) still leave "natural attacks" like a minotaur's Goring Charge or a Dragonborn's Dragon Breath out cold.



That's a good point.  Although I have noticed that these abilities tend to pale horribly against even basic attacks already - so really, this just puts them even further behind.  (Same with cleric/paladins compared to non-dual-stat classes.)


----------

