D&D 5E Are we back to Feat taxes?

[Manbearcat]

At this point in the game, the math says that One-Handed Weapon and Shield > Two-Handed, Great-Weapon Fighting. With bounded accuracy and Expertise Dice the way they are (non-scaling with weapon), it is typically better go the former route rather than the latter (especially when dealing with a large unit of enemies). However, Two-Handed, Great-Weapon will still yield marginally greater damage (especially if there is no Str * 1.5 or Power Attack bonus).

I'm not so worried about either of these though as they come out of the box, ready to go and are the base-line performers. Again, I'm worried about Two-Weapon Style and One-Handed Swashbuckling style as we have not seen support enough to bring either of them up to the base-line styles. They certainly don't come out of the box ready to play.

So then, are we expecting Feats to support these styles then (advantage, ripostes, + Int or + Cha damage, bonuses to AC when taking the Dodge action, mobility bonuses, etc). If so, then we're talking about Feat taxes. If that is the case, what does that say about the overall design intentions of 5e? Is the dreaded Feat-Tax going to be incorporated into the fundamental design framework of the system?

 

[Jester David]

Is it really a feat tax if that's your build?

If it's what you want to spend feats on (making yourself better at your non-standard fighting style) then it's not so much a tax as an investment.
Yes, you should be more powerful for having spent the feat than not having spent the feat. So in that respect it's important that feats not just make you equivalent

Feat taxes only become a problem when they're either required to stay competitive or they're using to patch a problem in the game.

 

[ferratus]

Why should there be a "build" to determine your fighting style at all? Why not simply have the fighter fight with a sword and shield if he is carrying a sword and shield? Why not let someone fight in a two-weapon style if they pick up two swords? Why not just let someone do more damage if they are carrying around a big sword?

What do we gain by saying "no you can't unless you pay the feat tax?"

 

[DEFCON 1]

I'd say its more that people are inventing things to bother themselves with.

Why don't we wait for the fighting style mechanics to actually be completed before worrying about whether or not feats will be required to make them useful?

 

[CroBob]

Why should there be a "build" to determine your fighting style at all? Why not simply have the fighter fight with a sword and shield if he is carrying a sword and shield? Why not let someone fight in a two-weapon style if they pick up two swords? Why not just let someone do more damage if they are carrying around a big sword?

What do we gain by saying "no you can't unless you pay the feat tax?"

I'm actually with you on this one. I think anyone should be able to pick up a sword and shield, two swords, or one giant sword (or hammer, or axe, or spears, or whatever) and just start using them like that. Further, because they're heroes, they should probably even be decent at it.

However, feats are there to make you better at it, not to allow it in the first place. Ideally speaking, anyhow. Unless you can't use that sort of weapon in the first place and you want to become proficient, if proficiencies remain how they have been for the past few editions.

My point is that while anyone could, in theory, do it, as you advance through levels there's going to be a larger and larger difference between those merely capable, and those who specialize. As there should be, or else why specialize?

This is a problem that you may want minimized, sure, but how? Once you're an uber-bad-butt master of the spear and shield tactics, why would you ever switch to something else? And if you are forced to switch to something else, how do you compensate for the character's reduced relative ability to fight?

 

[darjr]

I'd say its more that people are inventing things to bother themselves with.

Why don't we wait for the fighting style mechanics to actually be completed before worrying about whether or not feats will be required to make them useful?

I think that there is probably a lot of unwarranted hand wringing going on. But I think now is the time to bring up worries about the play test, after all that's kinda the point.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think that there is probably a lot of unwarranted hand wringing going on. But I think now is the time to bring up worries about the play test, after all that's kinda the point.

True... but it'd still be more practical to worry about the stuff actually *in* the playtest, then to say "well, if they do X, then this could lead to Y." Worrying about WotC could do, rather than what they are doing is a bit of a waste of energy in my opinion.

 

[Manbearcat]

I'd say its more that people are inventing things to bother themselves with.

Why don't we wait for the fighting style mechanics to actually be completed before worrying about whether or not feats will be required to make them useful?

True... but it'd still be more practical to worry about the stuff actually *in* the playtest, then to say "well, if they do X, then this could lead to Y." Worrying about WotC could do, rather than what they are doing is a bit of a waste of energy in my opinion.

1- This particular issue is in the playtest as stands. It is as I outlined above. 2 styles, out-of-the-box as the baseline performers. One better than the other but both clearly with advantages over other styles (2W + 1W duelist/swashbuckler). Therefore, without feat support, 2-Handed < Weapon and Shield. Further, the other two < than 2-Handed.

2- We know the base fighting style mechanics inherent to the core system. Expertise Dice + Maneuver Pool + No inherent "style bonuses or features". Therefore, the only baseline differentiation between styles is inherent weapon damage dice, inherent AC bonus, and Maneuvers.

Bringing up the exploration of imbalances inherent to the system that may require Feat support (Feat taxes) toward equilibration is what playtesting is for. If there are other issues such as this, it would be good for us to aggregate them and provide feedback to the designers. I have concern for the Stealth system as well with multiple checks versus perceiver but a thread was started specifically about that. The issue has plagued 3e and 4e so bringing up issues that we find now is not playing chicken little or crying wolf.

And how I spend my energy is my concern. You need not worry about it.

 

[DEFCON 1]

1- This particular issue is in the playtest as stands. It is as I outlined above. 2 styles, out-of-the-box as the baseline performers. One better than the other but both clearly with advantages over other styles (2W + 1W duelist/swashbuckler). Therefore, without feat support, 2-Handed < Weapon and Shield. Further, the other two < than 2-Handed.

2- We know the base fighting style mechanics inherent to the core system. Expertise Dice + Maneuver Pool + No inherent "style bonuses or features". Therefore, the only baseline differentiation between styles is inherent weapon damage dice, inherent AC bonus, and Maneuvers.

Bringing up the exploration of imbalances inherent to the system that may require Feat support (Feat taxes) toward equilibration is what playtesting is for. If there are other issues such as this, it would be good for us to aggregate them and provide feedback to the designers. I have concern for the Stealth system as well with multiple checks versus perceiver but a thread was started specifically about that. The issue has plagued 3e and 4e so bringing up issues that we find now is not playing chicken little or crying wolf.

And how I spend my energy is my concern. You need not worry about it.

If WotC had actually started using feats to rectify this imbalance, then your concern about "feat taxes" would be legitimate. But right now, potential "feat taxes" is calling up a boogie man where none currently exists. If there's an imbalance between sword 'n board and two-handed weapons... why not rectify it by working on the actual mechanics, rather than presupposing feats will be necessary? That way, the spectre of "feat taxes" need never be worried about.

 

[Manbearcat]

why not rectify it by working on the actual mechanics, rather than presupposing feats will be necessary? That way, the spectre of "feat taxes" need never be worried about.

You have just perfectly captured the point of this thread. To clarify, collate, aggregate issues where "extra-class build resources" (feats) would be required to equilibrate underperformers (builds) to the mean performance. Then, they can "work on the actual mechanics (of the class)" to "rectify it" such that feats won't be required to do so.

In this case, they can provide each Fighting Style an inherent mechanical/archetypical buff (on a sliding scale contingent upon current mean performance) to equilibrate the performers toward the mean. Such as (just a rough example):

Duelist Fighting Style: Add Intelligence modifier to Opportunity attacks.

They could then build the style/maneuver layout off of giving foes disadvantage on melee to-hit rolls against them, and then getting ripostes/counterattacks (opportunity attacks) when a melee attack misses them while the offender has disadvantage.

Just an example.