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

[Herschel]

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.

Again, you totally misunderstand a very simple fact: this is a game enjoyed by millions by people who aren't you as well as you. Just like when people on this forum give a character concept and ask for build advice and you stear off the rails directly the CharOp stuff every time basically saying they're having badwrongfun if they don't do it your way.

As for compensating, the group hasn't compensated, WotC has for people who don't/can't/want more. The game worked before the feats, they came later.

As for grind, again, you are simply wrong for anyone but you. I've been in four-hour battles that were a dynamic blast to play and 30-minute, two-round battles that were dull as Hades. As an example, we experimented in one group with lowering monster HPs and upping their damage last week. At least one person enjoyed it, I did not. It was basically "pick the two, possibly three powers you want to use this encounter and cue them up, line up and roll". There was no ebb & flow it was just "*smack, smack, smack, slice* two characters were bloodied and we won".

Some people may enjoy that type of game, and D&D supports them also, but not everyone does. The biggest factor in "grind" to many has absolutely NOTHING to do with math, it's the DM. D&D is (now) a very dynamic game but can be enjoyed by those who may not take advantage of all of its features. You can't quantify everyone's feeling with an equation.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

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

This may have been a freudian slip on your part, but this is my sentiment exactly. I'm amazed at how many gamers assume that the game works exactly as intended, even with compelling evidence, professional opinions to the contrary and apparently no agreeing professional opinions whatsoever. I guess some people are just fundamentally content.

I've come to believe that, had 4e been designed with similar math except for a 1/3 level bonus rather than the 1/2 we have, the same gamers would be insisting that the game works just "fine," and that "that's the way it's supposed to be." To each their own I guess, but I'm not waiting for 5e to fix the math. (And mark my words, 5e will have consistent math as a result of this issue.)

Some people may enjoy that type of game, and D&D supports them also, but not everyone does. The biggest factor in "grind" to many has absolutely NOTHING to do with math, it's the DM.

You can't be serious. Look, you would've been right had you said that math isn't the only grind factor. You might've even been right had you said that DMing is the biggest grind factor; I wouldn't argue that point. But math does effect grind.

As an experiment, go run a one-shot with an exaggerated math hole. Apply a hefty screw-you penalty to make sure the players can't hit or dodge even half the time. Or simply use monsters at the N + 7 level ceiling. Then come back and tell us that grind has absolutely nothing to do with math.

 

[Herschel]

1) This may have been a freudian slip on your part, but this is my sentiment exactly. I'm amazed at how many gamers assume that the game works exactly as intended, even with compelling evidence, professional opinions to the contrary and apparently no agreeing professional opinions whatsoever. I guess some people are just fundamentally content.

2) You can't be serious. Look, you would've been right had you said that math isn't the only grind factor. You might've even been right had you said that DMing is the biggest grind factor; I wouldn't argue that point. But math does effect grind.

1. I'm amazed at how many gamers are so eager to feel they're smarter than the designers. Sure, nothing is ever perfect but everything we've seen shows they had a progressive plan for game options being added. That plan isn't "written in stone" but it's been pretty well laid out from introduction to Red Box.

2. Which actually is what I said. The problem is where does each person feel grind is. Some people don't want combats over four rounds, others want numerous combats over four rounds. If the math were spectacularly screwed up, the game wouldn't work. It did and does. Some feel entitled to hit and (not be) hit at a certain clip, but that differs from person to person. The game is robust to support numerous types of gaming experiences. Did it at first? No, but it was never meant to include everything at the beginning. Remember all the hand-wringing when the Gnome, Half-Orc, Bard, etc. weren't in the PHB1?

 

[wayne62682]

One thing I've learned from my time in WoW is this: The theorycrafters do know more than the designers. There is often mathematical proof of certain things being underpowered, overpowered, or design flaws that the designers ignored for one reason or another (often simply the fact they aren't as well versed in theorycraft and didn't consider the possibilities).

Even in past editions it was a known fact to all but the most obtuse people (the type of people that think if they don't experience something, there is no problem) that the game had flaws which were completely ignored because the designers weren't capable of understanding why they were flaws (the "I expect everyone who plays X class to play it this way, because I play it this way" concept) or because they knew they were flaws but didn't want to properly fix it (the "Let's fix it in this new splatbook that not everybody is going to use so we can make more profit" concept).

Now, I've been away from the game for a long time so I'm not quite up to speed on the debate here (I do remember those Expertise feats though; the ones that give you bonuses that should have been built-in from the start and are to cover up WotC's shoddy math, or so the argument goes, right?) but my MMO experiences have demonstrated that it's always better to trust the mathematically-inclined number crunchers than the designers/developers because the designers are often not well-versed in theorycraft and can easily miss exploits and flaws because they aren't actively looking for them. That goes double for a company that is infamous for it's absolutely terrible editing/proofreading and overall lack of even remembering their own rules in published material (remember the PrC in 3.5 Complete Warrior that said you had to be Lawful alignment but the sample character was Chaotic Neutral?).

 

[Aulirophile]

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...

It wasn't, we have public statements from devs to that effect. And your RB analogy is fundamentally flawed because RB had to hit first. It in no way compensated for not having Expertise, because of the Clerics low chance of applying it (particularly at Epic).

I would encourage you to educate yourself on this issue if you want to discuss it, rather then making baseless statements that have no place in fact. I don't think it is really much to ask that you actually acquire factual information about a subject before attempting to form an opinion about it and then posting that opinion as if it were objectively true. I think of that of that is impolite, and it is certainly, by definition, ignorant, so calling someone who does it ignorant (about this subject) is perfectly true.

 

[Incenjucar]

Being a designer doesn't automatically make you a math wiz. It just means that you had a good idea pitch and decent enough writing skills to get published. Dragon magazine has been plagued by errata for just this reason. As with other games, the best thing to do is have the math people work with the creative people.

 

[Herschel]

And vice verse. The math is easy enough if you have the time and staff to micro-analyze. Macro-analysis is generally accepted as good enough in non-critical situations (as gaming is). It's not feasible to expect to catch every potential glitch in development when you have to market dates. That said, they caught the big things and errata'd the corner cases that were abused.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It wasn't, we have public statements from devs to that effect. And your RB analogy is fundamentally flawed because RB had to hit first. It in no way compensated for not having Expertise, because of the Clerics low chance of applying it (particularly at Epic).

I would encourage you to educate yourself on this issue if you want to discuss it, rather then making baseless statements that have no place in fact. I don't think it is really much to ask that you actually acquire factual information about a subject before attempting to form an opinion about it and then posting that opinion as if it were objectively true. I think of that of that is impolite, and it is certainly, by definition, ignorant, so calling someone who does it ignorant (about this subject) is perfectly true.

Wow, I am amazed how insulting your post sounds... of course, RB needs to hit first... I don´t know why you try to imply i didn´t... here is the relevant part: "Also, a hit with the old righteous brand followed by dailies heavily imbalanced the mathematic."


back to the point:
there may have well been a point where it didn´t have to hit first, I don´t know, and you don´t know that.

And it could as well have been the intend that the leader does not hit that often, but when he hits, then every other person can unleash a lot of pain on the target...

this does not mean that this idea didn´t work out that well and fixing it is a good idea. If you look at the warpriest, there you see my preferred method of dealing with the issue: leaders usually have effect lines and their effects usually work on themselves too... they don´t really need to hit that often, and they can inspire themselves...

Another good fix would have been making expertise not into an unnamed bonus, but a power bonus. This would have allowed leaderless play, and leader would be able to have a different method of making their leader bonuses reliable.

And I can even live with expertise as it is now. I just see it like the old ADnD weapon proficiencies: you have basic knowledge in some weapons, but you need to take training in a weapon to become a real master...

the only thing i can´t agree with is people looking at the math and powers after errata (many to scaling to hit bonuses are fixed now, as expertise scales) and telling me that there were no mechanics (aforementioned scaling leader bonuses) that tried (and failed more or less) to bridge that gap...

I also believe behaving like you do is productive in any discussion... i think I reported you in a different thread and i will report you again if you don´t stop insulting people...

 

[Aulirophile]

Um, you're threatening to report me because pointing out you're objectively wrong, this is math not opinion, and are therefore ignorant of the relevant factors, because you are, and I'm being rude? Riiiiight.

It isn't an insult to tell someone who is saying 2+2=5 they are ignorant of math. If you feel insulted for being called ignorant when you are, that is your problem.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

To sum up the thread: I asked for professional opinions. But other than Aulirophile's account of the GenCon Q&A, nobody has provided anything close. Instead, I got more of the same ol' apologist song and dance:

"I don't like the term feat tax because nobody's outright required to take them." Well, nobody's outright required to pay real taxes either; some people live off the grid and off the books. But for most people, the benefits of paying their taxes far outweigh the benefits of dodging them, so the slang term is apt.

"It's not a problem in my game, so there's no problem." That's good for y'all, but for every anecdotal experience to excuse the problem, there's another that highlights the problem. Ex: The guy in my group who fills his feat slots with non-combat ones thinks the game plays just fine without paying his taxes, but the rest of us grind our teeth when we're in a tight spot and he keeps wiffing. So we all get to take Expertise and Improved Defenses as we choose, but the choice only creates frustration. There's zero benefit to the 'choice' to pay our feat taxes or not, because the one guy is just as happy in my campaign where he gets them for free. Everyone else is happier.

I'm trying to open my mind about this, but it's hard when the PSG all but tells players to pay their feat taxes. This, coupled with all other evidence and opinions, just keeps pointing me toward design mistakes and math holes.

1. I'm amazed at how many gamers are so eager to feel they're smarter than the designers. Sure, nothing is ever perfect but everything we've seen shows they had a progressive plan for game options being added. That plan isn't "written in stone" but it's been pretty well laid out from introduction to Red Box.

Who claimed to be smarter than the devs? I didn't.

The devs made a mistake, probably as a result of making system tweaks close to final deadline. I just happen to have been one of the first amateurs to notice the mistake because, well, I have no deadlines. Had I been on the design team, I might have spotted it in time but that doesn't make me smarter than anyone.

2. Which actually is what I said. The problem is where does each person feel grind is. Some people don't want combats over four rounds, others want numerous combats over four rounds. If the math were spectacularly screwed up, the game wouldn't work. It did and does. Some feel entitled to hit and (not be) hit at a certain clip, but that differs from person to person. The game is robust to support numerous types of gaming experiences. Did it at first? No, but it was never meant to include everything at the beginning. Remember all the hand-wringing when the Gnome, Half-Orc, Bard, etc. weren't in the PHB1?

I apologize; my attention was focussed on the "...NOTHING to do with math" part.