Feat Tax and Why It Harms the System

[Nai_Calus]

After all, it would have been effortless for them to make the Swordmage update (you don't lose your Warding bonus if you lose consciousness) a feat instead.

It was called Immortal Warding, but never got the feat tax hate it should have because it was for some really stupid reason Deva-only and had a bit about adding the warding bonus to a Deva's radiant/necrotic resist in addition to keeping the Warding going while unconscious. Yeah, even though you needed it badly if you ever went down, you couldn't actually take it most of the time. (I hate pointlessly race-restricted feats. I really do. And guess what, the feat still has the potential to be useful to other races even after the errata.)

And that errata that should have been made before FRPG came out? It took them over a year to realise that, oh, hey gimping a Defender's AC as a result of them going down, I dunno, defending was a really stupid idea. And you're still screwed if you go unconscious unless you can pop right back up via someone healing you, since you lose -8 AC while unconscious instead of everyone else's -5. It's like begging the DM to CdG you.

 

[Fanaelialae]

It was called Immortal Warding, but never got the feat tax hate it should have because it was for some really stupid reason Deva-only and had a bit about adding the warding bonus to a Deva's radiant/necrotic resist in addition to keeping the Warding going while unconscious. Yeah, even though you needed it badly if you ever went down, you couldn't actually take it most of the time. (I hate pointlessly race-restricted feats. I really do. And guess what, the feat still has the potential to be useful to other races even after the errata.)

And that errata that should have been made before FRPG came out? It took them over a year to realise that, oh, hey gimping a Defender's AC as a result of them going down, I dunno, defending was a really stupid idea. And you're still screwed if you go unconscious unless you can pop right back up via someone healing you, since you lose -8 AC while unconscious instead of everyone else's -5. It's like begging the DM to CdG you.

It quite obviously wasn't a feat tax because it was Deva only. You can't possibly believe that the designers tried to patch the Swordmage by introducing a feat that only applies to a single race. That isn't a feat tax, that's just a typical feat benefit akin to Enlarged Dragon Breath or any number of other feats. It's pretty clear to me that at the time that the Deva feat was written, Swordmage Warding wasn't considered a serious issue.

If you're complaining that the designers should have been faster in instituting the errata, then you may have a point (I really don't know what kind of red tape errata has to go through to get approved, so I'm withholding judgment).

Saying that the -8 just begs a CdG is like saying that any cloth wearing class (ie, the Wizard) just begs the DM to CdG it when it goes down because it's in effectively the same boat. That -5 is a pretty huge penalty, almost guaranteeing a hit regardless of what kind of armor you have. If the DM wants to CdG someone then he will, and the thing that's likely to save you is the damage roll, not the attack roll.

 

[Shazman]

Well WotC isn't likely to own up to the many broken bits of 4E since they touted the math that works so well and the speed of combat (or at least combat turns) as some of the reasons it was so much better than 3.5. Anyone familiar with the system can easily see that the math has some holes and combat (yes, even the combat turns take longer) actually takes longer than in 3.5, thanks in large part to the insane amount of hit points every monster has. Why would they come out and say how messed up their new, shiny game is and supply errata for free when they can make you buy supplements with feats to plug holes that should have been fixed from the beginning?

 

[Fifth Element]

Well WotC isn't likely to own up to the many broken bits of 4E since they touted the math that works so well and the speed of combat (or at least combat turns) as some of the reasons it was so much better than 3.5. Anyone familiar with the system can easily see that the math has some holes and combat (yes, even the combat turns take longer) actually takes longer than in 3.5, thanks in large part to the insane amount of hit points every monster has. Why would they come out and say how messed up their new, shiny game is and supply errata for free when they can make you buy supplements with feats to plug holes that should have been fixed from the beginning?

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Official D&D Updates)

 

[Shazman]

Yes, I know they do release errata that clarifies rules or fixes some broken power, but doesn't address larger fundamental flaws in the system. Many of the math holes are plugged with stealth errata "feat taxes" in the form of feats from supplements which are not free.
Where's the errata for lagging attack bonuses and defenses so the expertise an defense feats aren't needed? Where is the errata for reducing monster hit points to a more reasonable level (and maybe upping their damage to compensate), so combat isn't a long drawn out grind through a sea of monster hit points? Where is the errata that makes magic items magic again? Where's the errata that lets non strength based characters hava a decent basic attack? I could go on, but you get the picture.

 

[fba827]

I disagree with the premise based on my own group's experiences.

No one who didn't want it has felt like they needed the feats in question.

Sure, you have some players who don't like missing, ever. And therefore they take feats that grant bonuses to hit. But it isn't as though everyone at the table in my group says "I'm never going to hit, I need feat X to solve this problem."

I build my PCs based on what's interesting to me and what I think will be useful to me. And the feats listed as feat taxes have not yet fallen into either of those categories for any of my 10+ PCs in the lifespan of 4e.

So, yeah, I just don't see the problem as being the extreme case that the OP is making it to be.

You're allowed to believe it is a problem, I'm not saying you can't have the opinion, but to make the statement that it is a core problem with the game as a whole is where I disagree to point out that other people don't have a problem with it and therefore it can't be a fundemental issue with the basis of the game itself.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Yes, I know they do release errata that clarifies rules or fixes some broken power, but doesn't address larger fundamental flaws in the system. Many of the math holes are plugged with stealth errata "feat taxes" in the form of feats from supplements which are not free.
Where's the errata for lagging attack bonuses and defenses so the expertise an defense feats aren't needed? Where is the errata for reducing monster hit points to a more reasonable level (and maybe upping their damage to compensate), so combat isn't a long drawn out grind through a sea of monster hit points? Where is the errata that makes magic items magic again? Where's the errata that lets non strength based characters hava a decent basic attack? I could go on, but you get the picture.

Because what you want requires errata for the whole fricking book. Every class would need errata that says "add a +1 to hit at each tier" and "add +1 to these defenses at these points"... and every single monster the in MM would have errata changing their hit points and damage.

Pardon me for saying so... but that is just exceedingly stupid.

No company that wishes to remain solvent is going to do that. It would require an reprinting of the entire book. There's no point. Especially not just for a few rules that every single player could easily houserule if it mattered that much to them.

You know... I hear people go on and on about "well, I houserules this", and "I didn't like this rule, so I houseruled that"... but it's only in this particular case where we always seem to get the people coming out the woodwork claiming "I shouldn't HAVE to houserule this! It should just work on it's own!" You know what? You're too late. The gas is out of the box. You can't get it back in. So get over it already.

 

[Shazman]

The lags in to hit bonus and defenses could easily be fixed by adding a few lines to the character advancement table in PHB I, not adding lines to every class. The other problems are probably beyond errata, which is why 4E isn't my preferred system.

 

[WalterKovacs]

On the Strength Paladin vs. Charisma Paladin point:

While there were obvious problems in the original set-up (a strong paladin was forced to take a charisma based attack at level 9), the issue of divine challenge being less effective than a charisma based paladin was sort of a trade off, as the charisma based paladin lacked a good basic melee attack for charging and, more importantly for defenders, opportunity attacks. There is also the issue of Wisdom being the paladin's secondary stat. Charisma and Wisdom creates the problem of applying to the same NADs, while Strength and Wisdom applies to two different ones. The 'tax feat' that lets a Straladin make effective use of Divine Challenge (unless they have 8-11 charisma, better use than a chaladin) is balanced on the other side by a 'tax feat' for the Chaladin to be able to use charisma for melee basic attacks.

The expertise feats are probably the most egregious issue, since it applies to all characters and it has the addtional problems of forcing a choice of a single weapon (group)/implement/etc ... and further punishing people with multiple weapon/implements (who already have to pay more to maintain a magic weapon AND an implement, for example).

The defense feats aren't as much of a must have as the expertise feats. There are masterwork armor and magic items that provide item bonuses to defenses. Similarly, there are enough different kinds of defense boosting feats that, even as a "tax", you still have the option of which to take, and when you factor in the armor/shield specialization feats there is also AC boosting in the equation. While the 'hole' in the attack progression is only patched by expertise ... raising defenses is part of a combination of which stats you raise, what type of masterwork armor you use, what magic items you use, and what feats you take. Feats that can give you situational bonuses (back to the wall), big bonuses to a single defense (the +2s at paragon, +4s at epic), the ones with a secondary bonus (shield spec, the +2s at epic), or just ones that give an overall boost (+1 to all at paragon, +2 to all at epic). The only 'must have' is the Robust Defenses (since it stacks with the rest) but even then, many players would rather take an additional offensive option than boost their defenses ... and similarly their lowest defense may just be neglected as it would require a lot of feats/items/etc just to get it from bad to 'ok'.

On top of all of that, there are more feat slots to fill over the course of the character and, outside of paragon multiclassing, no huge feat trees to eat up lots of feats. The feat cost for paragon multiclassing though is definitely something that is a problem (although the hybrid model seems to be at least a viable alterative, and the 'dabling' model isn't too bad).

 

[Fifth Element]

Yes, I know they do release errata that clarifies rules or fixes some broken power...

So why did your post state that WotC would never own up to a mistake?