Does Expertise "Feat Tax" even matter?

[catsclaw227]

EDIT: This is a bit rambling....

There have been numerous threads out there about "fixing the math" and if the Expertise class of feats are a feat tax or not.

I hypothesize that it may not matter as much as people complain. Now, I agree that the Expertise feats, especially by 15th level, are awesome and REALLY hard to pass up, and once you get to 25th, the +3 is borderline critical.

This isn't what I am talking about. I am questioning whether the "cost" matters as much as people claim that it does.

IMHO, the "tax" of a single feat out of EIGHTEEN (over the course of a 1-30 progression) isn't really a tax.

If the math had been smoothed over from the very start (with a built in +1/+2/+3 at 5/15/25) and there was one less feat gained on the leveling chart, would people be complaining? I doubt it. Having seventeen feats is really quite a lot, and I believe that very few would have batted an eyelash.

So essentially, it's the same scenario. One less feat, math fixed. I think the BIG question we should be looking at..... Is that 18th feat really going to make a difference in how the game is played?

Assuming Expertise didn't exist and the math was already fixed, how much more powerful will 9 feats be over 8 feats at 15th level (where the +2 for expertise starts to matter) or how much more powerful will 15 feats be than 14 feats at 25th level?

Is it really a tax?

The question we should be asking is "How much does a single feat affect the math of the game?"

If that can be quantified, we might begin to understand why some people just don't care about the feat tax.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Yes, it's a "tax" in name (by our "gaming definitions" we've all come up with over time), because many people feel they are forced to pay for it in order to maintain viability. But the question past that therefore becomes "how big of a tax"? And that's where your point is absolutely correct.

1 feat out of 17 is practically negligable. It means very little. It's like getting charged an extra penny per gallon of gas in order to help pay for new bridge construction. Yes, some people will get all up in arms because ANY tax to them (regardless of amount) is just WRONG... but for most people, it's a pittance and barely noticeable.

The irony of all of this (which I mentioned in another thread) is that the same people who feel as though Expertise is a "tax" they are forced to pay in order to maintain a statistically-useful character (or "optimized" character, if we want to be more brusque)... are the people who wouldn't spend the available feat on "roleplay-esque" feats even if they had the slot available. They'd use that available slot on more "optimized" feats! So their realy complaint is not that they "no longer have options"... but rather they "no longer can be AS optimized as they should be."

After all... do you really think there is anyone out there saying "You know... I WISH I could take that Linguist feat to really make my character the way I want it to be... but I CAN'T... because EVIL WOTC... is forcing me to take an Expertise feat!".

The answer of course, is 'no'. Those who want the Linguist feat for roleplay purposes are not going to give up on it to take the Expertise feats. They're going to take Linguist anyway.

 

[keterys]

They might not take Linguist... just because linguist is more firmly obviated by items and rituals. But skill training, maybe. Or a flavorful utility power. All kinds of options.

At any rate, I agree with you that the cost isn't that high. I'd also note that if you told people their taxes were increasing by 3-7%, they'd bitch up a storm, regardless of how much they had left

You may want to also consider that there are characters who need both weapon expertise and implement expertise, as well as some (Scion of Arkhosia, Wardens, racial attacks) that are neither weapon nor implement. Which means that it costs an extra feat and/or widens a gap between their types of attacks.

It gets even more complex if you consider the 4 Epic FRW feats as math fixes as well, because then you're looking at up to five feats (though more likely about 4) that you might perceive as just there to fix the math. And that is actually a painful number of feats.

Personally, I wish _all_ feats were of no notable math impact, so everyone would freely spend them all on flavor effects rather than passive bonuses to attack and damage and such.

 

[Dausuul]

A small tax is still a tax. The real problem IMO is players who don't know how much Expertise affects gameplay at high levels, or don't own the PHB2, and thus may not take it.

Personally, I wish _all_ feats were of no notable math impact, so everyone would freely spend them all on flavor effects rather than passive bonuses to attack and damage and such.

Amen to that.

 

[OhGodtheRats]

As a player of freak builds that defy the laws of super-optimization, I get buggy about the idea of the Expertise feats. When I first saw them introduced, I, and I'm sure other folks, saw it as a way to make a character with a slightly lower main stat, or a way to make freak builds more viable or at least keep up with the optimized folks. As it is, by the time you reach Epic levels, one feat is really just a drop in a bucket. But in heroic or paragon tier? Anyone who likes Roleplaying-esque or gimmick build feats is really against the notion of having to take it. That's why in every Non-RPGA game I play, the DM lets people take that feat for free. Since it's supposed to be (as far as most folks understand it) a way to "fix the math" of 4th edition, most of us just don't think people should have a feat deduced just to maintain viability. I don't know if I'm articulating this right, but if the DM is of the mindset that the feat is necessary and was introduced as a "fix" to the game's math, then it totally makes sense just to include it as a freebie for all characters. It's the solution my groups have found and it's always a relief.
Again, though, I'm super-biased. I love taking weird flavor-type things, I can't help it.
-Jared
"rambling, though admittedly he's bad at deciphering the Math involved here, so he bows to greater minds and their analysis"

 

[catsclaw227]

You may want to also consider that there are characters who need both weapon expertise and implement expertise, as well as some (Scion of Arkhosia, Wardens, racial attacks) that are neither weapon nor implement. Which means that it costs an extra feat and/or widens a gap between their types of attacks.

As far as I know, this was already dealt with. Don't the Focused Expertise feats help classes with both weapon and implement powers?

 

[DEFCON 1]

But the thing is... it's the people who have "done the math" that are the ones decrying the existance of the feat tax... because they are the ones who have this imaginary idea about how the "math should work". Player attack bonus should advance equal to Monster defense bonus, in their eyes. And since it doesn't, our characters are less powerful... and thus we need to optimize them as best we can so that we can take the monsters on more successfully.

But for the rest of us? None of us know about any of that, and thus don't give a rat's ass about it. We take feats and powers based upon what we think would be useful or cool for our character, with nary a thought that we have to achieve some mythical number to attack bonus if we ever have hope of taking on Orcus. Most people don't care. And thus, the "feat tax" (whether it's 1 feat if you're just considering Weapon/Implement Expertise, or 5 feats if you throw in both plus the other defense feats) is quite honestly negligible for 95% of us playing the game. They are there if we want them, but we don't in any way feel as though we need them.

 

[keterys]

In home games, we often give it for free. In one game I went further afield and just said people had a base chance to hit that effectively assumed an 18 stats and expertise... which had a very interesting and fun effect on multiclassing. Effectively what you'd think of as 'freak' builds I suppose, since you'd have a 10 Str/18 Cha paladin take a Str power and a multiclass warlock taking Cha + Con powers with 14s in each. Less damage, but whatever was fun for them, without an undue cost to their hit chance or number of feats.

 

[catsclaw227]

A small tax is still a tax. The real problem IMO is players who don't know how much Expertise affects gameplay at high levels, or don't own the PHB2, and thus may not take it.

I agree that ignorance of the newer feats doesn't help anything...

But I am not disputing that there is a "tax", just whether the value of a single feat out of 18 really matters much.

 

[keterys]

As far as I know, this was already dealt with. Don't the Focused Expertise feats help classes with both weapon and implement powers?

Only if they use a singular type of weapon and implement, such as a 'longsword'. Good for swordmages, less good for paladins, artificers, etc.