Which feats are "taxes"?

[Felon]

I knew using the term "tax" was going to be an issue, since the internet of people who mistakenly think being excessively literal-minded is a sign of incisiveness.

It's like saying having a car is necessary in town with no public transportation. Someone could then come in, bat their eyes if they had no idea how you could believe such a thing, and then conjure all of these scenarios where you can get to work, the grocery store, etc. without a vehicle--you just need a cart and a lot of time. But ulitimately, that's just being obtuse. Most people can catch the gist of what it means to need a car.

Saying the "math worked quite well" without feats such as Weapon Expertise is completely undermined by WotC offering them. The importance of hitting with an attacks is highly fundamental. Contrary to what some would attempt to accuse, believing that that such a feat is virtually mandatory isn't the trait of a power gamer. Feeling that it's OK to pass on something that will make you hit more often is the trait of an outlier gamer--the "I'm just happy to be here" gamer for whom participation is satisfactory, and excellence is optional.

 

[billd91]

Saying the "math worked quite well" without feats such as Weapon Expertise is completely undermined by WotC offering them.

This got me thinking.
How many people who think that the Weapon Expertise feat is a tax, or a necessary tax, were among the strongest critics of the math in 3e?

I was wondering if the people who were more forgiving of 3e's math are also more forgiving of the math issues in 4e.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Since you asked, no. There's a difference between what I said (deliberate gimping of a character by ignoring obvious must-have feats in core rulebooks) and what your summary of what I said (everyone must run his feats by roguerouge).

so please explain to me what would happen if we both sat down at an LFR game, and played level 1-16, and I didn't take expertise, or a NAD increaser, and neatehr does 1 or 2 other players. Since you earlier said:

If your character's not taking obvious feats from core rule books that make him better at his role in the party, you, as a player, are deliberately making it harder on everyone else who plays with you. How this is good team play,

I have to ask would you complain we were 'makeing it harder for you'

 

[Felon]

Since you asked, no. There's a difference between what I said (deliberate gimping of a character by ignoring obvious must-have feats in core rulebooks) and what your summary of what I said (everyone must run his feats by roguerouge). In the former, there's a great deal of freedom of choice, within the courtesy of not getting my character killed because of your choices. In the latter case, which you evidently viscerally disapprove of, you at least have a group making conscious decisions to support one another and build a cohesive unit.

I'll take courtesy or DM house rule vs. feat taxes or group decision-making over the self-involved gimping of characters. Any of those three results are preferable to players who don't pull their weight. I'm not talking about optimized characters here: I'm talking about extremely basic mastery of the rules.

One thing to note tis that every gaming group has a personality. I've been in laid-back gaming groups where I knew no character would ever die ignominiously and no fight would ever drag on because the DM would concede or otherwise cut to the chase. Excellence is a moot concept since success in all endeavors is tacitly assured.

Then there are groups where you have to sing for your supper. The monsters will take you out if they can, and fights will grind if you are swiching constantly. There's a very practical need to glom onto that +1 to hit, because you have the onus of rising to the challenge put before you.

I am not surprised at all that folks popped up in this thread crying "power gamer" at the thought of a feat being considered mandatory when in truth they are all a matter of choice. However, I would be surprised at a gamer adopting that attitude if he spent any amount of time in the latter type of group described above. If you don't know the taste of failure, then the drive to excel might very well seem like a bizarre concept.

 

[Nifft]

This got me thinking.
How many people who think that the Weapon Expertise feat is a tax, or a necessary tax, were among the strongest critics of the math in 3e?

I was wondering if the people who were more forgiving of 3e's math are also more forgiving of the math issues in 4e.

3e and 4e are very different games, though.

3e's design focus was "let's unify the mechanics of all these silly 2e subsystems". 3e is still a simulationist game. There are a lot of bad choices, and there are a lot of strictly superior choices. I seem to recall comments -- perhaps designer comments -- praising bad choices in the system, as the means of rewarding "system mastery".

4e's design focus is "let's make a game where all 30 levels play like 3e's sweet spot". 4e is unabashedly gameist. It's a game where it's hard to optimize beyond a certain point, and it's hard to accidentally screw yourself over. Balance -- and specifically mathematical balance -- are design goals. Messing up balance (and specifically mathematical balance) is a major failure of the system as a whole.

Cheers, -- N

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I knew using the term "tax" was going to be an issue, since the internet of people who think being excessively literal-minded is a sign of cleverness.

Ok, then lets try something a little less 'radical' and talk about the feats with out going crazy.

I feel they are too good, and should be a paragon feat that grants +1, that auto upgrades to +2 at epic...

I also feel that paragon def and the epic one should just be combined to a scalein one since you can trade one out for the other...

See how much easier this is when you don't tell me I HAVE to take something...

Saying the "math worked quite well" without feats such as Weapon Expertise is completely undermined by WotC offering them.

No, WotC mostlikely relised these for people who do more math then gaming...becuse in real games the 5-15% hit miss is almost unnoticable...

The importance of hitting with an attacks is highly fundamental. Contrary to what some would attempt to accuse, believing that that such a feat is virtually mandatory isn't the trait of a power gamer. Feeling that it's OK to pass on something that will make you hit more often is the trait of an outlier gamer--the "I'm just happy to be here" gamer for whom participation is satisfactory, and excellence is optional.

OK, what about people who say "SOmetimes I take the feat, sometimes I don't" espicialy when I admit that I take it when i don't have other feats I want more...

 

[AllisterH]

Saying the "math worked quite well" without feats such as Weapon Expertise is completely undermined by WotC offering them. The importance of hitting with an attacks is highly fundamental. Contrary to what some would attempt to accuse, believing that that such a feat is virtually mandatory isn't the trait of a power gamer. Feeling that it's OK to pass on something that will make you hit more often is the trait of an outlier gamer--the "I'm just happy to be here" gamer for whom participation is satisfactory, and excellence is optional.

Again, Weapon Expertise is NOT needed until mid paragon so I'm not sure how this can be considered "essential".

To me, Expertise pre mid Paragon-level is just like the 3.5 Natural Spell feat. It is a feat that is better than most of the other feats in the PHB2 but just like Natural Spell in the 3.5 PHB, NOT having it, won't make your character ineffective.

(And yes people, a druid without Natural spell is STILL a BEAST of a class and Tier 1 status) .

If at level 1-15, you notice that another player is hitting more often than you are, it is NOT because of Expertise since at those levels, what Expertise means is that, assuming you have a 50% chance to hit, for every 20 rolls of the die, your friend is hitting 11 times and you are hitting 10 times.

You are NOT going to notice this difference in the vast majority of encounters since, to put it bluntly, you do NOT roll the d20 20 times in a typical encounter. In a typical encounter, you might roll a d20 10 times, which means that the guy with expertise hits 5.5 times while you hit 5 times.

The biggest reason why people think they are ineffective at those levels is NOT because of expertise but because they are a) not flanking, b) not setting themselves up for bonuses from their leader compatriots and c) they have a 16 post racial and their friend has a 20 post racial and then they decide to use a less accurate weapon while their friend uses a +3 weapon

 

[Felon]

This got me thinking.
How many people who think that the Weapon Expertise feat is a tax, or a necessary tax, were among the strongest critics of the math in 3e?

I was wondering if the people who were more forgiving of 3e's math are also more forgiving of the math issues in 4e.

Fogriving? I was pretty happy knowing that a character would hit at least once in a round. This 4e notion that misses and hits hovering around the 55% mark with a give-and-take of about 10% is crazy when you combine it with a bunch of one-shot attacks that you're relying upon to do the majority of the damage.

 

[Nifft]

You are NOT going to notice this difference in the vast majority of encounters since, to put it bluntly, you do NOT roll the d20 20 times in a typical encounter.

Wizard here. Yes, I do.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Felon]

Again, Weapon Expertise is NOT needed until mid paragon so I'm not sure how this can be considered "essential".

Maybe because your standard for essentiality is not the same as other folks'?

The biggest reason why people think they are ineffective at those levels is NOT because of expertise but because they are a) not flanking, b) not setting themselves up for bonuses from their leader compatriots and c) they have a 16 post racial and their friend has a 20 post racial and then they decide to use a less accurate weapon while their friend uses a +3 weapon

There's a great deal of truth in this. But none of it negates this basic advice: glom onto an across-the-board +1 bonus to hit if it's available. You don't need to notice it making it a difference in every battle. You just need to know beforehand that your base chance of hitting is as good as it can be.