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

[DEFCON 1]

I completely disagree. Mechanics matter.

Powerful Charge is a wash, since its just a damage boost, but in cases where a feat buffs the attack roll, believe me, it matters. A player is going to have a tough time RP-ing her "Death Dealer" fighter if she needs a 15+ to hit. "Die, and return to the Hell from whence you came!" <rolls an 11> "Damn, missed again."

Simply put: You can't RP being good at certain things in the game if the numbers don't add up.

But how you get those numbers to add up doesn't matter. If you want to be known as a "death dealer" and feel like you need to have a certain attack bonus to accomplish it... then you can do so in many different ways. And whether you see the word 'Expertise' in your feat list matters not.

 

[Ryujin]

The point made was not that selecting a lesser feat was just as valid a choice as selecting a better one. It was that selecting a better feat was just as valid and "flavorful" as selecting the lesser one... because they both produced that same exact thing... a +1 bonus to attack with the spells that were meant to be primary for the particular character in question. Just because the lesser feat only applied to a smaller segment of the game's mechanics didn't make it a more "flavorful" option.

And my point was that the presence of the one largely invalidates the existence of the other, based on your logic. Mechanically, you would never choose the lesser feat. Why even have it?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

That is a valid argument... i guess, the lesser feat should be errated to be smilar to the hellfire blood feat. Just a +1 bonus with ceratain powers.

 

[MrGrenadine]

But how you get those numbers to add up doesn't matter. If you want to be known as a "death dealer" and feel like you need to have a certain attack bonus to accomplish it... then you can do so in many different ways. And whether you see the word 'Expertise' in your feat list matters not.

Yeah, I get you, and to some extent, I agree. There are a lot of opportunities for increasing 'to hit' probability, and they're always changing in a fun, dynamic way.

But taking a consistent attack boost in 4e is always going to be the better choice than taking--or relying on--situational attack boosts. The powers system makes the game more about resource management than ever before, so if my cleric misses with an attack, I don't just miss out on doing damage, I also don't heal an ally, and that opportunity--that power--is burned for the encounter or the day.

I don't know--with so many additional effects tied closely to combat, maybe too much is riding on the 'to hit' roll. But as things stand in 4e, not taking Expertise is a poor choice, regardless of character, because even if you don't think your character needs to be able to hit 5% more often, your allies might really disagree.

 

[Ryujin]

That is a valid argument... i guess, the lesser feat should be errated to be smilar to the hellfire blood feat. Just a +1 bonus with ceratain powers.

To my mind it was reasonable, to make something as broad ranging as Expertise a Feat Bonus. Something that is as specific as, say, Feyborn Charm could well have been an Untyped Bonus. That would work quite well.

Or just get rid of the feat taxes and fix the math, then leave things like Feyborn Charm as Feat Bonuses, which to me is the right fix.

 

[DEFCON 1]

And my point was that the presence of the one largely invalidates the existence of the other, based on your logic. Mechanically, you would never choose the lesser feat. Why even have it?

I'm right there with you in thinking that ones invalidates the other. There's no reason to take the lesser feat at all, I agree.

What I don't agree with (and which was the point several people tried to make earlier that I countered) was that the better feat was less "flavorful" because it applied to everything, rather than the lesser feat which only applied to a smaller part of the mechanics. Thus the excuse was their character was less flavorful since logic dictated they had to take the greater one over the other. And my point has always been a +1 is a +1, regardless of how many extra things you get by taking the better feat. If you have a +8 attack bonus to charm spells via Expertise or a +8 attack bonus via Feyborn Charm... you are just as much of a fey charmer either way. So the existence of the Expertise feat in the game did not worsen or lessen the fluff of your character.

EDIT: and if you take Expertise over a feat which does not produce bonuses to your attack rolls... you are making the choice to put Hit over whatever theoretical fluff the other feat would gain you. And that is not WotC's fault that you can't get past the idea that the math has to be a "certain way" or else the game is going to fall apart. Because like I said earlier... you can get attack bonuses that cover the points you would have gotten from Expertise... you just have to make decisions on how to accomplish it.

 

[Ryujin]

I'm right there with you in thinking that ones invalidates the other. There's no reason to take the lesser feat at all, I agree.

What I don't agree with (and which was the point several people tried to make earlier that I countered) was that the better feat was less "flavorful" because it applied to everything, rather than the lesser feat which only applied to a smaller part of the mechanics. Thus the excuse was their character was less flavorful since logic dictated they had to take the greater one over the other. And my point has always been a +1 is a +1, regardless of how many extra things you get by taking the better feat. If you have a +8 attack bonus to charm spells via Expertise or a +8 attack bonus via Feyborn Charm... you are just as much of a fey charmer either way. So the existence of the Expertise feat in the game did not worsen or lessen the fluff of your character.

EDIT: and if you take Expertise over a feat which does not produce bonuses to your attack rolls... you are making the choice to put Hit over whatever theoretical fluff the other feat would gain you. And that is not WotC's fault that you can't get past the idea that the math has to be a "certain way" or else the game is going to fall apart. Because like I said earlier... you can get attack bonuses that cover the points you would have gotten from Expertise... you just have to make decisions on how to accomplish it.

I suppose that where we differ, then, is in our definitions of things like the Expertise and various defence feats. To you they seem to be add-ons. To me they're math fixes, that bring you up to the levels that the game designers explicitly state. Those are outside of whatever situational bonuses you might be able to wangle. To me that's not theoretical.

 

[Tsukiyomi]

To me, it's not really fun to feel like I have to take these bland, boring feats that are pretty much superior to all others, yet dull and uninteresting. It's a mechanically poor choice to not take an expertise feat. Nothing else really compares.

My groups solution is simple -- everyone gets a "feat tax refund." This includes:

One expertise feat of their choice (including Master At Arms, if they wish)
Improved Defenses
Melee Training in their highest stat (in our game, this feat covers ranged attacks also)

Everyone's pretty happy with it.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I suppose that where we differ, then, is in our definitions of things like the Expertise and various defence feats. To you they seem to be add-ons. To me they're math fixes, that bring you up to the levels that the game designers explicitly state. Those are outside of whatever situational bonuses you might be able to wangle. To me that's not theoretical.

Not add-ons... just one of several options available. And one that can be ignored if you really need your feat slots for other things.

 

[Herschel]

No, no BS. Your statement presumes that Expertise doesn't function in the presence of things like leader bonus, combat advantage, etc..

Again, BS. Expertise still functions with the other bonuses, duh, but the other bonuses mean expertise isn't needed, which many claim it is.