Feat Tax and Why It Harms the System

[AngryMojo]

I'm beginning to wonder if something positive can come about from the feat-tax argument if people stop shouting across at one another. The argument basically boils down to two points being repeated:

1. My group has a hard time hitting at high levels/the theorycraft says it's too hard!

2. My group does not have a hard time hitting at high levels/the theorycraft says it's not too hard!

Both responses are either anecdotal, which is easily dismissed as invalid, or theoretical, which is just as easily dismissed as the same. Here is what I want to know, in order for something useful to come from the debate: Whichever side of the fence you sit on, what are you doing to influence your opinion. If your DM uses nothing but soldiers and everyone in your group had a 14 in their primary attack ability at level one, say so. If your party has all optimized to hit and you have three leaders in your group, say so. If your DM throws lower/higher level monsters at you, say so.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Both responses are either anecdotal, which is easily dismissed as invalid, or theoretical, which is just as easily dismissed as the same. Here is what I want to know, in order for something useful to come from the debate: Whichever side of the fence you sit on, what are you doing to influence your opinion. If your DM uses nothing but soldiers and everyone in your group had a 14 in their primary attack ability at level one, say so. If your party has all optimized to hit and you have three leaders in your group, say so. If your DM throws lower/higher level monsters at you, say so.

I have asked a simple question before and not gotten any good answer.

What is an "acceptable" number to hit?

 

[Dice4Hire]

* 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...

But you still assume that it needs fixing.

And that people would want to spend a hundred dollars just to get this.

I am in neither of these camps.

 

[Fifth Element]

These are real issues that many gamers experience, but WotC acts like they don't exist.

Many gamers experience them. But do most? WotC can't just listen to one subset of their market. Some gamers complain about the grind, some don't think it's an issue. So what do they do? They're darned if they do and darned if they don't, because there will always be a different group of gamers who feel the opposite about the subject.

They offered some advice in DMG2 for those who do find it to be a grind. That's hardly avoiding the issue.

 

[drothgery]

I have asked a simple question before and not gotten any good answer.

What is an "acceptable" number to hit?

Not sure, but it would be a lot simpler if all attacks were just level + 4. 15 from 1/2 level + 6 from a magic weapon/implement + 4 from stat bumps + 3 from expertise gives you +28 over 30 levels, probably going from +5 to +33 if you start with a 20 in your primary attack stat; level +4 makes the bonus spread over 30 levels +5 to +34 and the progression's a lot less ragged.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

"the grind" is just horrendous and needs to be addressed officially because it really hinders enjoyment of the game.

As others have said, it has been. Also, personal tastes have a bearing on the issue. There are simlpe ways to adjust the standard to taste that have been discussed officially by WotC and by fellow DMs on these boards. One other simple way to avoid "the grind" is to have opponents act reasonably and not always fight to their very last hit point.

Here is what I want to know, in order for something useful to come from the debate: Whichever side of the fence you sit on, what are you doing to influence your opinion. If your DM uses nothing but soldiers and everyone in your group had a 14 in their primary attack ability at level one, say so. If your party has all optimized to hit and you have three leaders in your group, say so. If your DM throws lower/higher level monsters at you, say so.

I have been using the WotC adventures (H1-3 and P1-3 so far) with very little modification to the creatures. I've seen a good mix of all of the monster roles throughout. I allow Expertise, but not all of my players have taken it. I believe my players mainly choose to put an 18 in their prime stat at 1st level, with an occasional 20. There are a good mix of roles in the party. The players work together to gain Combat Advantage as often as possible, through flanking and synergy of powers. None of them perceive any overall lacking in their ability to hit.

 

[AngryMojo]

I have been using the WotC adventures (H1-3 and P1-3 so far) with very little modification to the creatures. I've seen a good mix of all of the monster roles throughout. I allow Expertise, but not all of my players have taken it. I believe my players mainly choose to put an 18 in their prime stat at 1st level, with an occasional 20. There are a good mix of roles in the party. The players work together to gain Combat Advantage as often as possible, through flanking and synergy of powers. None of them perceive any overall lacking in their ability to hit.

So, through published H/P 1-3 in a mixed bag of to-hit using teamwork, your players have no problem. Thank you for your information.


Anyone else care to contribute?

 

[Truename]

So, through published H/P 1-3 in a mixed bag of to-hit using teamwork, your players have no problem. Thank you for your information.

Anyone else care to contribute?

Published H1, then SoW 2-6 (10th level) as published. Originally used the pre-gens for H1, which had several characters with 16s in prime stat. Everybody ended up reworking them. The cleric had a lot of trouble hitting until we gave him an 18 and a magic holy symbol. Later, he switched to a Pacifist Cleric and became annoyingly powerful.

At 10th level the party is an unstoppable death machine and I find it hard to challenge them. They work very well together and the characters are moderately optimized. It feels like things are getting easier for them as level increases.

Interestingly, the players have said that they're underpowered relative to the monsters. From my perspective as DM, I can tell they were never in any real danger.

 

[catsclaw227]

I have been using the WotC adventures (H1-3 and P1-3 so far) with very little modification to the creatures. I've seen a good mix of all of the monster roles throughout. I allow Expertise, but not all of my players have taken it. I believe my players mainly choose to put an 18 in their prime stat at 1st level, with an occasional 20. There are a good mix of roles in the party. The players work together to gain Combat Advantage as often as possible, through flanking and synergy of powers. None of them perceive any overall lacking in their ability to hit.

We're running Scales of War and much of what you say applies to my campaign as well. The players don't notice any odd difficulties. Some combats they plow through and others they struggle, some encounters experience some grid and others seem to blow by quickly.

 

[MerricB]

At 10th level the party is an unstoppable death machine and I find it hard to challenge them. They work very well together and the characters are moderately optimized. It feels like things are getting easier for them as level increases.

We're up to 15th level and are in the middle of P2 (a fantastic module, btw). Although there are a few encounters that really challenge them, mostly they've been hitting on the range of 5-8, and they've been very effective in battle.

I know most of them have Weapon Expertise and are somewhat optimized, but I'm very happy with where the group is. The games seem a lot of fun.

Cheers!