What's the big deal with "feat taxes?"

[Tequila Sunrise]

ok first I am very careful...much more then my 2e days when I would make stuff up all the time. Now I am careful, but I still hombrew... I have in my current game homebrew firearms, homebrew themes (more like darksun)

Good for you. I'm careful with homebrew creations too. But giving away the feat taxes for free is a house rule, and it's a lot simpler than homebrewing. There aren't a thousand possible combinations and implications of implementing a math fix. It's just numbers.

to be honnest I already have little faith in his ability, or free feats...but I am giving both a chance...and it will show how it works...

Glad to hear it. I just hope you don't end up conflating "poor DM judgment ruined this game" with "a couple free feats ruined this game."

It also appeared in 3rd Ed, with a large percentage of feats for any archer also being largely static. Anyone who wanted to be an archer *always* loaded up on Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, and Rapid Shot (often as their first three feats out of 7 baseline feats alloted). Manyshot was also taken pretty extensively. This made all archer characters tend to look and act pretty much the same.

Not to mention every non-Str melee PC having Weapon Finesse.

3e definitely had feat taxes too, even if the term hadn't been coined yet.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

You'd be more effective with expertiese, with all of one base assumption: are we talking about a warlord that swings and are we talking at upper heroic or higher?

There are things better then +1 to hit, not terribly many, but there are, when it gets to +2, there really isn't better. +3 is right out.

And really, you can stand there and just shift for flanking and drop an occasional heal and be an effective warlord. taclords make people hit when they want to, resourceful ones just give out free candy regardless of the situation..

ok so what happens when I hit and the guy with expertise misses?


In my group the guy with expertise throws a fit... So we all remember him missing more then me...

So again who is punished by me needing a 13 instead of a 12? 5% of the attack rolls in the heroic teir will miss by 1

So let's say 10 encounters per level and 8 will be combT 12-13 rounds per fight means about 100 attack rolls so that feat will effect about 5 attacks...

Oh and it will be double at paragon and triple at Epic so 10 and 15... You know in theory 30 attacks through out the game...


We can even be nice and double that... Is one feat that turns 60 misses into hits over 30 levels really that needed?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Except that baseline isn't a set number.

Er, yes. It is.

That's been mentioned a lot.

That's where the feat tax OCDs have lost their minds.

Are you sure this isn't where you've decided to stick your fingers in your ears, stick your tongue out, and make "LALALALALA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" noises?

Or maybe we can refrain from being insulting about this?

 

[Ryujin]

Except that baseline isn't a set number. That's where the feat tax OCDs have lost their minds. Different roled baddies have different numbers. Claiming it's some sort of God-given right to hit everything at a certain clip is, well, really overboard. There's a very big difference between 'you should hit around 55% of the time' to 'you will hit 55% of the time or more'. The 55% is a general sense, not an absolute sense. The only way to actually guarantee that hit rate is to

1. modify all monster defenses down,

2. make them all even,

3. remove random elements,

4. remove all negative status effects,

5. guarantee everyone is using monsters of that level ...

6. ...against characters only of same said level,

7. remove all proficiency bonuses,

8. and ability modifiers,

9. etc.

Even in as basic of a system as 1e there was weapon specialization and, with Unearthed Arcana, double secret probation specialization. Was that a proficiency tax for fighter classes?

I hate missing as much as anyone, and maybe more than most, but this sense of entitlement because someone glommed on to something said at a seminar is really ridiculous.

Another question: If we weren't meant to miss, why do so many powers have miss effects?

And yet there are hard numbers, laid out in the Players Strategy Guide (on page 112), that explicitly says this. It isn't "because someone glommed on to something said at a seminar"; it's based on a Wizards product release.

This is on average; a basic framework, from which the variations are hung. There have to be basic assumptions made, if you're going to be able to create variations on them.

 

[Herschel]

Er, yes. It is.

That's been mentioned a lot.

Are you sure this isn't where you've decided to stick your fingers in your ears, stick your tongue out, and make "LALALALALA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" noises?

Or maybe we can refrain from being insulting about this?

Maybe you could refrain from being insulting? Pot, meet kettle.

What is the "baseline"? Is it an equal-level Brute? Lurker? Artillery? And do all of them have the same defenses?

No.

You post about absolutes when there are none. You and your ilk have twisted a general statement and made it in to some sort of crusade to suck the nuance out of the game in pusuit of absolutes. But the absolutes STILL AREN'T THERE. That's the point. You can get close, but that's really the best anyone can expect in the game without making it into a joyless exercise.

With MM3 mods and Expertise, etc. the game plays "faster", but is that necessarily better? No. It may be better in certain cases, arguably most, but not necessarily. If you never need at-wills by Epic, for example, does it really even matter if their damage increases?

Expertise feats are generally bland, easy and obvious, but those are aspects of previous editions lapsed players seemed to have desired as well as making it easier for new players. Do I like them? Not really, but I do get a kick out of all the internet weasels screaming "Gotcha game designers, you screwed up and I'm smarter than you!".

 

[Herschel]

This is on average; a basic framework, from which the variations are hung. There have to be basic assumptions made, if you're going to be able to create variations on them.

Most definitely, but there's a crowd that feels the base framework is an absolute. THAT'S where I find them completely uncredible. They don't qualify with words like around or about, they state hard numbers as absolutes. There are so many factors that go in to if you actually hit with an attack and looking at one in a vacuum is inaccurate and silly.

 

[MrMyth]

Except that baseline isn't a set number. That's where the feat tax OCDs have lost their minds.

Do we really need the insults?

Yes, other modifiers exist in the game. Here's the key, though - they still exist when the feat taxes come into play.

Let's go to the 55% number. Just to clarify, it isn't an expectation that this will be your bonus vs every enemy. But let's say it is the expected hit chance against an average foe. If you have one character who uses combat advantage to get to 55%, and someone else who does so via Expertise, it's all good, right?

Well... no. Because when the person with Expertise has CA, he now is ahead. And if the game becomes balanced against him, the person without Expertise will fall farther behind. Now, at low levels, farther behind is not much - but by Paragon and beyond, it gets bigger.

And, as mentioned, it is exacerbated by the fact that those who know to take Expertise are likely also the ones with high primary stats, who know all the tricks to ensure combat advantage, who have various power bonuses regularly coming into play, etc. And so the difference between them and the fellow who doesn't normally think to take Expertise... just gets bigger and bigger.

 

[keterys]

Cut out the insults, in general. There's no need for it, and I know you can all avoid them if you choose.

I'm not certain there's a lot of good left to discuss in this thread, but discuss only the subject matter without referring to BS, OCD, fingers in ear, or any direct attack or address against a poster, okay?

Thanks.

 

[Herschel]

Well... no. Because when the person with Expertise has CA, he now is ahead. And if the game becomes balanced against him, the person without Expertise will fall farther behind. Now, at low levels, farther behind is not much - but by Paragon and beyond, it gets bigger.

And, as mentioned, it is exacerbated by the fact that those who know to take Expertise are likely also the ones with high primary stats, who know all the tricks to ensure combat advantage, who have various power bonuses regularly coming into play, etc. And so the difference between them and the fellow who doesn't normally think to take Expertise... just gets bigger and bigger.

So you're left with two options:

1. "Screw the n00bs, they aren't worth playing with because they don't adhere to my expectations."

or

2. "Screw the game because the level of customization allows for more character disparity than I want."

Also remember "allows for" doesn't necessarily mean "will be present."

There's a lot of players who will also get lazy with expertise, feeling they don't have to worry about "all that other stuff" any more (which I've seen a few times also). The disparity is also situational.

There are so many variables in the game that getting so fixated on one really doesn't tell the whole story.

 

[MrMyth]

So you're left with two options:

1. "Screw the n00bs, they aren't worth playing with because they don't adhere to my expectations."

or

2. "Screw the game because the level of customization allows for more character disparity than I want."

Also remember "allows for" doesn't necessarily mean "will be present."

I don't think those extremes are the only options. For myself, though, I probably fall into the second camp - I think 4E at the start did a very good job of preventing an array of character options while preventing disparity from being too large. Since then, I think the potential difference between ordinary and optimized has grown, and Expertise is definitely part of that equation. In my games, I generally give it out for free or remove it entirely - we simply don't need feats so obviously unbalanced compared to other options.

There are so many variables in the game that getting so fixated on one really doesn't tell the whole story.

What precisely are you arguing against here? The recognition of the power of Expertise? The debate against whether or not it is necessary for the appropriate hit precentage in the game?

Yes, this is a complex game with many factors. That doesn't mean we can't analyze individual elements, and come to conclusions about whether those elements are good or bad. That doesn't mean we can't discuss what impact they have on the game and why they were designed. If the math isn't important to you, that is all well and good, but it is important to some folks, and saying that because of the complexity of the game, any individual element is off limits... well, that really isn't your call to make.