Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
What's the big deal with "feat taxes?"
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="eamon" data-source="post: 5582267" data-attributes="member: 51942"><p>If you'll look at my sig, you'll see two houserules that I'm quite confident in asserting are simpler, more fun, <em>and</em> more balanced than raw. Not all house rules achieve that, but I've never in my entire experience of D&D ever regretted introducing a houserule.</p><p></p><p>Not that I usually do so, but I'm the kind of person who might well spreadsheet various options on level up. I've written simulators for 3.5 era combat to balance ranger's dual wielding with barbarian's power attacking (the ranger needed quite a bump), and lots of smaller scenario's in 4e. My thesis is in statistical machine learning, and I play with lots of numbers in lots of ways all the time - I don't mind, I <em>like</em> that! But a numerical system is interesting when it's complex (in the sense of chaos theory, or balance and not imaginary numbers) - and it's boring when there's an obvious "right" answer.</p><p></p><p>It's a very reasonable to stick with RAW if you don't want to take the effort to analyze something, and furthermore, D&D isn't just numbers; gameplay is a significant factor.</p><p></p><p>Nobody's going to blame you for sticking with RAW. But the risk of handing out free expertise is negligible (at worst it represents a bonus feat), but doing so ensures that intra-party balance is approved as the power difference between the power gamers with expertise and the special flowers without it shrinks.</p><p></p><p>And you don't need to take it from the mouth of a self-important forum poster (i.e., me...) - I believe many home games by WotC staff use this or a similar house rule as well.</p><p></p><p>To stress: this isn't forcing everyone to be a powergamer, and this isn't going to boost the powergamers to even more absurd heights since it's precisely the <em>unoptimized</em> characters that benefit most. Boosting low attack bonuses matters more than boosting high bonuses, and what <em>really</em> matters most is intra-party balance.</p><p></p><p> Depends on your solution. The easiest and most reasonable is just to instead grant them a bonus feat of their choice. In practice you're giving others an extra feat too, after all.</p><p></p><p>If somebody wanted that, I'd be so inclined too - it's a cooperative game, after all. I would tell them that I'd prefer them not to do that however - you can't choose to give up the half-level bonus to be the arch-dukes favorite son, either (I'm trying to say you can't trade out-of-combat favors for in-combat power or vice-versa), and they're making the DM's life harder by doing so. In practice, this kind of this never comes to a head in my experience, so there's no point in discussing hypotheticals here. I'd offer free expertise, and if maybe possibly somebody wants to trade that for something else - well, that depends on the situation.</p><p></p><p>Again, this freebie is particularly important for underpowered PC's, so you really don't <em>want</em> people trading this away for something else. Tell em it's a math fix, not intended as a bonus ability, and they<em> should</em> keep it.</p><p></p><p>Many people do it at level 5. Doing it at level 1 might be considered cleaner or simpler (get it over with, already!), but I certainly don't care either way.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="eamon, post: 5582267, member: 51942"] If you'll look at my sig, you'll see two houserules that I'm quite confident in asserting are simpler, more fun, [I]and[/I] more balanced than raw. Not all house rules achieve that, but I've never in my entire experience of D&D ever regretted introducing a houserule. Not that I usually do so, but I'm the kind of person who might well spreadsheet various options on level up. I've written simulators for 3.5 era combat to balance ranger's dual wielding with barbarian's power attacking (the ranger needed quite a bump), and lots of smaller scenario's in 4e. My thesis is in statistical machine learning, and I play with lots of numbers in lots of ways all the time - I don't mind, I [I]like[/I] that! But a numerical system is interesting when it's complex (in the sense of chaos theory, or balance and not imaginary numbers) - and it's boring when there's an obvious "right" answer. It's a very reasonable to stick with RAW if you don't want to take the effort to analyze something, and furthermore, D&D isn't just numbers; gameplay is a significant factor. Nobody's going to blame you for sticking with RAW. But the risk of handing out free expertise is negligible (at worst it represents a bonus feat), but doing so ensures that intra-party balance is approved as the power difference between the power gamers with expertise and the special flowers without it shrinks. And you don't need to take it from the mouth of a self-important forum poster (i.e., me...) - I believe many home games by WotC staff use this or a similar house rule as well. To stress: this isn't forcing everyone to be a powergamer, and this isn't going to boost the powergamers to even more absurd heights since it's precisely the [I]unoptimized[/I] characters that benefit most. Boosting low attack bonuses matters more than boosting high bonuses, and what [I]really[/I] matters most is intra-party balance. Depends on your solution. The easiest and most reasonable is just to instead grant them a bonus feat of their choice. In practice you're giving others an extra feat too, after all. If somebody wanted that, I'd be so inclined too - it's a cooperative game, after all. I would tell them that I'd prefer them not to do that however - you can't choose to give up the half-level bonus to be the arch-dukes favorite son, either (I'm trying to say you can't trade out-of-combat favors for in-combat power or vice-versa), and they're making the DM's life harder by doing so. In practice, this kind of this never comes to a head in my experience, so there's no point in discussing hypotheticals here. I'd offer free expertise, and if maybe possibly somebody wants to trade that for something else - well, that depends on the situation. Again, this freebie is particularly important for underpowered PC's, so you really don't [I]want[/I] people trading this away for something else. Tell em it's a math fix, not intended as a bonus ability, and they[I] should[/I] keep it. Many people do it at level 5. Doing it at level 1 might be considered cleaner or simpler (get it over with, already!), but I certainly don't care either way. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
What's the big deal with "feat taxes?"
Top