Which feats are "taxes"?

[fuzzlewump]

The feat is still better than anything else. If it was +1/+2/+3 to attacks against only BLOODIED creatures (i.e., only got the benefit half the time) it'd still be better than most feats.

Yes, you can say there's no math problem all you want, it doesn't matter. The feat is still more powerful than most others. That's what makes it a feat "tax." Yes, you can ignore the best feat in the game, but you don't have to be an optimizer to look at a feat that says "+1 to attacks on undead with radiant attacks" then to "+1 scaling on attacks, period" to realize the latter is ridiculously better. It's really not a question of casual versus optimizer at all. I mean, do you defend the Wizard with low intelligence (14 or so) as a casual player not really knowing and think that having an 16-20 is optimizing? It's really just an obvious choice of "oh, this is clearly much better." It's not like tons of number crunching had to happen for anyone to realize +1/+2/+3 to attacks is better than anything else.

I certainly agree that it's a boring feat, but that's why I give it out for free.

 

[Elric]

There are a lot of potential house rules to fix the game's math problems without the Expertise feats (among others). See this thread for a discussion of many of them: http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-fan...ves-feat-tax-solution-hit-f-r-w-defenses.html

The simplest fix is: +1 to FRW and attacks at levels 5,15, and 25 (plus ban Expertise feats, Robust Defenses, and the Epic FRW line of feats- maybe paragon defenses becomes an epic feat as well).

While I see the necessity for Masterwork Heavy Armors, Masterwork Light Armors seems like an unnecessary kludge. One solution: give characters +1 to-hit and to all defenses (including AC) at levels 5/15/25, but change MW Armors:

Masterwork Light Armors don't exist. Masterwork Heavy Armors are as follows:
+1 additional bonus to AC for heavy armor with a +2 magic enhancement bonus
+2 additional bonus to AC for heavy armor with a +3 or +4 magic enhancement bonus
+3 additional bonus to AC for heavy armor with a +5 magic enhancement bonus
+4 additional bonus to AC for heavy armor with a +6 magic enhancement bonus

If you give out higher plus armor at the start of levels ending in 3/8, the current progression leads to near equality in the pace of scaling of light and heavy armors. The AC progression ends up 1 better than it is currently, which could be a problem for characters with exceptionally high AC, but I think those problems generally come from other abilities (e.g., the Avenger feat that eventually grants +3 AC, or it seems like the Con to AC feat in primal power for Barbarians).

 

[GMforPowergamers]

1) Every character needs it.

Just plain wrong...

again I ask what if you already hit most of the time? I will give some real life examples...Dagger rouges who have 80+% NAD targeting powers...the avenger I mentioned earlier that started with a 20 stat... fighter/kensi...
How about multi attack rangers who hit atleast 1 out of 2-3 attack rolls per round, how about assasins that have multi attack/hit powers as there main stay? what about a group with plenty of leader bonuses...what about controlers that have maximized effects over hit/miss what about the scimitar dance storm warden ranger who still does damage on a miss...

NOT every character needs it, infact I showed this about a page ago when I posted the crazy optimizer (Not even, he is nto good at it so I feel the lable might not fit right) who wants more and more + to hit even when he hits on 2;s...

2) 4e would not shut the hell up about how awesome and balanced their math is wait whoops

but the SYSTEM is balanced not the MATH...again you see need 11 to hit at 1st level and need 12 to hit at 11th level and need 13 to hit at 21st elvel and need 14 to hit at 30th level to be a math problem...I see a system that vastly increases effects, statuses, magic options, utilities, and feats that makes up for those +s not being there...I also see a small sub group of gamers who screamed for feats to give scaleing bonus to hit...

Other people go out of their way to make bad characters because it makes them feel more unique.

Not only have I only once gone out of my way to make a bad character, but 70-80% of the time I make very good characters...infact I have been called an optimizer, and I post on the opt board for both 3 and 4e...I just don't like to repat myself so i try to find new inventice ways to rock...

It's the other side, the side that adamantly refuses to take the feat because oh god I cannot refer to math, that's the hardcore group. The weird hardcore group, that things a game about rolling dice, adding numbers, and comparing modifiers isn't supposed to have math involved.

what about those of us that do the math, and take it into account, but think there is a LARGER PICTURE...

I see you and people like you as not seeing the forrest becuse the trees are in the way...

The math works...it just needs more then X to hit Vs Y Def to work...and guess what, it does...

 

[Tallifer]

I also see a small sub group of gamers who screamed for feats to give scaleing bonus to hit...

In fact I have been called an optimizer, and I post on the optimization boards for both 3e and 4e...I just don't like to repeat myself so i try to find new inventive ways to rock...

what about those of us that do the math, and take it into account, but think there is a LARGER PICTURE...

I see you and people like you as not seeing the forest because the trees are in the way...

Forsooth.

The math, the dice, the numbers: those are simply helpful rule devices to make the player's roleplaying and the dungeon master's story or sandbox run smoothly.


(On the other hand, I can see where someone is coming from if he plays mostly tournament play. In such a case, you really are competing against other players at other tables, and you cannot houserule anything either. On the other hand all the other competitors have to pay the same feat tax, so the ground is even.)

 

[Runestar]

How does one distinguish between a "feat tax" and a feat that is just so darn good you have to be an idiot not to take it?

In the case of expertise, even if I didn't know about the math showing how PCs' to-hit rating fail to keep up with the monsters' defenses, the ability to get +3 to-hit for a single feat at epic lvs is just too tempting to pass up.

Or is there no distinction between the 2?

 

[Mr. Wilson]

How does one distinguish between a "feat tax" and a feat that is just so darn good you have to be an idiot not to take it?

In the case of expertise, even if I didn't know about the math showing how PCs' to-hit rating fail to keep up with the monsters' defenses, the ability to get +3 to-hit for a single feat at epic lvs is just too tempting to pass up.

Or is there no distinction between the 2?

There is no distinction between the two. If a feat is so good that everyone takes it, it qualifies as a feat tax.

 

[Jack99]

IW/LR/GF don't stack, but the three epic versions do for whatever mysterious reason. Unless they've been errataed. So by blowing four epic feats, your NADs actually gain 2 points of relative value; not many players would find it worth four feats but there ya go!

No errata on them yet.

 

[fuzzlewump]

Just plain wrong...

again I ask what if you already hit most of the time?

Most of the time is 55% or better. Assuming you mean 95% of the time, then yes, the expertise is useless, since you already hit on a 2+. If it's anything more, like hitting on a 3+, then expertise is still the best feat in the game. It's not a question of the math being broken or not. It's simply the best choice. Why risk missing on a 2-3 when you get expertise and NOT miss on a 2-3? More to the point, what feat would you take instead that is BETTER?

It doesn't matter where the 5-10-15% chance increase to hit happens, whether you MISSED 20% of the time or 95% of the time before expertise, that increase in chance to hit has the same benefit.

Is the math broken? Wizards never admitted that it was to my knowledge. As far as we're concerned, it's just another feat choice. It just happens to be overwhelmingly better than most everything else.

 

[ppaladin123]

We need a popcorn smiley because this thread is cracking me up.

I can see a debate about a feat being too good - because then it becomes an option that dominates other options. And in a game, that's not good.

But a feat tax?
I doubt we'd be having this debate if people hadn't be so sure-fired certain that WotC had finally "fixed" the math in D&D.

This whole debate is a problem with expectations and differences in play style. Optimizers will think of any dominating build strategy as a "tax" because it's an obviously superior choice. Players who don't worry so much about optimization won't think of it as a tax... unless they really bought into the math being fixed in 4e and then focus on too narrow a concept of what that fix, what the sweet spot that is supposed to be preserved throughout the whole PC's career, really is.

What we can certainly do is look at monster defenses versus players' "to hit" bonuses and see if they keep pace. Without the expertise feats, players actually do lose about three points of hit bonus relative to monsters' defenses over the course of thirty level. You go from a 50-60% chance to hit with any given power to a 35-40% chance.

Your opinion of this change determines whether you view this as a feat tax or just a really nice bonus. I've seen some people argue that epic level monsters should be harder to hit and thus this is not a bug but a feature. Others think that there should be a constant base-line probability to hit a monster of approximately one's level throughout each tier.

To complicate things, as a party progresses to epic tier they gain access to a variety of magic items, utility powers, and special attacks that grant free rerolls, large bonuses to hit, powerful effects regardless of a hit, and so forth. It may be the case that an epic tier party hits monsters more often than a heroic or paragon tier party (despite the -3 lost due to scaling) because of the particular set of abilities and items they carry. (meta-problem #1, if you can't fit in the feat you might have to devote a few item slots to mechanically powerful but boring equipment).

On top of that some classes have abilities or powers that offer unlimited scaling based on ability modifiers. Warlords are notorious for this; what starts off as an ability to grant a small bonus to (e.g. +2) becomes the ability to essentially guarantee a hit (i.e. +10). If your party has many such powers you may not notice a dip in hit percentage. I've heard people argue that without the expertise feats (or a houseruled hit bonus), each party needs a tactical warlord to remain viable at epic levels. (meta-problem #2...or you could devote one party slot to a warlord)

My group gives weapon/implement expertise free to everyone (houserule). In my experience, those extra points count. 4e monsters are often huge piles of hit points attached to low damage abilities. Combats are not more deadly or exciting when players miss; they are just longer and grindier.

 

[Nikosandros]

I'd like to thank those who remain focused on the OP...

So, if I'm understanding correctly, there is some disagreement on whether the defense feats counts as taxes, correct?

Yes, as this thread amply demonstrates, there are many who feel that talking about feat taxes doesn't make sense. I respect their opinion, but at this point people keep making the same arguments... I feel that IMHO this conversation can be more useful if conducted among those who agree about the concept of feat tax.