Free Feats?

[Servbot]

Right, so I've begun DMing for the very first time. It's very exciting and everything. However, a few of my friends asked me about "houserules", and when I said I have none, they incredulously asked if I didn't at least give free feats.

Their explanations are deeply rooted in some kind of "everyone knows" and so I haven't had a real explanation, and I'd like to pose the question here. My own DM I play with doesn't believe in handing out freebies and has stalwartly refused any, and we're already level 8 without facing many major crises... so is it really necessary to give free feats? Are there any customary feats given for free, and at what levels would this happen?

I'm mostly curious given I hear some people say something about feat taxes. Could someone explain it to me? Thanks!

[Malek]

In general "feat tax" refers to feats that are believed to patch up holes in the amounts of attack bonus and defenses to what was intended. For attacks it was the <something or another> Expertise series (giving a tier scaling bonus to attack rolls), can't remember offhand which feats were considered "feat tax" for defenses. In general since these feats "fix the math" as stated above, many people started to give them out to characters for free to prevent players from effectively wasting a feat slot by using it up on something that they have to take to keep up with the "required" bonuses.

It is worth noting that Essentials line released new Expertise feats, that give other bonuses along the to-hit increase, making them less of an feat slot sink. Again not sure if there was such an update for defense related feats, since I can't remember which feats were "feat tax" for defenses.

Edit: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=211493 - here is a recent thread where someone asked a similar question, might be more helpfull than my convulted attempt at explaining I guess.

[NecroRebel]

Many DMs will give out weapon or implement expertise as a free feat, and some will also give out one or more defense-boosting feats.

The assumption is made that the game is designed such that player attack bonuses and defenses will increase at parity with monster defenses and attack bonuses, but with the possible bonuses available in PHB1 alone, player stats increase by ~.9 per level while monster stats increase by 1 per level. By level 11, then, you're hitting less often than you did at level 1, and being hit more often. Basically, your character becomes weaker, relative to same-level creatures, as they level up.

The publication of Weapon Expertise and Implement Expertise in PHB2, and to a lesser extent feats like Paragon Defenses and Epic Defenses (also in PHB2) that improve defenses at higher tiers, feats that are significantly stronger than any other heroic-tier feat, is taken by many as a tacit admission on WotC's part that they screwed up the progression. Even if that's not true, the existence of those feats, means that there are some feats that simply are taken by everyone by level 6 or so; they're that strong. So, basically, everyone has one fewer feat to spend, which is considered a problem because it limits build options.

The Essentials line made things even worse; the expertise feats in those books actually scale faster than the prior expertise feats (at 11 and 21 instead of 15 and 25) and give an added bonus. In addition, Essentials brought out the Improved Defenses feat, which is a heroic-tier feat that scales with tiers and is actually stronger than Paragon or Epic Defenses.

Personally, I give players Improved Defenses or their choice of one of the single-NAD-boosting feats and a non-Essentials expertise feat as free feats starting at level 1.

[Sinon]

Yeah, expertise and improved defenses are popular freebies, at least on forums like this.

But there's no real need for you to go along with it; although, it can be a pain dealing with players who think they're being "cheated" out of them.

[Servbot]

Ahah, I see. So as I understand it, the "Expertise" feats and "NAD-booster" feats are considered "feat taxes" as not taking them puts you at an obvious disadvantage and they have few real "competitive" feats. (feats you'd want over the Expertise/NAD bonus)

Other than level 1, are there other levels at which they're "recommended"? If player leveling is unfavourable relative to monsters' defences and Hit, it seems giving it at level 1 would likely give the players an edge.

I now better understand the arguments, and will weigh them with this new information and assess their needs.

[NecroRebel]

There are many builds where the first three or four, sometimes five, feats have choices that are better than the Expertise feats for that build. These usually involve feats that are relatively game-changing, such as a multiclass to pick up useful abilities and/or other feats, or feats that give conditional bonuses that the character can consistently expect to get.

However, the vast majority of optimized builds will take an expertise feat by level 8, and you start to seriously fall behind on the expected bonus growth by around 15 (which is of course when the older expertise feats scale).

Giving or taking them at level 1 does give something of an edge, but not really that much of one. It just means that you can send them up against more level 3-4 enemies instead of needing to stick to level 2-3 enemies.

Some people have argued that they aren't necessary because as players level they gain more powers, including ones that give attack or defense bonuses. They often claim that these compensate for the lowered attack bonus. The usual response is that that claim is unproven, that people who have the feats can use those abilities too, and that not every group will have e.g. a Warlord who can give those bonuses, and even if a group has an appropriate leader those people shouldn't be forced to take bonus-granting powers just to break even. My own position should be obvious, but the argument has been made that you never need these 'math fix' feats.

[Mando Knight]

Ahah, I see. So as I understand it, the "Expertise" feats and "NAD-booster" feats are considered "feat taxes" as not taking them puts you at an obvious disadvantage and they have few real "competitive" feats. (feats you'd want over the Expertise/NAD bonus)

Other than level 1, are there other levels at which they're "recommended"? If player leveling is unfavourable relative to monsters' defences and Hit, it seems giving it at level 1 would likely give the players an edge.

I now better understand the arguments, and will weigh them with this new information and assess their needs.

Level 1, you don't need them. If you're handing them out, I'd wait at least until level 5 or 6, probably level 11. If they're complaining about missing out on a free +1 that's an optional houserule, let them feel how heavy the boxed core set is. On their head.

[Sinon]

Ahah, I see. So as I understand it, the "Expertise" feats and "NAD-booster" feats are considered "feat taxes" as not taking them puts you at an obvious disadvantage and they have few real "competitive" feats. (feats you'd want over the Expertise/NAD bonus)I think they are called feat taxes because of the assumption that everyone must take (pay for) them.

I don't know that that's fair. The fact is, hitting things is what you do, and not getting hit is how you get to keep doing it. Feats that improve those areas are clearly going to be popular, and they're popular no matter what your class/race/role/level. So most people eventually will take them.


Other than level 1, are there other levels at which they're "recommended"? If player leveling is unfavourable relative to monsters' defences and Hit, it seems giving it at level 1 would likely give the players an edge.At level 1, you hit 5% more often. You're hit 5% less frequently. At paragon, that first 5% is 10% and other things start becoming more important at the same time. You start to notice.

All things being equal, I doubt you'd be able to tell (just by watching) which first-level character had an expertise feat and which didn't.

The thing is, things aren’t equal. Often, the guy whose top priority is his expertise feat is the same guy who won't start without a 20 in his primary stat and must have a weapon that gives +3 for proficiency or gets an accurate implement at level 2.

5% is hardly noticeable; +15 or 20% starts to catch your eye.

[Kurald Galain]

Ahah, I see. So as I understand it, the "Expertise" feats and "NAD-booster" feats are considered "feat taxes" as not taking them puts you at an obvious disadvantage and they have few real "competitive" feats.
Yes, but only at paragon tier. At heroic tier, the difference is pretty small.

[TheEmerged]

Level 1, you don't need them. If you're handing them out, I'd wait at least until level 5 or 6, probably level 11. If they're complaining about missing out on a free +1 that's an optional houserule, let them feel how heavy the boxed core set is. On their head.


Yes, but only at paragon tier. At heroic tier, the difference is pretty small.

I'm going to have to +1 both of these. At heroic, only one of the people in the party I DM took this feat (the wizard) -- this was before Essentials came out, for the record. During early Paragon, everyone but the rogue ended up taking them (and the rogue was considering it for his 16th level feat when the campaign ended).

[Servbot]

Ahahha, well, this is my first time DMing, I don't know if I can give my players measured hell. ;) I can probably manage terrible overkill that'll send them reeling from any map I conjure forever, but─

Well, thanks for the answers, everyone. I feel thoroughly educated on the subject matter. :) I'm glad I asked.

[tcrudisi]

Also, I don't think anyone mentioned it, so I will.

Melee Training is also a common free feat. For defenders, how can they be expected to defend the party if the monster can just walk away from them? An example is with the Battlemind: a Con + Wis/Cha defender. The monster walks away, provoking an opp attack which misses. The monster, no longer adjacent to the Battlemind, is able to freely attack the BM's allies. Sure, he gets a -2, but no other penalty. A good melee basic attack is a requirement for all defenders.

I'll also disagree with Kurald some. While the difference may be pretty small at upper heroic tier, it is still there. The old expertise feats (I'd advise Versatile Expertise, personally) make up the difference rather nicely. I give Versatile Expertise and Improved Defenses at level 6. I give Melee Training to defenders at level 1 (excepting Str-based ones since they don't need it).

[LaZodiac]

If you have the second Dungeon Master guide, they talk about Innate Bonuses. Although normally reserved for "no magic item" campaigns, I see absolutely no reason not to use it. It gives bonuses to defense, attack, and if I recall damage as well, every couple of levels, starting at level 4.

[Reverent-One]

Right, so I've begun DMing for the very first time. It's very exciting and everything. However, a few of my friends asked me about "houserules", and when I said I have none, they incredulously asked if I didn't at least give free feats.

Their explanations are deeply rooted in some kind of "everyone knows" and so I haven't had a real explanation, and I'd like to pose the question here. My own DM I play with doesn't believe in handing out freebies and has stalwartly refused any, and we're already level 8 without facing many major crises... so is it really necessary to give free feats? Are there any customary feats given for free, and at what levels would this happen?

I'm mostly curious given I hear some people say something about feat taxes. Could someone explain it to me? Thanks!

It's pretty much a matter of opinion if one wants to give out Expertise and/or defense boosting feats for free. Some people really like them since bigger numbers are always nice, bit it's not likely to have a big impact on the game either way.

[Mando Knight]

Ahahha, well, this is my first time DMing, I don't know if I can give my players measured hell. ;) I can probably manage terrible overkill that'll send them reeling from any map I conjure forever, but─

Actually, measuring hell is easier in 4e, since the challenge levels are more accurate. Stick to the XP budget and the DMG's guidelines, and you should be fine... except for those instances where you realize that some enemies are just unfair. (Needlefang Drake Swarms, esp. before the errata, Black Dragons of all kinds when you don't have good area attacks or defenses, etc.)

[Reverent-One]

Actually, measuring hell is easier in 4e, since the challenge levels are more accurate. Stick to the XP budget and the DMG's guidelines, and you should be fine... except for those instances where you realize that some enemies are just unfair. (Needlefang Drake Swarms, esp. before the errata, Black Dragons of all kinds when you don't have good area attacks or defenses, etc.)

Or a sonar dwarf, right Mando? :smallwink:

[Mando Knight]

Sonar Dwarf works, too. :smalltongue:

[Leolo]

It is hard to decide if those feats are really feat taxes. There is a good reason why monster defenses has to raise faster than player attack bonusses. Players get additional options and much more flexibility. Even if you do not use the Expertise feats players will usually not hit worse than at lvl 1 on later levels due to this additional options.

It is just the question if the additional options are considered into the attack / defense calculation as something that is assumed as normal or as some bonus.

[Surrealistik]

It is hard to decide if those feats are really feat taxes. There is a good reason why monster defenses has to raise faster than player attack bonusses. Players get additional options and much more flexibility. Even if you do not use the Expertise feats players will usually not hit worse than at lvl 1 on later levels due to this additional options.

It is just the question if the additional options are considered into the attack / defense calculation as something that is assumed as normal or as some bonus.

Again I don't think this is at all a persuasive argument given the sheer extent of the gap between L1 and L30 hit rates (especially if the primary stat isn't flat out maxed by L30 which is likely), and the fact that the Expertise feats exist in the first place; if the scaling was actually 'working as intended' it is unlikely they would have been released.

Personally I give Melee Training or an equivalent (Intelligent Blademaster) to non-Strength defenders, any one Expertise feat (essentials included), and any one non-conditional defense boosting feat (essentials included) out for free in order to fix the game's math and functionality deficits.

[Mando Knight]

Intelligent Blademaster, though a feat tax, is actually better than Melee Training... it technically can be used with Heavy Thrown ranged basic attacks, since all current Heavy Thrown weapons (that I can think of, anyway) are also melee weapons and a ranged basic attack is a basic attack.

Also, if using the Essentials version of Melee Training, Blademaster is better due to it not taking a 50% damage penalty from the update.

[Sinon]

The fact that the game gets harder at higher levels isn’t evidence of a mistake.

Having feats that are good for all classes/roles, like those that increase to-hit and those that improve your defenses, isn’t proof that they’re trying to fix anything - just that simple feats are often the most popular.

The fact that versions of the feats get better over time - well, is that a evidence of a mistake? or the same thing they always have done?

[NecroRebel]

The fact that the game gets harder at higher levels isn’t evidence of a mistake.

Having feats that are good for all classes/roles, like those that increase to-hit and those that improve your defenses, isn’t proof that they’re trying to fix anything - just that simple feats are often the most popular.

It does suggest that there is some need for such a thing, however, or at least that the game is better for having them. The idea that the game is better for the existence of these feats, in turn, suggests that there was something wrong with the game before, which... suggests a mistake.


The fact that versions of the feats get better over time - well, is that a evidence of a mistake? or the same thing they always have done?

Actually, yes, it is evidence of a mistake; that is power creep, which is never a good thing unless it repairs a problem with the original.

[Surrealistik]

The fact that the game gets harder at higher levels isn’t evidence of a mistake.

Having feats that are good for all classes/roles, like those that increase to-hit and those that improve your defenses, isn’t proof that they’re trying to fix anything - just that simple feats are often the most popular.

The fact that versions of the feats get better over time - well, is that a evidence of a mistake? or the same thing they always have done?

First of all, it's easily possible for 4e to get more difficult at higher levels without inadequate scaling of defenses and attack bonuses (as per the scaling damage, and status/secondary effects).

Further, as previously stated, the existence of the expertise and defense feats since their first introduction in PHB2 suggests that the scaling was not working as intended. This conclusion isn't arrived at by the fact that these feats are merely good for all classes and roles so much as that they're overwhelmingly powerful as compared to nearly every other option, particularly by paragon/epic; so powerful that you'd be a straight up fool not to take them. In otherwords a de facto feat tax, and a probable math fix for improper scaling. Obviously this power discrepancy isn't indisputable, de facto proof, but it's damn close.

[Reverent-One]

Further, as previously stated, the existence of the expertise and defense feats since their first introduction in PHB2 suggests that the scaling was not working as intended. This conclusion isn't arrived at by the fact that these feats are merely good for all classes and roles so much as that they're overwhelmingly powerful as compared to nearly every other option, particularly by paragon/epic; so powerful that you'd be a straight up fool not to take them. In otherwords a de facto feat tax, and a probable math fix for improper scaling. Obviously this power discrepancy isn't indisputable, de facto proof, but it's damn close.

Insults to people who simply don't follow your character building line of thought are poor form, sir.

[Surrealistik]

Insults to people who simply don't follow your character building line of thought are poor form, sir.

There are exceptionally few feats worth taking over/before +2/3 to your attack bonus or all NADs, and those that are typically are keystones of niche builds; less of an insult more of a fact.

[Sniddy]

It is a dilemma

...but I've started to look at it this way - the GM's job is to make the game fun.

If free feats to boost to hit/doge work - then roll with it

If you'd rather balance it some other way - then roll with that

Explain to your players that you're either gonna be giving them a free +1/2/3 to hit/ac or that you're aware of the problem and will work around it by.....

If they're still not happy and wanna pout about not getting the now redundant 'free' feats - just don't play

I'd be happy my GM was aware of the problem and was fixing it - the 'how' element I'm not so fussed about

[Reverent-One]

There are exceptionally few feats worth taking over/before +2/3 to your attack bonus or all NADs, and those that are typically are keystones of niche builds; less of an insult more of a fact.

A) While it accurate to say someone who thinks there's a mechanically better feat is very likely to be incorrect, calling them a fool is still an insult and unnecessary, and more importantly B) your statement also includes people who don't take the feat because they're busy taking feats that fit the character concept they're aiming for better or are simply more interesting to them. B is the reason why none of the 3 paragon tier characters I've played (plus one I've built but haven't had a chance to play yet) have any expertise feat. And since each of those characters have been viable and able to contribute to combat, the statement is not even accurate.

[Surrealistik]

A) While it accurate to say someone who thinks there's a mechanically better feat is very likely to be incorrect, calling them a fool is still an insult and unnecessary, and more importantly B) your statement also includes people who don't take the feat because they're busy taking feats that fit the character concept they're aiming for better or are simply more interesting to them. B is the reason why none of the 3 paragon tier characters I've played (plus one I've built but haven't had a chance to play yet) have any expertise feat. And since each of those characters have been viable and able to contribute to combat, the statement is not even accurate.

Okay, how about this pedantic clarification: from an optimization perspective, you would have to be a fool (as in dumb, irrational, thinking in a way that is entirely inconsistent with logic/reality) not to take Expertise/Improved Defenses or the Superior line by Paragon barring a keystone feat.

Further, that you've made an 'effective' character without an Expertise feat neither annuls the fact that the Expertise feats are overwhelmingly powerful, nor that you'd have to be a fool from an optimization standpoint to turn them down therefore.

[theflyingkitty]

I don't give free feats. It lets them tweak too much and put more into their characters stats and abilities than their characters themselves.

So, I reward good roleplaying and whatnot with things of my choice centered around the character. Things that go along with their story and such.

[Reverent-One]

Okay, how about this pedantic clarification: from an optimization perspective, you would have to be a fool (as in dumb, irrational, thinking in a way that is entirely inconsistent with logic/reality) not to take Expertise/Improved Defenses or the Superior line by Paragon barring a keystone feat.

It's not a pedantic clarification in the least, as your statement was originally a broad generalization.


Further, that you've made an 'effective' character without an Expertise feat neither annuls the fact that the Expertise feats are overwhelmingly powerful, nor that you'd have to be a fool from an optimization standpoint to turn them down therefore.

It does annul the point that one would always be a fool to turn them down though.

[Surrealistik]

It's not a pedantic clarification in the least, as your statement was originally a broad generalization.

I would think it obvious that the statement was concerned with an optimization vantage.

[Reverent-One]

I would think it obvious that the statement was concerned with an optimization vantage.

Generally when someone makes a statement they mean to apply to a subset of people and don't specify the subset, it is not terribly clear.

[Gralamin]

The fact that the game gets harder at higher levels isn’t evidence of a mistake.

Having feats that are good for all classes/roles, like those that increase to-hit and those that improve your defenses, isn’t proof that they’re trying to fix anything - just that simple feats are often the most popular.

The fact that versions of the feats get better over time - well, is that a evidence of a mistake? or the same thing they always have done?

Here is where the idea comes from:

Monster defences are generally in the realm of level+13, growing linearly. This starts at 14 at level 1 and grows to 43 at 30 (or so).

A PC with an 18 attack stat, and a +3 prof weapon has +7 to hit, or a 70% chance. They do not grow in the same fashion, they instead gain +6.333 to hit per tier without items (Including stat gains and 1/2 level), or a +26 at level 30. Throw in a +6 weapon and we are at +32. But, now we only have a 50% chance to hit. If we had a bonus from say, demigod, and another +3? We are back where we started nice and even, at 70% chance.

People much prefer a growth where the hit chance ends back where it started then one it grew worse. Add in that the designers tell us on their blogs they give it for free....

That said It could of been more elegantly handled with Masterwork weapons.

(The defence feat math is weirder, but it basically amounts to: You are supposed to take Epic Will/Fort/Ref on your lowest defence to make the math work out)

[Surrealistik]

14 + level AC as per the latest math (NADs 12 + level).

+3 prof + 5 stat = 8 vs 15 or a 70% hit chance.

+3 prof + 9-10 stat + 15 level + 6 enhancement = 33-34 vs 44 at level 30 or a 50-55% hit chance.

I agree Masterwork weapons/implements probably would have been a better way to handle the math fix.

[Sinon]

Here is where the idea comes from: <snip>Yes, yes. The game gets harder at higher levels. I get it.

I don't argue with math. I just don't like the fact that people look at that math and make a host of assumptions about why the math adds up that way.


It does suggest that there is some need for such a thingAll it suggests is that people want to hit better and get hit less whatever class/race/role or even edition.


The idea that the game is better for the existence of these feats, in turn, suggests that there was something wrong with the game before, which... suggests a mistakeNo, it doesn't.

Seriously. Are you suggesting that if the math had been "right" no one would have ever proposed a +1 to-hit/tier feat? Or a +1 to defenses? It is such a radical idea it must be in response to a problem.

Or, maybe those feats would have still been published, but no one would have taken them because, well, they wouldn't need them anymore.

I’m sorry but I find that laughable.


Actually, yes, it is evidence of a mistake; that is power creep, which is never a good thing unless it repairs a problem with the original.Is the mistake that the feats are power creep? Because I think he claimed that it was evidence that the game getting harder at higher was the mistake.


First of all, it's easily possible for 4e to get more difficult at higher levels without inadequate scaling of defenses and attack bonuses (as per the scaling damage, and status/secondary effects). Yes, but that doesn't mean that when things get harder to hit it was a mistake.


Further, as previously stated, the existence of the expertise and defense feats since their first introduction in PHB2 suggests that the scaling was not working as intended.It only suggests it to people who already hold that opinion, a confirmation bias.

Objectively, it suggests nothing at all.

[Shatteredtower]

I don't believe in free feats. Let players be responsible for their own choices, even if they deny that they'd have any choice at all.

At paragon level, Weapon Expertise is the difference between starting the game with 18 Strength and an axe vs. 20 Strength and a sword.

The designers were too generous, that's the problem. If they'd made these feats as chains, where you only got the epic version by taking the paragon and heroic version, no one would claim you needed the epic version, and some folks would still take it. Some wouldn't even take the paragon version, and few still wouldn't bother with the heroic version.

People talk a lot about how much more you suffer when you're getting hit 15% more of the time and hitting 15% less. They aren't basing their reaction on numbers, but on a value system. If that 15% more means you finish every day of adventure with one more daily power and healing surge left to spare, nothing has been gained. If that 15% less forces you to call a halt to your efforts earlier than a different group, resting up to be fresh for a new day while your enemies do the same, you are on no less challenging an adventure than the guys who manage to finish the adventure 15-85% faster than you do. If your home campaign is on that inflexible a schedule, you might want to ease up a bit on the accelerator there.

[Surrealistik]

Yes, but that doesn't mean that when things get harder to hit it was a mistake.

What I'm saying is that it is not necessarily true that defense/hit rate decay was intended as part of the game's overall incrementing difficulty, assuming it exists as there are many other ways to scale difficulty. Ironically, it actually seems that the game becomes _easier_ as you increase in level at least in the case of optimization, given that the further in the game you progress, the greater its impact.


It only suggests it to people who already hold that opinion, a confirmation bias.

Objectively, it suggests nothing at all.

Nope. This is precisely because the Expertise feats are ridiculously powerful; at Paragon it is hard if not impossible for most builds/classes to find a better feat. At Epic it is virtually impossible. In otherwords, it is essentially a feat tax, which, coupled with its introduction in PHB2, strongly suggests that it was added as a math fix after the scaling issue was discovered shortly after 4e's release.

[Shatteredtower]

So, because it's too good, it's a burden if you have to pick it up on your own initiative?

[Surrealistik]

So, because it's too good, it's a burden if you have to pick it up on your own initiative?

The thing is, it's so good, and such an obvious math fix that it shouldn't be a feat that virtually robs the player of choice.

[NecroRebel]

All it suggests is that people want to hit better and get hit less whatever class/race/role or even edition.

And why do they want that? Besides, people's desires are, in a game system, something that needs to be fulfilled.


No, it doesn't.

Seriously. Are you suggesting that if the math had been "right" no one would have ever proposed a +1 to-hit/tier feat? Or a +1 to defenses? It is such a radical idea it must be in response to a problem.

I'm suggesting that if the math had been right, no such feats would have been published in an official source because the problem that they were designed to fix would not exist.


Or, maybe those feats would have still been published, but no one would have taken them because, well, they wouldn't need them anymore.

I’m sorry but I find that laughable.

They'd still be ludicrously overpowered and thus taken by any moderately-or-better-optimized character, but, again, they wouldn't have been published if there wasn't a need for the math fix.


Is the mistake that the feats are power creep? Because I think he claimed that it was evidence that the game getting harder at higher was the mistake.

The mistake that I was referring to that is power creep is the fact that new forms of Expertise feats have come out that are strictly better than the original ones. In PHB2 there was weapon expertise and implement expertise. Then came versatile expertise, which is just the same as both of the original expertise feats put together. Now, in the Essentials line, there are weapon-type-specific expertise feats that scale faster and give an additional benefit that the original expertise feats do not. This is obvious power creep; the later expertise feats are objectively stronger than the earlier ones. Versions of feats getting better all the time is a mistake, specifically the mistake that is power creep.

[M.c.P]

To be fair, I think the logic went as follows:
First it was,
"Whoops! We screwed up the math! Let's introduce expertise feats with flat bonuses to attack to counteract when the PCs start falling behind monster defenses, because missing sucks whether you're Heroic tier or Epic tier."
Later,
"Geez, its bad enough that the expertise feats are extremely powerful if not mandatory, but classes we made that use both weapons and implements have to take the feat twice, limiting their options! Versatile expertise, then, combining them together so that they can get that same +1/2/3 bonus like all the other guys in one simple feat."
And most recently,
"Right, so the expertise feats are a frankly obvious choice for every single PC, but they're pretty boring. Why don't we spice them up a touch, with cool effects depending on the weapon or implement the PC is using? It could be a cool differentiation to the weapons, heavy blades are defensive, axes damaging, cross bows accurate, etc.

While we're at it, make it +1/2/3 per tier, because that's easier to remember."

Power creep? Less so, since that's a symptom of newer stuff being flashier/more powerful as time goes on. The essentials classes are a lot of things, but they're hardly built to be more powerful aside from a variety of MBA shenanigan interactions with Pre-Essentials stuff. I feel its more making the best of a poor situation. The best decision? Probably not, but its the tack that WoTC chose.

[Kurald Galain]

I'm suggesting that if the math had been right, no such feats would have been published in an official source because the problem that they were designed to fix would not exist.
I think that the decision to add the Expertise feats in PHB2 wasn't necessarily made by the same people as the original designers of the PHB1. Furthermore, the reason for this decision may well have been, rather than to "fix the math", to appease a vocal minority on the WOTC forums. The PHB1 has been playtested quite a lot more than the later books, after all, and that includes epic tier.

[Shatteredtower]

The thing is, it's so good, and such an obvious math fix that it shouldn't be a feat that virtually robs the player of choice.

No, it doesn't. You can play the game just fine, from level 1 to 30, without ever taking any of the feats. You choose to accept that you might face fewer encounters per adventuring day as a consequence of this decision.

If it take five game days to overcome a quest an over-optimized party can beat in one, what have you lost? While it may go harder on the game world, you'll have more time to become part of it. Seems a reasonable choice.

[Surrealistik]

No, it doesn't.

Except it does; yes, technically you have the freedom of choice, but it's the freedom to turn down a million in order to take a thousand.

[Sinon]

What I'm saying is that it is not necessarily true that defense/hit rate decay was intended as part of the game's overall incrementing difficulty, assuming it exists as there are many other ways to scale difficulty. When people claim that these feats “fix” a “mistake” they are in fact arguing (or just tacitly assuming based on no actual evidence) that the actual rate of decay was is inconsistent with some planned “incremental difficulty” which the feats then fix.

There are three possibilities:

A) The initial game designers looked at the math and were ok with it.
B) The initial game designers looked at the math, but really really suck at math.
C) The initial game designers never looked at the math.
All mistake/fix arguments are assuming B and/or C. Mostly B.

Now, I don’t know which of those options is true. I don’t know what they planned.

But If I were to make an argument that B and/or C in fact happened, I would have to demonstrate my clairvoyance or offer some actual proof.

And the only proof offered in support of the "mistake/fix" argument is the existence of the expertise feats, which have to be based on the assumption that after WotC was made aware of the fact that the only designers they had who weren't oblivious to the concept of probability sucked balls at calculating it, they...

D) hired a couple designers who passed 6th grade math to fix the problem with expertise feats, and ….
E) they hired a couple designers who made it to the ninth grade to make the Essentials versions. I keep nicking myself with Occam’s razor.


Nope. This is precisely because the Expertise feats are ridiculously powerful; I’ll refer you to this guy:
At paragon level, Weapon Expertise is the difference between starting the game with 18 Strength and an axe vs. 20 Strength and a sword.Seems as though your claim is a bit of a stretch.


at Paragon it is hard if not impossible for most builds/classes to find a better feat. What constitutes better is almost always going to be campaign/character/player dependent.

The thing with these feats isn’t that they are “ridiculously powerful” but that they actually aren’t particularly campaign/character/player dependent. +1/+2/+3 to hit is a marginally useful improvement for almost every character in almost every game.

That’s why people almost always take it.


At Epic it is virtually impossible. In otherwords, it is essentially a feat tax, By Epic you have 12 feats. I’ll agree that for almost no build can can you find 12 better feats.


which, coupled with its introduction in PHB2, strongly suggests that it was added as a math fix after the scaling issue was discovered shortly after 4e's release.No. The strength of this assumption rests entirely on what you already thought before you looked at the evidence.


I'm suggesting that if the math had been right, no such feats would have been published in an official source because the problem that they were designed to fix would not exist. This is so silly that I can't even call shenanigans. This is the point where Shenanigans is calling you.

You're saying that (in spite of the fact that feats grating a +1 to hit with a particular weapon existed in previous editions, and fact that 4e already had scaling powers and such) no one would have ever ever ever thought of these sorts of feats, or if they had, the whole organization would have closed ranks at the very thought of highjinks like that.

If you hear ringing, it’s Shenanigans. Let it go to voice mail.


The mistake that I was referring to that is power creep is the fact that new forms of Expertise feats have come out that are strictly better than the original ones.

So is the problem that the feats are getting better and better, because you already argued that the same feats are a solution to (and evidence of) a previous problem.

Wait, wait. I don't care.

[NecroRebel]

You're saying that (in spite of the fact that feats grating a +1 to hit with a particular weapon existed in previous editions, and fact that 4e already had scaling powers and such) no one would have ever ever ever thought of these sorts of feats, or if they had, the whole organization would have closed ranks at the very thought of highjinks like that.

You're not listening. I'm not saying "no one would have ever thought of it," since people did as soon as PHB1 was released. Instead, I'm saying that they wouldn't have been published in an official source; those are two very different things. The latter means that someone could have thought of it, but that the idea would've been dismissed as too powerful. Y'know, like how many people wondered, shortly after PHB1 was released, why there weren't +1 attack feats, and the answer usually given was "they'd be too powerful given the paradigms of 4th edition."

Then people checked the math and found that little oopsie in the bonus growths. Expertise feats and the defense boosters are still overpowered before level ~6-8 or so, but become less "overpowered" and more "important" as you level up more.

So yes, I'm saying that, given what WotC was and is trying to do with 4th edition, the majority of their editors and playtesters would have said, "well, that's too strong" and decided to axe such unconditional attack bonuses. It wouldn't have been unanimous, certainly, but then again it doesn't have to be, and it wouldn't have been a knee-jerk reaction as you imply I think it would be, instead being something determined after examining the math.


So is the problem that the feats are getting better and better, because you already argued that the same feats are a solution to (and evidence of) a previous problem.

The power creep problem is an entirely separate problem from the math problem. There is a feat in PHB1, Weapon Focus, that gives a bonus to damage rolls. If a later book came out with a feat, Super Weapon Focus, that was exactly like Weapon Focus only better, that's problematic power creep. The first expertise feats fix a problem. The later expertise feats continue to address that problem, except that since they do it better than the first ones, they're a case of power creep, which is, as mentioned, a problem but a completely different one.

[Surrealistik]

Honestly, sinon, your reasoning holds no water.

First of all, WotC is incredibly fallible with respect to game design, and has repeatedly proven this, time and time again; there are innumerable cases, just go googling (or consider the whole of 3.5), and yes, even relatively basic math and scaling has been gotten wrong.

Second, you clearly do not know the first thing about char op to argue that +2 or +3 to attack rolls (calling that 'marginal' is hilarious btw, absolutely comic) in Paragon/Epic respectively is not a feat tax, or must have due to being far more powerful for the vast majority of builds than competing options on a per feat basis. While there may be some builds that may, for a very brief time, prioritize other feats, _every_ last optimized build without exception barring the autohit orientated 'lazy' builds (to the best of my knowledge, and I frequent the WotC char op forums, while being an avid optimizer myself) takes some form of Expertise.

Third, the strength of the implication that the Expertise were a math fix rests on their extreme power relative to other feats, and the fact that they were added after the general release when the much broader playtest that is actual use outed the scaling issue, not my individual assumptions. This is circumstantial evidence to be sure, and doesn't straight up prove the assertion, but it obviously supports and strengthens the math fix theory, and I reject as silly and in denial any opposing perspective.

[thereaper]

At the risk of hijacking the conversation, I often see people debating about whether or not feat taxes are in fact feat taxes, but I rarely see anyone talking about what feats specifically are the "feat taxes".

I can gather that the offensive ones are the X Expertise ones that increase attack by 1 per tier, but which are the "NAD boosters"? Is that referring to Paragon Defenses and Robust Defenses (which function along the same lines)?

[tcrudisi]

Yes, the NAD boosters are Improved Defenses and the Superior line (Reflexes, Fortitude and Will). Personally, I find Improved Defenses to be the best way to shore up those NADs. The Superior line is already good; it's often still worth it to take the Superior line even if you are already getting Improved Defenses for free.

Expertise is another one. Likewise, any defender who doesn't have a functioning melee basic attack is no defender at all. As a DM who regularly ignores marks anyway, I can tell you how frustrating it is for my players when I just walk away from the defenders with no penalty. For a defender to do his job, he must have a workable mba. Therefore, melee training is a free feat that I give to defenders in my home games.

Those are the three that I give. I would consider others if the right situation cropped up, however.

[thereaper]

What is Improved Defenses and the Superior line?

I currently only have the PHB1 and 2, so I'm not familiar with those feats (which is why I mentioned Paragon and Robust, as those were the only two I could find that functioned like X Expertise).

Why would a Defender (who presumably should already have high strength) need Melee Training? Or are there non-strength defenders I'm forgetting?

[NecroRebel]

What is Improved Defenses and the Superior line?

I currently only have the PHB1 and 2, so I'm not familiar with those feats (which is why I mentioned Paragon and Robust, as those were the only two I could find that functioned like X Expertise).

Improved Defenses gives +1 per tier to Fortitude, Reflex, and Will. The three Superior feats (one for each NAD) give +1 to their respective defense, an additional 1 per tier, and a secondary benefit as well (resistance to ongoing damage, combat advantage during the first turn of an encounter, and... Well... granting saving throws against Daze and Stun effects at the start of your turn, even if the effect isn't (save ends), respectively). Superior Will is generally the best for obvious reasons.


Why would a Defender (who presumably should already have high strength) need Melee Training? Or are there non-strength defenders I'm forgetting?

Paladins, Swordmages, and Battleminds all can be or outright are non-strength defenders.

[thereaper]

Ok.

Which books are those feats from, then (Melee Training is in the PHB2)?

[NecroRebel]

Ok.

Which books are those feats from, then (Melee Training is in the PHB2)?

Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms. An Essentials book, so you know it's badly designed and playtested.

[Kurald Galain]

At the risk of hijacking the conversation, I often see people debating about whether or not feat taxes are in fact feat taxes, but I rarely see anyone talking about what feats specifically are the "feat taxes.
That's because there is no consensual definition of the term "feat tax". Depending on who you ask, you'll be told that anywhere from zero to half a dozen feats are a "feat tax".

The most common, but by no means only, definitions of "feat tax" appear to be

There aren't any.
Expertise.
Expertise and Improved Defenses.
Expertise, Improved Defenses, and Melee Training


Aside from that, some people will claim Expertise is a feat tax from level 1, whereas others claim it only becomes a tax at level 5 or level 11.

So ask your DM.

[Surrealistik]

Feat tax actually has a very clear definition: a feat option so massively powerful or vital that taking it is required from an optimization perspective.

Which specific feats actually constitute a feat tax varies from build to build and class to class; Enlarge Spell for example is a feat tax for nearly every non-enchanter Wizard, and Melee Training is a feat tax for non-Strength defenders without better alternatives like Intelligent Blademaster, while others are effectively constant ala the Expertise feats, excepting 'lazy' builds.

At this point I'd say the optimization community is pretty clear on Expertise being a de facto feat tax for 99%+ of builds out there, even if there is some disagreement as to when it should be taken (i.e. ASAP, or Paragon).

[Leolo]

That may be your definition but it is not the only definition.

Another definition might be that a fest tax is a fest that you have to take or accept that your character will be below the average builds and expected power level.

[tcrudisi]

I disagree with that definition, Surrealistik.

My definition of a feat tax? A feat that you are required to take to reach a basic level. Just to retain the same percentage to hit, expertise is required. To avoid getting hit like a chump, improved defenses is required. To just do your job, melee training is required.

Enlarge Spell is certainly one of the top Wizard feats in the game. It's not a feat tax, though. Just because 90% of my Wizards will take it does not make it a tax.

[Sinon]

The latter means that someone could have thought of it, but that the idea would've been dismissed as too powerful.Except that it isn't too powerful. That's your opinion.

Your opinion is that it would've been too powerful.
And the opinion of others is that it isn't.

If you can offer evidence that your opinion is fact, then do so.
If you can demonstrate that the game's designers share your opinion, then do so.

You've not offered proof yet, and that makes me doubt you have any.


Y'know, like how many people wondered, shortly after PHB1 was released, why there weren't +1 attack feats, and the answer usually given was "they'd be too powerful given the paradigms of 4th edition."Who wondered? Who dismissed?

Internet chatter proves nothing. If you have information, an official source, saying that +1 feats were not included because "they'd be too powerful given the paradigms of 4th edition." Post it. That would be interesting.

But all you've offered is your own supposition. Not proof. Not interesting.


Then people checked the math and found that little oopsie in the bonus growths. Expertise feats and the defense boosters are still overpowered before level ~6-8 or so, but become less "overpowered" and more "important" as you level up more.Again, is this how you imagined it went? Or were you there? Or is there someone out there sharing this blow-by-blow account of the development process?

Your imagination isn’t proof.

If it is either of the others, post a link.


So yes, I'm saying that, given what WotC was and is trying to do with 4th edition, the majority of their editors and playtesters would have said,Name names.

Which editors and play testers said “well that’s too strong” and which designers responded as you’ve claimed?

Because seriously, I think if you had proof of this claim, I would have seen a link in your first post. I think you really, really honestly think it went down like that, but your opinion isn’t proof of anything.

So, is this fact, or your fantasy?

NercoRebel: no offense, but all I’ve seen you offer is your thoughts on how the design process went. It is cute little narrative you’ve concocted, and I’ve no doubt you unconditionally believe in spite of its authorship.

But I don't share your fantasy.

If you want to tell me what WotC designers thought and what motivated later material, you have to offer proof. If you don’t post a link, I won’t read your response.

[Surrealistik]

I disagree with that definition, Surrealistik.

My definition of a feat tax? A feat that you are required to take to reach a basic level. Just to retain the same percentage to hit, expertise is required. To avoid getting hit like a chump, improved defenses is required. To just do your job, melee training is required.

I don't think your definition is as widely accepted, particularly since the optimization community overwhelmingly considers Enlarge Spell the definition of a feat tax for Wizards with the exception of a small minority of single target/autohit orientated builds.

[Sinon]

First of all, WotC is incredibly fallible with respect to game design, and has repeatedly proven this, time and time again; there are innumerable cases, just go googling (or consider the whole of 3.5), and yes, even relatively basic math and scaling has been gotten wrong.That’s proof that they could have made a mistake. Not that they did.

I’ve never claimed that your hypothesis was impossible. Just unproven. And weak.


(calling that 'marginal' is hilarious btw, absolutely comic) If you have a +2 bonus and I don’t, how many of our d20 rolls have a different result? 2? 10%.

On 1 to 14 we both miss, but on 15 and 16 you hit while I miss. On 17 through 20, we both hit.

There's a border there, between the hit and miss zones. Your edge is positioned just a bit better than mine.

Something that is marginal is something that occurs at the edge, or margin. Two comparable characters are going to have the same level, primary stat, magic item bonuses, etc. but the one with the feat will have a bonus that goes a little further beyond the limitation of the first, there at the margin.

I know some people think "marginal" means insignificant. But, wait...
This is the internet. Why am I giving vocab lessons?


Second, you clearly do not know the first thing about char op to argue that +2 or +3 to attack rolls in Paragon/Epic respectively is not a feat tax, or must have due to being far more powerful for the vast majority of builds than competing options on a per feat basis. While there may be some builds that may, for a very brief time, prioritize other feats, _every_ last optimized build without exception barring the autohit orientated 'lazy' builds (to the best of my knowledge, and I frequent the WotC char op forums, while being an avid optimizer myself) takes some form of Expertise.I understand Char Op perfectly well: in a nut shell, this is about a character that hits better.
You are going hit better by taking feats that result in you hitting better.
And these feats make you hit better.

That doesn’t make them a tax. (The fact that anyone would want it doesn’t make it required.)

That doesn’t make it a fix. (Because there was nothing broken.)

That makes it a good feat, nothing else.


Third, the strength of the implication that the Expertise were a math fix rests on their extreme power relative to other feats, and the fact that they were added after the general release when the much broader playtest that is actual use outed the scaling issue, not my individual assumptions. This is circumstantial evidence to be sure, and doesn't straight up prove the assertion, but it obviously supports and strengthens the math fix theory, and I reject as silly and in denial any opposing perspective.
OK, so, 1) They are powerful
2) They came out in the second book not the first

Let's look at that. Are these dates right:

The publication of PHB 1 was June 2008.
The publication of PHB 2 was March 2009.
Are you saying that no material for the second book was not, could not have even been started until after the playtesting of the material released in the first?

No, of course not. That's silly. Some of it had to have been started before the proofs for PHB 1 were even approved.
And some of it could have been inserted right before it went to press in spring 2009.

But which was written early on, and which "after the general release when the much broader playtest that is actual use outed the scaling issue"?

You can't say, can you? You don’t know with any certainty when this feat was proposed and written. It could have been in May 2008 or April 2009. You don't know, or if you do, post a link.

And even though you can't do that, if you could, you you still only have post hoc.

Not propter hoc.

But again, if you do, post a link.

What your circumstantial evidence supports is the argument that it could have gone down the way you think.

But there are lots and lots of other ways it could have gone down as well.
And you have no evidence that your way is what happened. You have no way of saying that your case is more compelling. You only have that it is possible.

Possible isn't a strong argument. It is the weakest argument you could bother making.


Feat tax actually has a very clear definition: a feat option so massively powerful or vital that taking it is required from an optimization perspective. What? by that definition, every feat that is really good for a certain build is a tax.

Should they all be free?

[NecroRebel]

You want sources for where designers said that they wanted bonuses to remain roughly equal throughout levels? Fine. This podcast (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4pod/20070907e15) says so, so does Dragon 364's article on the development of the Dungeon Master's Guide. (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/drdd/20080630) Those both specifically say that "every character uses the same progression of attack and defense bonuses. [They] have targets for monster attack and defense numbers, based on what [they] have found is a good hit rate for character and monster attacks." The podcast expands on that, saying that in 3.5, players and creatures had a good chance to hit, good chance to avoid attacks, and 4E was designed specifically to make that true across all levels. While I'll admit, it's not an explicit "We did this math," it does strongly imply that a fairly narrow set of attack bonuses and defense numbers were expected at all levels. There's also this article, (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/drdd/20080123) which specifically calls out that "If you’re 9th level, we expect you to have a set of +2 armor, and the challenges in the game at that level are balanced accordingly." I suspect that there are others, just going through the names on the articles archive, but lacking an Insider subscription I can't go through them to see.

I watched as 4th edition first came out. People did wonder why there weren't +attack feats, and that was the response given. If I could find the archives of this site, I'd have found some specific threads to point them out to you.



Also, I'm fine with you not buying into my "fantasy" that there was an error with the math of 4th edition and that the Expertise feats were a fix to it. I don't buy into your fantasy that 4th edition is some perfect game and the designers are infallible gods who can do no wrong.

Don't resort to ad hominem attacks; I can do them too.
Though I avoid them, so I'm bad at them.
Your hypothesis is weaker, in fact, as at least the idea that there was a mistake made has suggestions and implications towards it, unlike yours, which is just based off of, "Well, people would've thought this is cool, so they put it in!" You can read the evidence either way, but given that the general consensus on D&D boards is that they are a math fix and/or a feat tax, it's probable that the more reasonable reading is that that evidence suggests that these feats are a math fix and/or feat tax. When presented with evidence, the majority does tend to choose the more reasonable interpretation, after all.

[Surrealistik]

That’s proof that they could have made a mistake. Not that they did.

I’ve never claimed that your hypothesis was impossible. Just unproven. And weak.

Uh, it's not weak when they FUBARed an entire edition and have repeatedly made glaring design flaws, and have time and time again resorted to feats to fix design flaws; for a contemporary example, see the Ossassin and Black Flame Zealot DMG article.


That doesn’t make them a tax. (The fact that anyone would want it doesn’t make it required.)

That doesn’t make it a fix. (Because there was nothing broken.)

That makes it a good feat, nothing else.

#1: In spite of your semantic nonsense and blatant attempt to backpeddle, you clearly meant marginal as in insignificant or small. Either interpretation is completely and laughably wrong. 10% over 10 levels is huge. 15% over 10 levels is even more impactful.

#2: Pretty much all of char op (and thus the math and cold hard facts) disagrees with you. It is heads and shoulders better than pretty much all alternatives for the vast majority of builds (and will, excepting only lazy builds, always be a priority), all but outing it as a fix.


OK, so, 1) They are powerful
2) They came out in the second book not the first

Not going to argue this with you, you are quite simply wrong, and you will never change my opinion. Yes I can't 'prove' it, yes, the circumstantial evidence doesn't 'prove' anything either as acknowledged, but it increases the likelihood that my position is accurate precisely because it strongly supports the possibility, especially when you consider just how blatantly superior it is to virtually every other feat out there. Either WotC was retarded for releasing a ridiculously overpowered feat (and yes it _is_ ridiculously overpowered in comparison to virtually every other feat), or they intended that feat as a math fix (again, they have precedence for releasing feats as fixes). Since the Expertise feats were not rescinded or nerfed, even after appearing invariably on optimized builds since their introduction for _years_, I think the latter is definitely most probable.


What? by that definition, every feat that is really good for a certain build is a tax.

Should they all be free?

Only if they allow a character to perform at an expected base level of competence.

[Kurald Galain]

My definition of a feat tax? A feat that you are required to take to reach a basic level. Just to retain the same percentage to hit, expertise is required. To avoid getting hit like a chump, improved defenses is required. To just do your job, melee training is required.
And I disagree with that definition, simply because Enlarge Spell is more powerful and has a greater impact on the game than Implement Expertise.

That's really my point though, everybody has their own definition of "feat tax". I'm sure that some people will claim that there is only one definition because all other definitions are wrong, but that's quite a funny statement if you think about it.

[Sinon]

NecroRebel:

OK, so, I listened to the podcast, read the articles. (Thanks, that was a wasted hour.)

You’ve demonstrated:
1) That they did look at the math.
2) Nope, wait, that’s it.

You haven’t offered any evidence AT ALL that they got it wrong; that they think they got it wrong; or that these feats are intended as a fix.


Your hypothesis is weaker, I don’t know why they did made these feats.
My only claim is that your hypothesis isn’t supported by proof.

And you haven’t offered anything approaching the level of proof that would make an objective person conclude that your claim is anything but your own wild speculation.

Normally, I wouldn’t care. You can make up entire fantastical conversations between fictional designers who all think just like you. I don’t care.

But where I get compelled to say something is when you offer your fanciful narrative as proof of anything but your own creativity.

I don’t think we have anything else to say.

[Sinon]

Uh, it's not weak when they FUBARed an entire edition and have repeatedly made glaring design flaws, and have time and time again resorted to feats to fix design flaws; for a contemporary example, see the Ossassin and Black Flame Zealot DMG article. Yes, they've made mistakes in the past.

But that's not actual proof that some specific thing is a mistake.

If I were arguing for their infallibility, this would be relevant. But I'm not.


#1: In spite of your semantic nonsense and blatant attempt to backpeddle, you clearly meant marginal as in insignificant or small. Don’t tell me what I meant.


Either interpretation is completely and laughably wrong. 10% over 10 levels is huge. 15% over 10 levels is even more impactful. That’s nice and vague.


#2: Pretty much all of char op (and thus the math and cold hard facts) disagrees with you. It is heads and shoulders better than pretty much all alternatives for the vast majority of builds (and will, excepting only lazy builds, always be a priority), all but outing it as a fix.Char op wants to hit better and these feats do that. Of course they will take them.

Jesus! I’ve said this before. Why are we saying the same things over and over? You make the same arguments; I point out the same flaws again and again.

Yes, everyone in charop will for every character they make, with one of six choices of feat they have before paragon, take one of the expertise feats. You can’t say that for many other feats simple because these are the rare ones that will work for any build, any race, any class, any role.

That makes them good, maybe great, but not a tax. By your logic any good feat, any feat that is chosen frequently by char op, is a tax, is required, should be given away for free.


Yes I can't 'prove' it, I know. But you keep stating it as though it were fact.
yes, the circumstantial evidence doesn't 'prove' anything either as acknowledged,It proves nothing no matter how it is acknowledged.
but it increases the likelihood that my position is accurate precisely because it strongly supports the possibility,You use the word “strongly” every time. But that’s vague, entirely subjective. The strength of the evidence rests entirely on how much weight you give it.

Why can’t you see that the strength of your argument is entirely subjective?

You’re giving it a lot of weight because you already think your conclusion is true.

I don’t. I merely think it is hypothetically possible. Your (let's call it) evidence isn't as weighty in that case. All it does is fail to disprove your claim. That's not much.


especially when you consider just how blatantly superior it is to virtually every other feat out there. Either WotC was retarded for releasing a ridiculously overpowered feat (and yes it _is_ ridiculously overpowered in comparison to virtually every other feat), or they intended that feat as a math fix (again, they have precedence for releasing feats as fixes). See, you’ve come to grasp that there is more than one explanation, and (presumably) you have no evidence to establish which one is correct. :smallsmile:
You’re still claiming that your opinions are precedents, but this is a step in the right direction at least.

Seriously though, in your attempt make your opinion “strong support” you’re again falling into subjective claims like “ridiculously overpowered”.

But, I'd like you at least recognize your claim as opinion, not fact.

At levels one through ten, this feat won’t be match the advantages of having a 20 starting stat and using a longsword, compared to the guy who started with an 18 and uses a hammer. At paragon it’s a tie.

Is the 20 stat ridiculously over powered?
Are longswords?

But this is going to fall on deaf ears, isn’t? Because you are arguing from CharOp perspective, where no one would ever have an inferior starting stat or use a weapon that only grants +2 for proficiency.

But even there, ridiculously over powered?

Even if I look at this just from a charop perspective, there are (by paragon) other ways to improve your to hit:
The aforementioned stat choices,
and weapon selection,
and there are powers you can snag like Serpent’s Cunning,
items like a Headband of Intellect,
there is Superior Implement Proficiency for an accurate weapon?

Are all of these ridiculously over powered?

And even if they are, does that make them something I should just give for free, because asking people to pay a feat for something ridiculously over powered is just too unfair? Why have you singled out these expertise feats?

I don't think I've changed your mind, but I hope you can at least see your opinion as to the power level of these feats for what it is: an opinion not a fact.

And no matter how reasonable you think your opinions are, you have nothing more than that.

Your opinion that the math was wrong is supported by your opinion that the expertise feats are a correction which is founded on your opinion that the feats are ridiculously over powered.

I’m done with this whole argument.

[Surrealistik]

Yes, they've made mistakes in the past.

But that's not actual proof that some specific thing is a mistake.

If I were arguing for their infallibility, this would be relevant. But I'm not.

The whole point is to illustrate that WotC uses feats as a mechanism to compensate for earlier design flaws, and establish precedence.


Don’t tell me what I meant.

It's exactly what you meant. I caught you in a backpeddle, I caught you making an absurd statement no one in the know would agree with, and I'm not letting you try and waive it with a weak excuse.



That makes them good, maybe great, but not a tax. By your logic any good feat, any feat that is chosen frequently by char op, is a tax, is required, should be given away for free.

Wrong, because it's not simply taken frequently so much as _invariably_, again because it is heads and shoulders more powerful than competing options given return on investment.


I know. But you keep stating it as though it were fact. It proves nothing no matter how it is acknowledged. You use the word “strongly” every time. But that’s vague, entirely subjective. The strength of the evidence rests entirely on how much weight you give it.

Why can’t you see that the strength of your argument is entirely subjective?

You’re giving it a lot of weight because you already think your conclusion is true.

Uh, maybe because it's not entirely subjective? There are salient facts that strongly back my argument, not because I subjectively think they do, but because they objectively lend credence to it, in spite of not wholly proving it.


I don’t. I merely think it is hypothetically possible. Your (let's call it) evidence isn't as weighty in that case. All it does is fail to disprove your claim. That's not much.

Wrong. Not only does it fail to disprove my claim, but it also makes my claim more likely than a host of alternatives.


See, you’ve come to grasp that there is more than one explanation, and (presumably) you have no evidence to establish which one is correct. :smallsmile:

I love this condescending presumption; it's about as ironic as it is hilarious honestly, coming from you. First of all, I understand that there is more than one possible explanation. Second yes, obviously, as repeatedly stated, I have no way of definitively proving which is correct; only which one is more likely.


You’re still claiming that your opinions are precedents, but this is a step in the right direction at least.

Really drop the whole teacher/student presumption. You're not my superior, you don't know better than me, nor are you even the slightest iota more intelligent or knowledgeable. The fact is you have opinions on these matters that are far more unlikely and unsupported than those established and backed if not 'proven' by communities that have played this game for years and know its ins and outs.


But, I'd like you at least recognize your claim as opinion, not fact.

I never said it was fact, I said it was most likely, and it is.


At levels one through ten, this feat won’t be match the advantages of having a 20 starting stat and using a longsword, compared to the guy who started with an 18 and uses a hammer. At paragon it’s a tie.

Is the 20 stat ridiculously over powered?
Are longswords?

But this is going to fall on deaf ears, isn’t? Because you are arguing from CharOp perspective, where no one would ever have an inferior starting stat or use a weapon that only grants +2 for proficiency.

But even there, ridiculously over powered?

Even if I look at this just from a charop perspective, there are (by paragon) other ways to improve your to hit:
The aforementioned stat choices,
and weapon selection,
and there are powers you can snag like Serpent’s Cunning,
items like a Headband of Intellect,
there is Superior Implement Proficiency for an accurate weapon?

Snip


Here's what you're ignoring.

First of all, the fact that these bonuses all stack.

Second, the fact that the return on investment for Expertise is basically unsurpassed. For the vast, vast majority of builds, there is no single feat that fosters a larger impact and return on investment than Expertise.

Third, Expertise is common and applicable to virtually every build in the game.


Your opinion that the math was wrong is supported by your opinion that the expertise feats are a correction which is founded on your opinion that the feats are ridiculously over powered.

The latter most is only an opinion to those ignorant on the matter.

[Shatteredtower]

The whole point is to illustrate that WotC uses feats as a mechanism to compensate for earlier design flaws, and establish precedence.

Precedence for making mistakes, sure. Precedence for the mistake you claim they made? No.


It's exactly what you meant. I caught you in a backpeddle, I caught you making an absurd statement no one in the know would agree with, and I'm not letting you try and waive it with a weak excuse.

You didn't catch anyone in anything. Marginal means what you were told it means; you merely exaggerate the significance.

If you're really "in the know", then you know that a 10% difference over 10 levels means nothing. So have to stop for a rest 10% more often, or maybe 50%. The game is supposed to make allowances for that, even if there's a cost. Your progress as a hero is not impeded by the amount of time it took you to finally overcome an invading force, even if another town was lost with each passing day. Optimisation won't let you save everyone, nor are you destined to fail everyone with a weak build.

Heroic is defined in game, not metagame.


Wrong, because it's not simply taking frequently so much as _invariably_, again because it is heads and shoulders more powerful than competing options given return on investment.

So, how does this establish that they are required? If you were building a 4th level character for a one shot adventure, would you load up entirely on feats you define as belonging on your tax list? What if it was meant to run from 4th to 9th level? How about a one shot 12th level adventure?

If I told you upfront I was running an epic one shot in which you got innate bonuses to make up for a complete lack of equipment in a hostile environment, would you still take the expertise feats? If I told you upfront that a thorough mastery of all skills was essential to survival here, would you feel ripped off if your non-AC defenses were replaced by (for example) Endurance, Acrobatics, and Dungeoneering?

Certainly, this last example is not the norm. Then again, playing through from heroic to epic tier isn't exactly the norm either. Even with the faster advancement of the last two editions, many players still end an ongoing campaign soon after reaching paragon level. Plenty of other people never play anything other than one shots. (That's just a fact of life for people who can only get their table together once every two to four months. Fun folks, too.)


Wrong. Not only does it fail to disprove my claim, but it also makes my claim more likely than a host of alternatives.

Every single conspiracy theorist employs a line similar to this. Here's an alternative more likely than the one you claim: WotC listened to a call for attack bonus feats and opted to streamline both these and the defense feats along a tier-based progression, which also had the benefit of keeping things simple.

Did the players demand it because it was necessary, or because such a feat existed in 3rd Edition, with further precedent in the form of 1st/2nd Edition's Weapon Specialization feats, or was it just the idea of attack-boosting feats made sense if you already had ones to boost defenses (and damage)? The first option is the least likely, as a slower rate of progress is still progress.


Really drop the whole teacher/student presumption. You're not my superior, you don't know better than me, nor are you even the slightest iota more intelligent or knowledgeable. The fact is you have opinions on these matters far that are far more unlikely unsupported than those established and supported if not 'proven' by communities that have played this game for years and know its ins and outs.

There's a good list of claims you can't support. You could be right about most of them, but should have stopped the last sentence at the word "matters".


Second, the fact that the return on investment for Expertise is basically unsurpassed. For the vast, vast majority of builds, there is no single feat that fosters a larger impact and return on investment than Expertise.

Please demonstrate how this feat is required to enjoy the game.


Third, Expertise is common and applicable to virtually every build in the game.

If a player opted to use any of these builds without the feat, could you prove a detrimental effect on their enjoyment of the game? Could you demonstrate that the absence of the feat would matter as much to them as to people who prefer building characters to playing the game?

(I'm not criticizing the people who spend more time building characters than playing them. The strongest chess players devote more time to analysis than play, and the best chess theoreticians tend to go one step farther in that regard.)


The latter most is only an opinion to those ignorant on the matter.

If you wish to rip into Sinon for talking down to you, you should stop doing so in kind. Arguing from the consensus of people that agree with you does not help your case either.

Play how you want, but don't claim it's necessary to play that way.

[Surrealistik]

Precedence for making mistakes, sure. Precedence for the mistake you claim they made? No.

Precedence not just for making mistakes, but for correcting them (or attempting to correct them more accurately) via feats; you've missed my point.


You didn't catch anyone in anything. Marginal means what you were told it means; you merely exaggerate the significance.

Except I did, and you're obviously going to agree with Sinon being concurrent with his opinion, and simultaneously hostile towards my position, and how I like to play 4e. It is quite clear he at the very least tried to downplay and minimize the impact of Expertise which is simply ridiculous.


If you're really "in the know", then you know that a 10% difference over 10 levels means nothing.

Pure ignorance. A 10% increase in hit rates tends to have exponential repercussions due to interparty synergies. As a basic illustrative example, say we have 100 units of 'effect' for each of 5 party members on a hit, and our hit rate for each member is 50%, each attack synergizing and compounding with the other:

100*0.5*100*0.5*100*0.5*100*0.5*100*0.5 = 312500000

And now, each of them take Expertise for a 60% hit rate:

100*0.6*100*0.6*100*0.6*100*0.6*100*0.6 = 777600000

That gives us a huge difference of 465100000.

Even when we consider things purely additive, we have

100*0.5+100*0.5+100*0.5+100*0.5+100*0.5 = 250 vs

100*0.6+100*0.6+100*0.6+100*0.6+100*0.6 = 300

Or a difference of 50 effect (an increase of 20% from 250)

Now obviously, even in the most synergetic parties, the former's levels of compounding will not be achieved, but compounding will happen, and it will be dramatic, and because that's true, a 10% increase in hit rates for each party member will have a final outcome substantially greater than a 10% increase in effect outputs.


So, how does this establish that they are required? If you were building a 4th level character for a one shot adventure, would you load up entirely on feats you define as belonging on your tax list? What if it was meant to run from 4th to 9th level? How about a one shot 12th level adventure?

First of all, I was explaining why my logic does not in fact demand that frequent char op choices be awarded freely.

Second, nothing is technically required, but that said, it is absurd to virtually diminish player choice by not awarding feats that every last build will take if it is looking to even be partly optimized. Again, you'll argue that players have the freedom to not choose Expertise for another feat, and again I'll say it's the freedom to take a thousand over a mil; it's not a meaningful freedom.

Third, to directly answer your questions, the 4th level character would very likely have expertise in all cases. The 12th level would have both expertise and at least one scaling defense feat.


If I told you upfront I was running an epic one shot in which you got innate bonuses to make up for a complete lack of equipment in a hostile environment, would you still take the expertise feats? If I told you upfront that a thorough mastery of all skills was essential to survival here, would you feel ripped off if your non-AC defenses were replaced by (for example) Endurance, Acrobatics, and Dungeoneering?

Yes, especially since being in Epic I've got feats to burn for skills if necessary, and Expertise/defense feats remain an extremely high priority if there's going to be any combat whatsoever.


Certainly, this last example is not the norm. Then again, playing through from heroic to epic tier isn't exactly the norm either. Even with the faster advancement of the last two editions, many players still end an ongoing campaign soon after reaching paragon level. Plenty of other people never play anything other than one shots. (That's just a fact of life for people who can only get their table together once every two to four months. Fun folks, too.)

Even in Heroic Expertise is highly desirable. From Paragon to Paragon, Expertise is required. From Epic to Epic, it is required.


Every single conspiracy theorist employs a line similar to this. Here's an alternative more likely than the one you claim: WotC listened to a call for attack bonus feats and opted to streamline both these and the defense feats along a tier-based progression, which also had the benefit of keeping things simple.

So in otherwords, WotC implemented a player demand because they realized they got the math wrong due to player feedback?


Did the players demand it because it was necessary, or because such a feat existed in 3rd Edition, with further precedent in the form of 1st/2nd Edition's Weapon Specialization feats, or was it just the idea of attack-boosting feats made sense if you already had ones to boost defenses (and damage)? The first option is the least likely, as a slower rate of progress is still progress.

So how is the first outcome least likely again? Alternately, in the event that it was a consequence of player demand, it could simply be players pointing out the scaling issue. It should be noted that WotC's design team pays close attention to Char Op and its analysis, taking fixes directly from the forums, even at one point openly soliciting CO for problem identification and fixes (I believe this is still ongoing).


There's a good list of claims you can't support. You could be right about most of them, but should have stopped the last sentence at the word "matters".

No, because it's true, and it needs to be said.


Please demonstrate how this feat is required to enjoy the game.

If a player opted to use any of these builds without the feat, could you prove a detrimental effect on their enjoyment of the game? Could you demonstrate that the absence of the feat would matter as much to them as to people who prefer building characters to playing the game?

Depends on the player. Optimizers and indeed anyone who cares about their combat performance would hate it, those who don't wouldn't care obviously. Personally I expect the former camp to be the majority especially in a game like 4e. The bottom line is that implementing such a powerful feat as an 'optional' element as opposed to integrating it as part of the game's standard progression is poor design, because if you're in that sizable and probably majority former camp which 4e strives to cater to, being very combat orientated, balance and tactically focused, you will be robbed of an actual option for at least one of your feat slots.


If you wish to rip into Sinon for talking down to you, you should stop doing so in kind. Arguing from the consensus of people that agree with you does not help your case either.

Play how you want, but don't claim it's necessary to play that way.

I never did. You can play unoptimized trash characters all you like, but the fact is that most people care about their combat performance, and those that care will take Expertise period because of its overwhelming power/return on investment, which is why it is a feat tax and should be standard progression.

Second, yes, I think it's fair to reference the consensus of the char op community as a backing. It shows that there is an inordinate amount of people generally aligned with my position who know this game better than anyone else, including the designers on some points whom, as stated, turn to that community for balance fixes.

As for Sinon, he gets what he deserves.

[evirus]

As a GM, on 2 counts I have given out the feat to all my group after level 6 (or a free retrain if they took it before) because everyone was going to take it purely for mechanical reasons. I also didn't want to penalize the one player who was picking feats for theme by making him less likely to hit than the rest of the party.

As a side note, after all the venom that this thread has brought out, i'm curious how long before it is locked.

[NecroRebel]

NecroRebel:

OK, so, I listened to the podcast, read the articles. (Thanks, that was a wasted hour.)

You’ve demonstrated:
1) That they did look at the math.
2) Nope, wait, that’s it.

You haven’t offered any evidence AT ALL that they got it wrong; that they think they got it wrong; or that these feats are intended as a fix.

Except I have and you've just willfully ignored it. They looked at the math, found the sweet spot that they wanted to-hit rates to be in, and at low levels that hit rate is achievable, but with only PHB1 you gradually slip out of it to points unattainable at level 1 as you level up due to your attack bonuses not scaling as fast as monster defenses and defenses not scaling as fast as monster attacks. That's something you can do the math for yourself if you so chose; the DMG specifically says to increase monster attacks and defenses by 1 per level, but if you add the expected bonuses from leveling, stat increases, and magic items, you find that PCs get a bit less than .9 per level.

The fact that one slips out of the sweet spot as you level is evidence of a mistake. The fact that the expertise feats were released in the second really major source of feats (PHB2) and after the game had been released into the wider world is evidence that the game makers realized something was wrong (because people told them so). The fact that the feats we are discussing fix the problem as soon as practically possible (that is, in the earliest really major source of feats after the problem was noticed) is evidence that they were intended to fix the problem.


I don’t know why they did made these feats.
My only claim is that your hypothesis isn’t supported by proof.

And you haven’t offered anything approaching the level of proof that would make an objective person conclude that your claim is anything but your own wild speculation.

You know, there's such a concept of "reasonable doubt." You can't prove things like this absolutely without word of god, which we don't have. However, eyewitness accounts and circumstantial evidence can prove things beyond a reasonable doubt. There's a pile of circumstantial evidence for our claim, and I would say that your doubt is unreasonable due to it.

[TheEmerged]

As a side note, after all the venom that this thread has brought out, i'm curious how long before it is locked.

I'd say it's directly proportional to the number of reports it's gotten :smallredface:

[DefKab]

I have a question. If a feat tax is supposed to place you on a maintained level of power (like its argued Expertise does for to-hit chance) what level of power are you using to say Enlarge Spell is a tax? Is there a better, more powerful version of Wizard that is better, and more powerful purely because of its size of area attacks? Or that all other Area Powers are the size a Wizards would be with Enlarge Spell, making it necessary to maintain power level? Cause that sounds bogus.

[Kurald Galain]

I have a question. If a feat tax is supposed to place you on a maintained level of power (like its argued Expertise does for to-hit chance) what level of power are you using to say Enlarge Spell is a tax?
Suppose a wizard uses burst-1 attacks, targeting 1.5 creatures per round on average, with a 70% chance to hit. The wizard will score 1.05 hits per round.

Give this wizard Implement Expertise and he'll go up to 75% chance to hit. He now scores 1.13 hits per round (that's the +1 version; the +3 version lands him at 1.28 hits per round).

If instead you give him Enlarge Spell, then he'll go up to 2 creatures per round (in practice it's actually more, but let's make it a conservative estimate). He now scores 1.4 hits per round.

Hence, Enlarge Spell is more powerful than Implement Expertise, QED. If people claim that Expertise is "absurdly powerful", "ridiculously necessary", "outrageously awesome" or other common superlatives, then they must realize that mathematically, Enlarge Spell is even better.

[Mystic Muse]

Suppose a wizard uses burst-1 attacks, targeting 1.5 creatures per round on average, with a 70% chance to hit. The wizard will score 1.05 hits per round.

Give this wizard Implement Expertise and he'll go up to 75% chance to hit. He now scores 1.13 hits per round (that's the +1 version; the +3 version lands him at 1.28 hits per round).

If instead you give him Enlarge Spell, then he'll go up to 2 creatures per round (in practice it's actually more, but let's make it a conservative estimate). He now scores 1.4 hits per round.

Hence, Enlarge Spell is more powerful than Implement Expertise, QED. If people claim that Expertise is "absurdly powerful", "ridiculously necessary", "outrageously awesome" or other common superlatives, then they must realize that mathematically, Enlarge Spell is even better.

I just wish it worked on spells that didn't deal damage.

[DefKab]

Suppose a wizard uses burst-1 attacks, targeting 1.5 creatures per round on average, with a 70% chance to hit. The wizard will score 1.05 hits per round.

Give this wizard Implement Expertise and he'll go up to 75% chance to hit. He now scores 1.13 hits per round (that's the +1 version; the +3 version lands him at 1.28 hits per round).

If instead you give him Enlarge Spell, then he'll go up to 2 creatures per round (in practice it's actually more, but let's make it a conservative estimate). He now scores 1.4 hits per round.

Hence, Enlarge Spell is more powerful than Implement Expertise, QED. If people claim that Expertise is "absurdly powerful", "ridiculously necessary", "outrageously awesome" or other common superlatives, then they must realize that mathematically, Enlarge Spell is even better.

That kind of thinking just doesnt make sense. Expertise is the feat tax. It is required to place you on the predetermined power level. Enlarge spell doesnt. It doesnt help you hit, which is what the level of power is using as measurement. You still only have a 70% chance to hit a target. Throwing in multiple targets doesnt change the level. Now, if you're trying to measure it against being able to hit multiple targets, then yes, but then, the only thing you're comparing it to is another wizard. Which is poor form.

[Kurald Galain]

Expertise is the feat tax. It is required to place you on the predetermined power level.
No, some people claim that it is "required" to place you on the "predetermined" power level. This is an assumption, not a fact, and as evidenced by this very thread, it is not consensually agreed upon.

The point is that the best way to score more hits is to make more attack rolls (which plenty of classes can do, not just the wizard). That's a very practical concern.

[NecroRebel]

Hence, Enlarge Spell is more powerful than Implement Expertise, QED. If people claim that Expertise is "absurdly powerful", "ridiculously necessary", "outrageously awesome" or other common superlatives, then they must realize that mathematically, Enlarge Spell is even better.

The difference is that expertise brings one's to-hit chance up to (what are almost certainly) expected levels, and so it actually fits into the given definition of putting you back on the maintained power level. Enlarge spell, on the other hand, doesn't compensate for any system errors and doesn't fit into that definition, so it's "just" an overpowering feat for wizards, and it's quite strong even for other arcane classes that can fit a wizard MC and focus on AoE spells into their build.

Enlarge spell =/= feat tax, in other words, because it isn't "expected" that you'll take it on most wizards. I will freely admit that the line is blurred, however.



Also, those calculations don't take into account the fact that the feat, when used, decreases damage significantly, probably by about 10-20%, so with that balancing factor, it might be closer to in-line with other feats... Of course, that ignores the fact that wizards often don't care about how much damage they deal as long as they deal at least one for minions, since the hit effects are so much more important for control.

[Surrealistik]

Hence, Enlarge Spell is more powerful than Implement Expertise, QED. If people claim that Expertise is "absurdly powerful", "ridiculously necessary", "outrageously awesome" or other common superlatives, then they must realize that mathematically, Enlarge Spell is even better.

I definitely consider Enlarge Spell a class specific feat tax (single target builds excepted). If one were to add a class specific feat tax allowance (as per Melee Training and such), it'd definitely make the cut.

That said, Enlarge Spell's effective to-hit bonus comes at a price (albeit a relatively minor one) and isn't always applicable unlike Expertise's (not enough enemies, friendly fire concerns, bunched enemies, non-damage rolling, non-area spells, etc...), so the two are on far more even footing than you believe.

That said, Char Op has come to a consensus on the necessity of Expertise; it is a feat tax, period. Call it an opinion all you like; while technically it may be one, practically it isn't.

[Kurald Galain]

so it actually fits into the given definition of putting you back on the maintained power level.
But that's your definition of feat tax, not the "given" definition, and as seen earlier in this thread, there are several other definitions as well. If you see a "feat tax" as "any feat that's so good that every character simply must take it", then Enlarge Spell clearly fits the bill.


it's quite strong even for other arcane classes that can fit a wizard MC and focus on AoE spells into their build.
Actually, it was errata'ed to not do that any more (precisely because before the errata, the best bet for most arcane classes was to MC to wizard as soon as possible).


Also, those calculations don't take into account the fact that the feat, when used, decreases damage significantly, probably by about 10-20%,
Enlarge Spell actually increases your damage. Suppose you do 1d8+10 damage normally, then dealing 1d8+10 damage to 1.5 targets is quite a bit less than dealing 1d8+8 damage to 2 targets (21.75 vs 25.0). Yeah, WOTC hasn't really thought that through as a balancing factor.

Not that controllers care overly much about damage, of course.

[Surrealistik]

But that's your definition of feat tax, not the "given" definition, and as seen earlier in this thread, there are several other definitions as well. If you see a "feat tax" as "any feat that's so good that every character simply must take it", then Enlarge Spell clearly fits the bill.

It's worth noting that every wizard does not actually have to take Enlarge Spell being as there's an extensive subset of builds that uses non-area spells, Enchanters being the most prominent and obvious.

[NecroRebel]

But that's your definition of feat tax, not the "given" definition, and as seen earlier in this thread, there are several other definitions as well. If you see a "feat tax" as "any feat that's so good that every character simply must take it", then Enlarge Spell clearly fits the bill.

It isn't my definition of a feat tax, actually; that was the one DefKab gave. Mine would be more like "a feat everyone would reasonably be expected to take as one of their first, say, five feats," which Expertise feats as a category probably fit but Enlarge Spell doesn't. Nor do the defense boosters, actually, but my policy is to give them as free feats for paragon and higher games anyway.

<pedantic>Also, Enlarge Spell isn't a feat that's so good that, say, fighters simply must take it, so it isn't a feat tax in your definition either</pedantic> :smalltongue:


Actually, it was errata'ed to not do that any more (precisely because before the errata, the best bet for most arcane classes was to MC to wizard as soon as possible).

Is that so? Well, that's certainly reasonable.


Enlarge Spell actually increases your damage. Suppose you do 1d8+10 damage normally, then dealing 1d8+10 damage to 1.5 targets is quite a bit less than dealing 1d8+8 damage to 2 targets (21.75 vs 25.0). Yeah, WOTC hasn't really thought that through as a balancing factor.

Not that controllers care overly much about damage, of course.

It increases your damage overall, yes, but does it increase your damage overall as much as Expertise? Though I do certainly agree that that isn't really much of a balancing factor, my point was that although you're probably hitting more with Enlarge than with Expertise, your actual damage might be equal or even lower since you're dealing 10-20% less damage per hit.

It depends on what your damage is; at level 1, for instance, you might be dealing only 1d6+4 damage before Enlarge with Scorching Burst, and with your original numbers from your previous post, 1.05 hits at 1d6+4 with neither, 1.28 hits at 1d6+4 with expertise alone, or 1.4 at 1d6+2 with enlarge alone on average works out to 7.875, 9.6, and 7.7 damage, respectively. So in fact Enlarge is decreasing your damage at that level. Its value improves as static additions add up, of course, which is why your numbers were so different, but in at least some cases it can reduce your damage dealt.

Again, though, that all ignores the fact that wizards shouldn't really care about damage, making the whole thing somewhat moot.

[Kurald Galain]

Nor do the defense boosters, actually,
Yeah, I've noticed that too, and this is why I don't consider Improved Defense a feat tax. When the DM isn't giving out bonus feats, practically every level-10 character I've seen has some kind of expertise, and yet practically none of them (except some of the defenders) have a defense feat. Despite people claiming how "absolutely necessary" those defense feats are, in practice most people simply won't take them because they have better choices.

And why not? Killing your opponent quickly is a perfectly valid means of defense.


1.05 hits at 1d6+4 with neither, 1.28 hits at 1d6+4 with expertise alone, or 1.4 at 1d6+2 with enlarge alone on average works out to 7.875, 9.6, and 7.7 damage, respectively.
Not 9.6 but 8.5; that 1.28 is the epic expertise.

Anyway, they're pretty much tied once you hit a +6 damage mod, and Enlarge wins with a +7 damage mod; you can probably pull that off at level 3 if you want. And that's with a very conservative estimate of how many extra targets Enlarging nets you (since it almost triples your area of effect, in practice the numbers are much better than 1.5 : 2.0 targets). More to the point, the beauty of Enlarge Spell is that whenever it's not beneficial, you simply don't use it.

So yeah, I'd be highly surprised to see any wizard not taking Enlarge Spell in their first five feats (except for Enchanters with a lot no-damage spells).

Also, I don't think it's plausible to call Feat X a mandatory feat tax when there's a Feat Y which is stronger and is somehow not a mandatory feat tax.

[NecroRebel]

And why not? Killing your opponent quickly is a perfectly valid means of defense.

Yeah, I suspect that that has something to do with how PCs tend to be higher-damage but more frail than the monsters, so attack and damage bonuses multiply a bigger number and thus are more powerful.


Not 9.6 but 8.5; that 1.28 is the epic expertise.

Ah, my mistake. Yeah, it doesn't take much to make Enlarge Spell more valuable, though as you get into powers that deal multiple dice of damage you need a bigger static multiplier to counter it. I'm not saying it's a bad feat, only that it might not be so clearly superior to the expertise line.


Also, I don't think it's plausible to call Feat X a mandatory feat tax when there's a Feat Y which is stronger and is somehow not a mandatory feat tax.

I think it's the difference between "a feat that everyone can reasonably expected to take" and "a feat that wizards can reasonably expected to take." And as Surrealistik pointed out, not every wizard is AoE-heavy, so it's not so irritating that they don't get it automatically, since not everyone will be bothered by the lack.

[Surrealistik]

So yeah, I'd be highly surprised to see any wizard not taking Enlarge Spell in their first five feats (except for Enchanters with a lot no-damage spells).

No damage, no damage roll, or ranged/melee spells. There are quite a few of them.


Also, I don't think it's plausible to call Feat X a mandatory feat tax when there's a Feat Y which is stronger and is somehow not a mandatory feat tax.

Whether it's stronger in net is actually debatable, because you're not always going to benefit from the additional effective to hit for a wide variety of reasons, and you can count on at least one of them coming up a few times per combat. Expertise' to hit bonus is always applicable by contrast.

Let's compare Enlarge: 1.5 * .7 * .4 + 2 * .7 * .6 (Enlarge applicable 60% of the time, or 3 of 5 rounds)

vs.

Paragon Expertise: 1.5 * .8

Suddenly Enlarge isn't looking as blatantly attractive by comparison (1.26 vs 1.2). At the Epic levels, Expertise is superior (1.26 vs 1.28).

Second, Enlarge Spell is a class (and arguably build) specific feat tax as opposed to a universal feat tax common to nearly every build in the game.

[Kurald Galain]

I think it's the difference between "a feat that everyone can reasonably expected to take" and "a feat that wizards can reasonably expected to take."
Okay, but by that logic, Melee Training certainly isn't a feat tax (it's a feat that only non-strength-based melee characters can be reasonably expected to take), and probably Improved Defenses isn't either (considering it's a priority only for defenders, and non-defenders tend to have better choices until well into paragon tier).

In my experience, though, AOE-wizards are much more effective than single-target wizards (albeit somewhat more difficult to play because of the targeting tactics involved). With only few exceptions, the single-target spells don't give enough added benefit to justify having only one target.

Aaaand we're back full circle. I claim that any well-built wizard requires Enlarge Spell, but some people disagree. Tcrudisi claims that any well-built character requires Improved Defenses, but again some people disagree. That doesn't mean any of us are right or wrong, but it does mean that there is clearly no consensus on what is or is not a "feat tax".

[Surrealistik]

In my experience, though, AOE-wizards are much more effective than single-target wizards (albeit somewhat more difficult to play because of the targeting tactics involved). With only few exceptions, the single-target spells don't give enough added benefit to justify having only one target.


Keep in mind that non-Enlarge build wizards can have access to excellent single-target (which are certainly competitive, Steal Time being one of the best encounters in the game), multi-target and AoE spells that are not enlargable (Beguiling Strands, Hypnotic Pattern, Maze of Mirrors, Steal Time, Charm series, Blissful Ignorance, Phantom Foes, etc...).


Aaaand we're back full circle. I claim that any well-built wizard requires Enlarge Spell, but some people disagree. Tcrudisi claims that any well-built character requires Improved Defenses, but again some people disagree. That doesn't mean any of us are right or wrong, but it does mean that there is clearly no consensus on what is or is not a "feat tax".

Enchanter builds can easily be well-built and competitive with Enlarge AoE spammers.

Second, there's consensus that, amongst the char op community at least, Expertise is a feat tax, even if you argue there is no generally agreed upon definition of feat tax. This is indisputable.

[tcrudisi]

Tcrudisi claims that any well-built character requires Improved Defenses, but again some people disagree. That doesn't mean any of us are right or wrong, but it does mean that there is clearly no consensus on what is or is not a "feat tax".

I don't believe I used those words exactly (if I did, I came across incorrectly). Not every well-built character requires it, of course. My problem with Improved Defenses is that it has the same problem as Expertise: if you don't take it, your defenses scale slower than the monsters attack bonus.

Defining what exactly is a feat tax is very difficult for me. I'm tempted to say, "any feat that is required for a character to be as effective at level 30 as he is at level 1." That certainly covers Expertise and Improved Defenses, since otherwise an equal-level monster that missed on a 10 against Fort at level 1 will hit on a 10 at level 30. Likewise, the player will hit on a 10 at level 1 but miss on a 10 at level 30. That's what makes Expertise and ID feat taxes, to me.

But I also believe that Melee Training is a feat tax for (non-Str) defenders because they completely fail at their job without it. Any monster that can just walk away without fear of any punishment is not really being defended against.

I can't think of any other feats where a class or role doesn't function without a feat. Wizards don't need enlarge spell to function as well at 30 as they do at 1. Will it greatly improve their performance? Absolutely, but that's an upgrade -- not a requirement.

[Shatteredtower]

Defining what exactly is a feat tax is very difficult for me. I'm tempted to say, "any feat that is required for a character to be as effective at level 30 as he is at level 1." That certainly covers Expertise and Improved Defenses, since otherwise an equal-level monster that missed on a 10 against Fort at level 1 will hit on a 10 at level 30.

Well, no, you'd have to be more specific. You have better ways to compensate for holes in your defenses, as well as more options for making enemies pay even if you can't hit them (and more options for improving your chances to hit), at level 30 than you did at level 1.

Defining it so that the percentage of accuracy is equivalent works, though your level 30 character will still be 5% less accurate than you were at level 1 if you were given expertise for free...and even that assumes you took one of the epic classes that gives you a +2 bonus to your primary ability score.

I'm fine with accuracy and vulnerability increasing with each tier gained. How are things supposed to feel more dangerous if the base percentages remain almost the same and I have more ways to tweak them in my favour?


But I also believe that Melee Training is a feat tax for (non-Str) defenders because they completely fail at their job without it. Any monster that can just walk away without fear of any punishment is not really being defended against.

It's a compelling argument. A battlemind's basic melee attack is likely to start out 20-25% less accurate than an at-will attack (or a fighter's basic melee attack), and that gets worse as you go up in level. The drop in damage doesn't help either. When opponents have more to fear from a sorcerer or monk with regard to opportunity attacks, you know there's something wrong with your defender.

The PHB paladin doesn't suffer quite as much as the battlemind, since Str is usually your secondary ability score when it's not your primary. Swordmagi aren't quite so bad off either, since one has Str as a secondary and the other employs a different defensive preference.

Curiously, the only classes that seem to have Melee Training built-in at present are the Essential's rogue, the HoS executioner, and Neverwinter's bladesinger: two strikers and a controller. Every defender since Essentials (all two of them) has just made sure Strength was the primary ability score. If WotC ever puts out a psionic book with more of the Essentials style classes we've seen in the last year, that may change, but I'm not holding breath.

[Kurald Galain]

I don't believe I used those words exactly (if I did, I came across incorrectly). Not every well-built character requires it, of course.

I meant this quote; sorry if I misunderstood you.

To avoid getting hit like a chump, improved defenses is required.


Will it greatly improve their performance? Absolutely, but that's an upgrade -- not a requirement.
This difference is academic, though. You are weaker without the feat, and stronger with the feat. Whether some people think this was or was not "expected" by the game authors isn't relevant.

[Dimers]

The PHB paladin doesn't suffer quite as much as the battlemind, since Str is usually your secondary ability score when it's not your primary.

I don't feel that the battlemind suffers overmuch either. OAs aren't their designated way to punish enemies. Still, any melee class can make good use of Melee Training, and any defender moreso.

As a complete aside, a battlemind who can handle spending stat points on moderate Str and Dex can make much better OAs than other defenders ... Heavy Blade Opportunity is seriously tasty when you can pick from four at-wills (maybe five for humans) chosen from a broad spectrum reaching up to 27th level. It's MAD but it can be worth taking a weaker secondary stat.

[tcrudisi]

I don't feel that the battlemind suffers overmuch either. OAs aren't their designated way to punish enemies. Still, any melee class can make good use of Melee Training, and any defender moreso.

Nope. Mind Spike is their designated way to punish enemies. So what does an enemy do to avoid it? It walks away, provoking an opportunity attack instead, thereby avoiding the BM's way to punish enemies. Mind Spike only works against adjacent enemies, after all.


As a complete aside, a battlemind who can handle spending stat points on moderate Str and Dex can make much better OAs than other defenders ... Heavy Blade Opportunity is seriously tasty when you can pick from four at-wills (maybe five for humans) chosen from a broad spectrum reaching up to 27th level. It's MAD but it can be worth taking a weaker secondary stat.

So ... if a Battlemind spends a feat to get a good basic attack, then a feat to give them a good basic attack isn't a feat tax? It seems like circular logic to me.

[Kurald Galain]

Nope. Mind Spike is their designated way to punish enemies. So what does an enemy do to avoid it? It walks away, provoking an opportunity attack instead, thereby avoiding the BM's way to punish enemies. Mind Spike only works against adjacent enemies, after all.
I thought that's what Blurred Step is for?

As I recall, the punishment mechanics of the Paladin and the Shielding Swordmage don't rely on basic attacks, so arguably these classes would be able to do without Melee Training.

[tcrudisi]

I thought that's what Blurred Step is for?

Blurred Step allows the BM to keep adjacent to the enemy when it shifts away. Ironically, if the enemy just walks away, provoking an OA, the enemy is safer. And even if the monster shifts (and therefore triggers Blurred Step), it can still just charge, make a ranged attack, or walk away, provoking the weak OA.

[Surrealistik]

And this is why Paragon+ Half-Elves tend to make the best Battleminds (Tieflings with Wrath of the Crimson Legion are also awesome); and why Mind Spike is generally ass.

Everyone knows Lightning Rush is the true Battlemind defender's mechanic.

Example: P4-P5 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=208787&page=4).

[Dimers]

So ... if a Battlemind spends a feat to get a good basic attack, then a feat to give them a good basic attack isn't a feat tax? It seems like circular logic to me.

I wasn't talking about feat taxes at all. Just derailing the thread to share something I find fun :smallbiggrin:


Ironically, if the enemy just walks away, provoking an OA, the enemy is safer. And even if the monster shifts (and therefore triggers Blurred Step), it can still just charge, make a ranged attack, or walk away, provoking the weak OA.

Harrying Step does improve the latter, at least. You can generally position yourself to prevent a charge, or possibly to allow the charge in such a way that the enemy will still be adjacent and therefore mindspikeable afterward. But foes that ignore the mark are definitely a weak point. There's a weak OA and a -2 to attack, and that's all. Which is why adding in HBO is so nice! You can make your OA daze, knock prone, push, prevent tactical movement ... it's fun. A harrier with HBO is more flexible and controlling than any fighter build I've seen, if also more expensive.

[tcrudisi]

I wasn't talking about feat taxes at all. Just derailing the thread to share something I find fun :smallbiggrin:

Harrying Step does improve the latter, at least. You can generally position yourself to prevent a charge, or possibly to allow the charge in such a way that the enemy will still be adjacent and therefore mindspikeable afterward. But foes that ignore the mark are definitely a weak point. There's a weak OA and a -2 to attack, and that's all. Which is why adding in HBO is so nice! You can make your OA daze, knock prone, push, prevent tactical movement ... it's fun. A harrier with HBO is more flexible and controlling than any fighter build I've seen, if also more expensive.

My apologies. When re-reading my reply, it seems that I came across as snarky which was not my intention.

HBO is a terrific feat, I just can't stand the point cost. Starting with a 14/14 in two inferior stats ... hurts. Is it worth it? Well, yeah. Heck, you get HBO at 11 and by 13 you daze with your MBA's (with an attack vs. Will). I just ... I can't quite bring myself to put those 14's in place.

HBO is another way of bypassing the BM's "inferior" MBA problem, but it has the problem which you already brought up (stat investment) and it doesn't come online until paragon.

I've noticed the glaring weakness of BM's a lot recently since my wife and I both have started to play one. I play a Half-Elf, so I have an encounter power MBA (which often isn't nearly enough). She plays a Dragonborn, so the MBA issue is huge for her. Str and Dex aren't anywhere approaching 14/14, so HBO is out. Really, it will have to be melee training and that is sad, but far better than what she has now. (We play LFR, so there's no convincing the DM to give it to us for free.)


Everyone knows Lightning Rush is the true Battlemind defender's mechanic.

/sigh. Yes, it is, unfortunately. It's a power that is a lot of fun. Unfortunately, I don't want every Battlemind I play to be exactly the same, and LR makes it to where every BM has two options: to defend with LR or strike with Brutal Barrage. To me, that is boring. Come on, WotC, give the BM's some way to punish OA's without having to resort to LR. In some ways, LR is an inferior mechanic. If you are good enough to position yourself in between several enemies, LR is far inferior. You not only have to give up that primo position, thereby letting all the other enemies do what they want, but you have to eat some OA's yourself (unless you are a half-elf with elven sidestep).

Note: I realize that LR is all that & a box of chocolates. It really is. I just don't think it completely makes up for the lack of a MBA. Also, there are other defenders without Str-primary, too.

[Surrealistik]

I think if Mind Spike is tweaked to not suck, the OA can be safely done without:

http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/28256519/Mind_Spike_Too_WeakSituational

That said yeah, I definitely agree that the Battlemind needs an effective OA, or equivalent, despite the existence of LR.

[Dimers]

My apologies. When re-reading my reply, it seems that I came across as snarky which was not my intention.

Eh, I didn't read it that way. Just figured it'd be useful to clarify my OT-ness.


LR makes it to where every BM has two options: to defend with LR or strike with Brutal Barrage.

Nah! There's also Lodestone Lure against melee'ers -- haha, you can't move except adjacent to me and guess what you're still five squares away ... there's Ghost in the Steel -- haha, I pick who you attack you poor sot ... or Might of the Ogre -- haha, all of you have fallen and you can't get up. Hmmm. I guess battlemind is a pretty 'haha' class to my mind.

[Surrealistik]

Lodestone Lure is pure awesome. At-will super immobilization as a weapon attack vs Will with optional range 5 is insane; ridiculously good vs powerful elites and solos, especially those that can normally resist, teleport, shrug off or be immune to immobilization/other movement inhibiting conditions. Pairs excellently with OAs, Mind Spike and Forceful Reversal furthermore.

[tcrudisi]

Lodestone Lure was recently errata'ed. You now must pull that many squares ... which breaks the power. The enemy is 3 squares away? You can't Lodestone Lure them.

[Surrealistik]

Lodestone Lure was recently errata'ed. You now must pull that many squares ... which breaks the power. The enemy is 3 squares away? You can't Lodestone Lure them.

Yeah, they need to fix the wording so it reads "you must pull the target up to X squares to a square adjacent to you" which is obviously the intent (and what I believe my groups will be using). That said, the power definitely needed an errata because it was way too good previously, allowing you to super immobilize a target without even bringing yourself into the danger zone of its melee reach.

Good to see that they at least partially listened to my suggestion to have Persistent Harrier scale though.