That sounds like an excellent use of a feat to me.
Also, people complain that they don't like the idea of characters taking Weapon Expertise and Melee Training for, say, a Charisma Paladin, as opposed to "more interesting feats."
That's where you lost me.
What are these "more interesting feats"? Being able to charge and take OAs with my highest stat interests me greatly - and it's very, very interesting to have a decent attack to deliver when the Bravura Warlord grants you a freebie.
When I'm building a 4e character, the most "interesting" feats are almost always: Weapon Expertise, Weapon Proficiency in a Superior Weapon, Armor/Shield Proficiencies, Toughness, Weapon Focus, and Melee Training, when applicable. Those are incredibly "interesting" - they have tangible effects in battle that are always rewarding, as opposed to purely situational, such as Back to the Wall or Lasting Frost.
Are those feats more "interesting" because they are limited? Is Weapon Expertise less interesting because it's reliable? Because it's *better*?
I understand some people are house-ruling the expertise feats into standard character progression, and they have the right to do so, of course. I simply don't understand the rationale.
What makes good feats a feat tax? What alternatives are more "interesting" than being good better at what you set out to do?
The only ones I can think of are likely Linguist and Skill Training, the two most "RP centered" feats I can think of. Still, Linguist is a poor feat thanks to rituals that obviate its usefulness, and Skill Training is generally a bad idea as well, as better initial party composition would have filled the gaps in skills, so that a character doesn't have to burn a feat to compensate. And a Multiclass feat is always better than skill training. Always.
In my opinion, the "feat tax" idea is pure whining. I'd be glad for someone to prove me wrong, but the more I see it referred to, the more I'm left with that conclusion.
"feat tax"
The actually idea behind a "feat tax" is that it is necessary to effective.
Not that it is "interesting".
If there was a feat to gain +1 to hit while in darkness, it would be a good feat choice for an Underdark Game, a poor choice for most others.
If there was a feat to gain +1 to hit while in light, it would be a poor choice for the underdark game.
A feat that grants a constant +1 to hit with a certain weapon type is the tactically sound choice. It's the best option, tactically.
calronmoonflower, how is this a problem? Some feats make you more effective. Arguably, they are all necessary to be as effective as possible.
Weapon Expertise makes a significant difference in battle efficacy. So does Weapon Focus. So does a Superior Weapon. So does Toughness.
At what point are you going to accept that useful feats need to exist, and yes, people will benefit more from taking them. Why call that a "tax" - isn't that the core of the feat system, entirely?
I still don't understand this argument. It still sounds like whining. People want all their character's efficiency built into their class, freeing their feat choices up for, what, customization? Aesthetics? Feats affect what your character does, and how well they do it. They're not decals and air fresheners - they're better tires, a new fuel injector, another car metaphor., etc.
Multiclassing also costs a lot of feats if you want more than just the initial one. I'm always short on feats when designing characters and adding must-haves doesn't help me with that. Essentially the Expertise feats are correcting a design flaw but they do it in a way that leaves everyone with -1 feat. And since I don't believe that we were given a feat too much by accident, the complaints are far from unjustified in my opinion.
Feat tax as nothing to do with a feat being "interesting" or not, it refers to feats that you are almost forced to take to kept a certain level of functionality.
Weapon expertise is the most common example, but basically this apply to any feat you take not because its interesting, but because you NEED it, this goes against the basic idea behinds feats also.
So is a superior weapon. So is weapon focus. So are Armor/Shield feats (except for the Paladin, who comes fully loaded.) These are must haves, in my opinion.
If you'd rather spend your feats on improving racial/class features, you can. If you want to spend your feats on multiclass powers, you can. You have that choice.
Having, arguably, better options, doesn't prohibit you from choosing those feats. Complaining about the existance of those better options, however, is pure whining. To some people, a feat that grants +1 to hit is the most interesting thing in the world. I know it is to me.
One of my initial problems with 4e was the lack of feats that interested me, in the initial PHB. There weren't enough superior weapons. There wasn't a feat to improve accuracy, save for "situational" bonuses. There wasn't a way to make Basic Attacks effectively for non-strength based weapon users, the Cha-Pal and Cha-Rogue.
Now there are. I enjoy 4e much more now, because I have things that are valuable to *me* to spend my feats on.
It seems pretty selfish of me that people who value one set of characteristics - racial, elemental, tactical, etc. - consider their personal preferences somehow superior to those who prefer more solid, numerical benefits - static bonuses to hit and damage, AC and NADs, HP, etc.
We all have our tastes, but complaining that the game caters to others tastes, as well as yours, sounds pretty selfish, from where I'm standing.
I still don't understand this argument. It still sounds like whining. People want all their character's efficiency built into their class, freeing their feat choices up for, what, customization? Aesthetics? Feats affect what your character does, and how well they do it. They're not decals and air fresheners - they're better tires, a new fuel injector, another car metaphor., etc.
To work with your analogy...
Imagine you ordered a car for 10.000 $. You have saved 1k extra and already skimmed the shops for some super-cool tires.
Now when the car is delivered the salesman is like "Umm... that'll be 10.000 bucks, plus an additional 1.000 $ for the breaks. They aren't standard issue anymore since last quarter."
By your logic you should not be angry because breaks sure are much more important for your car than good-looking tires.
WotC's answer was a Feat Tax in the form of Weapon Expertise. Rather than simply giving every Character a +1 to Attack Rolls per Tier, they decided to release it in the form of a Feat. When people say "more interesting Feat," they mean something like, "Should I Multiclass, or not suck?" This isn't a hard choice to make, but it's very annoying when you don't actually see any real effect from Expertise. It's obviously there, but it certainly feels like you've just wasted a Feat Slot on something that should have been Errata. :S
That's mostly my opinion, of course, and IMHO, Melee Training is situational, so being a Feat isn't a horrible thing, so it's not really a Feat Tax. Expertise is because it effects every Character. Also, if you ever want to do things like wield different types of Weapons or Implements, it really starts screwing you over.
That diferentiates me from someone who is proficient - familiar - with the weapon, but not a master of its use.
How is that not a distinction?
I'm all for that.
It encourages characters to use their 'signature weapon/impliment,' which becomes synonymous with them. Sounds good to me. Better than picking up whatever's lying around.
calronmoonflower, how is this a problem? Some feats make you more effective. Arguably, they are all necessary to be as effective as possible.
You're not getting it. The idea behind the "feat tax" isn't that the feats make you more effective, but that without those feats you cannot be effective.
The points are related, but not the same.
A feat that grants a constant +1 to hit with a certain weapon type is the tactically sound choice. It's the best option, tactically.
That's exactly what, for many of us, makes it an uninteresting choice. The magnitude of its superiority to other feats makes it an obvious "take it," rather than the weighing of benefits and limitations that many other feats present. There's less consideration to be made, both in character building and in play, therefore, less interest.
Some people are fine with a longsword, as opposed to a bastard sword. Unfortunately, it's an inferior option, unless you have a specific reason, Wizard of the Spiral Tower, Eladrin, etc. - the bastard sword is better. The longsword is inferior. It's unacceptable to use a longsword rather than a bastard sword, from an efficiency standpoint.
Now, it may not be your *first* priority to use a bastard sword. But, my the same token as Weapon Expertise, it is a "must have."
Isn't advanced mastery of a weapon or impliment flavorful? The Kensei paragon path has flavor, that of a weapon master. The Expertise feats, to a lesser degree, carry the same flavor.
yes I get that, but that only apply to a few character concepts, looking at the big picture, taking weapon mastery might mean not taking skill training/focus, or a multi class feat, or the feat to speak a couple more languages.
since you need that feat to be effective, the tax is the flavorful feat you are not taking.
I don't care if some people say it can be flavorful; it's simply unfair that I have to burn a Feat Slot to make my more interesting character actually viable. It's not my fault the math is wonky, so why am I paying for it??
Isn't advanced mastery of a weapon or impliment flavorful? The Kensei paragon path has flavor, that of a weapon master. The Expertise feats, to a lesser degree, carry the same flavor.
It is, but there are already feats that do that and, in my opinion, do it better, like Heavy Blade Opportunity or Polearm Gamble, because they alter the tactics of battle. What I find most uninteresting, as a choice, about the expertise feats is just how obviously mechanically superior they are to other feats.
I don't think you can be truly effective without a superior weapon. Toughness. Weapon focus. Etc.
Some people are fine with a longsword, as opposed to a bastard sword. Unfortunately, it's an inferior option, unless you have a specific reason, Wizard of the Spiral Tower, Eladrin, etc. - the bastard sword is better. The longsword is inferior. It's unacceptable to use a longsword rather than a bastard sword, from an efficiency standpoint.
Now, it may not be your *first* priority to use a bastard sword. But, my the same token as Weapon Expertise, it is a "must have."
No it's not. 1 point of damage isn't a "must have." Hell, 3 points of damage aren't a "must have," because no matter what, if you hit, you deal some damage! Without Weapon Expertise, you may be dealing ZERO damage a lot of the time. That means it's a Feat that technically gives you a +30 (or much, much more!) Damage Bonus at Epic Level, and not only is that Unbalanced beyond belief, it really is a "must have!"
I don't think you can be truly effective without a superior weapon. Toughness. Weapon focus. Etc.
Some people are fine with a longsword, as opposed to a bastard sword. Unfortunately, it's an inferior option, unless you have a specific reason, Wizard of the Spiral Tower, Eladrin, etc. - the bastard sword is better. The longsword is inferior. It's unacceptable to use a longsword rather than a bastard sword, from an efficiency standpoint.
Now, it may not be your *first* priority to use a bastard sword. But, my the same token as Weapon Expertise, it is a "must have."
No, I disagree. A bastard sword will only net you 1-3 points of damage, (1-2 if using it in one hand) and you have to spend a feat to use it right. 1-3 points of damage isn't really an issue when you're dealing with all the [w]'s of a power, and all your stat/magic bonuses. Honestly, I think that you're better off using the feat on something else: I have a hard time justifying making a character that uses a bastard sword. And superior weapons are not a "must have" I've made plenty of characters that didn't use them, and they outdid the ones that used superior weapons!
I don't think you can be truly effective without a superior weapon. Toughness. Weapon focus. Etc.
Some people are fine with a longsword, as opposed to a bastard sword. Unfortunately, it's an inferior option, unless you have a specific reason, Wizard of the Spiral Tower, Eladrin, etc. - the bastard sword is better. The longsword is inferior. It's unacceptable to use a longsword rather than a bastard sword, from an efficiency standpoint.
Now, it may not be your *first* priority to use a bastard sword. But, my the same token as Weapon Expertise, it is a "must have."
Maybe but using a Bastard Sword for your character was not assumed in the math of the game.
Imagine they found out that some editor screwed up and made a misprint in the books. You were actually supposed to get twice your Con score as starting HP instead of only one time. All damage values of monsters are based around that assumption and since players have fewer hitpoints than they are supposed to, they are at a severe disadvantage which never was intended by the designers.
Now what would be the apt solution to this dilemma?
Correct the print error and release errata that you should indeed start with twice your Con + whatever your class gets or rather release a new feat that reads: You gain additional hitpoints equal to your Constitution score.
Now wouldn't *that* be flavourfull, being exceptionally tough? And it's a tactically sound choice, too - like epic toughness but at lvl 1 already... What an awesome feat!
1. A better option, and
2. Available.
If a better option is available, you *must have it*, from an efficacy standpoint. Again, there might be things that are more of a priority, but in the end, there's no excuse not to pick it up, at some point, unless *each and every feat* from level 1 to 30 is taken by a more useful option. Which it isn't.
I agree, there were problems with the system's math. But, another problem was the *Expertise should have been in the game from the start*. Perhaps as a static +1, not scaling up to +3 to compensate for math. Still, some people would prefer more accuracy - always, not under a set of specific circumstances. In the same way, some people prefer more damage. Weapon Focus exists, for the latter group. Expertise should have existed *from the start* for the former.
I do think it's a bit unfair that there is no "impliment focus" for extra damage, as only weapon users, and weapon-as-impliment-users can take advantage of that. But, expertise, in my opinion, is the best feat in 4e. And one the game sorely needed.
The PHB2 turned around a lot of my doubts about the system, and the expertise feats definitely contributed to that.
Expertise is not redundant with anything else.
That sounds redundant with the existing toughness feat, unfortunately.
Expertise is not redundant with anything else.
Alas, it's not April Fool's lest I might assume, you are joking. I don't think, I could make it any clearer and besides Crimson already gave you the exact matter to which I just tried to form a second example which might be more explicit and easier to understand
Crimson Lancer, a bastard sword is a must have over a longsword, in my opinion, because it's
1. A better option, and
2. Available.
If a better option is available, you *must have it*, from an efficacy standpoint.
Your mistaking a want for a need.
Crimson Lancer, a bastard sword is a must have over a longsword, in my opinion, because it's
1. A better option, and
2. Available.
If a better option is available, you *must have it*, from an efficacy standpoint. Again, there might be things that are more of a priority, but in the end, there's no excuse not to pick it up, at some point, unless *each and every feat* from level 1 to 30 is taken by a more useful option. Which it isn't.
I agree, there were problems with the system's math. But, another problem was the *Expertise should have been in the game from the start*. Perhaps as a static +1, not scaling up to +3 to compensate for math. Still, some people would prefer more accuracy - always, not under a set of specific circumstances. In the same way, some people prefer more damage. Weapon Focus exists, for the latter group. Expertise should have existed *from the start* for the former.
I do think it's a bit unfair that there is no "impliment focus" for extra damage, as only weapon users, and weapon-as-impliment-users can take advantage of that. But, expertise, in my opinion, is the best feat in 4e. And one the game sorely needed.
The PHB2 turned around a lot of my doubts about the system, and the expertise feats definitely contributed to that.
Actually, with the massive amount of Feats available now through Dragon and the many Books, it's easy to fill every Slot. Hell, I find myself strapped for Slots, and it's not easy to figure out which ones I should skip.
In contrast, static feats don't require any decisions after being taken. Not all static feats are derided though. No one really has a problem with the armor feats, Weapon Focus, Toughness, or many others. The key to static feats is that they should vary between characters and not outshine each other: many leaders wouldn't bother with Weapon Focus just like some defenders find Toughness unnecessary. Between Static and Tactical I like to define "build creating" like Hammer Rhythm making a Hi CON hammer weilder, other Martial power feats similiarly reward hammer usage distinctly from other weapons.
The problem arises in "Feat patches" which are "Feats to do the things you should already be doing, bringing you up to par where you had been sadly lacking" Not choosing those specific feats over others greatly hinders you in comparison. For example: defenders should be good at opportunity Attacks, the Featless Shield swordmage and charisma paladin are not. By taking a feat, you can be, and can charge too, but in the end every member of the class should have it- there is no variety in taking this feat and the value gained having it overshadows many of the others: this would be better served as a class feature.
Worst of all are the Expertise(s): since the developers ADMIT they only exist to patch up their mistake in math after the lowered PC stat scaling. Every character should have them, so it's even worse than a class correction. Not only are they featpatches, but they cause other unpleasent side effects as well, like weapon + implement users or users of two weapon families.
Interesting feats are ones you have to think about before taking them. When we are saying to ourselves, my first feats will be X Y and Z for all our characters we have done something wrong.
It's all "wants", in the end.
Again, that's an issue of personal preference. But, isn't it good if the game has options for my play style as well as yours? Shouldn't it cater to a wide fanbase, as opposed to a narrow one?
There is a significant difference. Weapon Focus or Superior Weapon Proficiency aren't the difference between being very useful to the Party and being a hindrance to the Party; Expertise is.
An "elevated baseline" sounds perfect, actually.
Kletian999, to be honest, what you describe as "tactical" feats are likely feats I would always, always avoid.
Again, that's an issue of personal preference. But, isn't it good if the game has options for my play style as well as yours? Shouldn't it cater to a wide fanbase, as opposed to a narrow one?
And you don't need to pick all the tactical ones: take a few of the statics that best fit your concept, maybe some build makers like Polearm Gamble/Uncanny dodge/Spear Push, and some side bonuses like having a familiar with some boosts. The problem is statics that are 1. Universally the best and/or 2. Making up for a deficency in the design so you can't say no to them.
Honestly, by now I believe, he's just playing with us...
He's always playing; but at least a token refutation of what he says has to be out there so newbies don't get the wrong idea.
Isn't it also a "want" to be more accurate, as opposed to a "need"?
Perhaps. It is possible to get by without these feats.
However, if you don't counter the argument given you end up knocking down a Straw Man.
Why do you need to hit on a 12 to 20, as opposed to a 15 to 20?
Well, it not my argument, so I really couldn't say.
There is a number gap between PCs and monsters that grows with level.
The higher level you are the more likely that you'll miss or get hit with NAD attacks increases.
Why do you need to do 5.5 average damage per [w], rather than 4.5 per [w]?
This really should fall into the "want" category rather that "feat tax" territory.
The feats that get complaints give up to +3 to hit and boosts to defense.
It's all "wants", in the end.
Oh, really. Try setting your classes primary stat as low as possible.
You'll find that you need a good number in that stat to add meaningfully in combat.
Some are of the line of thought that the "feat tax" feats are necessary to do the same at high levels.
That's my issue.
If a better option is available, you *must have it*, from an efficacy standpoint. Again, there might be things that are more of a priority, but in the end, there's no excuse not to pick it up, at some point, unless *each and every feat* from level 1 to 30 is taken by a more useful option. Which it isn't.
It might become the point that you NEED to take 30 feats, if WotC keeps releasing Feats that impose a Feat Tax instead of just issuing errata that fixes math, that are better than taking the bastard sword...
And at that point, according to you, using a bastard sword becomes "uninteresting".
I just really like the Expertise Feats, and I tire of hearing people bash them, Melee Training, and others, as "feat tax," complain about not having enough feats for more interesting feats, and *never once supply* information as to what, exactly, those more flavorful feats are, or what's stopping them from just *taking them* instead of complaining because a "better" alternative exists.
That's my issue.
Well "more interesting" is subjective and therefor will depend of the individual.
So the next time someone mentions "more interesting feats", Ask. THEM.
Well "more interesting" is subjective and therefor will depend of the individual.
So the next time someone mentions "more interesting feats", Ask. THEM.
He did, it's been answered, and now it's devolved into bickering over the value of the "boring" feats in question rather than the "interestingness" of the other feats people have presented.
What feats are 'interesting' vary from person to person.
Precisely. I find static feats much more interesting than tactical ones. Other people find the opposite to be true.
Interesting feats, on the other hand, are ones i'm aware that i have when i'm actually playing the game. See that little dragonling on my shoulder? I got that with the familiar feat and that's interesting in-game. Need some scrying? Ritual Casting is more interesting than Weapon Expertise. Even feats that give numerical bonuses are more interesting than the static bonus feats because i'm aware of their tactical significance during a fight. Im actually aware that i have Power Attack when the warlord grants me a circumstantial bonus to hit while i don't even remember if Weapon Expertise is written on my sheet.
Improved Initiative can "dissapear" into your init mod.
Toughness can "dissapear" into your HP total.
Skill Training can "dissapear" into your skill modifier.
I just don't see where you draw the line. To me, all feats are "active" because they affect the attacks I'm using, my denfenses being targeted, and my HP total, etc.
I've heard the idea of a "feat tax" thrown around. It seems the argument is that certain feats, particularly weapon/impliment expertise and melee training, are a "feat tax" because they are feats that improve basic efficiency of a character, without doing anything else.
Your understanding of the term "feat tax" is fundamentally flawed.
People keep trying to explain and you go off on a tangent and argue something else entirely without ever understanding what the term refers to.
Example One: 4e Expertise
4e's numerical balance relies on certain factors. The reason we have all this level scaling and why you're supposed to have your primary and keep pumping it is that it maintains your to-hit %. From the start of Heroic to (I believe) mid-Paragon, this mostly holds true.
However, by Epic, you will have lost about 20% of your hit percentage simply due to your equipment/stats not keeping up with enemy defenses. This is why pre-PHB2 CharOp treated an 18 as the minimum post-racial primary score - you needed it to have a decent hit % by endgame.
Similarly, this is why there were many topics and much discussion on how to fix the math behind this. With the introduction of Expertise and it's scaling, it was patched. The math was corrected to somewhat scale properly - however, it now used up a feat.
Due to the math, in order to stay functional (especially with +2 weapons and a 16 post-racial primary - which is supposed to be a workable, if suboptimal, character) you must pick up Expertise to patch the hole in the math. Hence the term "Feat Tax". It's a Tax because you can't avoid it (you have to compensate for the drop in hit % somehow), and it costs a Feat.
Example 2: 3e Precise Shot
3e had this really stupid shoot into combat rule, where you have a -4 to hit an enemy in mixed melee. This was really stupid because nobody else had this problem. Only ranged weapons. This meant that there was an innate imbalance in that weapon choice - you must get Precise Shot to correct it. It was a Tax because you needed Precise Shot to be a functional archer. So it was a Feat Tax on archers.
Get it?
A feat tax refers to feats you cannot avoid taking in order to compensate for a deficiency in the underlying system.
Improved Initiative can "dissapear" into your init mod.
Toughness can "dissapear" into your HP total.
Skill Training can "dissapear" into your skill modifier.
This is exactly why something like the familiar feat is more interesting to me than a bonus i forget the origin of. When i look down at a number on a page, i dont mentally break down "+1 from Weapon Focus, +2 Iron Armbands, +1 from..." and savor the flavor of all the various static number boosters. The ultimate effect of these things are passive numbers on a page from a source that is totally forgettable.
I just don't see where you draw the line. To me, all feats are "active" because they affect the attacks I'm using, my denfenses being targeted, and my HP total, etc.
Some feats are active and some aren't. I never remember if ive taken Toughness or not because the number is calculated in and requires no conscious thought. Its a passive, and thus boring, feat to me. Something that you actually have to activate based on a tactical decision is more mechanically interesting to me because i have to actually be aware of the feat's existence.
Some "passive" feats are still more interesting than the expertise feats as well. Its impossible for me to forget that im being followed around by a flaming skull, for example. Its much cooler than a +1 to hit that i forgot originated from a feat.
If not taking the Expertise feat meant you could not be effective at higher levels... how were characters effective at all before the PHB2 came out?
Are you now less effective now that the feat is available vice before it was available? Is the math of you hitting somehow different if you don't take the feat vice the feat never being available in the first place?
Is it generally a good idea to take the expertise feat? heck yeah, my character is going to be grabbing the Focused Expertise(longsword) feat at level 8; it will increase my effectiveness. But, by the same token, I'm also picking up Dual Implement Spellcaster.
In fact, I can't think of any reason why any Arcane, primary implement user (e.g. not melee/euphonic bow bards, swordmages or melee/ranged weapon artificers) wouldn't pick up DIS. At high epic it's an extra +6 to damage in addition to whatever property it has (I already have a subtle dagger in my off hand).
I find the "feat tax" idea kind of stupid, too.
If not taking the Expertise feat meant you could not be effective at higher levels... how were characters effective at all before the PHB2 came out?
The issue only existed at Epic, I believe. This meant there were little amounts of groups actually experiencing it.
It was only really noticed on CharOp, because CharOp number crunches, and there's even statistical breakdowns of defenses, resistances, vulnerabilities, and attacks of MM1. The weakness in the system was discovered quantitatively, not qualitatively. Again, this is why all CharOp builds pre-PHB2 had a minimum of 18 in primary, and why "To Hit was God".
Nowadays, CharOp is a lot more lenient towards a 16 primary. (In fact, I have a tendency to defend 16 as a functional primary attribute.)
Wizards heard about the issue, and rather than change any underlying math, offered us a feat. So if you want to fix the issue (and the consensus is Yes, you want to be effective at Epic), you have to take the feat.
Compare it to pretty much any other feat, and as far as I know you won't see anything as effective as +1/+2/+3 to hit. That's almost +15% of your character's total contribution, as practically every power relies on you hitting.
You need to clarify your understanding of the difference between need and want. You want DIS because it does damage, you need expertise to hit and do anything.
The issue only existed at Epic, I believe. This meant there were little amounts of groups actually experiencing it.
It was only really noticed on CharOp, because CharOp number crunches, and there's even statistical breakdowns of defenses, resistances, vulnerabilities, and attacks of MM1. The weakness in the system was discovered quantitatively, not qualitatively. Again, this is why all CharOp builds pre-PHB2 had a minimum of 18 in primary, and why "To Hit was God".
Nowadays, CharOp is a lot more lenient towards a 16 primary. (In fact, I have a tendency to defend 16 as a functional primary attribute.)
Wizards heard about the issue, and rather than change any underlying math, offered us a feat. So if you want to fix the issue (and the consensus is Yes, you want to be effective at Epic), you have to take the feat.
Compare it to pretty much any other feat, and as far as I know you won't see anything as effective as +1/+2/+3 to hit. That's almost +15% of your character's total contribution, as practically every power relies on you hitting.
You need to clarify your understanding of the difference between need and want. You want DIS because it does damage, you need expertise to hit and do anything.
I understand the difference between a need and a want. You do not.
I want both focused expertise and DIS.
It is true that a character needs to hit. It is not true that they need to hit more often. It simply makes the game easier if you do.
It is likewise true that a character needs to do damage in order to kill an enemy. It is not true that they need to do more damage with a given hit. It simply makes the game easier if you do.
Hitting more often, like doing more damage, are wants not needs. It is still theoretically possible to be victorious with only a 5% chance to hit.
And let's take a look at two builds. An 18 primary/+3 prof vs a 16 primary/+2 prof/weapon expertise, both at level thirty. All else being equal there is only a +1 to hit difference between the two, in favor of the 16 primary. A 16 primary with a +3 proficiency weapon WITHOUT weapon expertise will have a +1 to hit difference versus the 18/+3, in favor of the 18 primary. An 18/+2 will have exactly the same chance to hit as a 16/+3.
If the 18/+2 was a viable build (and it was according to CharOp) was a viable build than so too was the 16/+3 (which CharOp decried as being nigh unplayable).
So forgive me if CharOp seems... wrong on issues like this to me.
Perhaps. It is possible to get by without these feats.
However, if you don't counter the argument given you end up knocking down a Straw Man.
Out of curiosity, isn't invalidating one of the premises of the original argument a correct way to counter it? If a feat isn't needed because there isn't a deficiency in the underlying system, doesn't that break down the given definition of "feat tax" and support the original assertion that using the term is pointless...?
I fully understand the gap that opens at higher levels between attack bonus and defenses, but I have yet to be convinced that said gap is a "deficiency" or that it even wasn't intended due to the sheer number of compensation measures that already existed...
What I do believe is that Expertise is functionally far more powerful in a combat-oriented game than everything else, particularly at Epic levels. That, to me, makes them summarily uninteresting...
It is true that a character needs to hit. It is not true that they need to hit more often. It simply makes the game easier if you do.
No. You need it to be where you're supposed to be, mathematically.
I fully understand the gap that opens at higher levels between attack bonus and defenses, but I have yet to be convinced that said gap is a "deficiency" or that it even wasn't intended due to the sheer number of compensation measures that already existed...
My understanding is that the flaw and breakdown in the math was acknowledged. I believe also that we have on record somewhere a dev saying that he doesn't even have the Expertise feats in his campaigns, the bonuses are applied automatically.
I fully understand the gap that opens at higher levels between attack bonus and defenses, but I have yet to be convinced that said gap is a "deficiency" or that it even wasn't intended due to the sheer number of compensation measures that already existed...
Same here.
No. You need it to be where you're supposed to be, mathematically.
No, you want it to be higher and at a point you feel is appropriate. It does not logically follow that because something gets more difficult it is therefore incorrect or "broken math."
I agree that Expertise is a powerful set of feats. But it is not necessary to be able to function.
My understanding is that the flaw and breakdown in the math was acknowledged. I believe also that we have on record somewhere a dev saying that he doesn't even have the Expertise feats in his campaigns, the bonuses are applied automatically.
Devs are allowed to house-rule things. I have plenty of house-rules myself. What a dev does in their private games is what they do in their game, not in mine.
In my opinion, the "feat tax" idea is pure whining. I'd be glad for someone to prove me wrong, but the more I see it referred to, the more I'm left with that conclusion.
It's quite clear that you don't want to be proven wrong at all. Your OP is openly antagonistic toward opposing POVs and you've spent two pages arguing against people who you supposedly want to gain understanding from. This thread is in fact a thinly disguised attempt to start a flame war, with Rant_Casey gleefully fanning the sparks amid tinder and hot oil.
Folks, let's quit feeding the troll.
It's quite clear that you don't want to be proven wrong at all. Your OP is openly antagonistic toward opposing POVs and you've spent two pages arguing against people who you supposedly want to gain understanding from. This thread is in fact a thinly disguised attempt to start a flame war, with Rant_Troll gleefully fanning the sparks amid tinder and hot oil.
While Rant_Casey often does come off as a troll I think he actually has a legit point with this one.
At what point are you going to accept that useful feats need to exist, and yes, people will benefit more from taking them.
Feats (and powers for that matter) IMO should be reasonably balanced to each other, such that there aren't feat/power choices that are blatantly superior to others.
Thus, all feats would be similarly useful.
Why call that a "tax" - isn't that the core of the feat system, entirely?
Could you explain what you mean by this - what is at the core of the feat system?
People want all their character's efficiency built into their class, freeing their feat choices up for, what, customization?
Yes. Feat choice (and power choice) IMO should be reasonably balanced; feat/power comparisons where one feat/power is significantly more powerful than another feat/power should be avoided.
Thus the player can choose feats based on what the player wants the character to be, without having to worry too much about whether or not another feat would have been a significantly better choice.
This is the same reason why classes were balanced for 4e.
My understanding is that the flaw and breakdown in the math was acknowledged. I believe also that we have on record somewhere a dev saying that he doesn't even have the Expertise feats in his campaigns, the bonuses are applied automatically.
That's disappointing...
Do you happen to have a reference/link handy?
No, you want it to be higher and at a point you feel is appropriate. It does not logically follow that because something gets more difficult it is therefore incorrect or "broken math."
Standard Array has 16 as your highest score. This may be an 18 post-racial.
The stated recommendation is your highest score in your primary.
We will ignore weapon proficiency because that just leads to stupidity and tangents about +2 vs +3. We will instead deal with non-AC defenses.
At level 1, an implement user has a +3/4 against a NAD of 13, for a 55% to 60% to-hit.
Let's go to level 8. Following the guidelines, you can have an item of level 7, 8, or 9. You have a +2 implement, +4/5 from your primary being at 18/20, and +4 from level. So +10/11 vs a NAD of 20, for a 55% to 60% to-hit.
Well, what do you know? This is one of the reasons why 55%-60% is the generally accepted baseline to-hit value.
We skip ahead to level 30. You have a +6 implement, and you get + 7/8 from your primary at 24/26, and +15 from level. You have a +28/29 vs a NAD of 42, for a 35% to 40% to hit.
[INDENT]Orcus, level 33: AC 48; Fortitude 51, Reflex 46, Will 49 - Avg NAD 48.67
Ancient Red Dragon, level 30: AC 48; Fortitude 48, Reflex 43, Will 42 - Avg NAD 44.33
Tarrasque, level 30: AC 43; Fortitude 49, Reflex 38, Will 32 - Avg NAD 39.67[/INDENT]
These are the only level 30 and above monsters provided pre-PHB2. Against Orcus, non-optimized characters going by the book won't touch him, nor an Ancient Red Dragon.
I believe you were merely ignorant. You can continue to believe this is intentional. Either way, I'm done here.
Edit:
Do you happen to have a reference/link handy?
Unfortunately, given the date (time when this was relevant and how fast the boards move) and our "search" function, I won't be able to provide one. I was never one to actually complain about the math, nor was I one of those who worked it out, so even looking at my own posts wouldn't help.
In fact, I was one of those who said "Sure, it's kinda wonky, but your powers and abilities and tactics should help cover it anyways, so no house rules are necessary." :P
Standard Array has 16 as your highest score. This may be an 18 post-racial.
The stated recommendation is your highest score in your primary.
We will ignore weapon proficiency because that just leads to stupidity and tangents about +2 vs +3. We will instead deal with non-AC defenses.
At level 1, an implement user has a +3/4 against a NAD of 13, for a 55% to 60% to-hit.
Let's go to level 8. Following the guidelines, you can have an item of level 7, 8, or 9. You have a +2 implement, +4/5 from your primary being at 18/20, and +4 from level. So +10/11 vs a NAD of 20, for a 55% to 60% to-hit.
Well, what do you know? This is one of the reasons why 55%-60% is the generally accepted baseline to-hit value.
We skip ahead to level 30. You have a +6 implement, and you get + 7/8 from your primary at 24/26, and +15 from level. You have a +28/29 vs a NAD of 42, for a 35% to 40% to hit.
[INDENT]Orcus, level 33: AC 48; Fortitude 51, Reflex 46, Will 49 - Avg NAD 48.67
Ancient Red Dragon, level 30: AC 48; Fortitude 48, Reflex 43, Will 42 - Avg NAD 44.33
Tarrasque, level 30: AC 43; Fortitude 49, Reflex 38, Will 32 - Avg NAD 39.67[/INDENT]
These are the only level 30 and above monsters provided pre-PHB2. Against Orcus, non-optimized characters going by the book won't touch him, nor an Ancient Red Dragon.
I believe you were merely ignorant. You can continue to believe this is intentional. Either way, I'm done here.
And I still believe you don't know the difference between a "need" and a "want."
Do I think that it sucks to only hit 30% of the time? Yeah. Will I work one of the Expertise feats into all of my builds? Almost certainly.
Does this make the Expertise feats absolutely necessary for a character to function? No.
Just because you don't understand logic doesn't mean I am stupid or ignorant. It just means you miss the point.
The point is that, while extremely good and almost certainly one of the best choices available Expertise is not a "feat tax" because the entire concept of a "feat tax" is unsubstantiated because there were viable builds before these feats were introduced.
It also ignores the "when" of taking the feat. Do I take all of my survival feats first? Do I push back expertise for Intelligent Blademaster/Melee Training? Maybe I should take Eladrin Blademaster first and then Focused Expertise?
If it was as much of a "feat tax" as people claim then every build everywhere would always take the relevant expertise feat at level 1. The way the math breaks down it's simply a good idea at lower levels and an EXTREMELY good idea (although not technically "necessary") at higher levels.
If it was as much of a "feat tax" as people claim then every build everywhere would always take the relevant expertise feat at level 1.
I'm glad to see you still have no idea what the issue with Expertise was about, not what "Feat Tax" refers to. I'm so happy I wasted my time crunching numbers and trying to explain, really.I love how in a complaint about a phrase based on ignorance of what it means, you're then totally ignore explanations what it refers to, assign your own definition, and then claim usage of the phrase is wrong, because of your definition. Awesome.
"Widgets suck."
"What? No they don't?"
"He means widgets as in X."
"No, widgets means Y, and Y doesn't suck, so you're totally wrong."
"..."
What about 3e's Precise Shot? That's not a Feat Tax either, is it? A -4 to hit is just something you want to avoid, not need to.
You don't need it, you can always just suck. Of course, that complete misses the context of the word need - as in "you need it to not suck for no reason other than inane rule/math stupidity".My last try before I cease to pay attention to this inanity:
Income Tax. You have to pay it. Or you go to jail.
Feat Tax. You have to pay it. Or you suck.
I love how in a complaint about a phrase based on ignorance of what it means, you're then totally ignore explanations what it refers to, assign your own definition, and then claim usage of the phrase is wrong, because of your definition. Awesome.
"Widgets suck."
"What? No they don't?"
"He means widgets as in X."
"No, widgets means Y, and Y doesn't suck, so you're totally wrong."
"..."
What about 3e's Precise Shot? That's not a Feat Tax either, is it? A -4 to hit is just something you want to avoid, not need to.
"Feat Tax" - a feat that is required by all characters and all builds in order to be effective.
As there were effective builds before the Expertise feats were introduced then it therefor follows that the Expertise feats are not "strictly necessary" to make an "effective character." To make an "optimized" character, certainly. But not an effective one.
Out of curiosity, isn't invalidating one of the premises of the original argument a correct way to counter it?
Yes, but if you invalidate a premise that wasn't used then you have attacked a Straw Man.
"Feat Tax" - a feat that is required by all characters and all builds in order to be effective.
As there were effective builds before the Expertise feats were introduced then it therefor follows that the Expertise feats are not "strictly necessary" to make an "effective character." To make an "optimized" character, certainly. But not an effective one.
And this is it exactly. Effective and optimized are worlds apart.
"Feat Tax" - a feat that is required by all characters and all builds in order to be effective.
You made one error there. Precise Shot (3e) was a Feat Tax on archers only.
The odds of everyone in your neighborhood having the same income tax is slim - different occupations, income, position, deductions, status.
If 50% of the people aren't taxed, that doesn't mean the tax doesn't exist.
As there were effective builds before the Expertise feats were introduced then it therefor follows that the Expertise feats are not "strictly necessary" to make an "effective character." To make an "optimized" character, certainly. But not an effective one.
The effective builds, all of them, worked to avoid what this feat is supposed to fix. A 30% hit rate is not "effective".
As you said - 35% becomes suck. You either compensate for it, or you suck. For the majority of builds (especially the simple 16/18 primary obtained through following instructions) without compensating for the -20% you are not effective.
Essentially, this is a feat tax (spend a feat...) on all builds that don't compensate for the severe decrease in to hit (...or become ineffective).
You made one error there. Precise Shot (3e) was a Feat Tax on archers only.
The problem here is that archers didn't have to have Precise Shot to be effective (Except as a prereq for other stuff). I can't remember an archer of mine that ever really needed it. Shot on the Run was much more of a requirement.
Other feats offer choices, they're balanced with each other, or restricted to a certain race, a certain class or a certain build.
You made one error there. Precise Shot (3e) was a Feat Tax on archers only.
The odds of everyone in your neighborhood having the same income tax is slim - different occupations, income, position, deductions, status.
If 50% of the people aren't taxed, that doesn't mean the tax doesn't exist.
The effective builds, all of them, worked to avoid what this feat is supposed to fix. A 30% hit rate is not "effective".
As you said - 35% becomes suck. You either compensate for it, or you suck. For the majority of builds (especially the simple 16/18 primary obtained through following instructions) without compensating for the -20% you are not effective.
Essentially, this is a feat tax (spend a feat...) on all builds that don't compensate for the severe decrease in to hit (...or become ineffective).
alright, I can accept that, although I still do not agree.
Would you not then be able to say that the d6 --> d8 extra damage feats for the ranger and the rogue are a "feat tax" for them as well? Should they not get those for free?
I'm not being sarcastic, I'm being serious. I have yet to see or hear of a primary class rogue or ranger without that feat.
Yes, but if you invalidate a premise that wasn't used then you have attacked a Straw Man.
Is this directed at me?
In this case, the premise is "that certain feats, particularly weapon/impliment expertise and melee training, are a "feat tax" because they are feats that improve basic efficiency of a character, without doing anything else."
Based upon that premise, the OP attacks this concept of a "feat tax".
However, the premise they are based on, and the concept they are attacking, is false. It's a "feat tax" (on those who haven't compensated for the enemy defense growth spurt) because you become ineffective without it.
"So I keep hearing about Phrase being tossed about. Phrase refers to Definition. Phrase shouldn't be used like that, it's wrong to begin with, as Definition is inherently wrong..."
He states Phraseand his Definition.
He then attacks how the Phrase is used, based on his Definition.
However, his Definition of the Phrase is incorrect, especially in the context of how it's used.
Is this directed at me?
No.
Weapon/Implement expertise is the best feat. It is the best feat for every race, for every class for every build. There will be more classes, more races, and it will continue to be the best feat for each of them. No other feat even touches it.
Other feats offer choices, they're balanced with each other, or restricted to a certain race, a certain class or a certain build.
+1 on that. This is what I was touching on in my previous post.
Would you not then be able to say that the d6 --> d8 extra damage feats for the ranger and the rogue are a "feat tax" for them as well? Should they not get those for free?
The "feat tax" concept is with regards to the "you need it, or you become ineffective" issue.
For a ranger, the difference between a d6 quarry and a d8 quarry is about 1.1/2.2/3.3 DPR.
For a rogue, the difference between a d6 SA and a d8 SA is 2.2/3.3/5.5 DPR.
(Heroic/Paragon/Epic, crit included at 5%.)
The level 28 soldier has 260 HP, the lurker 204HP. They're also the only non-elite non-solos in MM1 at level 28+. The two level 30 monsters have 1420 HP and 1390 HP. +5DPR in 10 rounds is 25% the level 28s, and about 4% the level 30s.
That's hardly the line between effective and ineffective. :P
On the other hand, the difference between a hit rate of 35% and 50% is 85.71% damage. With a hit rate of 35% the monster has an effective HP of 285.7%, and at 50% an effective HP of 200%. If the entire party is built by PHB's oh-so-great tips, that equates to about 1200HP from Weapon Expertise. That's... definitely significant.
(Note that this is based on effective damage dealt. An increase from 50% to 55% is 18% more damage. From 65% to 70% is 9.52% more damage. I'd pulled out the advanced break downs justs for you. ;))
The problem here is that archers didn't have to have Precise Shot to be effective (Except as a prereq for other stuff). I can't remember an archer of mine that ever really needed it. Shot on the Run was much more of a requirement.
Really? You seriously just stuck with it?
BAB +1, +4 from 18 Dex, for a +5. Assume Point Blank Shot ('cause it's awesome, a prereq, and everyone has it) for a +6.
[INDENT]"If you shoot or throw a ranged weapon at a target engaged in melee with a friendly character, you take a -4 penalty on your attack roll. Two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other."[/INDENT]
So -4, for a +2.
[INDENT]Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC. [/INDENT]
A CR1/3 goblin has an AC of 15. With Soft Cover, he has an AC of 19.
...+2 vs AC19?
Of course, you negate soft cover if you're closer to the cover than the victim, or have a clear line.
That's still +2 vs AC15.
You skipped Precise Shot? Wow.
Really? You seriously just stuck with it?
Yeh. I simply shot at things not in melee. I have a 4th edition 20th level Pally/Just without Weapon Expertise. I've seen no problems with him so far.
The level 28 soldier has 260 HP, the lurker 204HP. They're also the only non-elite non-solos in MM1 at level 28+.
Then honestly, you should be using the suggested formulas under the DM's Toolbox. You're good at math, no doubt, better than I am. But you should be using non-solos as solos specifically have higher defenses.
Adjusting the red dragon's defenses down gives:
Ancient Red Dragon, level 30: AC 46; Fortitude 46, Reflex 41, Will 42 - Avg NAD 43
Looking at the level 28 Lurker:
AC 42; Fortitude 38, Reflex 41, Will 38 - Avg NAD 39
Versus what I expect to be a standard to hit bonus of 28/29. At level 28.
This is completely acceptable to me.
Average AC according to DMG at 28th level should be 43, avg NAD 40.
This is also acceptable to me.
Do I think that it sucks to only hit 30% of the time? Yeah. Will I work one of the Expertise feats into all of my builds? Almost certainly.
Prion, you are repeatedly missing Dark_Lambo's point, so let me rephrase it.
D&D 4e was original supposed to be designed with the assumption that at all levels you will have the same base hit rate based on certain assumptions. {Assumptions such as same base stat, same weapon, standard enhancement bonus for your level, pumping attack stat whenever possible.}
This wasn't true in the initial design. The hit rate went down as you went up in levels.
Thus ... it was a mechanical flaw in the system.
To fix that flaw they could have errata'd. Instead they instituted a "feat tax". You can either NOT pay the tax if you want to, in which case you will be behind the envisioned hit rate for the system design, or you CAN pay the tax if you want to, in which case you will be at the correct hit rate for your level.
You are free to not want to pay the price for the feat, but if you don't, you are suffering from a mechanical defect in the game system. Thus the term "feat tax". It's not really about need vs want, it's about paying to fix a flaw in the base game math.
Prion, you are repeatedly missing Dark_Lambo's point, so let me rephrase it.
D&D 4e was original supposed to be designed with the assumption that at all levels you will have the same base hit rate based on certain assumptions. {Assumptions such as same base stat, same weapon, standard enhancement bonus for your level, pumping attack stat whenever possible.}
This wasn't true in the initial design. The hit rate went down as you went up in levels.
Thus ... it was a mechanical flaw in the system.
To fix that flaw they could have errata'd. Instead they instituted a "feat tax". You can either NOT pay the tax if you want to, in which case you will be behind the envisioned hit rate for the system design, or you CAN pay the tax if you want to, in which case you will be at the correct hit rate for your level.
You are free to not want to pay the price for the feat, but if you don't, you are suffering from a mechanical defect in the game system. Thus the term "feat tax". It's not really about need vs want, it's about paying to fix a flaw in the base game math.
Show me the official Wizard's of the Coast design and developement press release that states this unambiguously.
I don't want a lone developer's opinion, I don't want a "well, if you parse the text beyond all reason and then squint at it sideways" article. I want an honest to G-d, direct statement that says this. Anything less and I will say that you are either 1) willfully lying to me for reasons I cannot fathom or 2) delusional.
And Dark_Lambo was talking about "need v. want," so no, I wasn't missing the point because that was the point being discussed. Literacy fail on your part.
Show me the official Wizard's of the Coast design and developement press release that states this unambiguously.
I can't, because I don't actually believe this is necessarily the case.
I'm just trying to explain to you what people mean when they say "feat tax".Personally I view the declining hit chance by about 10-15% as a bonus of 10-15% at first level, not the other way around. My personal inclination is to nerf hit rates for low level characters, not boost them for high level ones. :D
And Dark_Lambo was talking about "need v. want," so no, I wasn't missing the point because that was the point being discussed. Literacy fail on your part.
Fair enough, sorry if I offended, I was merely trying to translate his ideas because I thought he wasn't getting his idea accross. You didn't miss the point, but to me you seemed to be missing what he meant by "need". He is defining "need" as "fixing a failure in the system math." Personally I agree that even if you think that there is an actual flaw in the math of the system that needs to be fixed, if it's an option as a feat you can either want to fix that flaw or not want to. So I do take your point on the matter.
I can't, because I don't actually believe this is necessarily the case.
Personally I view the declining hit chance by about 10-15% as a bonus of 10-15% at first level, not the other way around.
Fair enough, sorry if I offended, I was merely trying to translate his ideas because I thought he wasn't getting his idea accross. You didn't miss the point, but to me you seemed to be missing what he meant by "need". He is defining "need" as "fixing a failure in the system math." Personally I agree that even if you think that there is an actual flaw in the math of the system that needs to be fixed, if it's an option as a feat you can either want to fix that flaw or not want to. So I do take your point on the matter.
It's alright. Part of what's so aggravating to me is that I do understand his point. It's just I don't consider his "fixes the underlying mistake in the math" argument to hold water unless I see official pre-release information stating the "original intention for the math of the system" in unambiguous terms (which if it is true should be no problem).
I'm not, nor have I ever, argued that the Expertise feats weren't amazingly good. I am arguing that it is not necessary, has been proven to be not necessary and therefor does not meet the "must be taken to allow you to be effective" clause.
I understand the difference between a need and a want. You do not.
...
Hitting more often, like doing more damage, are wants not needs. It is still theoretically possible to be victorious with only a 5% chance to hit.
...
So forgive me if CharOp seems... wrong on issues like this to me.
So, since under your given conditions, it is possible to be "victorious" playing all adventures with 5 first level 0 point build characters with no equipment (since it is "possible" that every monster misses every attack and you crit enough to kill them), every single rule and option in the entire game is a "want" and not a "need".
Thus, under your system of "possible victory" = "want", there can exist no such thing as a necessary feat, skill, power, attribute, or item. Yes, I guess that is correct.
You don't "need" to have a character that is fun, interesting, or effective. You want one.
People keep, over, and over, and over, and over, pointing out that "feat tax" and "necessary feats" do not refer to feats which are mathematically indispensible for the character to survive.
On this, as much as i hate to admit it, i agree with Casey (hell is freezing over as we speak, and im sure i'll be struck dead by the impact from a flying pig any moment now). People are whining because good feats came out that they want, but they dont want to actually spend the feat slots for them. All the 'its a fix for bad math' BS is just excuses to justify idiotic houserules. Every feat that makes your character better at the expense of another feat that could make your character better in another way is technically a 'feat tax' by the whiners' definitions.
I'll just go ahead and tell you that this is not, in any way, why I object to the expertise feats. Also, I find the generalized dismissal of peoples' concerns vaguely offensive. Maybe you're correct about some people who complain about expertise, but you're definitively incorrect about me and I suspect quite a few others on these forums as well. I know it's easy to take the pessimistic view of personal motives, but that doesn't make it accurate.
I don't think you can be truly effective without a superior weapon. Toughness. Weapon focus. Etc.
Some people are fine with a longsword, as opposed to a bastard sword. Unfortunately, it's an inferior option, unless you have a specific reason, Wizard of the Spiral Tower, Eladrin, etc. - the bastard sword is better. The longsword is inferior. It's unacceptable to use a longsword rather than a bastard sword, from an efficiency standpoint.
Now, it may not be your *first* priority to use a bastard sword. But, my the same token as Weapon Expertise, it is a "must have."
Actually, the longsword isn't an inferior option, solely by merit of the fact that the bastard sword is, mechanically, a feat upgrade to the longsword. Most people don't see a need to spend a feat to gain +1 to their average damage per die (which is what going from a d8 to a d10 sums to).
The same goes to the difference between the bastard sword and greatsword. It effectively sums to spending a feat to gain the ability to wield your greatsword one-handed. Nifty, but not everyone will definitely take it.
As for toughness and weapon focus, it is definitely more useful for classes in which damage matters... leaders have far less use for it. A +3 to damage is nice, but not significant. Accuracy, however, is significant... it affects how actions play out and influences the battlefield on a turn-to-turn basis, whereas damage only truly affects the field in two moments per character (when they reach Bloodied, and when they reach 0). Moreover, trust me when I say that toughness is largely insignificant for classes which never spend time on the frontlines... wizards especially.
Moreover, such feats like weapon/implement expertise are simply there to patch math problems in the game's mechanics, rather than simply fixing the game mechanics themselves... that's why it's a feat tax (patches the game, but costs your character a feat).
It's alright. Part of what's so aggravating to me is that I do understand his point. It's just I don't consider his "fixes the underlying mistake in the math" argument to hold water unless I see official pre-release information stating the "original intention for the math of the system" in unambiguous terms (which if it is true should be no problem).
I'm not, nor have I ever, argued that the Expertise feats weren't amazingly good. I am arguing that it is not necessary, has been proven to be not necessary and therefor does not meet the "must be taken to allow you to be effective" clause.
It's not hard to see that there was an intended equivalent scaling on both sides. The DMG practically demands that players have the magical item bonuses at certain levels, and it's quite obvious that monsters in the game scale higher than PCs.
That said, I think the problem is in the usage of the word "feat tax". "Feat tax", to me, seems to be practically a synonym for "feat power creep", and it does seem to be a problem with the new releases.
It's just I don't consider his "fixes the underlying mistake in the math" argument to hold water unless I see official pre-release information stating the "original intention for the math of the system" in unambiguous terms (which if it is true should be no problem).
I believe this is due to people assuming that WotC meant to release a system that provides similar expectations of gameplay on all levels of play, which is consistent with the numerous articles and podcasts discussing about extending the "sweet spot" of 3E (levels 7-12) to the entire spectrum of levels available. Taking this into consideration, it's easier to realize that, at some point, the mathematics of the game cease being cohesive on all levels and that the expertise feats bring the mathematical model closer to a cohesive distribution of hit rates across levels.
If not taking the Expertise feat meant you could not be effective at higher levels... how were characters effective at all before the PHB2 came out?
They weren't. We had like 20 Threads with people complaining they couldn't hit anything at Epic, and that enemies were hitting their NADs without even trying, which is how we knew there was a problem. Titanium Dragon and myself were using his excellent Ultimate Test adventure to test it ourselves, and while he was using an Opped Party (and still having trouble here and there), I was using a fairly average Party, and believe me, there were times where an Encounter would just take hours because the enemies couldn't deal enough damage, and my Character's Encounter Powers were all missing.
The math was dysfunctional at Epic level. Hence, a simple fix was necessary. Unfortunately, they decided to release it as a Feat. Ergo, a Feat Tax, because while it isn't the player's fault that their Weapons and NADs don't have (for instance) the same thing their Armor does (why do you think there's a Masterwork Armor Bonus? To keep up with enemy Attack Rolls in an attempt to make the math function correctly!), the player is, nonetheless, the one who must "Pay Extra" for what should obviously have been Errata, either in a Tier-based manner, or in a Masterwork Bonus manner.
Oh, and Marcus nailed it on why, yes, people should have a 55-60% hit rate, because otherwise, Epic is a boring slugfest at best, and a guaranteed TPK at worst. :S
Standard Array has 16 as your highest score. This may be an 18 post-racial.
The stated recommendation is your highest score in your primary.
We will ignore weapon proficiency because that just leads to stupidity and tangents about +2 vs +3. We will instead deal with non-AC defenses.
At level 1, an implement user has a +3/4 against a NAD of 13, for a 55% to 60% to-hit.
Let's go to level 8. Following the guidelines, you can have an item of level 7, 8, or 9. You have a +2 implement, +4/5 from your primary being at 18/20, and +4 from level. So +10/11 vs a NAD of 20, for a 55% to 60% to-hit.
Well, what do you know? This is one of the reasons why 55%-60% is the generally accepted baseline to-hit value.
We skip ahead to level 30. You have a +6 implement, and you get + 7/8 from your primary at 24/26, and +15 from level. You have a +28/29 vs a NAD of 42, for a 35% to 40% to hit.
[INDENT]Orcus, level 33: AC 48; Fortitude 51, Reflex 46, Will 49 - Avg NAD 48.67
Ancient Red Dragon, level 30: AC 48; Fortitude 48, Reflex 43, Will 42 - Avg NAD 44.33
Tarrasque, level 30: AC 43; Fortitude 49, Reflex 38, Will 32 - Avg NAD 39.67[/INDENT]
These are the only level 30 and above monsters provided pre-PHB2. Against Orcus, non-optimized characters going by the book won't touch him, nor an Ancient Red Dragon.
I believe you were merely ignorant. You can continue to believe this is intentional. Either way, I'm done here.
So how does the math work when all the levels are based against 3 solo creatures one being 3 levels higher than the group?
No. You need it to be where you're supposed to be, mathematically.
Yes. Rodeo Clowns exist based upon the assumption that they will wear armored clothing. If they didn't, they would fail at their job. Not having that +1 to hit per tier is akin to Rodeo Clowns not getting kevlar jackets (or whatever it is they wear)- without the jack the Rodeo Clown cannot perform the job as the game assumes it should be done, just as without WE characters do not hit as often as D&D is built to assume they do.
Kletian999, to be honest, what you describe as "tactical" feats are likely feats I would always, always avoid.
Again, that's an issue of personal preference. But, isn't it good if the game has options for my play style as well as yours? Shouldn't it cater to a wide fanbase, as opposed to a narrow one?
Sure it's fine to prefer static feats to tactical feats, but not when the static feats are always superior to the tactical alternative. A +1 static bonus is always better than a +1 situational bonus. Were the situational bonus +2, then the argument might be fair, as it would trade dependability for potential. What's worse the static expertise feats get better (increasing to +2 and +3), while most of the situational feats remain a constant +1.
To reverse the question, why should my storm sorcerer be forced to take implement expertise (+1 all the time) before oncoming storm (+1 about 50% of the time)? The first is undoubtedly the superior choice, but the second plays into the character's flavor. Why should my flavor choice be blatantly penalized?
Pcs are heroic, larger than life figures.
An "elevated baseline" sounds perfect, actually.
PCs are already larger than life by virtue of their heroic class. They don't need feats that make them blatantly superior to other heroes. There should always be a choice feat, a choice of how you want your hero to be special, and all those choices need to be roughly equal or the system breaks down.
"Feat Tax" - a feat that is required by all characters and all builds in order to be effective.
As there were effective builds before the Expertise feats were introduced then it therefor follows that the Expertise feats are not "strictly necessary" to make an "effective character." To make an "optimized" character, certainly. But not an effective one.
No, there were NOT effective builds at Epic level before the Expertise feats were introduced in PHII. WotC has acknowledged this.
This seems like such a simple concept to understand, I really honestly question whether anyone arguing against it is being honest, or if they're just trolling. It would have been almost impossible to release a system as complex as D&D without at least a few mistakes; that doesn't make WotC incompetent, or make the product unusable, or anything else catastrophically bad. They got the math scaling for characters wrong at higher tiers; that's obvious both because the designers acknowledge it (multiple times in private, if not in some post we can point to), but also because all of the math geeks who crunch the numbers unanimously agreed that they did EVEN BEFORE the release of PHII. And sure enough, after both the designers and the math wonks agreed there was this scaling problem, the next product they released had a feat to fix the problem. Gee, coincidence?
If you don't see why a feat that everyone must take in order to be as effective as the Monsters and the Modules assumed you would be is different than a feat that some players take to fit a character conception or to specialize in a particular niche, I can't help you. But I can't really imagine that this is the case; it seems people that are claiming they don't see the difference simply must be trolling.
If the game was errata'd to include a +1 to hit and to defenses at each new tier, would these feats become "optional"?(of course they are optional because you don't have to take them, errata'd rules or not)
I'm going to say no. These feats are still the best choices out there. These are feats that everyone can take to improve their efficiency(and to-hit and defense efficiency are the most important thing in the game).
Thus, even if errata'd, people will still consider them "mandatory".
Let me pose a simple question.
If the game was errata'd to include a +1 to hit and to defenses at each new tier, would these feats become "optional"?(of course they are optional because you don't have to take them, errata'd rules or not)
I'm going to say no. These feats are still the best choices out there. These are feats that everyone can take to improve their efficiency(and to-hit and defense efficiency are the most important thing in the game).
But their is a math hole that these feats fill currently, which is why they are a feat tax.
Thus, even if errata'd, people will still call them "feat tax".
No they would call them broken or overpowered
.
But there is a math hole that these feats fill currently, which is why they are a feat tax.
No they would call them broken or overpowered.
Either way, no matter what you call them, they will be seen as "mandatory". That was my point. Sorry I wasn't clearer.
Let me pose a simple question.
If the game was errata'd to include a +1 to hit and to defenses at each new tier, would these feats become "optional"?(of course they are optional because you don't have to take them, errata'd rules or not)
I'm going to say no. These feats are still the best choices out there. These are feats that everyone can take to improve their efficiency(and to-hit and defense efficiency are the most important thing in the game).
Thus, even if errata'd, people will still call them "feat tax".
Am I too obvious if I mention that had the math been fixed by a +1/tier errata, the Expertise feats would not even exist?
Am I too obvious if I mention that had the math been fixed by a +1/tier errata, the Expertise feats would not even exist?
Which is another point I was going to make.
If we did see this errata'd, should they errata out said feats?
They are clearly better than everything else, so bad math or not should we have them?
That's why I orginal said they'd still be called "feat tax" because even if the math "worked"(the math still works, albeit maybe not as good as intended) everyone would still take them, thus meaning everyone is still -1 feat(for each feat in question).
Channel Divinity feats.
Many racial feats.
At-will modifying feats.
Arcane Familiar.
Multiclass feats, often.
Basically, feats that provide you with new options or that make your existing options more diverse. While making your existing options better is not a bad use of a feat, it doesn't really interest me - and when a feat makes *all* your existing options better - and nothing else - it's incredibly boring.
Take, for instance, Backstabber. That's at least a moderately interesting feat to me, because it emphasizes the rogue's need to get combat advantage, and makes them even more deadly when they do get it.
Now take the XXX Expertise feats. They do *nothing* except make you more effective almost 100% of the time. You don't have to make any other choices (power, feat) to make an expertise feat worthwhile. You don't have to play your character any differently to make your feat choice worthwhile. It's just there, and it's just a math change. That's it. Moreover, it's so good as to be mandatory for anyone attempting any semblance of optimization (especially past level 16) that anyone who uses your weapon is going to have the same feat. It's not like your character concept shifts from "guy with a dagger" to "Captain Super-Dagger" by taking an expertise feat - everyone who uses a dagger will have Weapon Expertise: Light Blades. Yes, "Captain Super-Dagger" will have Weapon Expertise: Light Blades, but really, thanks to how stupidly good the expertise feats are, so will "guy with a dagger." That's just how it is.
Moreover, specializing in your chosen weapon isn't a bad concept for a feat, but the expertise feats do it in an incredibly generic way. If, say, they gave a different bonus to each weapon group in addition to or in place of the hit bonus, they'd be a lot more interesting to me. For example, if Weapon Expertise: Flails made your attacks with a flail automatically deal str mod damage to one target adjacent to your main target if you hit (in addition to or in place of its main effect), then it would be interesting because it would actually make you functionally different than someone who took Weapon Expertise: Light Blades.
Basically, the problem from a flavor perspective is that one expertise feat isn't different than any other (and thus the feat's bonus as a whole is incredibly generic) - sure, you're specializing in your weapon... but really, you're just getting a hit bonus with everything you were gonna do anyway. After all, it's not like before you were going to switch between weapons between fights. This compounds with the problem from the mathematical perspective - the fact that they're practically mandatory if you're attempting any sort of optimization, meaning that everyone's going to have an expertise feat sooner or later (likely sooner). That's why they're not interesting.
Moreover, specializing in your chosen weapon isn't a bad concept for a feat, but the expertise feats do it in an incredibly generic way. If, say, they gave a different bonus to each weapon group in addition to or in place of the hit bonus, they'd be a lot more interesting to me. For example, if Weapon Expertise: Flails made your attacks with a flail automatically deal str mod damage to one target adjacent to your main target if you hit (in addition to or in place of its main effect), then it would be interesting because it would actually make you functionally different than someone who took Weapon Expertise: Light Blades.
Now that's the ticket.
No, there were NOT effective builds at Epic level before the Expertise feats were introduced in PHII. WotC has acknowledged this.
I call BS on this. There were threads titled "how to solo orcus"...so not only were there effective builds but optimized ones.
Now in my small (only about 20 irl) group we found that we had a couple of things to do.
1) Have a tac lord, or other leader with lots of bonus to hit.
2) Take powers that autohit/ feats that give miss damge (scimitar dance)
3) take powers that have multi attackrolls
4) aid another
5) have reroll abilites for atttacks that need to land
now after phb 2 we have a 6th option...expertise.
You can combin/mix and match to become more and more optimal. Infact Two scimitar rangers with stances that do auto damge, storm warden auto damage, scimitar dance, expertise, a luck blade, elvin assuaracy, and a few other things is very optimal...it is not the base assumtion of the system...
Trident and Net, Rapier and Whip, Hammer and Spiked Shield, Crossbow and Parrying Dagger...
You already have to sacrifice extra feats to use the full available traits of these weapons, but having to specialize in being able to HIT with them?
No, there were NOT effective builds at Epic level before the Expertise feats were introduced in PHII.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!!!
The Orcus Slayer is ineffective! Bwahahahaaaa! Tell me another one!
I call BS on this. There were threads titled "how to solo orcus"...so not only were there effective builds but optimized ones.
Well, yeah, but most of these involved setting up a chain of events that would allow them to solo Orcus in one turn, not builds that could stand toe-to-toe with Orcus, on their own, for round after round and come out the victor. They also relied heavily on things like Armor Splinter, Action Surge, Elven Accuracy, or leader buffs.
Setting up a party for a specific powerful combo at lvl 30 is not the same as being on (or above) par with the suggested power level of players over the course of the whole epic tier.
Your character has a +1 bonus to attack rolls with a single weapon or implement of his/her choice. This bonus increases to +2 at 15th level, and to +3 at 25th level. Your character also gains a +1 bonus to Fortitude, Reflex and Will Defense at 11th level. This bonus increases to +2 at 21st level. Thank you for playing the Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game, and for continuing to support the game!
This would eliminate the feat tax at heroic and paragon tier, while still keeping some "fixes" as feats. In the meantime, my cleric could take a channel divinity feat, or my wizard could purchase the Linguist feat to learn Supernal.
So how does the math work when all the levels are based against 3 solo creatures one being 3 levels higher than the group?
Eh? I don't know what you're talking about. I think you don't know what I was talking about either.
The first figures I provided were against the baseline 12+level NAD presented in the DMG. After that, I then provided examples of epic monsters, as a separate point.
Point 1: Expected to-hit for a non-optimized character using standard array and following PHB advice (always bump primary, highest stat in primary). This was then compared against the DMG monster guidelines (AC: 14+lvl, NAD: 12+lvl).
Point 2: Some examples of monsters you would fight at level 30.
The 30% figure was a part of point 1, point 2 gives something like a 5% to-hit against those monsters.
The post was in a somewhat standard format: Thesis/Intro, Supporting Point 1, Supporting Point 2, Conclusion. ;)
Let me pose a simple question.
If the game was errata'd to include a +1 to hit and to defenses at each new tier, would these feats become "optional"?(of course they are optional because you don't have to take them, errata'd rules or not)
I'm going to say no. These feats are still the best choices out there. These are feats that everyone can take to improve their efficiency(and to-hit and defense efficiency are the most important thing in the game).
Thus, even if errata'd, people will still consider them "mandatory".
Which has to do with the fact that they are absolutely too powerful... and their power level likely has to do with patching the inherent flaws in the game's math.
Feat tax is basically just a way to say "power creep used to fix game problems". Without the inherent game problem, the supposed "feat tax" is still an issue of poewr creep.
Which has to do with the fact that they are absolutely too powerful... and their power level likely has to do with patching the inherent flaws in the game's math.
Feat tax is basically just a way to say "power creep used to fix game problems". Without the inherent game problem, the supposed "feat tax" is still an issue of poewr creep.
This is very true, except the expertise feats are more like a blatant "power leap" than the more normally subtle concept of "power creep". Had the the math not been slightly broken in the first place, these feats wold have broken it in the other direction
In some ways the feats still break the system math anyway. After all, the old problem was that it required the party to have access to a leader capable of granting allies the ability to add a secondary ability score to their attack roll on a semi regular basis. Unfortunately the expertise feats stack with such abilities allowing for crazy situations were a +8 bonus can be staked on top of an already 50/50 attack role making it into a nearly can't miss scenario.
So, let's examine the Expertise feats at level 25+.
Action Surge is considered powerful enough to be one of the primary draws to playing a Human or Half Elf. Expertise (at Epic) is like having Action Surge all of the time, instead of for one standard action every other combat. Hmm.
But, Action Surge is a heroic tier feat, you say. OK. Since we don't have any epic tier feats that increase +hit, we'll have to look at feats that do similar things, like increasing damage.
Let's take another example. Rant_Casey referenced Weapon Focus as a must have. Weapon Focus is also a Heroic tier feat, but it scales with tier, just like Weapon Expertise. This feat increases average damage per hit by 3 in Epic (Weapon Focus exactly). For a "normal" character (55% hit chance, 4.5 average W, 26 primary stat, appropriate level eq but not optimized for damage), this increases their damage per attack from about 12.7 to about 14.3, meaning a character with this feat does about 112% of the damage as one without. This figure diminishes for characters who have done any optimization for damage; the above character with Iron Armbands of Power and a Radiant Weapon sees only a 109% return. A character with Expertise does about 127% to 137% more damage per attack as one without, assuming a starting hit percentage between 40% and 55% inclusive.
Weapon Focus does nothing but pure, always on DPR. Weapon Expertise, also always on, has triple the effect on DPR and has additional benefits in the increased chances for inflicting status effects or granting beneficial effects to allies.
Now consider that for a majority of characters, Expertise will apply to every attack the character makes. Which makes it the opposite of restrictive.
Have I convinced any doubters that Weapon Expertise is overpowered?
(Some will no doubt point to Draconic Spellcaster and Feyborn Charm as evidence that Expertise is balanced. However, these feats came after Expertise, so they are balanced only if Expertise is balanced. Plus, Expertise is still almost strictly better than these feats.)
t~
Action Surge is considered powerful enough to be one of the primary draws to playing a Human or Half Elf. Expertise (at Epic) is like having Action Surge all of the time, instead of for one standard action every other combat. Hmm.
But, Action Surge is a heroic tier feat, you say. OK. Since we don't have any epic tier feats that increase +hit, we'll have to look at feats that do similar things, like increasing damage.
For those that would say silly things like "Action Surge is a heroic tier feat", I would remind them that technically so are all the expertise feats. Still, even at Heroic tier the expertise feats show them selves to be overpowered.
- Arcane Spellfury: +1 on next attack after hitting with sorcerer at-will power.
- Guaranteed Retribution: +1 on next attack against oathed target if hit by other enemies.
- Primal Fury: +1 attack with primal powers against bloodied enemies.
- Coordinated Explosion: +1 attack with burst/blast powers if ally is also a target.
- Oncoming Storm: +1 on next thunder power after hitting with lightning attack.
All of those feats are from the exact same book as weapon & implement expertise and all of them are blatantly inferior because they provide the exact same bonus, but only some of the time. The ONLY disadvantage that the expertise feats have compared to the above is that expertise can be negated by disarming the PC, an unlikely event at best.
This is very true, except the expertise feats are more like a blatant "power leap" than the more normally subtle concept of "power creep". Had the the math not been slightly broken in the first place, these feats wold have broken it in the other direction
In some ways the feats still break the system math anyway. After all, the old problem was that it required the party to have access to a leader capable of granting allies the ability to add a secondary ability score to their attack roll on a semi regular basis. Unfortunately the expertise feats stack with such abilities allowing for crazy situations were a +8 bonus can be staked on top of an already 50/50 attack role making it into a nearly can't miss scenario.
It ends up being an inadvertant buff to non-melée leaders who don't have a scaling at-will accuracy bonus they can hand out, just a static +2. heck, melée bards only get a +2 and ranged bards don't even get a direct accuracy bonus.
At level 1, a Wizard gets, at most, a +5 to hit on his attacks, not counting any bonuses he may get from a feat.
At level 1, a Fighter gets, at most, a +8 to hit on his attacks, not counting any bonuses he may get from a feat.
So, does that mean that I should always play a Fighter (or, really, a weapon-wielding character) vs. playing an implement-wielding character? If I don't, I'm going to hit less often. Does this mean that there is a "PC tax" out there too? And, to make it worse, that difference *does* show up in later levels too, since there is no way for an implement user to get the +2/+3 weapon proficiency bonus like a weapon-wielder gets. At level 30, an implement user will be +2/+3 behind a weapon-wielder. What does that amount to for a hit percentage?
The only reason it is being said that the expertise feats are needed is because it makes it easier for you to hit monsters in the end-game. OK, well, I read that as meaning that you aren't enjoying the game and want to get away from the table quicker. If that's so, then stop playing. For those who *enjoy* playing and don't mind the suspense of their character not being able to hit every round, we will continue to see these as an interesting addition, to be taken if *wanted.*
Let's not forget, also, that the expertise feats don't stack with each other. Weapon expertise gives you a bonus with weapons (which also applies if the weapon is being used as an implement) and implement expertise gives you a bonus with implements. Focused expertise gives you a bonus with implements *and* weapons of a particular group. But if you take both implement (or weapon) expertise and focused expertise, these bonuses *DO NOT STACK*. I think the biggest problem I have with people in this game is that they try to make all of these bonuses from feats stack when they simply don't.
So, really, the only characters who can cry that this is a feat tax are implement wielders since they can finally keep up with the weapon-wielders. Oops, nevermind, the weapon-wielders can take these also, so implement wielders are *still* +2/+3 behind the curve.
In other words, a Fighter attacking AC has about the same chance to hit with +8 to hit as Wizard attacking a NAD with +5 to hit. The weapon proficiency bonus covers the advantage that implement users would otherwise have.
OK. I've not read this entire thread (and maybe I should)
Yes you really should
So, does that mean that I should always play a Fighter (or, really, a weapon-wielding character) vs. playing an implement-wielding character? If I don't, I'm going to hit less often. Does this mean that there is a "PC tax" out there too? And, to make it worse, that difference *does* show up in later levels too, since there is no way for an implement user to get the +2/+3 weapon proficiency bonus like a weapon-wielder gets. At level 30, an implement user will be +2/+3 behind a weapon-wielder. What does that amount to for a hit percentage?
So, really, the only characters who can cry that this is a feat tax are implement wielders since they can finally keep up with the weapon-wielders. Oops, nevermind, the weapon-wielders can take these also, so implement wielders are *still* +2/+3 behind the curve.
Fighters attack AC and Wizards attack NADs, the game accounts for this discrepancy by making AC higher and has nothing to do with the situation being discussed.
The only reason it is being said that the expertise feats are needed is because it makes it easier for you to hit monsters in the end-game. OK, well, I read that as meaning that you aren't enjoying the game and want to get away from the table quicker.
I find that to be an odd interpretation. I don't see how wanting to be more effective means you don't want to play.
If that's so, then stop playing. For those who *enjoy* playing and don't mind the suspense of their character not being able to hit every round, we will continue to see these as an interesting addition, to be taken if *wanted.*
This isn't about making your chacter hit every round its about making it so your character doesn't almost always miss.
At level 30, an implement user will be +2/+3 behind a weapon-wielder.
Yet it's the very same +2/+3 and has not suddenly turned into +6/+7 which is was the flawed 4e math is doing to the gerneral hit chance of all characters.
Lvl 2-30 a character's chance to hit improves by +25 (+15 lvl, +6 enchantment, +4 stat) while a monster's defenses improve by +29 (+29 lvl), that is the core of the problem.
Lvl 2-30 a character's chance to hit improves by +25 (+15 lvl, +6 enchantment, +4 stat) while a monster's defenses improve by +29 (+29 lvl)
Not one that Expertise fixes very well though. You are +1 behind somewhere around level 8-12, +2 behind at something like 18-22, and the final 2 points come into play only in late levels (26+). Expertise gives too big a bonus too early.
Really half the problem is that enchantment bonuses should go up to +7 at level 30, not stop at +6. And the other half is there are no masterwork weapons.
It ends up being an inadvertant buff to non-melée leaders who don't have a scaling at-will accuracy bonus they can hand out, just a static +2. heck, melée bards only get a +2 and ranged bards don't even get a direct accuracy bonus.
There may only be a limited number of at-will leader buffs, but there are also a reasonable selection of daily powers that can give such a buff for an entire encounter (which was more so what I was referring to). Combined with expertise that one daily power can trivialize an entire encounter, even if it would an otherwise been challenging.
And the other half is there are no masterwork weapons.
Which would have been a much better solution than the expertise feats.
And it's one more dependence on gear. I thought we were moving away from that. Relatively speaking, I mean; I am well aware that we still depend on boomstick/armor/neck thingy, but not as mush as we once did.
I still think a flat +1/+2/+3 to all attack rolls at 5th/10th/15th levels would have been the way to go. And something similar for the non-AC defenses instead of Paragon/Robust Defenses.
I still think a flat +1/+2/+3 to all attack rolls at 5th/10th/15th levels would have been the way to go. And something similar for the non-AC defenses instead of Paragon/Robust Defenses.
Actually it should probably be +1/+2/+3/+4 to hit at 8th/18th/26th/28th if you really want to balance it. (I think those are the break points going off memory. Might be off though.)
OK. I've not read this entire thread (and maybe I should) but I am going to throw something out there that I read previously on these boards.
At level 1, a Wizard gets, at most, a +5 to hit on his attacks, not counting any bonuses he may get from a feat.
At level 1, a Fighter gets, at most, a +8 to hit on his attacks, not counting any bonuses he may get from a feat.
So, does that mean that I should always play a Fighter (or, really, a weapon-wielding character) vs. playing an implement-wielding character? If I don't, I'm going to hit less often. Does this mean that there is a "PC tax" out there too? And, to make it worse, that difference *does* show up in later levels too, since there is no way for an implement user to get the +2/+3 weapon proficiency bonus like a weapon-wielder gets. At level 30, an implement user will be +2/+3 behind a weapon-wielder. What does that amount to for a hit percentage?
The only reason it is being said that the expertise feats are needed is because it makes it easier for you to hit monsters in the end-game. OK, well, I read that as meaning that you aren't enjoying the game and want to get away from the table quicker. If that's so, then stop playing. For those who *enjoy* playing and don't mind the suspense of their character not being able to hit every round, we will continue to see these as an interesting addition, to be taken if *wanted.*
Let's not forget, also, that the expertise feats don't stack with each other. Weapon expertise gives you a bonus with weapons (which also applies if the weapon is being used as an implement) and implement expertise gives you a bonus with implements. Focused expertise gives you a bonus with implements *and* weapons of a particular group. But if you take both implement (or weapon) expertise and focused expertise, these bonuses *DO NOT STACK*. I think the biggest problem I have with people in this game is that they try to make all of these bonuses from feats stack when they simply don't.
So, really, the only characters who can cry that this is a feat tax are implement wielders since they can finally keep up with the weapon-wielders. Oops, nevermind, the weapon-wielders can take these also, so implement wielders are *still* +2/+3 behind the curve.
Except you leave out the fact that this advantage only applies if the fighter is fighting an unarmored target, due to the fact that AC is 2-3 higher than the defenses on account of armor. In almost all cases, wizards and fighters will have a near-identical expected target number.
Actually it should probably be +1/+2/+3/+4 to hit at 8th/18th/26th/28th if you really want to balance it. (I think those are the break points going off memory. Might be off though.)
You know, it got me to thinking: maybe the best way to handle it is to modify the attribute increases. Instead of getting two +1s at levels 4 and 8 to add to your primary and secondary attribute, why not a +2 and +1? Then, your primary attribute will get a +3 bonus more than it normally gets by 30th level, and so will your attack roll.
I think I have something to playtest.
You know, it got me to thinking: maybe the best way to handle it is to modify the attribute increases. Instead of getting two +1s at levels 4 and 8 to add to your primary and secondary attribute, why not a +2 and +1? Then, your primary attribute will get a +3 bonus more than it normally gets by 30th level, and so will your attack roll.
I think I have something to playtest.
I think masterwork weapons along the idea of the masterwork armors would be the better fix. If you change the attribute increases, you change how static effects based on those attributes work which can lead to other problems. The goal should be to fix one problem without causing more.
That is not the problem with these feats. The problem is that if I want to make a character I enjoy playing, at least at high levels, it is a mandatory feat, and there is no other feat for which this is the case. There is a reason why the developers chose a 50-60% hit chance as the standard. It means that the risk of missing is still meaningful, but you are hitting often enough for combat to remain interesting. Before PHB2 I was playing a high-level campaign and everyone was getting bored of combat encounters. They dragged on a bit too long and the fighting would start to get rather tedious near the end. The DM wound up removing a lot of the combat encounters to speed things up.
We houseruled in the weapon expertise feats as a flat bonus to attack rolls, and ever since then combat has become fun again,
If they errata'd in our houserule and kept the weapon/implement expertise feats, I wouldn't necessarily take them, in much the same way I don't always play fighters wielding weapons with a +3 proficiency bonus and a starting score of 20 Str. Because I find that if I'm hitting more than 50% of the time, then missing my attacks doesn't bother me nearly as much, because I still feel effective. In play, I'm not really going to notice exactly how often I hit, but I will notice whether or not I'm missing most of the time. And I'm guessing it's the same for a lot of people.
Basically, there is no other feat that impacts the quality of the game, and not just the quality of the character you are playing, quite so much as this feat.
I've heard the idea of a "feat tax" thrown around. It seems the argument is that certain feats, particularly weapon/impliment expertise and melee training, are a "feat tax" because they are feats that improve basic efficiency of a character, without doing anything else.
In my opinion, the "feat tax" idea is pure whining. I'd be glad for someone to prove me wrong, but the more I see it referred to, the more I'm left with that conclusion.
I think the problem people have is that some of the feats are so good they have to be taken. If a feat is so good everyone should take it, why not just build it into the system in the first place.
The expertise feats are a perfect example. +1 to hit is so good that everyone should take it. If everyone should take it, then why isn't it just built into the system? Why not just give every character an extra +1 to hit at 1st (or maybe 5th?), 15th, and 25th level? That way the feats can be spent on more interesting things.
It isn't whining, IMO, it is more a philosophy on feats. That philosophy is that feats should be something I take to make my character interesting, unique, focused, fine-tuned, role-play appropriate, ect. There shouldn't be any feats that are so good every character should take it.
As there were effective builds before the Expertise feats were introduced then it therefor follows that the Expertise feats are not "strictly necessary" to make an "effective character." To make an "optimized" character, certainly. But not an effective one.
Except that he had just a few posts prior showed how you DID need it in order to be effective. In high epic play, prior to expertise feats being available, characters were ineffective at hitting their enemies. They were all equally ineffective, but that doesn't mean they were thus effective. They all equally sucked at hitting. Which his post points out if you bother to read the math.
No, being able to hit only 40% of the time at higher Levels means you are almost useless in many Encounters, but that's what can happen if you don't Build your Character exactly how it "should" be Built and you don't take the Feat you now find you MUST take if you want to be effective at all.
There is a significant difference. Weapon Focus or Superior Weapon Proficiency aren't the difference between being very useful to the Party and being a hindrance to the Party; Expertise is.
As much as I hate to agree with someone I personally think is a complete idiot (not you, Crimson Lancer, not you) I think the idea needs to come into play that the characters are MEANT to work together. You only can hit 40% of the time if you're by yourself. But you've got your buddies with you. The Warlord who can move you into position and cause a monster to grant combat advantage. The Fighter who's so scary that something he's hit is at a -2 to hit anything else. The Cleric who can use divine power to help you hit better against a specific monster. The Feylock who can slow, blind, immobilize and do hordes of other nasty things to the enemies. The Wizard who can create Flaming Spheres, Freezing Clouds, and other automatic damage and/or status effect spells.
Individually, higher level monsters are higher powered than higher level PCs. But PCs should have better tactics, and more effective ways to make use of what they have.
The Cleric who can use divine power to help you hit better against a specific monster. The Feylock who can slow, blind, immobilize and do hordes of other nasty things to the enemies. The Wizard who can create Flaming Spheres, Freezing Clouds, and other automatic damage and/or status effect spells.
Only if they hit, which is the heart of the matter.
It also helps explain why Bill Gates is so rich.
Bill: Hey, I've got an flawless get rich scheme. We'll sell broken computer products and then charge people to fix them!
Bill's friend But Bill, won't people get upset, demand a refund, or go to a different producer?
Bill: No, they'll not only willingly pay but they'll continue to accept this pattern year after year and broken product after broken product!
Bill's friend: It will never work...
Isn't advanced mastery of a weapon or impliment flavorful? The Kensei paragon path has flavor, that of a weapon master. The Expertise feats, to a lesser degree, carry the same flavor.
I don't think you understand. The Math of the System breaks down.
Feat Tax in the case of Expertise and Defenses, is something that should have simply been incorporated into the Math of the game in the first place. They are a Math Correction, not a flavor feat.
Having a feat like Phalanx Fighter (just pretend it exists) which grants you an extra +1 to AC and Reflex when an ally is adjacent to you using a shield, is a flavor feat, it reflects your character's specialization and combat style. Where as Expertise only exists because it's a Math Fix.
Similarly Spear and Shield (another made up feat) is an example of a Flavor/Specialization feat. It allows you to use a Long Spear one handed, and with a shield but it ceases to be a reach weapon when used as such.
Advanced mastery/special tactics are flavorful like the Kensei.
Math Fixes aren't. See the difference? The Paragon Defenses and Expertise as feats should have been non existent. What they give to characters should have been in the Rules by Default.
Any feat which is so strong that you MUST take it in order to be effective, or which is so much stronger than other feats that every character will take it, is not optional and is therefore not a choice.
What people are referring to as a "feat tax" is PRECISELY this - choices you are supposed to have, but do not -actually- have. It is bad when there are feats so weak that no one will take them, but it is worse when there are feats which are so strong that everyone takes them - as it means that rather than eliminating one choice, it eliminates all but one choice, therefore making it not a choice at all.
This is bad because you cannot customize your character as much, making all characters more similar. Making a choice is more interesting than not being able to do so. These feats reduce customization, and ergo reduce how interesting characters are because there are fewer choices to be made.
The concept of a feat tax arises from the observation that if some feats are so good that they are effectively mandatory, then these feats are effectively not "choices." So there are fewer feat choices, and the mandatory feats act like a "tax," a cost to play the character, and not a choice at all. They are analogous to a tax because you do not really "choose" how to spend that feat choice, rather the choice is effectively made for you by the mechanics of the game.
The most common example of an apparently mandatory feat is Expertise, which provides a flat, untyped +1 attack bonus with a favored implement or weapon group. Mathematicly, no other feat routinely conveys nearly as much advantage in combat as Expertise, and combat is the primary in-game activity, so no other feat is as strictly advantageous to the character.
Because it appears better than any choice, it is not considered a choice at all, because the alternative is considered, well, stupid. So while at a particular level a character may have N feats, they have fewer than N feat choices. This difference between the number of feats taken and the number of feats chosen is considered the feat "tax."
If you are inclined to dismiss this concept, consider the following thought experiment. Imagine there were a feat called Improved Ability Score, which added a +2 bonus to the ability score of your choice, and which could be taken multiple times. This feat would be so good, that under almost all circumstances, any other choice would be irrational. What feat would you take at first level? Why I'd improve my primary ability score by 2, of course. Indeed, a character would select this feat pretty much as many times as they were allowed. So that although a 6th level character would nominally have 4 feats, most of them are not choices, the character selects Improved Ability Score for one or even all of the feats.
The counter-argument is that selecting the "mandatory" feat is itself a choice, the character could choose otherwise. However, imagine a group of five characters where one character chooses a variety of feats, but all the others choose Improved Ability Score. The character who "chose" to ignore the "mandatory" feat is at a severe disadvantage relative to the other characters in the group. Their DM now faces a dilemma: challenges that test the characters with Improved Ability Score would devestate the one character without: they'd have neither the attacks nor the defenses to contribute meaningfully to the fights, and the rest of the group would carry him. Alternately, if the DM makes challenges appropriate to the one character with diverse feat choices, those opponents are tissue paper for his allies, and again, the diverse character is not carrying his weight.
This is essentially the main problem with 3.5 that 4E seeks to avoid: excessive disparity between characters.
While this example is exaggerated, the intention is to make clear the notion that if a feat is so much better than almost all alternatives, it effectively eliminates the choice of whether to take that feat or not, that is, it acts a like a feat tax. The number of feat "choices" are reduced by the feat "tax."
There is some disagreement whether Expertise is effectively mandatory, but from what I have read, the majority of players who have taken the time to mathematically analyze the actual consequences of Expertise have concluded that it is effectively mandatory, at paragon tier at least, if not at low heroic.
This is annoying because as a player, we would prefer actual choices over the mere appearance of choice.
As for "interesting" feats, those are feat choices that are in support of a character concept, and not necessarily for strict mathematical advantage. For example, Axam The Dwarf Ranger throws axes, rather than just wielding them, but in order for that to be playable, he requires Quick Draw, first so he can switch between melee and ranged quickly, and second, in order to use multiple target attacks with non-magical axes (an issue at first level, and in other situations). Because Quick Draw enables a distinct character concept, it is considered "interesting."
Alternately, consider Melron the Elf Diplomat. His Diplomacy checks are only useful when the proper language is spoken. So he would find one or more instances of the feat Linguist very "interesting," and perhaps even Skill Focus: Diplomacy. However, these will rarely be useful in combat.
The more "mandatory" feats Melron is "required" to take in order to be appropriately effective in combat, the fewer "interesting" feats relevent to his character concept he can take. The more Melron avoids taking the mandatory combat feats, the more the group winds up carrying him through combat, which after all, is the focus of D&D 4E. His "choice" to take Linguistics is really no choice at all, or rather, it is the choice to be significantly less effective in combat, thereby pushing the cost of his choice onto his teammates, who must take up his slack.
In a very good campaign, Melron's choices might prove worth their weight in gold, but in combat, his choices are dead weight.
Complaining about the existance of those better options, however, is pure whining.
On the contrary. If the better choices are so much better that the characters who do not choose them are effectively gimped, then they have every right to complain. Their complaint is simple: whereas it appears that characters have so many feats available at a given level, in practice they have substantially fewer choices then were advertised.
Crimson Lancer explains the standard critique of Expertise, that it was a kludge to fix a flaw in the progression of monster defenses at the cost of a feat choice, but the argument stands whether that is the intention or not. If intended as a fix, then this is merely adding insult to injury. The existance of super-good feats is all that is required to make those feats a "tax" on our feat choices.
Perhaps calling it a "feat choice tax" would make it clearer. The problem is not that we have fewer feats, but fewer choices.
Kletian999 makes a very good distinction between tactical and static feats. Tactical or situational feats should always have a more profound effect than static or non-situational feats, because situational feats only apply when the situation applies, and non-situational feats always apply. Simple reasoning. Weapon Expertise: Light Blades should not give a better bonus than Nimble Blade, yet it does. While they are both +1's, Nimble Blade is a feat bonus, and only applies when you have combat advantage. Choosing Nimble Blade before Expertise would be rightly be considered a stupid decision.
Isn't it also a "want" to be more accurate, as opposed to a "need"? Why do you need to hit on a 12 to 20, as opposed to a 15 to 20? Why do you need to do 5.5 average damage per [w], rather than 4.5 per [w]?
It's all "wants", in the end.
The more disparate the characters' abilities to dish and deal damage, the more difficult it is for the DM to appropriately challenge all the players. This is the fatal weakness in 3.X: the characters could and did vary so wildly in effectiveness that groups often were dominated by their "best" characters. Those "best" characters wound up carrying the weight for the entire party, at which point some of the players might not show up and they wouldn't be missed in combat.
4E supposedly seeks to minimize this disparity. If the difference between combat optimizers and non-optimizers is great enough, only the optimizers need play.
Smeelbo
Post made of win
Post made of win wins the thread. GG
EDIT: Oops, almost forgot,
there you go smeelbo, you earned that.- Initially: you don't have to take the feat. It's a choice, no one is holding a gun to your head and saying "pay the tax, chump!", after all.
- But man, that is one damn good feat. So the majority of PCs take it before the strictly inferior situational feats. Or in addition to.
- PCs having this feat become the new, higher baseline (cuz, you know, they're the majority).
- Gradually, the opposition adjusts to the new baseline: adventures, encounters, monsters become harder*.
- Your PC now sucks donkey balls. This is not a subjective thing or a question of perception: he's on the old baseline, and everyone else, fellow PCs and enemies alike, are on the new, higher one.
- Finally: you have to take the feat.
Pay attention to 3) and 4). This is where the magic happens.
*For those who think, like I do, that the Expertise feats are a math patch to an existing problem, this came first.
I am aware that this is more or less a devil's advocate argument so I will not press it further. To clarify my poorly worded post, though, what I meant to say is that what you don't choose may be as significant as what you do choose, much like a rest in music is as important (if not more important) than a note. ;)
I am aware that this is more or less a devil's advocate argument so I will not press it further. To clarify my poorly worded post, though, what I meant to say is that what you don't choose may be as significant as what you do choose, much like a rest in music is as important (if not more important) than a note. ;)
BaronVogel,
You are bringing up a different aspect of the choice. You are, I think, saying a choice can have significant consequences. In the case of the Expertise feats, your hit probability is affected, and since in 4e combat hitting is the foundation of the majority of your turns, taking the feat or not has more of an impact than, say, picking Linguist (or Toughness) or not.
However, the aspect of that choice that is an issue here is its triviality, its obviousness, and the consequences of it being obvious, not the significance of the choice itself for an individual.
Sure it's fine to prefer static feats to tactical feats, but not when the static feats are always superior to the tactical alternative. A +1 static bonus is always better than a +1 situational bonus. Were the situational bonus +2, then the argument might be fair, as it would trade dependability for potential. What's worse the static expertise feats get better (increasing to +2 and +3), while most of the situational feats remain a constant +1.
To reverse the question, why should my storm sorcerer be forced to take implement expertise (+1 all the time) before oncoming storm (+1 about 50% of the time)? The first is undoubtedly the superior choice, but the second plays into the character's flavor. Why should my flavor choice be blatantly penalized?
This. That's my only issue with expertise feats. NOthing about "feat tax" or "correcting math". It's just a very, very good feat, and when you found something this strong, then something must be wrong.
It's like the old "Concentration" skill on 3.5. That is not an "option" for any caster. Is a must have because its too good.
I just hope they dont take advantage cause i will kill them if i have to.
Ha! I honestly look forward to the first time one of my players dies (that will only happen through monster's playing as thier tactics dictate etc. I'm not sadistic) I don't think that they truely belive its a possibility. They'll be in for a shock when the Treant does a cous de gras on one of them, crushing his head (an occurance I plan to lift from a game one of the developers wrote of in an article i read several months back).
But yes I plan to avoid the feat tax too: The feats will be quest rewards (the reward is specilized training of arcane secrets but in mechanical terms its the feat.) I may even do that with other feats as well; I feel 18 is too few. I'll have to see if it unbalances things first though.