Do you want variety or bonuses in your feats?

[keterys]

It gets a lot murkier when you do things like compare a base MM1-era hill giant to a MV-era hill giant. Effective may be a moving goal post if the monsters are allowed to get +2 attack and more than double in damage.

 

[DracoSuave]

It gets a lot murkier when you do things like compare a base MM1-era hill giant to a MV-era hill giant. Effective may be a moving goal post if the monsters are allowed to get +2 attack and more than double in damage.

Some of the monsters weren't really working in MM1 tho. Black Dragon was kinda broken... anemic damage for a lurker, with obscene defenses.

Monsters that did work weren't changed so much.

 

[keterys]

Oh, I certainly agree, but the point at which a character is considered effective is still subjective based on the other PCs and the DM and the adventure.

The average level of effectiveness is much higher than it used to be, so adventures are written under that assumption. A PC who then is built just using the PH1 may feel insufficiently effective to complete current adventures - and may especially feel so if paired alongside a different PC using every single source possible.

As part of trying to determine what needs errata, at one point I did a damage comparison between an optimized warlock and a suboptimal warlock, and it was a four-fold difference in damage. That's too large a swing to be completely healthy. Game balance is tricky, and letting people balance themselves is not always the best solution for overall game enjoyment.

Though it does work in some groups

 

[DEFCON 1]

Because this sort of response just seems like an attempt to shut down discussion you disagree with...

...But in an ideal system, one wouldn't need to do so quite that much. And that, ultimately, is all that is being looked for - an improvement on what we have now, because we like what we currently have, but that doesn't stop us from wanting it to be better.

Here's the problem though with what you are saying. Every one of these attempts to "improve" the game all comment on the exact same thing--

--the game would be better if these feats didn't exist.

But guess what? That isn't happening.

WotC had a chance to "fix the math" back before PHII got released... but decided it was easier and more economical to create the Expertise feats than it was at the time to errata every single monster and the entire character creation system to add these extra points into the game.

By adding these feats to the game, the can of worms was opened... and the only way to close it back up was to errata out all the Expertise feats at a later point, and still go back in and errata all of character generation and the monsters involved. They chose not to do that. Why? Because only a small, select, vocal handful of people on some message boards got all bent out of shape over their existence, and the feats were a much easier solution than what the small minority wanted. And their incessant complaints about how the feats were a bad idea and screwed everything up were easy to just put to the side.

Doesn't the fact that upon the release of Essentials and a whole new set of edited monsters... WotC still chose to keep the idea of Expertise in the game tell us all that they aren't taking Expertise out of the game? Despite thread after thread of certain people saying that it should have been?

There's no point to the complaints. They are arguing for something that doesn't exist. They're trying to divide by zero. It's too late... WotC has told us loud and clear that these "feat taxes" are here to stay. And I know many of you keep hoping against hope that WotC will finally "see the light" and finally errata the feats out of existence... but we can't even get the redundant feats that have already been replaced removed from the game. If those feats are still within the Character Builder... how can you possibly think that WotC will decide to cut the entire line of "feat tax" feats from the system *NOW*? Is there a magical number of threads that have to be made here on ENWorld for it to finally occur? Because some people sure are striving to see if there is.

So yes, I will continue to point out the futility of arguing for something that in all honestly is extremely unlikly to EVER happen. Whereas... if you were to instead talk about ways to deal with the issue (rather than continually insist the issue shouldn't exist in the first place)... then I'd love to get into discussions about it. Because then we are all talking about things that can actually reach workable conclusions, and meaningful conversation can actually occur.

 

[interwyrm]

These discussions matter for the eventual 5e. We all know it will happen. The end is nigh.

 

[keterys]

WotC had a chance to "fix the math" back before PHII got released... but decided it was easier and more economical to create the Expertise feats than it was at the time to errata every single monster and the entire character creation system to add these extra points into the game.

This discussion isn't really about expertise... any more than it's about frost cheese or backstabber, specifically. It's about the much more massive overall number of feats, so narrowing it to one contentious point that has been beaten to death is probably not helpful.

But, yeah, discussions like this are more helpful for house rules, "5e" planning, and to inform future design. It's possible we'll see the "Unearthed Arcana" equivalent that does inherent feat bonuses to attack, damage, and defenses, but that will just change a couple of feats taken, if that... though it would definitely narrow the gap between low and high end of optimization.

 

[MrMyth]

Here's the problem though with what you are saying. Every one of these attempts to "improve" the game all comment on the exact same thing--

--the game would be better if these feats didn't exist.

But guess what? That isn't happening.

WotC had a chance to "fix the math" back before PHII got released... but decided it was easier and more economical to create the Expertise feats than it was at the time to errata every single monster and the entire character creation system to add these extra points into the game.

You are putting this out here as though you think that, unless our discussion in this thread will directly - and immediately - result in a vast and significant change by the 4E designers to the core of the game... then it isn't a discussion worth happening.

And... I disagree.

Look, I agree that I don't think they are going to abruptly redo the feat system out of nowhere. (Though I'll hold out hope, however unlikely, that they will eventually wise up and get rid of Expertise and the rest of its ilk).

But I also think that these discussions and the concepts they get into will have some impact, however infinitesimal, upon the next edition. I don't think 5E is imminent, by any means, but I'm sure that concepts discussed now will bounce around in designer's heads in some fashion. Hence why I advocate more in the way of paired resources, allowing players to support both potency and flavor at the same time - it's the design I like. Why shouldn't I advocate it?

Indeed, even if this has no impact at all on future editions, it helps us inform each other and trade ideas on changes we can make to our own games. D&D is a living thing, and nearly every single group is a unique entity with its own house rules, traditions, preferences, and gimmicks.

If I think that the current feat system is problematic, seeing Kzach's ideal solution might give me some ideas for my own. Seeing my solution might inspire someone else.

Or maybe, you are right, most of us will conclude that even if the system isn't ideal, it works well enough as it is, and isn't worth playing around with. Maybe this thread helps us reach such conclusions - isn't that a positive thing?

Or if not, even if the thread has no impact at all - presumably those of us discussing it are doing so because we enjoy the discussion. We find talking about the game interesting. If this isn't of interest to you, and you think the thread serves no purpose at all - why participate?

Showing up just to disagree with others is one thing - everyone has their own opinion, and that's what spurs debate. But showing up to proclaim your view, and when others don't agree with you, to dismiss their threads as universally hopeless and unwelcome... I'm sorry, but I don't think that is a call you get to make.

If you really find the discussion futile, you don't have to participate in it, you don't even have to read it. But obviously others find some positive worth in the discussion, and trying to shut down individual posters you disagree with... just seems very poor form to me.

So yes, I will continue to point out the futility of arguing for something that in all honestly is extremely unlikly to EVER happen. Whereas... if you were to instead talk about ways to deal with the issue (rather than continually insist the issue shouldn't exist in the first place)... then I'd love to get into discussions about it. Because then we are all talking about things that can actually reach workable conclusions, and meaningful conversation can actually occur.

Isn't that part of the discussion at hand, though? The very format of this thread - a poll between two options (however limited) - seems aimed at encouraging the discussion towards solutions and preferences, rather than simply this railing against WotC that you portray it as.

Look, the reason I called you on your objections here isn't because you stepped in and said, "Hey, let's focus on solutions or positive ideas rather than complaints alone." It's because you said, "Hey, Kzach, if you have this complaint about the game, maybe it isn't because there is a possible problem with the game, maybe it's because the problem is you."

And that, yeah, absolutely seemed like an attempt to shut down a poster and dismiss the entirety of the discussion. Dismissing not just the desire to see WotC change it, but the legitimacy of their right to feel dissatisfied at all.

Which, honestly, feels much more unproductive to me than any complaints, however reoccuring, that WotC may or may not be listening to.

 

[Kzach]

I know exactly how the game works. I (as the DM) create challenges for my players. Challenges... as in-- things that will challenge them.

Judging by what you've said so far in this thread, I really don't think you do understand the mechanics of the game at all. Combined with your unwillingness to learn, it smacks of, "I'm right and know everything and you're just too stupid to agree with me."

I spend a great deal of my spare time immersed in this hobby. I'm currently playing in two games a week and (trying) to run a third as a DM. This is nothing unusual for me. I tend to take breaks in-between stints like this, but not for very long. And yet despite this huge investment of effort and time, I would still never claim your level of system competence and understanding. Which is why I suggested the CharOp forums. It's a great place to learn about the system... if you're willing to accept that you don't know everything about it.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Judging by what you've said so far in this thread, I really don't think you do understand the mechanics of the game at all...

...I would still never claim your level of system competence and understanding.

My level of system competence is actually quite basic-- use whatever rules are at my disposal to make sure my players are challenged but still have fun. And if those rules don't exist... make them up.

That's really all there is to it.

Now if you really want to claim there's some mystical "inner mechanical understanding" that only comes from your time running the game and those people on the CharOp boards who have run the numbers through a meat grinder to give us the oh so mystical determination that player attack bonuses at the end of epic level end up like 3 points behind monster defenses (or whatever the final numbers are)... well, good on you.

But I don't need to know that, because it isn't necessary. If I ever find that my players should be hitting 15% more than they do... I lower my monster ACs. Or I raise my PCs attack numbers by having them fight in terrain that gives them bonuses. Or the magical field they are standing in lets them attack twice as often and thus their lower hit percentage has a lessened effect, or any other thing I can think of that allows them to having a fighting chance in the encounters they come across. It's called "being an observant DM". And no amount of mathmatical theorycraft from CharOps is required to do it, just a pair of eyes and some common sense.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The idea of this poll is to present the argument that feats should never contain attack or damage bonuses.

Absolutes don't allow you a lot of wiggle room for when it would make sense.

I prefer to think about it in terms of breadth vs. depth. I think a valid track to take with feats is to have them be mostly about breadth. In this view, feats that are static constant +1 bonuses during the majority of the time (feats like the Expertise and Focus feats) would be nixed, while feats that expand your character's abilities, or the ways in which they can use their abilities, would be kept. Feats could modify powers (a feat to improve the range, or add damage to a single power), feats could grant new abilities (rituals, additional powers, new skills), feats could give a very narrow bonus that might pop up only 1/session, if that (+10 to attack rolls...vs. orcs...).

That's not the way they are now, of course, but it's a possibility. I'm not sure that it's better or worse than straight bonuses, but I at least think it's more interesting.