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

[Umbran]

The people who disagree are either unaware of all the facts or are aware of all the facts and are irrational. This isn't really subject to debate, it is nothing but facts...

Let me make everyone aware - unless you can show us all a legal document that says you've been appointed Arbiter of Reality, this form of argument is a complete wash. Rhetorically, this is an appeal to your own authority, and it fails completely to advance your cause unless you've already gotten people to accept your authority on the matter. And if they did, they'd probably have accepted your thoughts earlier. So if you need to say it, it won't help you.

More importantly, asserting that everyone who disagrees with you is either stupid, ignorant or somehow mentally not all together comes off as arrogant, and is rather insulting. It cheeses people off, and starts arguments.

So, really folks, avoid this kind of construction. Please and thanks.

 

[Herschel]

So, Expertise is either a fix /and/ a feat tax.

Or it's not a fix, and /is/ an overpowered feat that further widens the gulf between even a casual optimizer and any non-powergamers.

Can we all agree, then, that the Expertise feats are bad?

The issue with your point is it's made as an absolute( and from a biased viewpoint). That does not break down practical usage in any meaningful way. The foundation of your point has merit obviously, but your conclusion is simply flawed because it states an absolute when it's much more gray.

It works as a "fix" to balance trade-offs in a character. With so many options in the game, the math can get a bit wonky and rightfully so. That doesn't make it a "need" every character.

It is very strong (and rather bland), but "over-powered" is further than I would say it is.

As for the "optimizers", they need to realize the game isn't about them. They're kind of useless in figuring out the playability of a game because they are trying to milk the system by nature.

It also paints everyone with too broad a brush. Some people will build accuracy, some for damage, some for defense, some for shear weirdness. Most will mix & match and do so in degrees and everyone's degree is different. Sure, expertise can widen the gulf but that doesn't mean it always does because again, people generally don't build in absolutes.

So no, I don't think they are bad, I do think they are bland and very powerful. I like having an option in the game if I don't want to stat-match a race/class or take a +2 proficiency weapon because I have a theme in mind. I also don't mind having the option to boost my accuracy if I so desire. They're not my favorite feats, but they're not the end of the world either.

 

[tiornys]

It is very strong (and rather bland), but "over-powered" is further than I would say it is.

If you're going to argue that the Expertise feats are not over-powered, you should provide examples of other feats that you believe have a similar power level. In my opinion, the only combat-related feats that are even close are the Expertise-modeled racial attack boosting feats for dragonborn and gnomes, and frankly I include those under the Expertise label, as they are clearly intended as alternatives to Expertise. If you can't provide relevant examples, you're effectively conceding that no other feats are close to being as powerful as the Expertise feats are--and that's the definition of an overpowered game element.

t~

 

[Tony Vargas]

The issue with your point is it's made as an absolute( and from a biased viewpoint). That does not break down practical usage in any meaningful way. The foundation of your point has merit obviously, but your conclusion is simply flawed because it states an absolute when it's much more gray.

It works as a "fix" to balance trade-offs in a character. With so many options in the game, the math can get a bit wonky and rightfully so. That doesn't make it a "need" every character.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'balance trade-offs in a character.' The better balanced a game is, the more choices are a matter of trading-off something valuable for something equally valuable, if different. While 4e delivered never-before-seen-in-D&D levels of class balance, it hasn't delivered quite as well with feats. Initially, feats were rather weak or carried heavy preqs. But, now, feats vary wildly from fiddly and virtually useless, to worthwhile, to overpowered. Expertise feats are so far over on the 'overpowered' side that they're prettymuch in a class by themselves.

The rationale for making them so powerful is that they plug a 'math hole.' If they successfuly plug that hole, they are a 'feat tax.' If they do not, they are overpowered. Either way, they are /bad/.

If, as you suggest, they can't be judged because the system as a whole is so wonky it's impossible to draw any conclusions about it, then the whole system is just crap.

 

[Herschel]

I look at it more as an if/then as in if I make these choices then I'll want expertise. If I make "more accurate" choices then I won't need it. It's powerful enough I may still want it but I don't need it.

The math gets wonky because characters face varied baddies. They have different defenses, etc. If things get too homogenous, they get boring.

 

[TheUltramark]

again, I hate to bring down the average intelligence level of this thread with my own brand of dim-wittedness, but...

is toughness a feat-tax too? Isn't it in the "must have" range of feats?

also - 20 rounds for an epic fight and only two hours isnt so bad. In a 2e game I played in, the big fight at the end of one particular campaign was easily 4 hours long, and pulse pounding, nail-biting, edge-of-your-seat the entire time.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

again, I hate to bring down the average intelligence level of this thread with my own brand of dim-wittedness, but...

is toughness a feat-tax too? Isn't it in the "must have" range of feats?

well if I remember right there was atleast a small group a few months ago that had a list longer then the heroic teir amount of feats you get that were 'must have' and there complaint was that it was all forced on them as a feat tax...

I know in my home games one player calls the following ones:

Sup weap prof
Expertise
Weapon focus
Paragon def
some AC up (eaither better armor, unarmored agility)

to the point of not playing in a game that the DM said no sup weapons until after 5th level...

he mostly plays Avengers, Rouges and Rangers (more then 2 of each so far)

he also will not play a race/class combo that does not give +2 to both his prim and second stat (although we do have another player that does that as well)

 

[tiornys]

again, I hate to bring down the average intelligence level of this thread with my own brand of dim-wittedness, but...

is toughness a feat-tax too? Isn't it in the "must have" range of feats?

Toughness is a nice feat, but it has nowhere near the power level of epic-tier Expertise (epic tier being where Expertise grants +3, which is the point where it becomes ridiculously overpowered).

Toughness represents at most a 28% increase in HP (L1 Wizard, 8 Con, no HP boosting background), but by level 2 that drops to 23%, and the percentage continues to drop as the character levels, with spikes at level 11 (17%) and 21 (15%). By level 30, it's only an 11% increase in HP. This is a somewhat unrealistic but best case for Toughness.

By Epic tier, a highly optimized character without Expertise can be hitting an on-level skirmisher 75% of the time (20 starting stat bumped every level, Fighter/Rogue weapon talent, +3 proficiency weapon, Kensei, stat-boosting Epic Destiny, +5 weapon at level 21). In this worst case scenario for the power level of Expertise, +3 to hit represents a 20% increase in the character's offense. Put this character at level 30 (with a +6 weapon), and the percentage increase is 23%.

So, in a worst case for Expertise and best case for Toughness, Expertise is still a significantly larger boost to a character's offense than Toughness is a boost to character's durability, except for a couple of levels at the start of a character's career.

If you consider more "average" cases, the comparison is even more lopsided. That is, for a L1 striker/leader with 25 base HP, Toughness is a 20% gain (13% at 11, 12% at 21, 9% at 30), while for a character who starts with an 18, uses a +3 proficiency weapon, takes a stat-boosting epic destiny, and already has a +5 weapon at L21, Expertise is a 25% boost (30% at level 30).

And this doesn't address the concept that character offense is more important than character defense, or that Expertise has a more comprehensive effect on offense than Toughness has on durability.

So, no, I wouldn't consider Toughness to be at "must-have" power level (or more accurately, I don't consider Toughness to be overpowered, let alone ridiculously overpowered).

t~

 

[MrGrenadine]

Toughness is a nice feat, but it has nowhere near the power level of epic-tier Expertise (epic tier being where Expertise grants +3, which is the point where it becomes ridiculously overpowered).

I agree, except I wouldn't label Expertise 'overpowered'. Toughness is not a feat tax, because its not necessary to make the game work as intended.

Furthermore, in 4e, hitting is everything. If you need to decide between buffing attacks or damage, buff attacks. If you need to decide between buffing attacks or hp, buff attacks. If there's a chance to buff attacks or anything else, buff attacks.

Hitting doesn't just deplete the opponents' hp--its also necessary to add status effects to enemies, or removes status effects from allies. Hitting triggers healing, allows the attacker to teleport or stop an enemy from teleporting. Hitting allows pushes, pulls, slides.

Its all about hitting.

That being said, according to the game's designers, characters should be hitting a minimum of 55% of the time. If a character can do that without taking Expertise, then all is well. But, if a character can't consistently hit on a 10 or better--which is true more often than not because, in part, monster defenses scale faster than PC attack bonuses--then Expertise is a must-have.

 

[TheUltramark]

Toughness is a nice feat, but it has nowhere near the power level of epic-tier Expertise (epic tier being where Expertise grants +3, which is the point where it becomes ridiculously overpowered).

Toughness represents at most a 28% increase in HP (L1 Wizard, 8 Con, no HP boosting background), but by level 2 that drops to 23%, and the percentage continues to drop as the character levels, with spikes at level 11 (17%) and 21 (15%). By level 30, it's only an 11% increase in HP. This is a somewhat unrealistic but best case for Toughness.

By Epic tier, a highly optimized character without Expertise can be hitting an on-level skirmisher 75% of the time (20 starting stat bumped every level, Fighter/Rogue weapon talent, +3 proficiency weapon, Kensei, stat-boosting Epic Destiny, +5 weapon at level 21). In this worst case scenario for the power level of Expertise, +3 to hit represents a 20% increase in the character's offense. Put this character at level 30 (with a +6 weapon), and the percentage increase is 23%.

So, in a worst case for Expertise and best case for Toughness, Expertise is still a significantly larger boost to a character's offense than Toughness is a boost to character's durability, except for a couple of levels at the start of a character's career.

If you consider more "average" cases, the comparison is even more lopsided. That is, for a L1 striker/leader with 25 base HP, Toughness is a 20% gain (13% at 11, 12% at 21, 9% at 30), while for a character who starts with an 18, uses a +3 proficiency weapon, takes a stat-boosting epic destiny, and already has a +5 weapon at L21, Expertise is a 25% boost (30% at level 30).

And this doesn't address the concept that character offense is more important than character defense, or that Expertise has a more comprehensive effect on offense than Toughness has on durability.

So, no, I wouldn't consider Toughness to be at "must-have" power level (or more accurately, I don't consider Toughness to be overpowered, let alone ridiculously overpowered).

t~

if you make a 30th level character, then yeah, toughness might not be so great

if you make a 1st level character, it REALLY comes in handy (almost to the point of being a must have for the defender, no?)