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

[Tequila Sunrise]

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

I guarantee any true power gamer is thinking "Why didn't he just take expertise?"

And again, you're focusing on the levels where the math hole is shallowest. Expertise and Improved Defenses aren't so important in heroic, but paragon and epic is another story.

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

As Ryujin mentioned, the information is right there on page 112 of the PSG:

Character
Attack vs. AC: 6 + level
Attack vs. NAD: 4 + level
AC: 15 + level
NADs: 13 + level

Monster
Attack vs. AC: 5 + level
Attack vs. NAD: 3 + level
AC: 14 + level
NADs: 12 + level

(The monster numbers happen to match the DMG guidelines for skirmisher type monsters.)

 

[Herschel]

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.

I agree.

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.

Here's where we differ. I don't see them as unbalanced, but rather an option. Would that they have been worded more compex (such as only weapon-using characters with a 16 or lower attack stat and a +2 or non-proficient weapon) I think they would have been better, but then they become needlessly complicated.

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.

Analyzing individual elements is fine and good, it's the annoying "gotcha" mentality so many gamers put around it that is bothersome. IMO they are powerful, kind of dull and do allow for a certain "dumbing down" of game play.

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.

I'm not trying to say discussing an element is "off limits" but I am saying that derogatory terms like "feat tax" are inflamatory, not accurate and not conducive to actual open discussion. You don't need them. They're just one of the choices you can make. A powerful choice, yes, but not a necessary one. Saying they're necessary is myopic, at best, due to the other factors involved.

 

[Herschel]

I guarantee any true power gamer is thinking "Why didn't he just take expertise?"

Who cares? That's "power gamer" arrogance, not be-all/end-all game playability.

And again, you're focusing on the levels where the math hole is shallowest. Expertise and Improved Defenses aren't so important in heroic, but paragon and epic is another story.

Paragon and Epic do change, but so do the other goodies characters get. I have my seventeenth-level Swordmage and you can be darned sure I'm taking Improved defenses (as well as Greater Swormage Warding, etc.) because that's the type of character I'm playing. In another paragon group, the Wizard playing behind a front line of Fighter, Paladin, Avenger, Barbarian and Spirit Companion really doesn't need much defensive help most times.

(The monster numbers happen to match the DMG guidelines for skirmisher type monsters.)

Exactly. One monster role built at guideline. That's a fine baseline, but too many present it as across all types in absolutist terms.

 

[MrMyth]

Here's where we differ. I don't see them as unbalanced, but rather an option. Would that they have been worded more compex (such as only weapon-using characters with a 16 or lower attack stat and a +2 or non-proficient weapon) I think they would have been better, but then they become needlessly complicated.

Just to again clarify, I said "unbalanced compared to other options". I don't believe they actually break the game, though I do believe they are harmful to it.

But I don't think you can deny that they aren't balanced against other options. Many other feats offer you, say, a conditional +1 bonus to hit. Often under specific circumstances like having combat advantage or making an opportunity attack.

Expertise, in return, offers a scaling +1/2/3 bonus to hit, effectively all the time. And, these days, often includes other very potent benefits as well.

If one operates under the idea that the idea of a 'feat tax' is incorrect - that this feat is not required to be taken, and that it is intended entirely as a normal feat to be measured alongside other feats, it clearly has not been balanced in the same fashion that other feats have. Which is, normally, terrible game design.

The argument that is made to answer this is that it is a 'feat tax'. I don't see anything insulting about the term - it represents the belief that the designers feel everyone should be taking this feat, and that it is intended to patch an issue with the core math of the game. As such, it isn't subject to the normal design limitations of other feats.

Thus, some believe it is overpowered but that is fine because it serves an important role in the game. Others feel it is simply overpowered and isn't needed at all, and thus is problematic. And others might find it overpowered but not enough so to actually care, which I sense is the area that you fall into.

But I don't think one can suggest it is appropriately balanced against other options. And in my mind, it doesn't help characters who start with 16 in a stat and a +2 proficiency weapon... instead, it only helps make it possible for them to be farther and farther behind.

 

[Ryujin]

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.

And yet those factors are not included in that base calculation. Try obtaining the numbers for, say, a mid-Paragon character without Expertise or those 'other factors', and see how (un)easy it is.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I'm not trying to say discussing an element is "off limits" but I am saying that derogatory terms like "feat tax" are inflamatory, not accurate and not conducive to actual open discussion. You don't need them. They're just one of the choices you can make. A powerful choice, yes, but not a necessary one. Saying they're necessary is myopic, at best, due to the other factors involved.

"Feat taxes" may or may not be inflammatory, but the term gets people thinking about the game. Which is a good thing, IMO, even if they end up disagreeing with me. And like it or not, the term is fairly accurate. Like real taxes, you don't have to pay them if you've got something to prove, but the benefits of paying your taxes outweighs the benefits of not doing so.

Who cares? That's "power gamer" arrogance, not be-all/end-all game playability.

Didn't say it is. I was merely responding to GM's* "who's suffering?" question.

Personally I think "Who's suffering by implementing a real math fix?" is a better question. But of course, I already know the answer from experience: nobody. System mastery has one less way to screw over the casual players, and the power gamers have one less reason to grind their teeth. Everybody wins!

*Sorry dude, but your handle is way too long not to shorten.

Exactly. One monster role built at guideline. That's a fine baseline, but too many present it as across all types in absolutist terms.

I don't think anyone has. Some of us may express ourselves poorly, and/or you may be misinterpreting us. But I can assure you that nobody wants everyone to hit 55%, always.

And speaking for myself, I don't hold myself above the devs. They dealing with deadlines, rules changes, and stress -- and so they made a silly mistake. It happens to the best of us.

 

[C4]

But maybe someone thinks, that classes without melee training do their job well enough... and spending a feat is just fair and balanced...

Yes, and I'm sure some players would think that paying a feat just to add half their level to attacks/defenses would be fair and balanced. (Really. Many of the same people would be arguing for it, if it had been RAW.) That doesn't make it so. To be clear, I'm not defending or denying Melee Training as a feat tax, I'm just explaining why DMs don't simply hand out extra feat slots.

sometimes taxes are what they are... a price you pay for a different benefit...

And eventually you realize that unlike real taxes, feat taxes serve no purpose.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I guarantee any true power gamer is thinking "Why didn't he just take expertise?"

T wich I answer...There were feats I wanted more...

And again, you're focusing on the levels where the math hole is shallowest. Expertise and Improved Defenses aren't so important in heroic, but paragon and epic is another story.

Ok, so lets talk levels 1-30...

at level 10 (1/3 of the game, and most likly to MOST players better then half the game) I have +1 to hit... again as I said if we go with 100 attack rolls it will effect 5 on average...5% of the time you miss by one...

at level 11-20 it is +2... and it reaches 10%...or about 10 times...over the levels

so multi attacks and AOEs will throw those numbers off...but i think we all agree that the math never hits reality... If I recorde 10 levels of play it still is too small a sample to meet

but then that is the same problem with all theroy math...

 

[keterys]

Most single target characters probably get in about 40 attacks per level (8 encounters, 5 attacks per encounter), more for rangers, sorcerers, wizards, etc. My fighter probably averages more like 80-120, between close, double attacks, and warlord granted attacks, while my barbarian was probably a _lot_ closer to that 40.

So, about 6x as often. I can say that having played my fighter in epic lately that I would miss at least once per combat, if I didn't have Expertise (at +3), since I have a +3/+4 on miss power that got used every single encounter to turn a miss into a hit... even with Expertise.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Yes, and I'm sure some players would think that paying a feat just to add half their level to attacks/defenses would be fair and balanced. (Really. Many of the same people would be arguing for it, if it had been RAW.) That doesn't make it so. To be clear, I'm not defending or denying Melee Training as a feat tax, I'm just explaining why DMs don't simply hand out extra feat slots.


And eventually you realize that unlike real taxes, feat taxes serve no purpose.

Or maybe you realize, that the hybrid talent tax serves a purpose...

I also believe, that if you had to pay a feat to add your half level to attack and defenses by RAW, there were feats that compared to that... Maybe feats were there to dfferentiate a fighting type character from a non fighting character...

Maybe mages get that feat for free on magical attacks, fighters get this feat for all their combat attacks and rogues get it for all their skills...

Maybe this way, we would not have had all those crying people who hate the idea, that wizards inherently figh as well as fighers or clerics beeing as good as rogues.

If this was RAW and the game was balanced around that, it would have been ok. D&D 3.5 had a lot of those tax feats.

I personally don´t think that it should have been that way... I think that giving out 2 categories of feat slots would have been a good way. This way you could have customizability of powerful options and flavour not getting in each other´s way.

But now, giving out expertize for free IS ignoring people who don´t want an extra +1 to hit at level 1... everyone should have the option to exchange that benefit for a different one, and suddenly you have just given everyone a free feat...

Calling someone stupid for not taking a little +1 to hit is inherently stupid... (at level 11, a +2 bonus to hit is an entirely different matter)