To the latter, so says you and agreed by me but lets face it, the internet for gamers is generally rantville and it can be in stores, etc. also. The amount of pure noise being shoved around tends to drown out reasonable.
What's the big deal with "feat taxes?"
- Thread starter Mercurius
- Start date
To the latter, so says you and agreed by me but lets face it, the internet for gamers is generally rantville and it can be in stores, etc. also. The amount of pure noise being shoved around tends to drown out reasonable.
Ryujin
Legend
It would give Wizards a reason to actually publish one of the cancelled books, that I was quite looking forward to for the reason of compiled errata.
Argyle King
Legend
Why not add masterwork weapons to the game in the same way masterwork armor was added?
Ryujin
Legend
That could work, as long as level limitations were likewise imposed and Expertise was eliminated, as an option.
GMforPowergamers
Legend
I have the idea of 3 levels of master work each adds a bonus you can exchange one masterwork bonus for a special material then male adamantine and dark metal materials again...
Speaking as one who does not and will not subscribe to DDI, I tell you I do find it irksome that the changes haven't seen a printing press. But that won't make me subscribe.
"Instant revisions" to me are a mixed blessing. On the one hand, they speed up the whole process of getting revisions into the hands of the people in the market. However, since this is done in dribbles and spurts, it means I need to be aware constantly of the possibility of changes to the game.
Personally, I'd much prefer it if they'd bundle their revisions into quarterly releases- ideally, available online and in print. (Before you ask, "Yes" I probably would buy those revision books.)
Gryph
First Post
This is a pet peeve of mine. The % of change is immaterial to evaluating the mechanics. A 5% increase in chance to hit will add the same expected damage per hit whether you start with a 5% chance to hit or 95% chance to hit.
For example if a character averages 10 damage on a hit and hits 30% of the time he can expect to do 3 damage per attack over the course of a fight. If you give him a +1 to hit his expected damage increases to 3.5 (35% X 10 = 3.5). Similiarly if he has a 55% chance to hit he will expect to do 5.5 damage per attack over the course of a fight and a +1 to hit till increase his expected damage by 0.5 (60% X 10 = 6.0)
+1 is +1 is +1 no matter where you start.
First, I don't complain about your own horrendous grammar and formatting, but I'd thank you to not inflict it upon my posts when you quote me.
When WotC prints something as a feat, most DMs take it as an official stamp of approval. Not as a "You may want to disallow this feat, or you may want to give it away for free" label, but as a "This is supposed to be a feat, and if you house rule it otherwise you're playing with fire" stamp. (See your own comments for confirmation.)
If WotC had included some kind of "optional per campaign by DM discretion" note along with feat taxes, you'd have an argument.
So yes, there are better ways to handle problems than with feat taxes. If WotC were to errata them away and replace them with a real fix, yes, you might have to tweak your encounters for the next week. Worst case scenario, you have to raise your monster levels by +1 per tier. Best case scenario, you don't have to tweak anything if you're using a published mod because it assumes everyone pays their taxes anyway.
I don't feel emotionally agitated myself, but if the discussion is making you uncomfortable, you're free to bow out.
I haven't told anyone how to play their game, but I have answered Mercurius' OP -- which was specifically aimed at the feat tax camp. (Assuming his question is genuine, and not bait.) I've also pointed out how feat taxes have a negative impact on the game, and how easy it is to fix them.
I'm merely pointing out the inconsistency of your argument. You want me to have the choice of being competent with a sword, but you don't want me to have the same choice with regards to class skills, hit points, powers, or anything else that WotC hasn't labeled as a 'feat.'but ok, so you think that becuse I don't give a feat to someone who doesn;t need or even want it that is the same as what you propose???
So to recap your own statements:
1. Feat taxes are alright because they give players the choice of whether to be competent or not. Some players don't want to be competent, and some PCs don't need to be competent in certain areas.
2. But it's not alright to let players exchange abilities that by your own assertions are "fair and balanced" as feats to get feat slots for things that they do want or need.
Your arguments are rather inconsistent. In fact, the only consistent part of your arguments is that they take RAW at face value -- despite all evidence and professional opinions to the contrary -- and then rationalize or excuse RAW's few flaws.
This is the most insightful thing you've said. You're happy with RAW, despite its flaws...because it's RAW. And you'd be happy if RAW included a real math fix, because it'd be RAW. And hey, that's great for you. Now, if I might make a suggestion:
Just be honest next time. "I'm here and I'm a RAW-lover" is a lot less time consuming and personal than ten pages of debate with us.
Thank you, I am. And if I don't say so myself, my Complete 4th Edition takes WotC's excellent game and cleans up the few remaining glitches.
I share your sentiments on this. Well, your last sentiment at least. Personally though, I don't think whiny maggots are a good reason to not make the game a better game. And the devs must agree, at least in part, because the books and the errata keep coming.
Yeah, that could work, though masterwork stuff isn't my favored solution. (Because once in a while, PCs get caught without their gear, and I don't like taking even more bonuses away from them in those situations.) In fact, I've done away with masterwork armor in my own games. But masterwork weapons/implements are a commonly espoused idea.
Neonchameleon
Legend
His expected damage in both cases increases by .5. But in the first case that's .5/3 or an increase of 1/6. In the second case that's .5 ofver 6 or an increase of 1/12.
+1 might be +1 - but there's a huge difference between the character's attack effectiveness increasing by 1/12 and 1/6.
+1 might be +1 - but there's a huge difference between the character's attack effectiveness increasing by 1/12 and 1/6.
Gryph
First Post
Yet they still affect the number of attacks to kill a monster by the same amount.
The % delta doesn't change the length of fights (the reason the designers shot for a 55% base chance to hit). It might be more fun to say "I increased my damage output by 16.67%" than "I increased my damage by 8.33%" either way it still just .5 damage per swing.
You don't measure monster health in percentage damage changes.
