Feat Taxes, or, It's That Time of the Week Again

[Nemesis Destiny]

The problem I have is that it makes things more of thensame... Unless I can choose 2/2 or 3/1 but even then what about classes that don't need a second stat...

Then presumably, you take the +5 (or whatever the highest option offered by the DM is) and be happy. You wouldn't be any better or worse off if you could put a 20 in that stat.

Clearly this document is not perfect, but it's a start. It's particularly good if your group has a mix of min/maxers and actors who don't care about mechanics - this keeps everyone mostly on the same page (especially if you also disallow expertise or grant it to everyone).

Yeah, everyone ends up pretty much the same mechanically, but you are so much more free with the fluff (since it can then be whatever you want), that no two characters are likely to be "the same."

YMMV, but I really like this concept (and again, it's not my idea, I just linked this from something I found on the SA forums - it's some SA goon's pet project).

 

[Jhaelen]

YMMV, but I really like this concept (and again, it's not my idea, I just linked this from something I found on the SA forums - it's some SA goon's pet project).

It clearly has its advantages. After seeing theme powers which automatically use your highest ability bonus for attacks and damage I've been wondering if this isn't the way to go.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The one thing about the "feat tax" brouhaha I always found amusing was the claims by some people that the reason why Expertise was such a bad design was that it was "too good" and thus you felt like you "had" to take it... thereby making you lose a feat slot to it and thus the possibility of taking other, more "fun" feats.

Heh heh, yeah... as though the only thing stopping that player from taking a "fun" roleplaying feat like Long Jumper was "DARN IT, THAT DAMN EXPERTISE FEAT!" You know he would have been all over Alchemist if *not* for Expertise. And that Linguist feat? Would've been right there on his character sheet, but now he is stuck taking Expertise because it's just too good not to.

Please. Let's be honest with ourselves here... if the Expertise didn't exist, most of us would just go right down our list of mechanically superior feats like we always do. "Fun" would never enter into it. So using that as a reason to decry the existence of Expertise I've always found to be a mite silly.

 

[MrMyth]

The one thing about the "feat tax" brouhaha I always found amusing was the claims by some people that the reason why Expertise was such a bad design was that it was "too good" and thus you felt like you "had" to take it... thereby making you lose a feat slot to it and thus the possibility of taking other, more "fun" feats.

Heh heh, yeah... as though the only thing stopping that player from taking a "fun" roleplaying feat like Long Jumper was "DARN IT, THAT DAMN EXPERTISE FEAT!" You know he would have been all over Alchemist if *not* for Expertise. And that Linguist feat? Would've been right there on his character sheet, but now he is stuck taking Expertise because it's just too good not to.

Please. Let's be honest with ourselves here... if the Expertise didn't exist, most of us would just go right down our list of mechanically superior feats like we always do. "Fun" would never enter into it. So using that as a reason to decry the existence of Expertise I've always found to be a mite silly.

Well, sure, I'll be honest - no, no I wouldn't.

I would most likely take plenty of feats that give mechanical benefits, and plenty of feats that enhance flavor and concept.

What I would not do is constantly have Expertise feats hovering overhead as simply better choices than anything else I can take.

For example, I was in a game where a friend played a Paladin, and really enjoyed a feat that gave her bonuses to hit when defending injured allies. (Mechanicall, a +1 bonus to hit when she herself or the enemy being attacked is adjacent to one of her bloodied allies.)

And.... there is never a reason to take that feat when Expertise is on the table. It is always a better first choice. Indeed, even with feats previously considered some of the best in the game, like Nimble Blade... Expertise is just better. Worlds better, at later levels. And, yeah, that bugs me.

The other real issue that gets me is that the Expertise feats simply expand the gap between the average or flavor-driven PC and the optimized one. And that's what bugs me, because I'm fine with there being a difference, but the more extreme is gets, the more of an issue it becomes.

And, finally, it locks characters in to certain choices. Once you expect that bonus to be part of the system, then powers that don't include it suddenly don't match up. Characters wanting to try out a ranged weapon find themselves way behind. Finding a cool new weapon of the wrong type isn't just inconvenient, it is completely useless until you can retrain some feats. It's a mess.

Anyway, you can find my position amusing and silly if you like, but I'll hold to it - the Expertise feats are unnecessary for the game, poorly implemented in practice, and actively get in the way of letting players make choices based on their character concepts.

 

[Herschel]

The one thing about the "feat tax" brouhaha I always found amusing was the claims by some people that the reason why Expertise was such a bad design was that it was "too good" and thus you felt like you "had" to take it... thereby making you lose a feat slot to it and thus the possibility of taking other, more "fun" feats.

Heh heh, yeah... as though the only thing stopping that player from taking a "fun" roleplaying feat like Long Jumper was "DARN IT, THAT DAMN EXPERTISE FEAT!" You know he would have been all over Alchemist if *not* for Expertise. And that Linguist feat? Would've been right there on his character sheet, but now he is stuck taking Expertise because it's just too good not to.

Please. Let's be honest with ourselves here... if the Expertise didn't exist, most of us would just go right down our list of mechanically superior feats like we always do. "Fun" would never enter into it. So using that as a reason to decry the existence of Expertise I've always found to be a mite silly.

Must spread xp but day-um, well said.

 

[Herschel]

What I would not do is constantly have Expertise feats hovering overhead as simply better choices than anything else I can take.

...
The other real issue that gets me is that the Expertise feats simply expand the gap between the average or flavor-driven PC and the optimized one. And that's what bugs me, because I'm fine with there being a difference, but the more extreme is gets, the more of an issue it becomes.

And, finally, it locks characters in to certain choices. Once you expect that bonus to be part of the system, then powers that don't include it suddenly don't match up. Characters wanting to try out a ranged weapon find themselves way behind. Finding a cool new weapon of the wrong type isn't just inconvenient, it is completely useless until you can retrain some feats. It's a mess.

Have you ever stopped to wonder if you can't have fun without a mechanically superior character that maybe the problem isn't with the game?

There are so many fallacies in the last two quoted paragraphs it's hard to count them all.

 

[DEFCON 1]

...and plenty of feats that enhance flavor and concept.

Just out of curiosity... how many feats of this type by level 10 do you usually take? Because whenever I see people suggest builds here on ENWorld, we can go right down the line of the usual standards... Expertise, Weapon Focus, Superior Weapon Proficiency, Toughness, Action Surge, Unarmored Agility etc. etc.

And that's what I've always found amusing. Every human seems to be able to surge with action, every warrior seems to be preternaturally tough, every spellcaster is agile while wearing robes, every wielder of a heavy blade somehow is geared towards opportunity. And the truly original so-called 'flavor and concept' feats that players take are few and far between. So the complaints about "losing" a feat slot to take expertise when they probably weren't going to take anything but the old stand-bys anyway is the part I chuckle at.

And bear in mind... I don't blame anyone for taking Expertise, I think it's a smart move. It's just the "losing a feat slot" excuse for why expertise shouldn't exist at all that I find amusing.

 

[MrMyth]

Have you ever stopped to wonder if you can't have fun without a mechanically superior character that maybe the problem isn't with the game?

I don't think that's a fair attack to make, or one that is especially appreciated. I find that one of 4E's strengths, when it came out, was in making viable for different types of characters to play at the same table and both capable of contribution. The optimized character could be built to be better at combat than the PC whose feats are invested in flavor or background benefits... and yet, the difference between them wasn't overwhelming.

That element of balance was, I felt, an important part of the game.

When the difference between those characters grows, yes, I feel it can have a negative impact on the game. If the DM, in order to challenge the optimized character, must present enemies that non-optimized characters cannot even hit... that is problematic. Expertise feats make it easier for such things to occur.

I don't think it is unreasonable for me to want the system to avoid such problems, nor is it unreasonable for me to want to be able to choose options that are not mechanically powerful, while still having a viable character in comparison to the rest of the party.

There are so many fallacies in the last two quoted paragraphs it's hard to count them all.

I'd... be interested to know what they are. I presented a list of various problems I found the Expertise feats to add to the game.

Your response was to suggest that I am flawed as a player, and to dismiss my argument as formed of a nigh-uncountable number of fallacies. I'm... not entirely sure I can consider that a reasonable response.

 

[DEFCON 1]

When the difference between those characters grows, yes, I feel it can have a negative impact on the game. If the DM, in order to challenge the optimized character, must present enemies that non-optimized characters cannot even hit... that is problematic. Expertise feats make it easier for such things to occur.

See, I would consider that a flaw of the DM, not the system.

There is no character so optimized that I can't kick the crap out of him while leaving the other PCs relatively unscathed. It's just a matter of choosing the right situations to put the PCs in, the right type or number of monsters/traps/terrain, and the right emphasis of how often it should happen.

That's my job as the DM. Use whatever rules WotC puts forth that I like (and ignore the ones I don't) to make sure I challenge my players. And if that means taking an extra five minutes to consider how a certain encounter might effect one player next to another, then so be it.

 

[Herschel]

Because you're complaining about things that are perspective, not fact. The P/A stance doesn't give you any creedence either.

1. It only "widens the gap" in cases where one person doesn't care, doesn't stat out functionional and another optimizes to the hilt and one of them DOESN'T HAVE FUN because of it. It's not badwrongfun not to optimize. The feats help you make up the difference if you want to flavor against just purely math in race/attribute/proficiency choices.

2. "Extreme" is personal preference. Some feel a +2 difference is "extreme" others +6 or more.

3. There's also more to the game than personbal attack bonuses and damage numbers.

4. Your trying to say you are forced to make other choices because of them, which is also patently false. Nobody forces you to take them, nor do they force you to take anything else. That's just your own "need" to have a mechanically superior character. If I have a 16 Strength Barbarian with a Great Axe I may want Expertise to be more on par in accuracy with the 18 Strength, Fullblade wielding one. If he takes it too that doesn't invalidate my character. I have stats and features that will be stronger than his.

5. Again, your expectations are not universal or fact.

6. As for ranged weapons, where's the issue? If I'm a Strength-based character, I try a heavy thrown vs. a bow if I want decent accuracy. I don't expect to necessarily be just as accurate with a backup ranged weapon as I do with the one(s) I use all the time.

7. Finding a cool new weapon of a type you're proficient with is good enough unless you have expectations of being just as accurate or whatever the moment you pick it up as you are with the weapon(s) you always use. That's not very "realistic" on so many levels.

8. It's not a mess, it's your expectations not being in line with what the game offers.