Which feats are "taxes"?

[GMforPowergamers]

So, if a feat were created that gave +5 damage per tier. You'd contend it was a valid choice to not take the feat, because the characters were fine without it.

I would have to see it in play and get soem experiance with it first, my gut reaction is 'hell no I don't want to let that in my games', but I don't know for sure. I guess it would be weird, and the 200 threads like this would let me see how others were handleing it though.

Arguing whether something is a tax or not is a semantic, and not useful argument, if you feel that the feats aren't appropriate.

See my argument is MODERATION...

1) there is no 'glitch' in game play for a large % of people
2) some feats are better then others. I except that Alertness, Lingustics, Dwarven Weapon traning, and Focused Expertise are all over the place.
3) I am sick of this idea that everyone HAS to take the feat OR suck. I have built characters that completly disprove this.

 

[tyrlaan]

The problem I'm seeing with this whole discussion is people aren't talking to each other, just at each other. IMO, the issue isn't if expertise is a tax but if it belongs at all in the first place.

It doesn't matter if you think the game math is fine. It doesn't matter if you think a character will or will not suck without an expertise feat. What matters is that Expertise feats are vastly superior to all other feats. If someone said to you that you could either increase your salary by $10K per day or you could earn an extra $10K every time a month ends on a Friday, which one would you pick?

It's really as simple as that. The Expertise feats grossly overshadow the effectiveness of other feats. It's not about being "forced" to take the feat. It's about the fracturing of the illusion of choice. Feats should be balanced with all other feats so when player X is picking up a feat, it's a decision, not a no-brainer. You can tell me you don't need Expertise, and that's all well and good. But when you're in the Epic tier and your buddy is hitting 15% more often than you with all or almost all of his attacks your happymeter is going to be a little less full.

Is the feat tax? To those that feel/perceive/accept the math to be broken, yes it is because those same individuals believe a character will be gimped without Expertise.

Is the feat not a tax? To those that disbelieve/ignore that the math is broken it is not because there is no gimping of characters going on in the first place.

To me, I don't care if you call it a tax or not, it's still an overpowered feat that shouldn't be in the game.

See this is my main problem right here...you took 2 feats to INCREASE these things, but instead of calling it a bonus, you say the breath and like attacks are behind...

<snip>

Notice the same character that replaces those feats with enlarge breath weapon and the feat that adds radiant to the breath weapon has th oppisite complaint... His BW attacks have improved but not his holy symbol and weapon...

At the risk of being redundant, I'm going to dissect this a bit. If one character picks up Expertise with a weapon and an implement there's a good chance he/she's covering 90+% of all combat options. If someone instead picks up the feats you suggest to enhance his or her breath weapon, how often is that coming up in play comparatively?

It's not about broken math. It's not about gimping characters. It's about Expertise feats being vastly overpowered choices.

 

[keterys]

GMtPG,
It's the internet. People whine about everything. Complaining about the volume of the whining while simultaneously agreeing with the source of the whining isn't very productive.

And you've been doing it since February (you were the first response to the first post complaining about expertise when it was posted from D&D XP).

Just like a +5 damage per tier bump to everyone in the game has a drastic effect on the game and you'd have very few people not taking it, so too is expertise. For some characters, expertise is actually more powerful than that once it hits +2.

Sure, you can play without it. You can also play without +5/+10/+15 damage, if that were an option. But it doesn't mathematically follow that you should.

And the same applies to Expertise.

So if you don't like the word tax, that's fine. I think it's silly too. I think piracy would be sillier, though. So just paraphrase feat tax to 'WotC screw up' or _whatever you want to call it_.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

SO again we fall back into the same argument. Some people liek the feat as is, some people want it changed/ errataed (that would be me), and some people think it should be remvoed entirely.

How ever I never tell people they can't take the feat, but long behold I am dumb/stubborn/purposely makeing a crappy character if I don't. I never understand why some people think they know better then everyone else...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

GMtPG,
It's the internet. People whine about everything. Complaining about the volume of the whining while simultaneously agreeing with the source of the whining isn't very productive.

And you've been doing it since February (you were the first response to the first post complaining about expertise when it was posted from D&D XP).

If you remember back then I said we should wait to see it, becuse people where saying it was +1 and that was too much. now I tried it in play and guess whay...it isn't such a bigg deal.

Sure, you can play without it. You can also play without +5/+10/+15 damage, if that were an option. But it doesn't mathematically follow that you should.

And the same applies to Expertise.

not really, you are useing avrages. In reality +2 to hit only comes up when you hit or miss by 2. Meaing if both you and I have +10 base, but you have +2 from experitise, and we fight someone with an AC of 24 I hit on a 14 you hit on a 12. If you roll a 12 or 13 then it mattered, if you spend an entire game session without rolling those two numbers then you feat ment 0...If you roll 16, 18, 10, 15, 2, 3, 5, 20, 17, 16, 4, 20 in the first fight, then you didn't use that bonus at all...

So if you don't like the word tax, that's fine. I think it's silly too. I think piracy would be sillier, though. So just paraphrase feat tax to 'WotC screw up' or _whatever you want to call it_.

The diffrence is I think WotC made a minor mistake, you guys are makeing it sound like they ruined the game...

 

[Nifft]

SO again we fall back into the same argument. Some people liek the feat as is, some people want it changed/ errataed (that would be me), and some people think it should be remvoed entirely.

How ever I never tell people they can't take the feat, but long behold I am dumb/stubborn/purposely makeing a crappy character if I don't. I never understand why some people think they know better then everyone else...

Not all people are equally good at everything.

keterys, for example, has a 26 Intelligence and is trained in Gameneering, and has a +2 racial bonus to Insight.

If you don't know the answer, you could do a lot worse than listening to someone smart.

Cheers, -- N

 

[keterys]

How ever I never tell people they can't take the feat, but long behold I am dumb/stubborn/purposely makeing a crappy character if I don't. I never understand why some people think they know better then everyone else...

Back to what I said about people on the internet. Consider a thicker skin. You'd like to see the feats changed, so you already agree, you just have a semantic problem with the words used. Eh.

I will say, that once expertise is +3, which also implies you have over a dozen available feats, it does seem unlikely that expertise is not better than at least, say, 10 of your other feats. I'd be intrigued to see the characters where that was not true.

You might be willing to accept that, for any number of reasons. Political, satirical, empirical, or pharmaceutical. It doesn't mean you're dumb, stubborn, or crappy.

Though those are all failings that _can_ cause people to not take the feat, which is a flaw in the system - someone who is less intelligent is already at a severe play disadvantage, you don't need to make it worse by putting them 3 behind to hit.

 

[Chainsaw]

Yeah, for some reason Improved Initiative seems okay to me.

I guess it's because rolling initiative is effectively an Encounter power. It's nice, but not vital -- though going first is very nice for Rogues.

Cheers, -- N

In my group, it's pretty much regarded as a "Divine Truth" that fighters should take Improved Initiative so that they have a better chance of being first out of the gate and locking down a bad dude ASAP before he reaches the rest of the group. Seems to be working well in that context so far, though our DM may subconciously play to that dynamic given that he's the most devoted believer, heh.

 

[keterys]

In my group, it's pretty much regarded as a "Divine Truth" that fighters should take Improved Initiative so that they have a better chance of being first out of the gate and locking down a bad dude ASAP before he reaches the rest of the group. Seems to be working well in that context so far, though our DM may subconciously play to that dynamic given that he's the most devoted believer, heh.

It's good for a lot of characters. It makes a big difference for my controller for area placement and tying enemies up early. Big difference for my leader (getting buffs on people before they go or split up in an inconvenient way)

I don't know that I consider it _that_ important, though. I'll probably never bother on my fighter, for instance. Spreading damage out can actually be useful, so letting people take one round of attacks then pulling things off is fine. The main downside is the possibility of getting controlled before I get a chance to go myself.

 

[Nifft]

It doesn't mean you're dumb, stubborn, or crappy.

Though those are all failings that _can_ cause people to not take the feat, which is a flaw in the system - someone who is less intelligent is already at a severe play disadvantage, you don't need to make it worse by putting them 3 behind to hit.

Yep. And this goes back to my point about how 4e was supposed to remove (or at least greatly reduce) the impact of system mastery.

It's fair to say they did a good job reducing it, but it's creeping back in at an uncomfortable rate.

Cheers, -- N