Does anyone else here think the following feats are feat taxes?
Great Weapon Master
Heavy Armor Master
Polearm Master
Shield Master
These feats more or less enable a strength based fighter. In a game with no feats dexterity would be overpowered IMHO. TO me these feats are about the only thing stopping a str based character froim sucking. The polearm feat just seems better than most other feats as well often enabling 3 attacks a round at low levels if you are a human.
Warcaster
RAW this feat is more or less the only way to enable some types of spellcasters being able to actually cast spells and keep a weapon in their hand. Additionally concentration spells are hard to keep up without this feat or being proficient in con saves which is difficult without being a sorcerer, multiclassing or spending another feat.
I think there are enough good feats and too few chances to take them to call anything a tax. The real problem is that there are a bunch of feats that are traps.
Not really.
They're good feats, good enough that I'd consider maybe taking them over +2 STR. Certainly heavy armour mastery as with standard array and halforc/dwarf it puts you to 18, or variant human.
But still not certain they're manditory to take instead of +2 to a stat.
And yep, there is a bit of a disparity bettween STR and DEX, but depending on the game, STR can come up a surprising amount.
That a feat is a good choice for a particular build does not make it a "feat tax."
That a feat makes a particular build more powerful or versatile does not make it a "feat tax."
Feat taxes only exist in two instances: 1) when you have to take a particular feat whether you want to use its particular benefit or not because it is required in order to later on take the thing that you actually want to have (5th edition has none of this kind of feat tax), or 2) when you have to take a particular feat in order to reach the baseline expected performance of your character (5th edition doesn't seem to have any of these either).
The only feat that comes close to being a tax is warcaster for valor bards.
Not for the con check, but to cast while holding weapons.
And the strongest feat is probably moderatly armored.
Nope, I think it's all pretty well balanced. Some feats are better in certain situations, but that is how games are supposed to work.
None are mandatory, and even the strongest feats have drawbacks.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Strill wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Strill wrote:
Polaris wrote:
mellored wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Strill wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Strill wrote:
The str fighter could choose to duel wield short swords, do the exact same damage. You aren't comparing apples to apples.
Karnos wrote:
Polaris wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
A duelist fighter using Dex and a Rapier is equal to a duelist Fighter using Str and a Longsword. The Str Fighter has better Str skills, and the Dex Fighter has better Dex skills (though is still suffering disadvantage on Stealth if they want the same AC). The Dex Fighter, though, has a better Reflex save, as much as 4 better (16 vs. 8), though more likely 1 or 2 better. The higher Strength saves might come up if the group fights lots of melee opponents who like to Push and Grapple. The Dex fighters also have better ranged attacks, though they do have to stow their shield in order to get use of something like a longbow.
Polaris wrote:
You could skip your expertise feat in 4e. Noone forced you to take it. If you didn't you took a hit to your performance.
You don't have to take great weapon master on a 2h fighter/paladin/barbarian in 5e. Noone forces you to take it. But if you don't you take a perfromance hit, much larger in fact than you would take from not skipping expertise in 4e.
Now, I don't like the word "feat tax". It is silly. But these are definitely feats so powerful for the inteded build that not taking them is purposefully reducing your character's performance.
Strength and Dexterity based Fighters are close enough in performance and capabilities that one doesn't trump the other though each is better than the other at specific things.
Strength vs Dexterity Pros:
- Strength Fighters often have the same or superior AC to a Dexterity Fighter
- A Strength Fighter wields a Shield better than a Dexterity Fighter due to more options for a d8 weapon die while holding it (Warhammer, Long Sword, Rapier vs Just Rapier)
- Better at Grappling/Pushing/Shoving which gives them better battlefield control
- Better climber/jumper and can break down doors/bust locks.
Strength vs Dexterity Cons:
- Dexterity Fighters have better/longer ranged Ranged weapon options
- Better Dexterity saving throws which are common
- Better initiative
- Better at Stealth/Sleight of Hands type checks for "delicate" operations
Summary:
Strength Fighters deal better damage later on, have more weapon variety and effect their environment and the battlefield more. Dexterity Fighters have similar damage (especially early levels), has a common spell-save (though mostly for damage reduction effects) and can initiate a fight better (either from Range or from Surprise). Seems to me they both fill niches without anyone overshadowing the other.
Slaunyeh wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Strill wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Strill wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Strill wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Timborama wrote:
spelley wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
kalil wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
kalil wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
kalil wrote:
Noone mentioned:
- Just because eldritch knights or valor bards are able to wield a shield and a weapon or a two handed weapon in both hands, they don´t have to.
They can make good use of a versatile weapon when attacking, taking it in one hand, when being on the defense. A fighter with duelling style should not use it in 2 hands at all... but every other fighter or a valourous bard should.
- Dexterity gives a good ranged advantage over strength based ranged attacks, but the strength based fighter can either use a shield and attack at medium range, or even use 2 handaxes, which are a great upgrade over dual shortswords or dual daggers, because they are d6 20ft ranged weapons. You can throw 2 of them at once, possibly with two-weapon fighting style, doing 2d6 + 6 damage at range. Admittedly, you can only do it once and then need some time to draw two new weapons, but you can switch to your backup greatsword.
Everyone forgets about the opportunity cost of needing two rounds to draw 2 weapons by RAW (which you may ignore... i liked the speed cost (trading 5ft of movement) from the playtest which I expect to return in the DMG). Being able to just switch from 2 weapon fighting to the generic greatsword combined with plate armor, strength based fighters look well enough.
If you then add in the versatility of the grab and shove action and ability to resist many of those maneuvers and being able to open stucked doors, there is a lot of utility going for the STR fighter too.
Strill wrote:
Ravenmancer wrote:
Illithidbix wrote:
Dex fighters outdamage STR fighters from 1-4. But honestly it's pretty close most of the way.
The real Dex disadvantage is their off-hand attack eats up their bonus action. As the levels and bonus action possibilities pile on, this becomes more and more painful.
Also Dex deals less damage on their action surge EDIT and their hasted actions or any other free attack.
CriticalBastard wrote:
I still havn't seen intitive taken into account.
I mean, if dex fighters deal 20% less damage, but get 25% more turns, then it seems a win to me.
Karnos wrote:
Has anyone considered that a Fighter has the option to use Either or indeed Both as a character? You don't have to be Just a Strength or Dex fighter, you can carry a great sword, a pair of knives and a bow.
Moirdryd2 wrote:
Moirdryd2 wrote:
Illithidbix wrote:
Strill wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
kalil wrote:
Strill wrote:
Feat tax =/= build feat.
A feat tax takes away choice, a build feat adds choice.
A feat tax is something that all characters of a certain class have to take to function. For example, the Weapon Finnesse feat from 3rd edition, which rogues and rangers had to take. Rules as written my halfling rogue can't hit anything with his dagger unless he took that feat. All rogues simply had one less feat, or they were a failure. Intelligent Blademaster from 4e functioned similarly.
HWM, GWF, and polearm master are not feat taxes. I can play a tank and take sentinel or alertness and not be dissapointed. 18 AC and second wind will keep me in the game just fine. Similarly Polearm Master opens up a build idea I might not have considered. It opened a door, it didn't close one.
When done right a feat lets me give my character some identity that sets them apart. When done badly, a feat feels inevitable and necessary. None of the feats in 5e feel necessary. Obviously if my character is going to use a polearm, I will take Polearm Mastery, but I don't have to use a polearm and probably would not have if the feat did not exist.
One thing I love about 5e is that it doesn't have feat taxes, IMO. 3x and 4e were rife with them. I bet we can all agree on that, lol.
I love the fact that there are fewer feats, and yet enough great ones that I have trouble deciding which to take (or to take the +2 to any one, or +1 to two ability scores). That signifies to me that, at least so far, they finally did feats right. There's still a possibility that several years form now, 5e will have typical D&D option bloat. Not necessarily a bad thing....My TTRPG philosophy is 'more is better'. I can always edit out stuff; but making stuff up takes work 
.
A feat that goes a long way towards building the concept you want, greatly enhancing your ability to deal damage and/or deal with challenges that might come up often, is an awesome thing.
It also seems easy to make up a feat to fill a perceived void in the few 'official' ones in the PHB. They published enough of them (like backgrounds) that it's entirely possible to invent one that's balanced with the existing ones easily. Or, (again, like backgrounds) mix and match the bullet points of existing feats.
CriticalBastard wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
CriticalBastard wrote:
I am starting to think Zardnaar is a flibbertigibbet.
Zardnaar; It's funny that you are mentioning feat taxes in 5e when feats are basically feat chains. I personally see the feat system for 5e as one of the only meaningful choices when it comes to character development through the level system. Sadly, They aren't interesting to me, nor are they revolutionary as they were with 3e. Basically they are old hat with a new band. " Yawn". I'd rather pay a feat tax and get more feat choices as with earlier versions of D&D. I feel like this edition lacks substance and though I like the basic chasis of the game. I'm already getting bored with it's cookie cutter Class, Background, feat, and arch type features. I expected more. I'm wondering if 5e. can keep me interested.
Brightmantle wrote:
Brightmantle wrote:
In any case I'm going to play the version "s" I like no matter what. And no, Many other editions of the game had much more to offer at their core at the time of release. I will be looking elsewhere for my D&D gaming fix at this point. I may find 5e. a game worth playing for an extended period of time later on in it's tenyear. Thus far it is bland to me. To bad because the basic mechanics work and I like them.
See your idea about parting out feats to make them distinct seems like folly when the game they came from in that form was released in 2000. However if it makes you happy more power to you. Happy gaming.
Brightmantle wrote:
Strill wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
I've always considered DEX the mega-stat in 5E. Still is, as you can get hit, damage, save and initiative bump. It's rather ridiculous, actually. However, STR-based fighters hold their own thanks to heavy armor and big ol' weapons, so I suspect it comes out in the wash.
Strill wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
kalil wrote:
Ramzour wrote: