Which feats are "feat tax"?

[xXElaDriNDrizZztXx]

But you can only try to argue that if the players aren't bright enough to actually play together. Charges, combat advantage, buffs, de-buffs, etc. are all over the place.

And don't forget the zones/status effects that "steal" monster turns.

And the higher the level you get the more effects are flying around.

That "math" in a vacuum is nigh pointless to anyone with any sense of tactics or cohesion.

Monsters have the same abilities to "steal" player turns as well.

Thus, the game gets easier the higher level you are. If multi quote had worked for me I would have explained it.

Basic tactics should be used. But exploiting everything in the "battlefield" can be just as ridiculous as feat optimizing, or so you call it.


(Somewhat off-topic)
As for players being "bright enough" to play together... I don't think it's the players job to do what the DM wants. It's the DM's job to take what he's given and play it to his players. There are DM's who see things happen and mess with the monster stats, when in reality; He/she should just add or remove monsters based upon the players.

 

[You Go Katie.]

I have been of the opinion that teamwork and bonuses from other players an fill the 'holes' in the numbers well enough..

So I should alienate more than 75% of my power base, just to fill in a "math fix" for my party? Ouch.

Some opinionated people noticed that the numbers don't add up, but completely ignored the other advantages PCs get.

You say this like monsters do not get the exact same advantages players do. Combat advantage? Check. Status Effects? Major check. Actions? Up until High paragon/Epic, check.

I don't really care one way or the other about feat-taxes. But why take anything that doesn't help my character live in a kill or be killed designed game. Some feats are just way more powerful than others. It's like spending $2,000.00 on a snowmobile instead of a car for your main mode of transportation when you live in Wisconsin (bad anology, yes).

Just Sayin.

 

[mneme]

Hershel: I think I miss more often than you claim to, and my Avenger has more or less an identical setup (Executioner's Axe, but post-racial 20 instead of 18). Those double-threes are just in the range where a Memories isn't a great bet except on an encounter power--and a double-3 (or worse) has odds of nearly 1/40. Of course, once I hit paragon levels and picked up a Stone of Earth, my miss chance went down close to zero (particularly when partying with other people with reroll powers; Avengers are great targets for those on the rare occasions where they do miss, but...what levels have you been in the last four months?)

OTOH, there are two points here, the second of which is far more important than the first:

1. Avengers are a special case. Their "extra damage" feature as a striker is a crazy to-hit chance--even better than that of a Rogue. (Sorcerers have a similar feature, in effect, but have to spread their damage out more). So Avengers will scale far better with adverse difficulty than other strikers.

2. The concept of a "feat tax" isn't really about math fixes at all. It's about the same thing that a "gold" rating in the charop guides mean--that if you're going to optimize your character (to a purpose, sure, but let's assume that purpose is "combat", and more specifically your role in combat) that this element is always going to be optimal. -Some- form of expertise is going to be optimal for every character except for the odd bird (lazy warlord, maybe lazy eagle shaman); defensive boosts are going to be optimal for everyone except those who rarely expect to be, or want to be, attacked (and even there), etc.

Within limits, feat taxes aren't a problem; they're part of optimization. But put too many feat taxes in a system, and you find yourself with little room for interesting non-optimal feats (if you want to optomize). Thus the desire to silo the feat taxes (and other highly optimal feats) from other feats.

This does argue that it's better to silo off "trivial feats" and let the tax feats (of which there are a vast number with some interesting choices--VE vs a specific weapon expertise vs a pseudo expertise feat like Gnome Phantasmist, for example) fight it out with sky-blue feats in optimization land. However, this does mean making hard judgements on what amounts to "trivial" -- circumstantial-but-flavorful hit/damage bonuses like "back to the wall?" Multiclass swap feats? Skill training (ok, usually--although skill training in history can be powerful group optimization)? Skill power? Really situational combat bonuses like Sambarese rake?

 

[Aulirophile]

I'll give an example of the "fixed" math in action. I have a Deva Avenger in a monthly game at 12th level now, 18 post-racial Wisdom boosted at opportunity, Fullblade and Expertise. According to the math argument, I should hit around 75%. I work around the defender looking for combat advantage when possible and also looking for goodies the cleric and wizard may toss around. Old, higher defenses are still used and encounters are built under normal guidelines.

Result: I've missed ONCE in FOUR MONTHS. That's it. And it's not like a have a lot of criticals either. I haven't rolled particularly well it's just that when seeking out every bonus and working to keep my double roll happening I don't miss.

Now, if I didn't have expertise, work as hard to keep my double roll going (ie: trying to "solo" stuff), sported an Executioners Axe, didn't look for combat advantage/attack bonuses, etc. my hit probablility would drop to the 75% neighborhood pretty quickly, maybe even lower, depending. As it stands, my character with the expertise feat and everything else is ridiculously accurate (by design). Is that a needed "fix"?

Actually according to the math you should hit 99% of the time, because that is how Avenger math works out. Hyper-accuracy is the Avenger Striker Feature.

 

[The Little Raven]

The developers disagree with you. /shrug.

You're citing Greg Bilsland's personal blog, in which he discusses what he does in his private game, and saying that the developers think there is a feat tax because of that, right?

A few facts.

1. Greg Bilsland isn't a developer. Or a designer. He's an editor. He doesn't make design or development decisions. Any article he writes goes through the design/development guys for its mechanics. He edits things after other people make the decisions and do the design/development work.

2. This is his private game, where we've seen actual developers do things that 4e is pretty explicit about not doing, and yet the game hasn't been changed to make what they do in their private games part of the rules.

3. The designers and developers have showed no compunction about changing areas of the game they think needs work. As the supposed "feat taxes" have been around since 2009, you'd think they would have integrated it into the core math if they agreed with the premise, two years later. They haven't. In fact, changing it from an untyped bonus that stacks with everything to a feat bonus is a pretty strong indicator they don't consider it a tax, since it no longer stacks with all the other feat bonuses.

Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

Like that one, which says PCs fall behind by 4?

The math isn't hard. Monster defenses go up by 1 per level. That is +29 to defenses over level 1. Add up the boosts PCs get from level+items+stat, it is 25. Those are the only things that are considered to be automatic.

Ah yes, another example of "On paper, in complete isolation from actual gameplay considerations, there is a discrepancy of up to 4 points at the end-game."

That may represent a PC swinging at a monster in a blank 10' room with no allies or tactical considerations accurately, but that's not how people actually play the game. There are plenty of powers, feats, and non-enhancement magic item bonuses at level 30 to easily overcome a 4 point discrepancy.

This so-called analysis you linked is incredibly lacking, particularly when the guy who posted it points out himself that he doesn't include two major elements of a Level 30 character: Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies (most of which will be granting you a +2 bonus to two different ability scores).

 

[Samir]

I'll give an example of the "fixed" math in action. I have a Deva Avenger in a monthly game at 12th level now, 18 post-racial Wisdom boosted at opportunity, Fullblade and Expertise. According to the math argument, I should hit around 75%. I work around the defender looking for combat advantage when possible and also looking for goodies the cleric and wizard may toss around. Old, higher defenses are still used and encounters are built under normal guidelines.

Bringing an Avenger to an accuracy debate seems a little silly, since their whole shtick is high accuracy.

Let's take a more realistic example. Without a double roll, using an Execution Axe (most weapons are +2), and with no expertise, you've got a +15 to hit an average AC of 26, which is a 50% chance to hit baseline. That is too low, according to the designers.

KNOW THE NUMBERS
The D&D combat system rests upon a framework of expected attack bonuses, defenses, damage, and hit points, both for characters and for monsters. Knowing these baseline numbers and how your characters measure up to them helps you understand what the game expects you to accomplish.

The attack bonuses and defenses of monsters are based on a monster's level, modified slightly based on the creature's role and the deSigner or Dungeon Master's whim. See "Creating Monsters" in Chapter 10 of the Dungeon Master's Guide for a more detailed description.

Characters are much more varied than monsters, since their accuracy and defenses depend greatly on their choice of class, race, feats, and equipment. That said, the game expects character accuracy and defenses to average slightly above that of monsters, as shown in the table here. An average character facing an average monster can expect to hit on roughly 60 to 65 percent of his or her attacks, but that monster should hit only about half the time.

The table mentioned states that players should have a chance to hit AC of level + 6, and NADs of level + 13.

The point of isolating "feat taxes" is to promote diversity. The problem with expertise is that it's a strictly-best option for nearly every character. To make room for expertise, you skip the worst feat you were going to take, so giving expertise free is really giving out everybody's worst feat free.

 

[Aulirophile]

You're citing Greg Bilsland's personal blog, in which he discusses what he does in his private game, and saying that the developers think there is a feat tax because of that, right?

A few facts.

1. Greg Bilsland isn't a developer. Or a designer. He's an editor. He doesn't make design or development decisions. Any article he writes goes through the design/development guys for its mechanics. He edits things after other people make the decisions and do the design/development work.

2. This is his private game, where we've seen actual developers do things that 4e is pretty explicit about not doing, and yet the game hasn't been changed to make what they do in their private games part of the rules.

3. The designers and developers have showed no compunction about changing areas of the game they think needs work. As the supposed "feat taxes" have been around since 2009, you'd think they would have integrated it into the core math if they agreed with the premise, two years later. They haven't. In fact, changing it from an untyped bonus that stacks with everything to a feat bonus is a pretty strong indicator they don't consider it a tax, since it no longer stacks with all the other feat bonuses

Facts?

1. Nearly every 4e developer gives out Expertise in their home games, or did pre-essentials. Barring games played specifically for play-testing purposes. You can dig up this info from developer posts on Enworld, the official forums, podcasts, and twitters. A single developer's game is one thing, but nearly all of them? No, it is clear what they think of it.

2. When the PHB2 came out they explicitly said they made expertise a feat, even though they thought it was a "math fix", because they wanted everyone to have equal access to it (as opposed to errata'ing the level up chart). Specifically, people mentioned the strange math discrepancy and WoTC's response was "We're aware of the issue, there will be a fix in the PHB2." Which invalidates point #3 of yours, while they have made decisions to relatively small elements, they've never errata'd something as huge as the level up chart. They stuck with their reasoning that it should be a feat, and expanded upon this with the Essentials Expertise feats that make them more interesting.

3. You are wrong about Greg, since he wrote a fair amount of the rules updates.

4. Most of the "Feat Bonus" to hits that are not Expertise have been errata'd to be untyped and reduced to +1, so they are still useful. Now they are nice bonuses you can take in addition to the feat the developers consider mandatory, Expertise.

 

[bbjore]

I think a lot of the discussion about whether or not the feat tax business is necessary is getting away from the heart of the matter. Of course the PCs can do without them or by taking the feats as normal. Plenty of them do. While there is a discrepancy in PC vs. Monster attack vs. defense between the epic and the heroic tier, the question is which method of dealing with it is the most fun for the group.

Many people, advocates of fixing the feat taxes, want to reduce this discrepancy without impacting the other choices they have in character creation. This is nice, because it doesn't demand that PCs, and especially the party, be optimized. Players can make whatever they want, a suboptimal or optimal PC, and not feel like six of their feat choices are tied into some sort of arms race with the DM. They can spend those feat choices on something that ties into their idea of what their character is. The upside is the above freedom in PC design and faster encounters in the epic tier. The downside, is that when the party decides to bring the full resources of an epic tier character (buffs, resilience...) to bear on your encounter, you may find they have the ability to break it wide open. DMs may find they have to adjust. My group is casual, they want to have fun playing what they want how they want, so it makes sense for us. As a DM, I find I have to increase encounter difficulty at higher levels through increased damage, more monsters, or dangerous terrain and scenarios to counter it. It works well for us because we want a more cinematic and heroic feel to the game, and my players hate to spend a turn missing. I suspect that is why so many people prefer this fix as well.

Another option is to adjust the monster math behind the screen. This is a nice solution because only one person has to do the adjusting. It can be problematic for the same reasons as above. PCs, especially optimized ones will be able to blow through the occasionally encounter. It has the added advantage of subtlety, but the disadvantage of not being tailored to each PCs weaknesses. When and how a PC needs to adjust to the math discrepancy varies by build and race. Doing everything behind the scenes without player input can help or hinder certain builds differently. This is why I also advocate free choice feats instead of specific bonuses or feats at certain levels.

Some groups are really into optimization and are good at it. These groups can make a party that can counter the discrepancy through sheer skill and tactics. For them the game is about pushing the boundaries of PC design, bending the rules of the game to their whims, and exploiting carefully crafted team tactics to ruin a GM's day. These groups will be able to the choices built into the rules to keep up with monster statistics and not see any real difference in their combat effectiveness or the length of combats. The upsides are little GM adjustment and increased game challenge which many people really enjoy, the downside is it demands skilled players and that a PC's combat effectiveness and ability to work with the team take precedence over making a PC that fits your theme. Some player's will find this too constraining.

Last you can just play it as is, ignoring the discrepancy, making a character as you see fit, and relying on an epic tier PC's incredibly resilience to survive in the long run. Encounters will be long and drawn out grins, but the party will still likely survive. The upside to this, is that fights in the epic tier really do feel epic and almost hopeless. The PCs will feel outmatched, will miss often, and will watch helplessly as their FRW defenses are autohit or the GM occasionally takes a lone PC out to the woodshed and beats them down, laughing at their ineffectual attacks which must hit on a 15 or higher. But after the long and drawn out battle, the PCs (dead or not) will get up, dust themselves off, and enjoy the feeling of accomplishment gained from defeating a god on their own terms, with a PC designed exactly like they wanted. It has the benefits of an old school, grittier, and patient style of play. PCs will feel like Gods and Demons are a special challenge outside of their normal reach; something which must be prepared for instead of simply one of their four encounters a day. It has the downside of requiring mature and patient players who enjoy this style of play. It can be hard to find an entire group comprised of such.

You can counter the discrepancy using any one of or even a mix of the above. Pick your poison. If your group doesn't have fun with it, pick a different one. The game will always be about having fun with your friends and not how you decide to play it.

tl;dr There is a discrepancy in PC & Monster attack vs. defense between the epic and heroic tier. There are numerous ways to handle it. Pick the one that you think your group would enjoy the most.

 

[Jhaelen]

Let's take a more realistic example. Without a double roll, using an Execution Axe (most weapons are +2), and with no expertise, you've got a +15 to hit an average AC of 26, which is a 50% chance to hit baseline. That is too low, according to the designers.

Quote please! I don't recall any designer ever talking (or writing) about a 50% chance to hit baseline. Afaik, there is no such baseline.

 

[Incendax]

It's completely possible to play and enjoy the game without any of this Feat Tax nonsense. However...

It gets really boring watching my players pick almost the same exact feats every single time with every character. Sometimes the order is a little different, but dozens and dozens of characters always end up with 1) An Expertise Feat 2) A Superior Weapon Proficiency 3) A Defense Feat 4) Improved Toughness. That's about 8 levels where my players aren't doing anything creative with their feats.

AND IT ALWAYS HAPPENS. No exceptions.