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

[Aulirophile]

All the math asks is "Does parity exist?" "No." Done. If you want to argue that parity isn't important... well, in the extreme example in an encounter built to guidelines (so not going outside of system expectations) you cannot hit except on a 20. Does that seem intended? No? Well... done, then. It not only isn't intended, but in some cases it is really God damn important.

Expertise is necessary for the system to function as intended. That is beyond dispute, the system does not "work fine" without it... it might work, but that is not the same thing at all.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Expertise is necessary for the system to function as intended. That is beyond dispute, the system does not "work fine" without it... it might work, but that is not the same thing at all.

As it stands now, it's necessary, but not sufficient... because everyone has to take Expertise for it to work as a math-fix (in which case it becomes a 'feat tax').

 

[Aulirophile]

It doesn't maintain the minimum, though, does it. Because it's optional, not automatic. An automatic 'tier bonus' would fix the math.

OTOH, if it's so good/obvious that it everyone takes it, sure, it 'maintains the minimum' - but it's also a feat tax.

It maintains it if you take it. You won't find me arguing it shouldn't be baked into the system inherently or that the current fix isn't a feat tax.. but some people don't accept the reality that it

1.) Actually is a fix to a real issue, according to the people who made the game.
2.) Is therefore a feat tax.

What to do about this situation is different from just getting people to acknowledge that is how the math works out and the devs said so, so we know that is the case anyway. Though if everyone would acknowledge that, and they should, the developers would no doubt be more inclined to errata in an actual fix.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

So three posts in a row ignore tha people who disagree and declare victory there point proven the first post here I said nOthing was proven people just said "I am right" and stopes talking even ignoring points we made...




Can I just start posting I proved it unnnescery ???

 

[Aulirophile]

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 (with one fact missing that would complete the story of why, but it isn't necessary). Those are the options.

Now how to fix it is certainly subject to debate. The devs think Expertise Feat+another feat rolled in to make it taste better is the best fix, at least at the moment. Some people, like you, think it doesn't need to be fixed and the system limps along just fine. That is an opinion and is subjective, so you can't prove it one way or the other, only objective information can be proved or disproved.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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?

No ... As I have said before I feel they are fine but I would tweak them slightly

 

[TheUltramark]

here is my next question about this....
how many rounds is a combat encounter "supposed" to go in the minds of people who give a crap about that sort of thing?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

here is my next question about this....
how many rounds is a combat encounter "supposed" to go in the minds of people who give a crap about that sort of thing?

I find that 3-7 is best but for big slog feasts 8 or 9 any time the round count gets to 10 or over 2 hrs (at epic we had it once or twice)

 

[tiornys]

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?

Man, I've been saying this since they created the Expertise feats. And GMforPowergamers has disagreed for just as long. I doubt we're going to change his mind this time around.

But, to address his actual argument: the added factors are necessary to make up for the disparity between player at-will DPR and monster HP. Seriously. It takes more at-will attacks to kill a 30th level monster than it does to kill a 1st level monster; however, a 30th level PC has access to a lot more options to help them do more than at-will DPR than a 1st level PC.

So, Expertise fixes the accuracy gap. Improved Defenses (partially) fixes the defensive gap. Epic NAD feats fix the weak NAD (or NADs on some characters) while overpowering the strong (or moderate) NADs. Masterwork Armor fixes the AC gap. Encounter/Daily/Utility powers, items, and teamwork compensate for the HP gap.

All of those but the last are easy to spell out mathematically. You can demonstrate the HP gap with reasonable precision, but demonstrating closure of the gap is exceedingly messy. Which is fine, because that's where a lot of the meat of the game lies. The fact that it's possible to ramp power selection, synergies, and teamwork to the point where you start compensating for other gaps does not invalidate the existence of those gaps.

t~