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

[Herschel]

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.

This.

 

[wayne62682]

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.

I hate to do this but.. Oberoni Fallacy: Just because the DM can fix something doesn't mean that it's not a problem.

Sure, you can ignore the power gap, or you can houserule that everyone gets those Expertise feats for free, or that they don't exist, but that's skirting the real issue: The feats themselves exist as a duct tape fix for WotC's shoddy math at the start of 4E, and their unwillingness to say "Yeah, we screwed up the math so we're going to Errata it properly" and instead creating feats that fix the problem but cost you (in other words, you have to pay for their mistakes).

It's a non-issue unless you have powergamers and non-powergamers (I won't use the term "roleplayers" since powergamers can still roleplay) in the same group, and the powergamer ekes ahead of the others with the feats. Even then, the DM can tailor things to make it balanced, as Defcon said. Neither of those things, however, indicate that everything is fine.

 

[mudlock]

To add to MrMyth's list:

When a "choice" is so good that everyone wants to/feels compelled to take it, it's no longer a choice.

Feats are suppose to be there to make characters more diverse from each other. Each player gets 18 feats over 30 levels; with 5 players, that's 90 feats. There are over 3,000 feats in the game. There's no reason for there to be any duplication of the same feat on multiple characters. (Although now that each weapon group and implement has a different one, I guess that's not TECHNICALLY true anymore, but you know what I mean.)

At character creation, I sit down with my players to make sure that we have a diverse set of roles and that we cover as many skills as possible; to make sure everyone's got a their own "shtick." But there are 4 roles and less than 20 skills. I shouldn't have to do that when there are 3,000 feats, but apparently, I do. That's kind of sad.

 

[Herschel]

When a "choice" is so good that everyone wants to/feels compelled to take it, it's no longer a choice.

Again, this is pure fallacy based on a certain group's expectations or desires. They're powerful feats, but they're not required to be proficient or have fun.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

You keep saying "fallacy."

That word, it doesn't mean what you think it means. [/Montoya]

 

[wayne62682]

You keep saying "fallacy."

That word, it doesn't mean what you think it means. [/Montoya]

Probably not, but I was introduced to the idea of that as the "Oberoni Fallacy" back on the WotC boards:

Oberoni Fallacy (noun): The fallacy that the existence of a rule stating that, ‘the rules can be changed,’ can be used to excuse design flaws in the actual rules. Etymology, D&D message boards, a fallacy first formalized by member Oberoni.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I hate to do this but.. Oberoni Fallacy: Just because the DM can fix something doesn't mean that it's not a problem.

Oh believe me, I'm under no illusions that there was a problem with the math for many people that needed to be addressed. I'm just pointing out the reason some people got all up in arms about as to why it was a problem I just thought was rather silly... because more often than not, (based upon the build lists I see all over the place) I can barely imagine they would ever actually do what they claimed they would, which would be to use the feats they "lost" on ones that were meant for roleplaying rather than mechanical benefit. So they'd get pissy while trying to maintain some sort of moral roleplaying high ground. "You know, I would try and build my character with all sorts of roleplaying and fluff, but WotC won't LET me!"

Frankly, I don't have any horse in the race as to whether Expertise as a feat was good/bad, needed/unneeded (since I will just use it if it is, not use it if not)... but instead just try and point to people being more intellectually honest with themselves and us when making claims here on the boards.

But you know... maybe I'm just not giving people enough credit. Perhaps everyone here does speak completely rationally with absolutely *heh* no evidence *heh heh* of hyper-- *snicker* bo-- *heh heh* le... BWAHAHAHA!!!

Sorry, sorry! Couldn't keep it together. Woo! I kill me!

 

[Herschel]

Actually, fallacy means exactly what I think it does: incorrect reasoning resulting in a misconception.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Probably not,

You're fine; I was talking to Herschel.

 

[TarionzCousin]

When I'm a player, I want my character to hit 100% of the time. Is that so bad?

I'm even willing to take a feat to get that.