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

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

the epic +3 bonus is noticable... the +1 bonus at level 1 not so often... +1/2/3 to damage can as well turn a "miss into a hit" (all those times, you would reduce the enemy to 1 hp, instead of 0hp)

Hitting more reliably is only really necessary if your powers have effects other than damage... if you care about damage dealing, bigger damage dice and bigger static bonuses to hit help about as well, especially if you are already hitting very reliably...

 

[keterys]

For perspective, that same fighter - losing the +3 damage from weapon focus would drop my damage by 6.25%, while losing the +3 from expertise would drop my damage by 20%, more than three times the difference.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

For perspective, that same fighter - losing the +3 damage from weapon focus would drop my damage by 6.25%, while losing the +3 from expertise would drop my damage by 20%, more than three times the difference.

What is the dpr diff between a tac lord with lend might and the feat that adds int to damage when aloes spend action pts and one that has expertise and focus?

Or the argument is that I can take expertise at level 4 after I have the other two... But what is the diff between expertise and the feat that let's me add int to my inspiring word... So then at 6th level I want to take a swordmagemulti class feat...

If my dpr is not what I am worried about I have Los of goodmfeats

 

[UngeheuerLich]

For perspective, that same fighter - losing the +3 damage from weapon focus would drop my damage by 6.25%, while losing the +3 from expertise would drop my damage by 20%, more than three times the difference.

... in a vacuum... yes... in this special case maybe...

our rogue hits an equal level brute with a 2 on his roll... without expertise... calculate the damage increase for him when he takes expertise in this situation...

You know, i know how to calculate... i have an exam in math... but one thing you learn is that after applying a mathematical model, you need to check, if it matches reality...

just calcualting dpr and believing it is a good model for a fight is just wrong.

(Which does not mean, that in many cases +3 to hit in epic is not more valuable than +3 damage...)

As a reference when damage is better than hitting, there was a nice analysis of 3.5s power attack, which effectively is reduced to:

if you are hitting long enough against a monster of enough hp (Gesetz der großen Zahlen... too lazy to translate it), you deal the most damage, if your average damage (x) and amount of numbers that can hit the monsters are equal. (its basically f(x,y) = x*y)

But: In a normal fight, there may be certain tresholds: Some times, you just need to hit a monster to make it go down, because it has just 1 hp... sometimes you need to overcome some kind of damage reduction, that requires to do a certain amount of damage in one hit, or sometimes 2 more damage opens up the possibility of a 1 hit kill... all those things are not factored in, when you state:

+3 damage is 6,25% and +3 to hit is 20%... for perspective...

 

[keterys]

Assuming we're talking about a taclord and not a lazylord... a +3 to hit with hail of steel, thunderous fury... is a massive difference in damage for the group as a whole. Even other powers like Hold that Thought and Wounding Focus will still result in a very appreciable difference in group-wide damage, far more than just the 6-20% quoted above for the fighter (where hits happen to slow and prone, helping him do his job)

Any leader whose benefits trigger on a hit, should care about hitting.

It's extremely hard to argue that a +3 to hit is not a big deal to a character. Any attempt to do so will only devalue any argument you might have. It's easy to argue that the feat isn't needed, or isn't a good idea (or vice versa), but I suspect both arguments have already been well tread.

When WotC added in extra benefits of a _strong_ nature to the expertise and defense feats, they also threw in their own tacit support that everyone should have them. Even more so than their personal webpages before, where they give them out for free with character creation.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Hey, it is no question, that anyone should get them... but giving them out for free? No one denies that they are very very strong and a big deal for most characters...

honestly, just lock this thread, as as you mentioned, most arguments have been made and no one party will convince the other...

 

[keterys]

... in a vacuum... yes... in this special case maybe...

It's my only character I'm actively playing who is at the more offensive "+3" level of expertise, at the moment. I also used him extensively recently, so I can refer to his usage much more ably. So, special case, or no, it's not the "theory" that people are complaining about

our rogue hits an equal level brute with a 2 on his roll... without expertise... calculate the damage increase for him when he takes expertise in this situation...

Assuming we're talking about Light Blade Expertise, it's probably equivalent to weapon focus, since it also gives a +3 damage.

And that's the worst case scenario. In the best case scenario, at least +1 will apply, and it will be worth more than twice as much, since hopefully your rogue deals more damage than my fighter. (I know the thief I've been DMing for gets a _lot_ more out of expertise, damage-wise)

You know, i know how to calculate... i have an exam in math... but one thing you learn is that after applying a mathematical model, you need to check, if it matches reality...

Hence, my note that _every encounter_ I'd have missed once without expertise. That's the match to reality.

just calcualting dpr and believing it is a good model for a fight is just wrong.

Not calculating anything serves no one any good. It's the only model we can universally reference and it's easy to understand. If there were a web page that did on the spot monte carlo simulation, we could refer to changes there, but that's not happening

I simply noted how much my average damage would decrease in both cases.

(Which does not mean, that in many cases +3 to hit in epic is not more valuable than +3 damage...)

And both are more useful than whatever my _last_ feat to choose would be, I suspect

But: In a normal fight, there may be certain tresholds: Some times, you just need to hit a monster to make it go down, because it has just 1 hp... sometimes you need to overcome some kind of damage reduction, that requires to do a certain amount of damage in one hit, or sometimes 2 more damage opens up the possibility of a 1 hit kill... all those things are not factored in, when you state:

The first step is always hitting. If I hit, I get to slow or prone or daze or immobilze the target and be a better defender. I get to kill the minion or trigger my belt of breaching. There is no other feat which gives as much - possibly not even 1/3 as much - as that one feat does at epic. And no part of my mind thinks that makes sense, no matter how I feel about where attack values should be.

 

[keterys]

Hey, it is no question, that anyone should get them... but giving them out for free? No one denies that they are very very strong and a big deal for most characters...

Well, some people _are_ arguing that, actually

Basically, people who give them out for free, or implement a more "inherent bonus" like feat bonus to attack and/or defense and/or damage, do so cause they muddy up the feat choices, and are at the moment designed particularly well for certain characters and not others (Ex: Swordmage vs. Rogue). Other people ban them entirely, because they don't like how they impact the game.

There's a wide range between those points that different games might be served, too.

honestly, just lock this thread, as as you mentioned, most arguments have been made and no one party will convince the other...

There's two reasons I haven't...
1) I've been participating in the thread lately, and would rather not accidentally mix moderation and just being a gamer too closely. Ie, if it gets poisonous again, I'll lock, otherwise I'm content to let another moderator lock it.
2) Another one will just spring up. To the extent that the threads are getting self-referential "that time of the week / month" "Another feat tax thread" etc. The horse is so dead, it's been re-animated, turned, rebuked, resurrected, disintegrated, and slurried. And yet, people still like hitting it with their spiked bats.

 

[Ryujin]

Well, some people _are_ arguing that, actually

Basically, people who give them out for free, or implement a more "inherent bonus" like feat bonus to attack and/or defense and/or damage, do so cause they muddy up the feat choices, and are at the moment designed particularly well for certain characters and not others (Ex: Swordmage vs. Rogue). Other people ban them entirely, because they don't like how they impact the game.

There's a wide range between those points that different games might be served, too.


There's two reasons I haven't...
1) I've been participating in the thread lately, and would rather not accidentally mix moderation and just being a gamer too closely. Ie, if it gets poisonous again, I'll lock, otherwise I'm content to let another moderator lock it.
2) Another one will just spring up. To the extent that the threads are getting self-referential "that time of the week / month" "Another feat tax thread" etc. The horse is so dead, it's been re-animated, turned, rebuked, resurrected, disintegrated, and slurried. And yet, people still like hitting it with their spiked bats.

< Robot_Chicken >

The rules say he's still not dead.

< / Robot_Chicken >

 

[Herschel]

It's extremely hard to argue that a +3 to hit is not a big deal to a character. Any attempt to do so will only devalue any argument you might have.

Except the point is that the +3 to hit isn't always needed from an expertise feat at Epic, for example. It's situational and depends on the character build and the player (tactical acumen and persona) as well as the other characters in the party and their builds and players.

If you start with an 18 post-racial attack stat and boost at every opportunity and a +3 proficiency weapon, then have a +6 enhancement, leader bonuses, Epic Destiny primary stat boost, stances, combat advantage, controller de-buffs, miss effects, etc. you reach a point of diminishing returns. That +3 from the expertise is still a +3 but when you're already hitting on a ridiculously low number, it becomes kind of pointless, or even worse, boring.

Expertise feats are the "lazy" way to get attack bonuses. I do find them very bland and not necessary but I also see the purpose for them and why they are desireable. A whole lot of viable builds open up with them and if man-maxers use them, so be it. Just because one doesn't need them doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to take them IMO. They may get a lot less actual mileage out of them but I'm not going to get too upset about that.