Aside from Expertise, what are the most commonly acknowledged feat-tax feats?

[CovertOps]

There are none. Playtesting has shown that characters still hit quite easily at Epic even without expertise, for example.

This has nothing to do with expertise being a feat tax. This goes to if expertise feats are needed or not.

They are simply build choices. 'Feat Tax' is an ignorant term made up by those who want to show the designers made a mistake and are trying to fix it because they were smarter than the designers by finding the problem.

This also has nothing to do with expertise being a feat tax.

In the end, feats can help mitigate poor party composition or poor tactics in order to help a group eek out a 'win' but they're just choices.

The feat system works because all feats are approximately the same power level. This means that feats are build and class dependent. Some feats will be more or less useful based on those choices about your character. For example 'Heavy Blade Opportunity' is pretty useless for a Rogue who wants to use light blades.

The problem with 'Expertise' is that at level 1-14 it is just as you claim, a "build option", but by level 15 becomes more powerful than any other feat out there you can pick in terms of offense. Because it is so much better than any other choices you are foolish to NOT take it. This is what makes it a feat tax. I challenge you to show any build on the charop boards that does not include expertise by level 15 for +10% to hit. When a feat becomes this universal there is something wrong. And no I'm not arguing if we should have expertise or not. The plain fact is we DO have it and what do we do about it. For me, I've removed it and I'm adjusting all monster defenses down to account for it. This makes ALL powers better, not just those that work with a weapon or implement....Dragonborn breath comes to mind immediately or Bullrush just to name two.

This also explains why almost every caster wants a "weaplement". Weapon Focus is +1/tier to damage and doesn't have any stat requirements. The other choice for casters is to take those feats that give you +1 damage to 2 different damage types (such as thunder and lightning). The problem with these is they won't apply to every power you take (unlike weapon focus for weapon users) and they have stat requirements which may give you MAD issues depending on your class and build. This is another case of a "strictly superior" feat being used where possible. What they should have done is just had "Implement focus" just like weapons and you can pick it with your...well...implement such as totem, holy symbol, etc.

 

[unan oranis]

The feat system works because all feats are approximately the same power level.

This is the impasse to the debate on the existence of feat-tax (aside from the usual sniping and disagreement on the parameters to math it out).

Even if the designs intent were so, and the execution flawless, it would still not be true.

Is a +1 to necrotic damage going to be useful to a character without any necrotic attacks?

I don't know what the official philosophy for this or the previous edition was, but in practice the feats stack up as a list of crappy, moderate and ultimate options.

Where it gets interesting is that these definitions shift depending on a lot of factors, which you have to figure out for yourself.

Some may appear, or be, universally "ultimate" regardless of other factors - which would mean things getting uninteresting because there is nothing to figure out. Feat tax by any other name would smell just as lame, so it is a genuine complaint and not "ignorant".

I haven't been convinced any feat falls into this category, but for the sake of argument lets say expertise does.

Would it be terrible to have one or two of these in the game?

Trying to axe system-mastery as a pre-req for a competent character is a noble goal, but you have to use your brain when you pick your feats.

There are a number of easy to spot, obviously ideal-for-your-class-feats, like backstabber.
I've run a couple dozen first time players through the character creation process, both 3e vets and complete newbs alike spotted these feats and chose them.

A little more invested into the game, a little further on, a player will figure out that expertise is way good. It's not as easy to spot as people make out, not unless you've played a couple times and understand the value of +X to hit.

So in it's way, expertise is helping fool-proof the feat tree.

But that's all presuming that expertise is in fact universally the ultimate choice for any build.

One of the reasons I don't think so is because it means that there is an ideal starting stat value. You can't argue for it being the ultimate for bob the halfling fighter with 16 in strength, and just as invaluable for bill the dragonborn fighter with a 20 in strength.

You can say bob has to have it or be hopeless, but if that benefit is the difference maker between being viable, bill is more than viable without the feat already!

If bob is hopeless regardless of taking the feat or not, and the only chance of bill being viable is by taking the feat, then the only viable starting stat is a 20! And that opinion (if it exists) should be discussed elsewhere - I dismiss it out of hand.

Perhaps the reason bob has such low strength is that he has a high alternative stat and will go on to largely use some other classes powers - maybe in an extremely effective way.

Or maybe he's a newb, and will always have to roll high to hit monsters - maybe he's the low water mark on effectiveness. Should it be some other way? If you are too zealous with balance you end up with generics.

A system of this scope must have some kind of "bad" choices by it's very nature, IMO the feats as presented from the book leverage relatively shallow pit-falls into deep options.

 

[Herschel]

The problem with 'Expertise' is that at level 1-14 it is just as you claim, a "build option", but by level 15 becomes more powerful than any other feat out there you can pick in terms of offense. Because it is so much better than any other choices you are foolish to NOT take it. This is what makes it a feat tax. I challenge you to show any build on the charop boards that does not include expertise by level 15 for +10% to hit. When a feat becomes this universal there is something wrong.

But it has been shown characters hit pretty darned easy without it at epic. It matters not if it's powerful if it's not needed. A "tax" would be something required to make a character work. Expertise simply isn't.

And avoiding your hallowed charop board would be a wise thing to do because it means nothing. A bunch of munchkinism in a vacuum is all that is. It's not based on synergy, buffs, de-buffs, bonuses and tactics. They are "solo" builds because they aren't part of a party. Of course the charop boards will list experise because there's no knowing what the rest of the party has to offer. That doesn't make it a tax.

 

[The Little Raven]

If one is just beginning the game, one should just try the game. Frankly, I doubt the entire feat-tax idea.

Word. None of these feats have been seen in any of the games I've played in.

The math for the justification for calling these "taxes" usually doesn't take into account the fact that your character isn't fighting alone in a vacuum.

When a feat becomes this universal there is something wrong.

Theorycrafting math crunchers opting to take a feat that increases their on-paper math to the maximum allowed for a solo character does not make it universal in a game in which the math changes during teamwork-based gameplay.

 

[Nifft]

Theorycrafting math crunchers opting to take a feat that increases their on-paper math to the maximum allowed for a solo character does not make it universal in a game in which the math changes during teamwork-based gameplay.

It's almost like you have your own little language there.

Also, it's bull crap. Counter example: Implement Focus + Astral Seal. Oh look, more optimal teamwork-based play.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I like Little Raven's language!

But regarding the topic at hand... meh.

'Feat Tax' is a term that comes from a style of playing that leans heavily in the gamist and optimization direction and has bled into the forums. Its not that you need expertize to be effective.. you need expertize to be optimally effective.

This means that a feat tax doesn't exist for those who play that style... just as it means that those who don't have difficulty understanding its existance.

And to make it worse, its an arms-race issue as the GM will adapt the creatures to challenge the characters.. so if the GM expects expertize to be added into the math, then you do actually need it.
Its like earlier editions where you needed to be maxed out in any thief skills in order to be effective as the DCs kept getting ramped almost out of reach. If the DM left the DCs at a reasonable level you could have a thief that could do more than just pick locks.

...so, to the OP. I don't think that any of these feats are 'taxes', at least IMC.

 

[Nifft]

'Feat Tax' is a term that comes from a style of playing that leans heavily in the gamist and optimization direction and has bled into the forums. Its not that you need expertize to be effective.. you need expertize to be optimally effective.

So you think the optimization forums were empty until the Expertise feats came along? They weren't. There were plenty of ways to be better before those feats came along. The fact that those feats must be in every CharOp build says something bad about those feats, not about CharOp.

Let's say it this way: if Expertise is allowed, it is the most optimal feat in the game for any character (except the concept "I suck at my chosen role", of course).

And to make it worse, its an arms-race issue as the GM will adapt the creatures to challenge the characters.. so if the GM expects expertize to be added into the math, then you do actually need it.

This is true, though. It very much is an arms-race issue, which means it's completely viable to ban the feats and compensate in monster defenses.

Unfortunately, the convenient tools WotC gives you to aid your game all participate in the arms race: their monster builder creations will "compensate" for the Expertise feats. Also, new racial powers give a +3/+6/+9 attack bonus, instead of the PHB 1 & 2 bonus progression (+2/+4/+6), for example. The game already assumes everyone always adds Expertise.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Kingreaper]

f a character at level 15+ has a feat that gives +2 to hit in "circumstance X", and not expertise, their character is simply worse, in every possible way, than it would be otherwise.

It's the equivalent of a player going "Oh, I'm going to take -2 to this attack roll because I'm thinking about my girlfriend"; it may give some tiny bit of characterisation, but really it's just gimping that character. And you don't have to be some hard-core optimiser to disapprove of a system with traps designed to make people with actual CHARACTER gimped.

 

[Turtlejay]

I think the hyperbole about characters sucking, or being gimped because they don't take Expertise is waaaay overstating the case.

It is a good feat. After 15th level it is a *great* feat. But it has been pointed out upthread that starting to-hit values matter quite a bit too.

Is a character that starts with a 16 instead of a 20 gimped? Do they suck? In your opinion, it sure sounds like it, but in the real world. . .not so much.

I have taken the feat on occasion, but would not take it every time. In my current campaign I find myself hitting often enough that the feat is less important than other feats that would make my character more capable in combat.

Jay

 

[Nifft]

Is a character that starts with a 16 instead of a 20 gimped? Do they suck? In your opinion, it sure sounds like it, but in the real world. . .not so much.

Both 16 and 20 are unusual choices, and both can be good choices.

However, they are irrelevant to this discussion. Starting stats are an actual choice -- you can make a good PC with a 16 or 20, instead of the default 18 (post-racial) -- but there is nothing better than Expertise.

Cheers, -- N