Which feats are "taxes"?

[Chainsaw]

The main downside is the possibility of getting controlled before I get a chance to go myself.

Good point. I suppose I'll get a chance to see over the next few months. I played a fighter without improved initiative to level four and am now playing one with improved initiative in a campaign designed to run through all the WotC mods.

The first guy didn't really "suffer" that I noticed, but so far it has been nice to "go first" with the new guy. Could just be my personality though. Also, we have no rogues, so if I strike first, I'm not spoiling anyone else's mega-damage move.

 

[billd91]

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.

But is it overpowered, though? If you're running a game in which combat doesn't come up all that often, then no. It isn't. The excessive power of a feat is dependent not just on the values it provides in a vacuum, but also how it behaves in context.

The problem here is that, in the context of discussion of feat taxes (or magic item or stat taxes) is that the conversation focuses almost exclusively on combat. It's true that D&D often gets played like a miniature skirmish game - and that applies not just to 4e, but all editions.

But I also think it's a design limitation that has gotten more exaggerated as editions have come along. As generalist abilities shifted into specializations, first with weapon specialization, then with feats, and now with powers, all increasingly concentrated around a single stat and/or weapon, I think the game has become increasingly subject to this very issue.

 

[keterys]

But is it overpowered, though? If you're running a game in which combat doesn't come up all that often, then no. It isn't. The excessive power of a feat is dependent not just on the values it provides in a vacuum, but also how it behaves in context.

Is it really? I mean, let's assume for a moment that someone plays a dnd game in which they only do one combat one session out of every ten, and the others are filled with fantastic RP, improvised theater fit to entertain kings, stories that are recorded and will be recounted to children and grandchildren for years to come...

That's great. They're barely using the system, having a wonderful play time. In that one session of every ten when they do use the system, well, it still can have a problem. And the rest of the time, sure, it doesn't matter.

My personal play experience tends to be about an hour of pure RP with no system, an hour where we do about two different skill challenges, and about an hour and a half to two and a half hours of two to three combats, sometimes with a skill challenge mixed into the combat. The power of feats (or anything else) is largely immaterial for the hour of pure RP. The skill challenges I do have a background and feat spent to help out, as well as a once per day power. I also have a moderate spread of ability such that I almost never find that the party lacks some coverage. That and I get to participate more by having a breadth of skills, which I find more fun.

Which means that the remaining 95% of the game system parts of my character - the character that I RP a ton, mind you - is about combat. I don't think I'm massively atypical here, and I don't think I could really spend a ton more on things that don't affect combat, due to lack of choice, lack of need, and conflicting with character concept.

But I also think it's a design limitation that has gotten more exaggerated as editions have come along. As generalist abilities shifted into specializations, first with weapon specialization, then with feats, and now with powers, all increasingly concentrated around a single stat and/or weapon, I think the game has become increasingly subject to this very issue.

I'd really love to drop a ton of this overspecialization. I really would.

 

[Felon]

Is it really? I mean, let's assume for a moment that someone plays a dnd game in which they only do one combat one session out of every ten, and the others are filled with fantastic RP, improvised theater fit to entertain kings, stories that are recorded and will be recounted to children and grandchildren for years to come...

TOO...MUCH...FUNNY!

That's great. They're barely using the system, having a wonderful play time. In that one session of every ten when they do use the system, well, it still can have a problem. And the rest of the time, sure, it doesn't matter..

Oh no, it's no problem. These people are having a great time randomly firing off exquisitely-described powers that miss a lot, and rolling dice with the fervent hope of rolling that sacred number 20 which in their minds is the sole salvation to the hole they constantly dig themselves in--well, that and a on-stop supply of healing. It's a chaotic, uncoordinated free-for-all. I spent most of my life gaming with folks who treated D&D more as a game of luck than skill.

While I have no problem with such people having fun on their own terms, it does seem damnably common for those selfsame players to arrogantly regard any player who treats D&D as a game of skill as someone to be despised.

 

[Elric]

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

Having a rules discussions with GMforPowergamers isn't likely to be productive. Here's a post of his from the WotC boards a few months ago, earlier in the exact day of the big Battlerager Vigor update.

I found when I played a totaly opt battle rager it was a big flop. I was the defender, we had a wizard, a rogue, and laser cleric...and I could not defend them after the first round or two of any major fight... the problem: nothing could hurt me. i was a dwarf that stated with a higher con then str (20) con (15) str if I remember but the game was at 15th level so I had a 19/24 Str/Con...I had all the feats to up my temp hp, and I was generating more temps then the enemies could do. 1 or two hits and they thought of me as superman...so then they would ignore my mark. I was useing an axe (+2 prof) and I had the lowest attack bonus in game. Infact when I had op attacks my wis bonus didn't bring me to the rogues att rate. me: 7(level) +4 (str) +3 (enhance) +2 (prof) +16 to hit Rogue 7(level) +6 (dex) +4 (enhance) +3 (prof) +1 (rwt) +21 to hit Wizard 7 (level) +7 (Int) +3 (enhance) +2 (expertise) +19 vs NADs Cleric 7 (level) + 6 (wis) +3 (enhance) +16 Vs NADs

Bad timing, I guess. As you can see, this incident hasn't changed much. I say this not to be cruel, but to point out that you guys are probably wasting your time.

 

[billd91]

Is it really? I mean, let's assume for a moment that someone plays a dnd game in which they only do one combat one session out of every ten, and the others are filled with fantastic RP, improvised theater fit to entertain kings, stories that are recorded and will be recounted to children and grandchildren for years to come...

That's great. They're barely using the system, having a wonderful play time.

That isn't even entirely what I'm getting at unless you consider the D&D system to be the combat system and little else. I understand you're going for hyperbole here, but I've run and played in sessions (in 1e-3e) in which we used the system extensively... but mostly the skills, wilderness exploration, utility spells, and other systems not directly involved in combat.

A game focused on those would probably find issues with feats designed to favor certain skills that get used more than others or where certain classes get advantages in over-used skills. In those cases, the combat feats that form a dominant strategy for combat-heavy games wouldn't be an issue. The skill-based feats might be.

 

[AllisterH]

To use a 3e example, is Skill Focus (Diplomacy) an (overpowered) feat tax?

 

[tyrlaan]

That isn't even entirely what I'm getting at unless you consider the D&D system to be the combat system and little else. I understand you're going for hyperbole here, but I've run and played in sessions (in 1e-3e) in which we used the system extensively... but mostly the skills, wilderness exploration, utility spells, and other systems not directly involved in combat.

If you play in a game that's 100% combat, the guy with Expertise will hit 15% more often than the guy who doesn't. If you play in a game that's 10% combat, the guy with Expertise will hit 15% more often than the guy who doesn't.

Arguing that the solution to an overpowered feat is to fight less isn't really a solution. Every combat the overpowered feat will still be there. Expertise covers such a broad category with such a significant bonus that it will always rear its head in a combat.

Furthermore, combat options should be balanced with combat options. Balancing a combat option be avoiding combat isn't providing balance, just sidestepping the issue at hand. Expertise should be of a power level close or at least reasonably close to other combat feats. It misses this mark by a long shot. Therefore it is overpowered.

A game focused on those would probably find issues with feats designed to favor certain skills that get used more than others or where certain classes get advantages in over-used skills. In those cases, the combat feats that form a dominant strategy for combat-heavy games wouldn't be an issue. The skill-based feats might be.

If there was a feat that gave you +3 to all skill checks once you hit epic tier, yes it would be overpowered. At that point, you'd have the "Expertise" for skills. I'd consider it overpowered regardless of a games combat to non-combat ratio.

 

[Herschel]

So really, for those calling it a "feat tax", do you ever take +2 proficiency weapons? Start out with "only" an 18 (or 16) attack stat (or boost other stats sometimes)?

If it comes down to combat efficiency, you should always start with a 20 in your attack stat, always boost said stat, and always take a +3 weapon. Are those really any more of a tax? Or is expertise an option that lets you play a more rounded character that essentially powergamers see as vital? Does one try to work towards having the best magical enhancement on their weapon consistently? (trading in the +2 Viscious weapon for a standard +3 at first chance?) Does Power Attack have any use?

I can agree it has the flavor of rice cakes and it's very powerful. I still don't see it as necessary to have a good, viable character. I also see it as many people looking at in in a vacuum of no de-buffs and/or tactics. That's why I don't consider it a tax, even though I think it works really well.

 

[Herschel]

That said, I do see the need for a player to choose one of the options (20 attack stat/+3 proficiency/expertise). The nice thing about spell hurlers is they most often have powers that attack different defenses and most baddies have one or two defensive stats that are markedly lower. If a player chooses only reflex attacks, for example, then that's not a "taxable" situation, it's just not rounding a build.