Which feats are "taxes"?

[UngeheuerLich]

You mean a feat tax like weapon specialization and power attack for fighters in 3.x?

Seriously, get over it. WoTC admitted it was a math fix. Was is necessary? Not for experienced players.
Was it a good idea to implement it this way? No, see the nerd rage.

Is it a conditional feat? Yes, it depends on the weapon you use.
There is always the possiblity, that you find magic weapons which are better than your current one and you don´t have expertise for it.

Is it a feat tax? Yes, for those who claim it is, it actually is. But for those who clam it is not it is no tax. Although it is a great feat once you hit level 16.

 

[Runestar]

You mean a feat tax like weapon specialization and power attack for fighters in 3.x?

Weapon spec was a trap, not a tax.

Is it a feat tax? Yes, for those who claim it is, it actually is. But for those who clam it is not it is no tax.

What kind of an argument is this?

 

[AllisterH]

The best description for Expertise is what somebody alluded to earlier in the thread.

It's an inheritance tax. At levels 1-14, expertise represents a +1 to attack. Generally speaking, most players aren't going to notice the difference since at best, for an encounter, it might not even represent an extra round especially given that the party is likely not going to have the same plus on their weapon.

By mid paragon when the bonus is +2, yeah, you definitely will start to notice it but even then, you can deal with it if you started with a 20+ in your main stat and use a high accuracy (+3) weapon and always have the highest plus possible for your weapon.

By epic, you NEED it IMO. No amount of beanies can make up for the constant +3 to hit and you will especially notice the difference in how long combat lasts.

 

[Crothian]

But all styles are affected by the numbers. And unfortunately people who boldly declare that feats like Expertise aren't really necessary tend to also be people who make incorrect statements about the usefulness of Expertise, which makes me think that this is less of a gap between people of different styles, and more of a gap between people who really understand the math and people who don't.

It has nothing to do with understanding the numbers. It has to do about caring about them. Not everyone cares about the power of their character and getting all the bonuses they can. Not everyone needs to be totally effective 100% of the time. Some people just have fun playing characters and gaming.

 

[Garthanos]

Feels like this thread is all over the place ....

http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4t...h-glitch-explanation-pointer.html#post4973760

 

[Garthanos]

It has nothing to do with understanding the numbers. It has to do about caring about them. Not everyone cares about the power of their character and getting all the bonuses they can. Not everyone needs to be totally effective 100% of the time. Some people just have fun playing characters and gaming.

One of the complaints is that being noticeably less effective makes the part of game play for the very people who are less interested in the numbers.. ...get much more grindy... more in your face and less fun... creates an un fun vicious circle around combat which is well... damn central to the game (and sometimes even for those who like playing characters and gaming without using it as yardstick of some sort). Using lower level encounters and characters to challenge your players helps ... but when you have some optimizers and some not you can still run in to issues.

The other thread points out we are likely to need to battle more sub-level adversaries (so that the top end can be special and unique) as we level and to a certain extent that itself almost fixes the math. I think you still need the idea of banes ... I don't fight Orcus direct, ever (you run away) until I find out the artifact that was prophesied to destroy him.

 

[Herschel]

Anecdotally, I can see this at my table - the three PCs that have expertise hit more often (and hit harder) than the two that do not.

Our fighter and bard (who both have expertise and some damage-boosting feats) BOTH deal more damage on average than the rogue that did not "pay the taxes".

That's more likely the fault of the rogue's player and rolls, not his feats. Combat Advantage is a +2 vs. the feat's +1 bonus, for example. All else being equal, +2 is better than +1. If the fighter has to hold the line, he's not the one gaining combat advantage as often, for example. If teh fighter is optimized and the rogue is flavor built, that's a difference in goals and build style, not a math issue.

 

[Cadfan]

It has nothing to do with understanding the numbers. It has to do about caring about them. Not everyone cares about the power of their character and getting all the bonuses they can. Not everyone needs to be totally effective 100% of the time. Some people just have fun playing characters and gaming.

That may be true.

But I suspect that its not, really. I suspect this attitude is really pathological. I suspect that people who believe they have this attitude notice at the game table when their character is simply and obviously less effective at doing cool things than the other characters, and that they grow bitter about it, and make disparaging comments about everyone else being powergaming optimizers who have to be totally effective 100% of the time. Even though the other people at the table are not optimizers in any meaningful, objective sense- they're just people who took one an obvious feat that happens to be better than every other feat in the game for every single character in the game.

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...

Every single one of these characters is improved noticeably by improving their attack rolls by 2. I doubt any of these characters could find any feat in the entire game more valuable to them than that. Even if they could, I doubt they could find six more valuable feats to cover the heroic tier. I doubt they could find 12 to cover the paragon tier. Every single one of these characters would be noticeably less effective than an identical character at the table who just took Expertise and got it over with.

 

[Nikosandros]

Why can't people who want to argue about whether feat taxes exist or matter move to a new thread, so that we can keep this focused on the discussion of my OP?

 

[SkidAce]

I seem to be in the minority.

When the "getting harder to hit monsters as I level" math problem was discussed I didn't see the problem. Seemed to be a point of diminishing returns, i.e. epic monsters, even your level ones, are harder to hit.

However, Wizards admitted(?) the math was wrong, or decided to change their original intent.

I still have no problem. One fighter takes expertise, another does not. The first one is more skilled with the blade, perhaps the other is a better tactician.

But I admit, our games are small and local, so what works for us may not be indicative of a possible larger problem.