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

[Kingreaper]

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?

If a player in a campaign with you, starting at level 16, made a character who started with 18 in strength, and then NEVER BOOSTED IT, would you consider this fine too?

They end up with STRICTLY WORSE stats.


Not having expertise occasionally makes sense. If you have no other feats that give "+2 to hit in circumstance x" OR you continually switch weapons/implements and those "+2" feats work with multiple weapons/implements.
But that's rare enough that it seems silly to assume the balance was based on that.

I like expertise as a feat, up to level 15.
Honestly, my ruling would be "it's a +1 to hit, and that's it"

 

[Hellzon]

But it has been shown characters hit pretty darned easy without it at epic.

Correction: It has been shown that a party with a Rogue and two Warlords hit pretty darn easy without it at epic. And if you're still waving that thread around like the Writ of God, someone stepped in around post #3 and mentioned that his epic party had trouble hitting.

So it has not been shown.

 

[The Little Raven]

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

Translation: People who spend too much time on forums crunching math for characters in a vacuum do not universally represent the people who actually play the game as it is intended to be played: in a group, working together.

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.

...to people who are obsessed with big numbers. Some of us are less focused on squeezing in every possible bonus to our attack rolls and more interested in taking interesting feats. The fact that there seems to be quite a bit of disagreement on this point proves that this opinion is far from universal, whatever people who follow the CharOp board may believe.

 

[Herschel]

Correction: It has been shown that a party with a Rogue and two Warlords hit pretty darn easy without it at epic. And if you're still waving that thread around like the Writ of God, someone stepped in around post #3 and mentioned that his epic party had trouble hitting.

So it has not been shown.

It has been shown when a party works together and is built to work together. Sure, if you have a bunch of lazy or selfish players who want to build independent of the party or a less-than-tactical party then you have to make up for it. That's what it's there for (or for lower starting stats/+2 proficiency weapons/etc.) But if you actually build and play together it works just fine.

It's not a "tax" but a way to mitigate play styles and choices that would otherwise hurt the party.

 

[tiornys]

My group of well coordinated characters who had numerous choices to promote inter-character synergy found epic-tier play to be more grindy and less fun without the expertise feats than with the expertise feats. Difficulty was largely unaffected. Our conclusion: the effect of expertise improved our game experience. Yay anecdotal evidence!

The reason the argument rests on "theory-craft" is because that's the only solid ground from which to argue game design and development issues. For every anecdote promoting one side, you can find someone whose experience differs.

We know the original design intent was to extend the sweet spot across all 30 levels. We know the math does not remain constant across all 30 levels. We know we were given feats that a) are suspiciously powerful when compared to other feats and b) happen to make the math a lot more constant across all 30 levels. Those are facts. Draw whatever conclusion you want from those facts.

t~

 

[KarinsDad]

I happen to think that Leather Armor is a feat tax for Sorcerers, Wizards, and a few other classes.

The difference between Cloth and Leather (let alone Hide plus the bonus AC class abilities some classes get) is substantial.

30 level of being 3+ AC below the other PCs is a lot more devastating than 6 or so Epic levels of being 3+ NAD below the other PCs. Sure, the level one Paladin with Shield gets down and dirty more, but a delta of 6 between AC 14 and AC 20 is still overwhelmingly huge.

I play a Sorcerer who did not take Leather Armor, but it was only because she is a Drow and at one point before WotC nerfed it, a Cloak of Distortion had some umph to it.

I suspect very few people play a Sorcerer or a Wizard and do not eventually take Leather.

 

[Hellzon]

It has been shown when a party works together and is built to work together. Sure, if you have a bunch of lazy or selfish players who want to build independent of the party or a less-than-tactical party then you have to make up for it.

Did you have an argument other than "ignorant" and "lazy" somewhere?

 

[Herschel]

My group of well coordinated characters who had numerous choices to promote inter-character synergy found epic-tier play to be more grindy and less fun without the expertise feats than with the expertise feats. Difficulty was largely unaffected. Our conclusion: the effect of expertise improved our game experience. Yay anecdotal evidence!

We know the original design intent was to extend the sweet spot across all 30 levels. We know the math does not remain constant across all 30 levels. We know we were given feats that a) are suspiciously powerful when compared to other feats and b) happen to make the math a lot more constant across all 30 levels. Those are facts. Draw whatever conclusion you want from those facts.

t~

Different people have different opinions of "grind". A group of caffeine-loaded AD/HD rollers are going to look at it differently than a laid-back social gathering that gets around to combat and RP between jokes and munchies. It also is different in combat round duration expectation. If all combats were 3-4 rounds, I'd find that pretty boring myself. I have only experienced "grind" once and that was in LFR Spec 1-2.

Also, the fact is as you go up in level,, the buffs/de-buffs/status effects become more numerous and more powerful. Just because a solo character's relationship numbers change does not mean the "math" is off, just that it has shifted. It also assumes roles are covered. Going without a controller, for example, really changes things.

Nobody is debating that some feats aren't more powerful than others, but numerous examples have shown they aren't necessary. That's an important distinction. A "tax" would be necessary when it clearly is not, just desired in numerous cases.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

So you think the optimization forums were empty until the Expertise feats came along? They weren't. <SNIP>

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).

Hey freind, thats a bit of a stretch from what I stated.

I completely agree that Expertise is indeed the most optimal feat in the game... but does that make it a 'feat tax' that everyone must take of suffer the ignoble fate of suckage?

I am starting a new character in a freinds game, level 1 Wizard.. and I am really looking forward to playing him. My chosen feat? Skill Training: Thievery.
Will that mean my character sucks or that I have chosen the concept of 'I suck'?
{in case you are wondering, the answer is no. My concept is an indiana jones'ish adventuring scholar and I wanted to be able to find those damn boulder traps!}

The feat system represents choices, some of which are more optimal than others, some of which are more flavorful than others.. and its up to the players and GM to determine which is the best for them.

Now, I am not saying that in certain campaigns and certain play styles that Expertise is indeed a feat tax. I am just saying that not everyone plays that way and positing such a blanket statement on the forums tends to lead to pointless {altho sometimes entertaining} arguments.


So bottom line of my stance: I don't beleive there is a systematic 'feat tax' built into the 4e mechanics, altho some players and GM's may run the game in such a manner that optimization is a higher priority than IMC. All feats are simply choices and options.

 

[Nifft]

...to people who are obsessed with big numbers. Some of us are less focused on squeezing in every possible bonus to our attack rolls and more interested in taking interesting feats. The fact that there seems to be quite a bit of disagreement on this point proves that this opinion is far from universal, whatever people who follow the CharOp board may believe.

No.

The Expertise feats are boring for everyone, even those who recognize their disproportionately high value. Just because we can see how much better they are does not make them interesting.

And this is exactly why they suck: feats should be fun & interesting things, each one a shiny joy of a present to unwrap, not system mastery navigation tests. We had quite enough of that cruft in 3e.

Hey freind, thats a bit of a stretch from what I stated.

In that case, please consider my statement a request for clarification.

I completely agree that Expertise is indeed the most optimal feat in the game... but does that make it a 'feat tax' that everyone must take of suffer the ignoble fate of suckage?

Eventually, yes.

You've got until 15th level before it matters too much to ignore. That's the half-way mark for your PC's expected career -- though your campaign may vary, and if yours never gets that high level, the "eventually yes" becomes a "not necessarily".

(In fact, at 1st level -- and any level where your per-round expected damage is below 10 -- getting a +1 to hit is not optimal. Only when your expected damage is higher does the feat start to have a multiplier effect on combat effectiveness.)

The feat system represents choices, some of which are more optimal than others, some of which are more flavorful than others.. and its up to the players and GM to determine which is the best for them.

What I do is ban Expertise and adjust the monsters. Players take only feats that are cool, monster math works like it "should", and non-Expert-able attacks like Bull Rush have a longer effective life-span. (Bull Rush still hardy ever happens, but I like that it remains an effective option.)

So bottom line of my stance: I don't beleive there is a systematic 'feat tax' built into the 4e mechanics, altho some players and GM's may run the game in such a manner that optimization is a higher priority than IMC. All feats are simply choices and options.

If an option is SO MUCH BETTER than all the other options, and it's boring, why allow that option?

Cheers, -- N