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

[Dannyalcatraz]

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.

Playing a Gas Spore, are we?

 

[Jhaelen]

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.

Well, _I_ don't even visit any threads where someone is asking for 'a build'. I don't believe in 'builds', I believe in characters that have abilities that match their backstory.

This is like being surprised by a CO board member suggesting your ranger should take twin-strike.

None of my characters have any expertise feats. One of my characters has the 'Dragonborn Sorcerer' feat (the one that grants +1 attack/damage if a power's damage type matches your dragon breath's type) but that's only because I only gave him Cha 14 (+2 racial for 16).

And imho, that's the only legitimate reason for the existence of the expertise feat: To make sure your character stays viable even if you've made suboptimal choices when creating the character.

 

[MrMyth]

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 think I disagree, both about the fault being on the DM, and the ease by which this can be done.

If there is a flaw in the game, then yes, a good DM can overcome it. But that doesn't mean the flaw still didn't originate in the rules themselves, and in an ideal system, he shouldn't have to spend any effort fixing such a problem.

Even if a DM can do so, that doesn't change the fact that it is not always as easy as you suggest. Especially as the gap between optimized and non-optimized characters grows. At the extreme, in order to persent an enemy that your optimized character doesn't easily hit, you are presenting an enemy that the average character can only hit on a 20 - that's a problem.

How do you address that? Include different monsters for different PCs, and encourage them only to attack the ones intended for them to fight? Or build enemies that focus on a players weaknesses - but if you bypass one characters AC by attacking his Reflex in every single encounter, it gets real old, real fast.

The flaw remains in the system. Even if a DM is willing to invest the time to address it, he really shouldn't have to - especially since it may not even solve the problem if it gets too extreme.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I think I disagree, both about the fault being on the DM, and the ease by which this can be done.

If there is a flaw in the game, then yes, a good DM can overcome it. But that doesn't mean the flaw still didn't originate in the rules themselves, and in an ideal system, he shouldn't have to spend any effort fixing such a problem.

Even if a DM can do so, that doesn't change the fact that it is not always as easy as you suggest. Especially as the gap between optimized and non-optimized characters grows. At the extreme, in order to persent an enemy that your optimized character doesn't easily hit, you are presenting an enemy that the average character can only hit on a 20 - that's a problem.

How do you address that? Include different monsters for different PCs, and encourage them only to attack the ones intended for them to fight? Or build enemies that focus on a players weaknesses - but if you bypass one characters AC by attacking his Reflex in every single encounter, it gets real old, real fast.

The flaw remains in the system. Even if a DM is willing to invest the time to address it, he really shouldn't have to - especially since it may not even solve the problem if it gets too extreme.

I agree with you.

This argument (both sides) is starting to resemble that other thread, the 1600-post monster, though on a lesser scale. You have people arguing that it isn't a system problem because they don't experience it or see it, arguing that any 'good' DM can just patch it on the fly, and the other side of that coin where the argument is that you shouldn't have to fix something in the rules to make the game work as intended.

I, again, fall into the latter camp, but it seems this is not a popular position. *shrug*

 

[MrMyth]

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

P/A stance?

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.

The feats never help make up the difference. The optimizer will always take them. The player who has already chosen not to optimize may or may not. You will basically never have a situation where the character with average stats picks Expertise and is able to catch up to the character who maxed his stats and then... didn't take Expertise.

Meanwhile, if I make a non-optimized character, 'not having fun' isn't something that happens during the desing process. It is something that happens during the game, when I discover how far behind my character is compared to the optimized PC. I'm not sure where badwrongfun comes into this.

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

When the PHB came out, there was a certain gap between an average PC and an optimized one. Say we had a Cleric at epic levels... at level 21. Starting with Str 16, he is up to Str 22. With a +5 Warhammer, he has an attack bonus of +23.

Say we also have a Fighter. He started with Str 20, and gets an extra +1 to hit from being a fighter, and went Kensai for another +1 to hit, and Demigod to boost his Str by another 2, and has a +5 Bastard Sword with a +3 proficiency. His attack bonus is +29.

That's a difference of +6, which basically covers the gap between the two extremes - the PC who hasn't made any effort to optimize at all, and the one who has.

Add in Expertise, which increases that potential gap by 3 points - by half again as much - via a single feat.

In the PHB, a feat might be considered exceptional if it gave +1 to hit on a conditional basis. Expertise feats now give 3 times that all day long, and usually with other potent benefits as well.

Both of those differences - the degree to which the feats expand the gap, and the difference in power between those feats and other 'good' feats - is, yes, what I would consider extreme.

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

Sure. But, in an ideal game, those numbers are reasonably balanced. That was, in fact, one of the goals of 4E. Why should we set that aside now? What advantage do we gain by doing so?

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.

No one is physically forced to take them, no. But the presence of feats so far superior to other choices does unbalance the feat selection process, and does make it more possible to end up feeling 'encouraged' to take them.

You mention wanting to take it since you might have a character who is a few points behind another character in accuracy, and are already feeling that lack. What happens if you didn't plan to take it but wanted to take something else, and suddenly the Fullblade wielder also has Expertise and is even farther ahead of you?

That sort of dilemma is, to me, a problem.

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.

Let's say we're at epic levels. My main weapon is a +5 sword, but I also carry a +3 javelin if I need to target something at range. It's heavy thrown, so I get to keep my str in the equation, but I accept that, between the lower proficiency and enhancement bonus, I won't be great with it. My attacks with it will be at -3 compared to my normal attacks - a hindrance, but it still can be occasionally useful.

Add Expertise to the equation, and the game's assumption that Expertise is in play. My attacks with the javelin will be at -6 compared to my normal attacks. That's a big difference.

Similar, say I spot a +5 Greataxe of Demonslaying, and want to pick it up and deliver the deathblow to this Balor who is beating the crap out of the party? Without expertise, switching away from a favored weapon would not cost anyone too much unless they are really built around that weapon - a few points of damage or the like. But suddenly being at -3 to hit... and why bother?

I don't object to feats that support the use of a favored weapon. But the benefits of Expertise are so extreme that they effectively limit your options once they are in play - just one more mark against them, in my book.

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.

Except that we already have that represented in the game, via something called proficiency. If I'm actually untrained in the use of greatswords, I will indeed be at a penalty if I just grab one and start swinging. But if I am trained, shouldn't I expect to be able to make decent use of it once it becomes available?

So yeah, it works on the realism level. And on the level of what is fun for the game, a style of play that limits your options for no particular benefit is not what I would consider good for the game.

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

Well, sure. But the game offered different expectations at launch, and this one single element is the primary component that has disrupted those elements. And, in my experience, has caused or has the potential to cause quite a few problems, as I have described above.

 

[MrMyth]

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.

I think the Superior Weapons/Implements are close behind Expertise in being universal, but none of the others even come close.

And even the Superior Weapons... if I upgrade to a really cool weapon, it might give me +1 to hit. Or, more often, will give me an extra +1 or so damage per W, or some conditional damage in the form of High Crit, or defensive benefits. Same thing for the Superior Implements - either just +1 to hit, or a conditional +1 to hit and some damage, or some other minor unique effects.

Expertise gives me between +1 and +3 to hit, plus other benefits. Which could themselves be another untyped +1 to +3 damage, or benefits like not granting combat advantage or not provoking with ranged and area attacks...

There is simply such a huge difference between that and the ones you list. Sure, many common optimized builds take them, but not all of them - giving them up for other choices, whether build-specific choices or reasons of flavor or otherwise, those are relatively easy to do.

But how many characters will you see at Paragon levels without Expertise?

I'm in one game that has been played since level 1, and is just into Paragon levels. Our Human Ranger has Action Surge and Weapon Focus and Expertise (but no Superior Weapon Proficiency). Our Dwarven Paladin has Expertise. Our Human Warlock has Action Surge and Expertise. Our Human Bard has Expertise. Our Dwarven Invoker has Expertise. Our Dragonborn Fighter has Superior Weapon Proficiency and Expertise.

Notice the one common denominator?

In another 5-player Paragon game (started at level 15, up to level 18), it is a dungeon crawl with a heavy emphasis on optimization. And even there, 4 players don't have Toughness. 3 players don't have superior weapons or implements. 2 players don't have Action Surge (even though all characters are human) and 1 player doesn't have Weapon or Implement Focus.

Everyone has Expertise.

 

[Herschel]

And I play with 18 different Pargaon level characters in three different games ranging from Level 11 to 17 and you know how many players have an Expertise feat? 3. Add in the Six I DM for? It becomes 5.

 

[AntiStateQuixote]

I gotta go with [MENTION=61155]MrMyth[/MENTION] on this one. Since the introduction of the Expertise feat I've seen doznes of characters in our home game. I can't recall a single one that didn't have Expertise by 6th level.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Everyone has Expertise.

Well, again... my point was never that this wasn't true. My point has always been the reason some people have given as to why the creation of the feats were bad, I have thought is kind of ridiculous.

The points being made about how it doesn't bridge the gap between optimized/non-optimized characters, or how it was a weaker fix to the math than some other options would have been... those I'm right there with you. I understand and in many ways agree with those sentiments.

It was specifically those people who made the claim that they were losing roleplaying feat slots because they HAD to take Expertise that has made me look at those claims askance.

***

The one other point I'd like to make though is in reference to what Nemesis Destiny mentioned with regards to the arguments here starting on the path of the other thread. As he said...

You have people arguing that it isn't a system problem because they don't experience it or see it, arguing that any 'good' DM can just patch it on the fly, and the other side of that coin where the argument is that you shouldn't have to fix something in the rules to make the game work as intended.

I think the reason why this continues as it does is because of one salient point... those that argue the latter half of that quote are arguing for something that can't exist. It's too late. The math already got screwed up. Expertise exists. Both of these points are true and unchanging. So to keep stating in threads like this that WotC shouldn't have screwed the math up in the first place, or that they should have found a better solution than Expertise to fix it... is to argue for nothing. In fact, you really aren't arguing, you're just venting.

Where the real argument occurs is after the fact, when people like Herschel or myself then make posts stating "well, here's how you could get around the problems you have"... which is basically presenting a solution that you really didn't ask for, for a problem you actually don't have. You (and I mean the royal 'you', not you Nemesis Destiny specifically) don't need to know how to "make due" with the problems that now exist because of Expertise... you know how you can get around it if you really need to. Your real problem is just that it exists. And short of Herschel or I somehow turning back time to a point when PHII was being developed and clocking James Wyatt et. al. over the head when they come up with the idea for expertise... there is no way we can actually solve anything. Herschel and I are wasting our breath under the mistaken hope we can convince you to stop arguing for something that can't happen.

And THAT'S when the bickering starts.

Unfortunately, there are only two solutions to this. One is for our camp to stop posting work-arounds for problems you folks don't actually have and to just let you have your vent... and the other is for you folks to stop posting wishes for things you can never have. If either of our sides could restrain ourselves on either of these two points, this circular argument wouldn't continue.

 

[Herschel]

The feats never help make up the difference. The optimizer will always take them. The player who has already chosen not to optimize may or may not. You will basically never have a situation where the character with average stats picks Expertise and is able to catch up to the character who maxed his stats and then... didn't take Expertise.

Here's where your (and others') point completely breaks down: Optimizers aren't the be all/end all of game play. Pure optimizers are the disgusting, narcissistic funk on the bottom of your shoe whose only goal is to milk every mathematical bonus out of the game in a vain and misguided attempt to "prove" their smarter than the designers and "win" the game. You take them in to account but you can't let them limit you otherwise you have an incredibly sterile game that even semi-well-adjusted people will avoid. So the Op-weenie crows "I just hit on a 3 for 872 r0xx0rs damage per round" while other gamers just roll their eyes and have fun doing something cool. No big deal.