Feat Tax and Why It Harms the System

[Reigan]

Or your dm can use lower level monsters or tweak down their defences a little if the party is struggling. This equation does have another side.

 

[Dice4Hire]

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.

All that is either in your house rules, or in a different game system. If you think all that was done wrong, then you need either house rules or a different system.

 

[Cyronax]

Some of my players read these boards. If they do, read at your own peril.

I banned all types of Expertise feats and the Melee Basic Training feat from my campaign. I didn't 'fix' the math by assuming they'd get bonuses at 5/10/15th levels either.

I also gave my PCs each one legacy-style high-level magic item tailored to each PC (most of which buff at least one defense and sometimes to-hit rolls).

All that said, I regularly put my PCs against much higher level monsters than 'standard' tells me to. One of my typical practices is to give them a 'hard' standard or elite monster of +1 to +4 levels and then to add in an appropriate amount of minions. That sounds normal, but the minions are actually in the lower paragon tiers (i.e. with defenses ranging from 18-24). It makes the battles much more interesting and the players are never really sure whose a minion based on how I describe the battle.

(of additional note, combat isn't the main activity in my campaign(s)).

Even in this extreme and personal style of running a campaign, the PCs normally overcome. They 'grind' sometimes, but this style flows well.

I've also played/DMed numerous battles of more standard 4e and its the same.

Expertise seems great, but its just a ruse as many noted. It contributes to the easy mode of 4e. Combat Advantage, Leader powers, and other normal 4e D&D practices compensate.


Oh yeah .... I also use the un-erratted version of the DC tables on p. 42 of the DMG. I have told my players this fact. Its made the game more challenging and fun.

Of course, Imho.

C.I.D.

 

[Nai_Calus]

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.

Yes, exactly, it wasn't a feat tax because it was Deva-only. If it HAD been open to everyone it would have been a feat tax. Deva-only was IMO the only reason that it didn't get hate for being such.

And yeah, the errata was too slow. Pre-errata I bemoaned IW being Deva-only because I personally felt it to be a big enough issue to be *worth* a feat tax on. (I still bemoan it, but at least it's not as bad.) I dunno if they just took forever to catch on or what, but urgh.

You really don't see how not losing 3-5 AC while unconscious on top of the 5 you lose by default would be somewhat of a deterrent to the DM, who instead of CdGing you while you're down, by a lot, might decide to hit someone who's still up and doing damage instead? If you're down but only by 5 like every other Defender would be, say you're L2 and you've got 21 AC normally with ISW, you've still got 16 AC and there's a somewhat reasonable chance of you actually being missed, DM will probably go for the conscious guy still doing damage who has, say, 17 AC. If you're down by 9 due to losing your warding, you've got 12 AC and chances are really good that he's going to hit you period, giving him no real reason to look elsewhere instead of potentially getting rid of that annoying guy who's usually a big bag of too much AC and getting in the way of killing the squishies. What anyone else's AC is while unconscious is irrelevant in that situation. DM's only going to care that right now you'd be so very easy to get rid of.

 

[catsclaw227]

My group hasn't felt like any of the feats in question were taxes. I think only 2 or 3 of the PCs have the Expertise feat (we're 7th level) and the others likely won't take it until mid-paragon.

We don't feel the crunch at the table and my players seem to do just fine with the encounters they meet in Scales of War.

We'll see how things go once we hit paragon, but I still don't see it as a game-breaking, "4e is the suxxor" if we don't take them. I agree with the general position that these only appear to be taxes in a vacuum. When considering party tactics, buff-debuff, condition setting and innovative thinking, the math seems to work just fine for us.

And the Epic play thread is interesting, as it shows quite a bit how different each gaming table plays.

 

[Fanaelialae]

You really don't see how not losing 3-5 AC while unconscious on top of the 5 you lose by default would be somewhat of a deterrent to the DM, who instead of CdGing you while you're down, by a lot, might decide to hit someone who's still up and doing damage instead? If you're down but only by 5 like every other Defender would be, say you're L2 and you've got 21 AC normally with ISW, you've still got 16 AC and there's a somewhat reasonable chance of you actually being missed, DM will probably go for the conscious guy still doing damage who has, say, 17 AC. If you're down by 9 due to losing your warding, you've got 12 AC and chances are really good that he's going to hit you period, giving him no real reason to look elsewhere instead of potentially getting rid of that annoying guy who's usually a big bag of too much AC and getting in the way of killing the squishies. What anyone else's AC is while unconscious is irrelevant in that situation. DM's only going to care that right now you'd be so very easy to get rid of.

The party wizard is in the exact same boat. They're both cloth wearers with Int as their primary stat. Does this hypothetical DM go CdG-happy every time the wizard goes unconscious too? The swordmage could be fixed with a simple house rule if this really is a problem (Warding doesn't drop while unconscious). The wizard, on the other hand, is flat out borked (apparently) under this DM (especially since his bloodied value is lower, so he stands a better chance of actually dying).

Seemingly, what we really need is to get some errata on Wizard AC, because it's so low that DMs are just too tempted to pass up CdG whenever the opportunity presents itself. It's even more urgent an issue than the massive flaw apparent in the swordmage.

IME, CdG is usually about equivalent to the DM having the enemy do nothing on it's turn unless the unconscious target happens to be deep into negatives (in which case any attack is likely to kill the character regardless of whether or not it's a CdG). Most creatures just don't have the oomph to deal bloodied value damage, even on a crit. If the CdG fails to kill the target, you may as well have done nothing because the party leader is likely to erase all the damage the DM dealt (and then some) as a minor action.

I have to ask. Is this based on actual play experience or is this just theory? Because it does not map to my play experience (and I played a pre-errata swordmage). Losing Warding due to getting knocked to 0 was certainly inconvenient, but it just didn't happen often enough to matter IME.

 

[Shazman]

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

Okay, to be more to the point, it doesn't seem that they own up to significant problems in the system as a whole. They may fix rain of blows, but have they ever even addressed the issue of the grind due to monsters with too many hitpoints or ever admitted that the math was off? These are real issues that many gamers experience, but WotC acts like they don't exist. The wonkiness of 4E math can be somewhat overlooked since it at least can be mitigated with feats(even if they seem like feat taxes), but the "the grind" is just horrendous and needs to be addressed officially because it really hinders enjoyment of the game.

 

[Fanaelialae]

They may fix rain of blows, but have they ever even addressed the issue of the grind due to monsters with too many hitpoints?

Actually, they did. Page 133 of the DMG2 addresses this issue of grind, recommending lower hp for solos and lower defenses for both solos and elites.

 

[Remathilis]

Actually, they did. Page 133 of the DMG2 addresses this issue of grind, recommending lower hp for solos and lower defenses for both solos and elites.

Great. Maybe in 2011 when 4.5* rolls around, they'll have ironed out all the kinks!



* Yes I KNOW they said there will be no 4.5, but at this point, I'm starting to think a revised and expanded PHB (with corrected PC math & powers), DMG (with corrected Skill Challenges) and MM (with corrected damage/AC/HP) might not be such a bad idea...

 

[Obryn]

The wonkiness of 4E math can be somewhat overlooked since it at least can be mitigated with feats(even if they seem like feat taxes), but the "the grind" is just horrendous and needs to be addressed officially because it really hinders enjoyment of the game.

If not every group experiences grind, I'd say it's not inherent to the system, and thus not something that a rules update can fix. Also, IIRC, combats lasting 45 minutes to an hour really is the norm for 4e. (It was the norm for my group in mid-level 3.5, too, fwiw; 1e on the other hand is a ton faster.) If you're not happy with the length of combat, it's a matter of preference, not an inherent system problem which would merit errata.

For those who have found that their combats take longer than they'd wish, there have been a number of suggested solutions. The problem is, they're usually along the lines of "Increase monster damage by 50% and reduce their HPs by a third." Which is great, and totally manageable for a DM, but to imply that WotC should more or less issue errata for every single monster block is kinda insane.

-O