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

[UngeheuerLich]

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 ignorant of math. If you feel insulted for being called ignorant when you are, that is your problem.

intersting what you read into my posts...

You could read my post again and quote the relevant part where I actually say that 2+2 is 5 and the part where I say that the math works as it should have worked...

I just stated, that you should better not make assumptions about the intend of other people. If you are not a designer you can only state that it does not work as you like it, or state, that you observe designers having reevaluated the worth of leader powers... you can´t however state, that the math does not have worked as intended, because you don´t know what the intend was...

(when it was intended to allow a PC to use every encounter power + 1 daily + all your at wills in an encounter (what we don´t know), combats in epic need to last 8 rounds or so, not 4 or 5. And if teamwork should have been encouraged more, than the reliance on leader powers to bridge a gap also seems to have been reasonable at that time...)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Personally, I think its a case of mind over matter: if you don't mind, it doesn't matter.

I'm running a 4Ed PC right now, and as is typical of me since 1990, I've got a plot about how I plan the PC to develop over the next however long I play him. That plan isn't set in stone, but it gives me an idea as to how I think this guy would grow. I pretty much know which feats this PC is eying up to the lower reaches of the Epic tier.

...And, to be honest, I don't have "Expertise" anywhere on his list. Sure, I've griped on these boards about his accuracy, but a goodly portion of that has just been a statistically long aberrational cold streak with the dice.

 

[Aulirophile]

intersting what you read into my posts...

You could read my post again and quote the relevant part where I actually say that 2+2 is 5 and the part where I say that the math works as it should have worked...

I just stated, that you should better not make assumptions about the intend of other people. If you are not a designer you can only state that it does not work as you like it, or state, that you observe designers having reevaluated the worth of leader powers... you can´t however state, that the math does not have worked as intended, because you don´t know what the intend was...

(when it was intended to allow a PC to use every encounter power + 1 daily + all your at wills in an encounter (what we don´t know), combats in epic need to last 8 rounds or so, not 4 or 5. And if teamwork should have been encouraged more, than the reliance on leader powers to bridge a gap also seems to have been reasonable at that time...)

Um, designers have said all the statements that I am referring to. No assumptions needed.

See what ignorance does?

 

[Tony Vargas]

======Originally Posted by Tony Vargas ====
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.

I guess it's a symantic issue, at that point. I suppose you could also think of them as a sort of 'luxury tax,' in the inverse. If you /don't/ take them, then, for the 'luxury' of choosing other feats, you're 'taxed' 1 AB per tier...?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

snip...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Um, designers have said all the statements that I am referring to. No assumptions needed.

See what ignorance does?

I just read about designers realizing issues... and trying to use expertise as a "hot fix". I did not read anything about the original intend... I even think to remember that someone stated, that synergy should make up for the gap, but i am not sure it was a designer...

And, yes, i see what ignorance does... your ignorance of manners seems to be symptomatic...

 

[Aulirophile]

I just read about designers realizing issues... and trying to use expertise as a "hot fix". I did not read anything about the original intend... I even think to remember that someone stated, that synergy should make up for the gap, but i am not sure it was a designer...

And, yes, i see what ignorance does... your ignorance of manners seems to be symptomatic...

So.. you didn't actually read the thread then? Not that I'm surprised.

Again, calling someone ignorant when they are ignorant, is not rude. At all. You're saying that me calling a tall person tall is rude. It isn't. They are tall.

All discussing your opinion of my manners does is demonstrate how weak your position is. It is kind of sad, though that is jut my opinion.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

So.. you didn't actually read the thread then? Not that I'm surprised.

Again, calling someone ignorant when they are ignorant, is not rude. At all. You're saying that me calling a tall person tall is rude. It isn't. They are tall.

All discussing your opinion of my manners does is demonstrate how weak your position is. It is kind of sad, though that is jut my opinion.

Did read the thread, just don´t read those statements as you do. I can´t believe it was pure oversight. In guess they had a reason to change the scaling during the beta... and i guess they realized, in an optimized group, enemies were hit very easy, and i guess leader bonuses were one reason for that...

I however believe, that there were things, the developers broke shortly before finallizing the rules... and i guess it was not the developers inability to count to 29, but some wrong estimations.

And 8 rounds of combat in epic still seem reasonable, i won´t repeat, why i believe such things... it is just, that it was implemented in a way, that could get frustrating:

leaders not hitting well enough or having no leaders that have to hit bonus powers broke the assumptions...
I read you were at gen con, but i guess the real oversight was that leaders in the final version (I don´t know previous versions) can´t do their job if they are hitting less than 55%, which they did...

edit:i adressed your post and tried to answer... your only defense is "i was at gen con and developers also use houserules NOW"
You still don´t know why they changed the scaling, and they didn´t tell you why they did... i guess it wasn´t: "hey, it is working perfectly now... why not change it arbitrarily?"

And you are still rude, and ignorant of it...

 

[Aulirophile]

Ah, so you're just making things up then to justify your beliefs, rather then taking the statements of the devs at face value. Good to know.

8 rounds at what level of encounter? You clearly don't understand the factors involved here. 8 rounds is not inherently unreasonable, but it is unreasonable under certain circumstances, which are subject to a pure math analysis.

Yes, my only defense is that I an intimate familiar with all aspects of the subject and you're not and that makes me right by default. This is very similar to an Astronomer being right by default when discussing Astronomy with someone who has never studied it, but has many opinions about it. Knowledge of a subject makes what you say on that subject more valuable. A very important concept in general.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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 don´t disagree with that. No freudian slip or something... I just say, it can´t be pure oversight. They must have had reasons to change something, some reason why they believed the older scaling didn´t work well enough...

maybe combats at higher levels were to short for their tastes... who knows? Maybe leader bonuses were so high, that hitting became trivial... maybe the designers were just mistaken, when they changed the scaling for all classes...

Beginning of D&D:
lack of +4 to hit at epic, rightous brand exactly giving +4 more to hit at epic... problem: rightous brand itself does not hit well enough...

today:
+4 to hit nearly compensated by expertise feats, righteous brand having a fixed bonus. New leader powers usually don´t scale anymore. Other old leader bonuses revised...

There was an oversight, that is sure... but it was not pure stupidity on the designers part... there has to be some intend...

I can perfectly see problems... I can perfectly see why it is called a feat tax... I just disagree that it is a necessary part... I rather send lower level enemies which reduces grind much more than increasing just to hit bonuses and NAD´s of PC´s... the added benefit is lower HP of monsters and lower to hit... MM3 monster math neatly increases deadliness of slightly lower level monsters... -15% to hit at level 30 for + 12 damage seems like a fair trade. (MM3 level 27 monster compared to a pre MM3 level 30 monster)