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

[MrMyth]

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.

Still, hard to deny it factors into a player's experience of the game. If I need an 18+ to hit a tough monster, and get a +3 bonus to kick that to a 15+, I've doubled how often I hit. That's is a very immediate, noticeable effect on a player. Whereas if I hit on a 6+, and that changes to a 3+, it just doesn't feel as big a deal.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Still, hard to deny it factors into a player's experience of the game. If I need an 18+ to hit a tough monster, and get a +3 bonus to kick that to a 15+, I've doubled how often I hit. That's is a very immediate, noticeable effect on a player. Whereas if I hit on a 6+, and that changes to a 3+, it just doesn't feel as big a deal.

This is why Gryph is correct, but will never win the argument. I gave up on this a long time ago as a lost cause. I'm only saying this now to let Gryph know he is not alone.

Might as well try to get people to stop committing "verbicide" with words such as "impact"--apologies to Calvin and Hobbes.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

@ C4:

You know: If you start argumenting that way, it make no sense to argue with you at all...

You know nothing about the games I play. Just that I believe it is a bad idea to give out free things to persons that don´t want it... If you feel different, so be it.

Am I a RAW lover... maybe... but actually I only use RAW because I am lazy... You seem to be one of the persons that are not so lazy and "fix" what they don´t like... and start a crusade to convince everyone that their edition is the only and true edition, better than RAW.

You know, you are an arrogant person... i read parts of your partly stolen edition before you pulled, and IMO there were things I believe were fixed the wrong way... so I rather play RAW than play the crap you produced...

thanks.

Edit: I will explain my thoughts to you again, maybe you understand it then:

If I give out a feat, that anyone can retrain, if he wants, it is essentially an extra feat at level 1. If I give out 3 free certain feats, that may be retrained, I would essentially give out 3 free feats... why should I do that?
I also don´t believe in "expertise is needed at level 1", so if I gave someone a freebie to attacks and defenses, it would be at level 11 and 21...

 

[eamon]

Still, hard to deny it factors into a player's experience of the game. If I need an 18+ to hit a tough monster, and get a +3 bonus to kick that to a 15+, I've doubled how often I hit. That's is a very immediate, noticeable effect on a player. Whereas if I hit on a 6+, and that changes to a 3+, it just doesn't feel as big a deal.

Getting a +3 bonus when you hit on a 6 or higher makes less difference than getting the same bonus when you hit on an 18 or higher. Assuming you win eventually in both cases, in the latter case, you're halving the length of combat (and due to power distribution actually speed it up slightly more), and in the former case you merely speeding it up by 20%. It's not just gut feeling, it's mathematically more relevant.

 

[eamon]

You know nothing about the games I play. Just that I believe it is a bad idea to give out free things to persons that don´t want it... If you feel different, so be it.

There are good reasons to force players to accept this "freebie". For one, it improves games balance. Assuming the non-expertise PC's are also generally less optimized, then missing expertise will eventually mean than they will be completely eclipsed by their optimized party brethren. That's rarely fun for all involved, and certainly makes the DM's life harder. Their presence will also increase the chance of a TPK, since one the one hand they don't threaten the monsters, and on the other, the monster need only take down a smaller core party - which if they do successfully, then effectively guarrantees a TPK since the intentionally weak PC's don't stand a chance.

In any case, do you really have players that say "can I pick something else" when you offer to hand everyone free expertise?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

ok lets go back to basics...

I have played (and i bet so have many of you) all 3 tiers BEFORE expertise was an option.

I have played since phb2 and had some PCs have expertise and some not...

I have played characters with out expertise who contribute and bring to the table, and have even had 'hot nights' that it seamed like (a figmint of memeory and the human mind) I could not miss...

I have played characters with expertise...

I have played with people who feel there are ALOT of feat taxes...including playerss who make dpr spread sheets to decide on level ups

now after all that I feel the feats are a little overpowerd, but not game breakingly so. I feel that the game is best served by keeping them feats and makeing them options.

As of today I have made a character with free feats only 1 time, and it is WAY over powered...

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

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.

I'm with ya man! If attacks were made with 2d10 or 3d6, it'd be different but...yeah, it's a pet peeve of mine too.



Anyway, the pro-RAW camp has done a better job of defeating its own arguments than I ever could, so I just have one thing to say...

Am I a RAW lover... maybe... but actually I only use RAW because I am lazy...

Can I sig this? It is quite possibly the best defense of house rules I've ever read.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I'm with ya man! If attacks were made with 2d10 or 3d6, it'd be different but...yeah, it's a pet peeve of mine too.

I have played games with 2d10, 3d6, including playing D&D with both variants... it does not work as smoothly as you might think...

Anyway, the pro-RAW camp has done a better job of defeating its own arguments than I ever could, so I just have one thing to say...

Can I sig this? It is quite possibly the best defense of house rules I've ever read.

Yes, you may use that.

Because it is true in most cases: making balanced house rules is a lot of work that often does not pay of... or worse, has a negative impact on the game...
if it pays of, it was usually ignoring RAW instead of adding something to that...

You know, put me in the camp you like... i happily ignore RAW if it is necessary, but I see no necessarity here in this case...

@eamon : and what do you do with the hunter, who gets expertise for free?

look, i am not totally opposed to give out expertise for free... I would even give out 2 different expertise feats for different classes, maybe a fighter would gain a third...
but If someone honestly tells me he rather had an extra skill point, I would not want to tell him "no: skills are fine and well, but you know, this is D&D and D&D is about combat only..."

If I get the feeling, that everyone should get that freebie some time in his career, ok... maybe I would integrate it into the story... but at level 1 I currently see no reasons to make gifts...

 

[MrGrenadine]

Because it is true in most cases: making balanced house rules is a lot of work that often does not pay of... or worse, has a negative impact on the game...

[threadjack]
37 years of D&D, in all its incarnations, disagrees with you.
[/threadjack]

 

[GMforPowergamers]

[threadjack]
37 years of D&D, in all its incarnations, disagrees with you.
[/threadjack]

ok i have not played for 35 years...in fact slightly less then half that...

BUT I have seen ALOT of house rules that were bad in retrospect...I will just list ours from 2e

spell points.
anyone can specilize in weapons
no spell prep
dabbling (variant multi class)
archmages(3rd party but maybecounts)
clerics get all spheres
choose your own wild talents
all classes get base starting theif skills

and after the newer books had max hp ar 1st level we still rolled

then one from matts game in 3e...

roll 4d6 re roll 1's and 2's generate 10 numbers then drop the 4 lowest...then do so again and a third time so you have 3 sets of 6 stats... then choose the set you want, if you do not have an 18 raise your highest stat to 18... then choose up to 2 flaws, 2 traits, any race or class or spell or feat from any D20 fantasy system... start level 3 with DMG starting money for level 5...

no that was not a one time game...that was matts defualt 3.5 rules for the entire time I was playing with him...