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

[KidSnide]

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.

This thread points out a very legitimate point, which is that -- under the current rules -- sword-and-board probably dominates the two-handed weapon and single weapon fighting styles. I think it's fair to say that this type of style efficacy domination (though arguably realistic) is a flaw in the game.

But I agree with other comments in this thread that the style imbalance doesn't really have anything to do with a feat tax. The current rules don't even include primary combat feats, so it's not really practical to evaluate whether as-of-yet unpublished feats are so good as to be effectively mandatory. (Personally, I'm worried about Durable hill dwarf fighters, but that's neither here nor there.)

-KS

 

[Roger]

Back in my day, 10' of reach was worth something.

What exactly its worth is, well, that remains a matter of some debate.



Cheers,
Roger

 

[Manbearcat]

But I agree with other comments in this thread that the style imbalance doesn't really have anything to do with a feat tax. The current rules don't even include primary combat feats, so it's not really practical to evaluate whether as-of-yet unpublished feats are so good as to be effectively mandatory.

I think that we're using different jargon here. My understanding of the orthodox usage of "feat tax" is: A required feat that designers introduce in order to make up for a design oversight. Hence you must take this feat to equilibrate your character build with mean performance expectations. Other builds are not "taxed" this feat and can thus diversify or focus their characters further rather than spending a feat to achieve mean performance expectations. Or, PCs generally have to take the feat in order to keep up with challenge target numbers. Hence it is a tax.

Case in point in 4e:

Problem #1: At approximately levels 5, 15, and 25, the attack bonuses of player characters gradually begin to be unable to keep up with monster defenses, thereby causing a deterioration of player character hit probabilities as the levels rise.
Solution: Introduce the Implement Expertise and Weapon Expertise heroic feats in the Player's Handbook 2, and later, the Focused Expertise feat in Dragon Magazine #375.
Problem with the Solution: Pointlessly fills up a feat slot that could have been spent on something other than patching an issue caused by an oversight of the game designers. [As an aside, characters are now strongly discouraged from ever using an implement or weapon not covered by the respective tax feat, and characters who use two different types of weapons or implements (such as a paladin with both a magic weapon and a holy symbol) are unfairly forced to take two iterations of these tax feats.]

Problem #2: At approximately levels 16 and 26, the Fortitude, Reflex, and Will defenses of player characters gradually begin to be unable to keep up with monster attack bonuses, thereby causing an increase in monster hit probabilities against these three defenses as the levels rise. This is due to masterwork armor granting an overall +1 bonus to AC at level 16 and then another +1 AC at level 26, but failing to commensurately increase Fortitude, Reflex, and Will.
Solution: Introduce the Paragon Defenses paragon feat and the Robust Defenses epic feat in the Player's Handbook 2.
Problem with the Solution: Pointlessly fills up a feat slot that could have been spent on something other than patching an issue caused by an oversight of the game designers.

 

[Greg K]

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?

I hope that, if they allow int or cha bonuses to be damage or AC that they do require feats to get such bonuses if it adds to or substitutes for standard attribute bonuses.

If they are going the route of allowing Intelligence or Charisma to modify attacks or AC, I hope they do some kind of opposed check similar to Tricks and Tests of Wills in Savage Worlds with a successful test resulting in a temporary bonus to hit or a reduction to the opponent's AC.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think that we're using different jargon here. My understanding of the orthodox usage of "feat tax" is: A required feat that designers introduce in order to make up for a design oversight. Hence you must take this feat to equilibrate your character build with mean performance expectations.

Actually... KidSnide's interpretation of 'feat tax' is actually closer to its original meaning that the taxadermists used in mid 4E. Feats that are so good in comparison to other options that they become mandatory because you look like a dink for not choosing otherwise. Now yes... some of these feats were introduced to help with the number balancing... but it wasn't fixing balance that made people go nutso over them. It was that the feats were just too good.

 

[Manbearcat]

I don't believe that is correct. What you are describing is a natural by-product of the "feat tax" feats' potency. It is a 2nd order function of the problem and solution, not the 1st order. The Expertise Feats and Paragon Feats were introduced in PHB2 after it was discovered, and clearly illustrated and acknowledged, that 4e had math issues as the game scaled. These feats were fixes and the by-product of those fudged fixes were feats that were "too good not to take". Monsters and Skill Challenges DCs had the same issues but they went straight to the problem and erratad it and subsequent material produced had the changes. The issue with PCs wasn't so easy to handle (Attack degrading by 4 over 30 levels - Expertise. NADs degrading by 4 over 30 levels - Improved Defenses), so they "patched it" with feats - which people decried ever since PHB2 was released.

I don't know if wizards message board is an authority on this but it at least meets the chronology demands:

http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/blog/2012/06/13/feat_taxes_and_bloat

http://community.wizards.com/go/thr...dating_the_Levelup_Chart,_Removing_Feat_Taxes


So yes, the feats were "too good" as they were produced as nothing more than a math fix to scale the PCs in accords with the challenges they would face. You see it internally with some Classes (Monk), by way of Class Feature (which has more inherent payload than feats), in order to properly scale the class relative to other classes. A math fix born to be a straight number-inflater/scalar, which always applies its math, is always going to be better than a situational feat that applies its math here and there or a feat that always provides a less important bonus - such as Healing Surge value versus To-Hit and Defense bonuses.

There is another kind of feat that is just "overpowered", but their "overpoweredness" is the 1st order function of their creation. It is not derivative. It is part and parcel. I'm not talking about these in the lead post.

In this case, if a combat style does not meet the baseline performance requirements of Great Weapon and Weapon and Shield (which presumably the math is based around) then they would need something external to the combat style to bulwark its performance up to that level. Alternatively, we could just not have to deal with the issue and they could fix it up front by giving each Combat Style a sliding scale Class Feature associated with it (beyond the maneuvers) to balance them to the baseline (the most powerful one - Weapon and Shield).

 

[billd91]

This thread points out a very legitimate point, which is that -- under the current rules -- sword-and-board probably dominates the two-handed weapon and single weapon fighting styles. I think it's fair to say that this type of style efficacy domination (though arguably realistic) is a flaw in the game.

If it truly is dominant in that it wins a direct competition every time, then I would agree it's bad. But if it's better most of the time because it's more realistic, I would argue it isn't bad. I do not approach D&D as if every choice needs to be as good all the time. Rather, a player should invest in a variety of tactical options and bring out the one most appropriate the situation. In that case, easy entry to multiple tactics would be desirable to allow a PC to select his favored one for the current task.

 

[Jester David]

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?"

You mean like in 1st and 2nd edition where you just pretended one fighter was different from another?

It might be fine for the basic version of the game, but eventually I'd like some way of making my mounted warrior actually a better mounted warrior. And have the game reflect my story choices, rather than make him the equal of a fighter who has never seen a horse before.

 

[Joshua Randall]

Game elements that make you better at the parts of the game that matter to you drive out other game elements.

(Define: "parts of the game that matter to you" -- up to the players/DM, but for a lot of people the answer to this is "combat". Thus you most often see combat-related game elements driving out non-combat-related game elements.)

So yes, feat taxes exist, if you care about the thing the feat tax makes you better at.

 

[billd91]

Game elements that make you better at the parts of the game that matter to you drive out other game elements.

(Define: "parts of the game that matter to you" -- up to the players/DM, but for a lot of people the answer to this is "combat". Thus you most often see combat-related game elements driving out non-combat-related game elements.)

So yes, feat taxes exist, if you care about the thing the feat tax makes you better at.

I don't think it's reasonable to call a build option selected because it supports the character concept or ability you want to promote a feat tax. That's a feat choice.