Feat Taxes, or, It's That Time of the Week Again

[Tequila Sunrise]

It's been shown time and again the game works fine without expertise feats. They're nifty, but not necessary. "Feat Tax" is an utterly ignorant term with no bearing on reality.

I keep seeing statements like this, as if it addresses the issue.

Everybody knows that savvy players can compensate for poor design. (How many years did high level players optimize their way through the even wackier math of high level play in previous editions?) Heck, one of the guys in my group refuses to pay his feat taxes if not given to him for free, and he seems to think the game works just "fine."

In fact, I'm sure that I could ban the feat taxes and impose an additional -3 screw-you penalty to all their stats. The game would be pretty hard, but it's all "fine" because they're smart guys and they'd survive and get their treasure. I could even be nice and give access to an "Expert" feat that negates the screw-you penalty. That would be even more "fine," because savvy players could take more interesting feats while casual players could take the Expert feat to compensate for not optimizing or team-playing.

But playing a "fine" game isn't the point. The point is that 4e is a level-based system. And the whole point of a level-based system is to have consistent math to make DM adjustments easier and to cut down on system mastery.

But hey, what do I know? I'm just some ignorant sod who wants to play a great game.

 

[billd91]

The disconnect is where people glommed on to that 55% number like the holy grail, losing context and objectivity. As you level, there are also more buffs/de-buffs available, etc. The "55%" is an average (if you will) but too many gamers now claim that's a right on every attack.

That's not exactly a surprise when WotC comes out and says they've "fixed the math". People generally expect that it is, indeed, fixed. But whether they'd said they had fixed it or not, people would still have glommed onto it as long as someone from WotC had said that 55% was the average value - just as, to many players, Wealth By Level became a birthright in 3e. Whatever nuance would have accompanied it, it would have been missed by a significant number of players who still would raised the cry "Feat Tax!"

 

[KarinsDad]

I can't help but note your weapon-user examples, when excluding a charge and combat advantage, produce the same numbers as the implement users. So unless you're charging (and therefore being restricted on what your attack can be) and have combat advantage (certainly not a given), are these weapon-users just plain awful at level 30 as well?

If you're saying it's a must for implement users but not for weapons, why the difference?

Look closer.

The weapon users only have the exact same to hit chance IF:

1) They do not have a +3 proficient weapon, and
2) They do not have weapon talent (this is more rare because only a few classes get it).

That's +2 to hit there for some weapon users that's available every single attack and it doesn't cost them a feat or a power.

In addition to that, the weapon users can get +1 for charge and/or +2 for combat advantage most rounds. The implement user can almost never get +1 for charge.

Right out of the box, the weapon users can have a +1 or +2 to hit PLUS they can gain another +1 to +3 some rounds.

The implement users have NONE of these options (except for a rare CA). They can have the same 45% chance to hit at level 30, or they might be as much as 25% less. All of those bonuses to hit are also in the control of the player of the weapon user.

So if an implement user takes Expertise, he can basically be 60% to hit whereas without Expertise, the weapon user can be 55% to 80% to hit.

Just to stay in the same ballpark, the implement user has to pay the feat tax for Expertise. That's the difference.

If the high to hit weapon user takes Expertise, the implement user cannot catch up, even with taking Superior Implement Accurate and Expertise.

 

[ceiling90]

The 55% is an assumption made by the game, that on average; meaning that players with average stats, with buffs, penalties and odd assortment of numbers will always hit at that rate. The game math itself is saying this; you can mess with the numbers all you want, but that's the game math. You can purposely gimp your characters if you want, you can purposely use higher level encounters, but with the averages the game assumes; this is supposed to be the case.

Yet, as the game progresses, even the averages fall behind on this assumption. The game as someone pointed out became grindy or a little more punishing than it should have. When you're not in that sweet spot of even 50% to 55%, and you're playing exactly average, then something isn't quite right. Isn't it a little odd that even developers in house all play with these feats as free as a houserule? What does that say about the base assumptions of this game? Are not these feats closer to taxes or "auto" get feats that somehow or another is supposed to already accounted for within gameplay?

While the game runs fine, it could be running better. Isn't that something everyone wants?

 

[Herschel]

Ignorance, by definition, is a lack of knowledge. Developers, people who have done the math in the community (extensively) say "This is how it is." You have a belief about the math (based, near as I can tell, on intuition, anecdotal experience, and the idea that monsters don't get more HP then PCs do damage as you level), but it is no way justified by the numbers. And an unjustified belief is the worst kind of ignorance. You think you know something, but you don't. Socrates said it was poisonous.

My belief is justified. Because you feel you have "the right" to hit at a certain percent rate does not mean the game breaks down when you "don't". The math is not relevent in any more than a base sense. You can't see the forest through the trees as you (and others) have no objective base.

You talk about "grind" as if it's defined when it's not. It's a different feeling for different people. It's also about tactics. There's a boatload of bonuses floating around the game, if you use them, that enhance the hit percentage. Also, if the tactical flow of battle is "moving" then the battle should "feel" quicker, for example, while a static battle of even a few rounds can feel like a "grind".

As it stands, the system is robust enough to handle the different styles and desires. It's not badwrongfun to make interesting RP characters that are also fully functional in battle without trying to milk the system. A certain segment of the gaming public want to optimize, and they have that option, but that doesn't make it a necessity for those playing the game to have fun.

As an example, one gaming group I play in has 10 players at 16th level (we rotate modules, groups and DMs). There are three leaders, two defenders (both Assaault Swordmages), three wizards, a rogue and a warlock. I can count the number of people with expertise on one hand with fingers left over and yet we don't have regular character deaths, sessions run long as much because we joke around as anything else and we have fun. Occasionally a battle will bog down, more often because dice go cold, but it isn't very often.

A tax would imply that it's something needed to make the game work, which it does just fine without it.

 

[KarinsDad]

As an example, one gaming group I play in has 10 players at 16th level (we rotate modules, groups and DMs). There are three leaders, two defenders (both Assaault Swordmages), three wizards, a rogue and a warlock. I can count the number of people with expertise on one hand with fingers left over and yet we don't have regular character deaths

I would hope that you don't have regular character deaths with 3 Leaders out of 10 PCs.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The disconnect is where people glommed on to that 55% number like the holy grail, losing context and objectivity.

Nod. If the devs really wanted the 4e treadmill to be that fixated on something that close to 50/50, they could've dumped most of the mechanics, and resolved everything with coin tosses instead of heavily-modified d20 rolls.

It's been shown time and again the game works fine without expertise feats. They're nifty, but not necessary. "Feat Tax" is an utterly ignorant term with no bearing on reality.

'Feat Tax' may seem a little odd, but it's not quite litteral. Part of the idea is that a feat that is too good is just going to be taken by everyone (maybe not out the gate, but eventually, everyone), and that reduces the number of 'real' feat choices you have. The other part, which I think your objection too is a little more justified, is the idea that, rather than fixing a broken mechanic, a feat or other /option/ is introduced to patch the mistake. If the mechanic isn't /really/ that broken, then the 'tax' can be ignored... unless, it's /also/ just too good. Expertise feats were just too good, already, and the versions in Essentials are /better/.

 

[Aulirophile]

My belief is justified. Because you feel you have "the right" to hit at a certain percent rate does not mean the game breaks down when you "don't". The math is not relevent in any more than a base sense. You can't see the forest through the trees as you (and others) have no objective base.

You talk about "grind" as if it's defined when it's not. It's a different feeling for different people. It's also about tactics. There's a boatload of bonuses floating around the game, if you use them, that enhance the hit percentage. Also, if the tactical flow of battle is "moving" then the battle should "feel" quicker, for example, while a static battle of even a few rounds can feel like a "grind".

As it stands, the system is robust enough to handle the different styles and desires. It's not badwrongfun to make interesting RP characters that are also fully functional in battle without trying to milk the system. A certain segment of the gaming public want to optimize, and they have that option, but that doesn't make it a necessity for those playing the game to have fun.

As an example, one gaming group I play in has 10 players at 16th level (we rotate modules, groups and DMs). There are three leaders, two defenders (both Assaault Swordmages), three wizards, a rogue and a warlock. I can count the number of people with expertise on one hand with fingers left over and yet we don't have regular character deaths, sessions run long as much because we joke around as anything else and we have fun. Occasionally a battle will bog down, more often because dice go cold, but it isn't very often.

A tax would imply that it's something needed to make the game work, which it does just fine without it.

Again, you're objectively wrong. I have an objective base. You don't. You're basing your opinion purely on anecdotal experience while simultaneously making the argument that groups can compensate for the problem. Yet it somehow isn't occurring to you that your group has somehow compensated for the problem. As I pointed out was possible. So you've seen a couple of trees, to use your analogy, and you think that is the forest. It ain't. Especially since you're defining the game being "broken" as "non-functional" (which is absurd, since any game system will be houseruled into functionality if needed) instead of "Hey, these things are actively bad in that they destroy the designed intent of the game's pacing, mechanics, and character power levels."

"Grind" is easily definable, actually. More then two standard deviations outside of the expected average encounter length, calculatable by party size and E level. Done. Again, math. Done extensively. Your personal experience is... well, not enough to justify the belief you have. So you're just ignorant. Which is OK actually, it is just a game and there isn't any particular reason to put the effort into understanding it if that isn't interesting to you. But if you don't put the effort into understanding it, you shouldn't complain about your opinion not being valid in any objective sense.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Sorry, but your post is

a) very impolite,

b) objectively wrong.

If you have not been a designer, you have no reason to assume, that the game was supposed to work as it works today.

There once were bonuses, like rghtous brand, that scaled with level and easily compensated the "gap"

It was just recently nerfed because of the existence of expertise feats. Also, a hit with the old righteous brand followed by dailies heavily imbalanced the mathematic.

Maybe it was intended, that combat length increased, as you have more powers to use at higher levels, and leader to hit combos were assumed to exist. (3 encounters, 3 dailies and 2 at wills...) It however may be, that the game didn´t play that smoothly by lesser experienced players and expertise was a fix for that...

 

[Herschel]

If the mechanic isn't /really/ that broken, then the 'tax' can be ignored... unless, it's /also/ just too good. Expertise feats were just too good, already, and the versions in Essentials are /better/.

.

I'm close with you on this one. They are really very good and hard to beat. I just have real issues with calling them a "tax" when they aren't necessary.