|
By RAW and RAI, what is a feat?
Myself I always though feats showed what special training your character took above and beyond normal class training.
This is a quote from the Pathfindersrd on feats:
Some abilities are not tied to your race, class, or skill-things like particularly quick reflexes that allow you to react to danger more swiftly, the ability to craft magic items, the training to deliver powerful strikes with melee weapons, or the knack for deflecting arrows fired at you. These abilities are represented as feats. While some feats are more useful to certain types of characters than others, and many of them have special prerequisites that must be met before they are selected, as a general rule feats represent abilities outside of the normal scope of your character's race and class. Many of them alter or enhance class abilities or soften class restrictions, while others might apply bonuses to your statistics or grant you the ability to take actions otherwise prohibited to you. By selecting feats, you can customize and adapt your character to be uniquely yours.
The thing that I consider a feat-tax is a feat that is more or less worthless to the build that is required for a feat that is useful. Sometimes this is a balancing move, to make a feat that is more powerful than the normal power-level of a feat not just an auto pick, but other times, all it does is discourage an option that could result in a fun build but is just not worth thee sacrifice.
One such example is the "Improved [Maneuver]" feats. For many builds these would open up avenues to create fun builds, but either because they don't qualify for Combat Expertise, due to the 13 Int requirement, or simply because they don't want to spend 2 feats for something that is still not going to be an effective option all of the time (such as taking improved trip; it requires 2 feats, and is hosed by flight or quadrupedal movement, or the like).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The meaning of the term "feat tax" seems to have changed since I first heard it. To me, a "feat tax" is a feat you have to take to stay competitive with the opponents, and not an onerous prerequisite for the feat you actually want.
4e's Player's Handbook 2 introduced feats characters could take to boost attack bonuses and saves (and maybe AC; I forget) to counteract this issue. Having to take these feats in order to stay even with the monsters was called a "feat tax".
An example of a feat tax is Improved Initiative for Wizards. Every optimization guide for Wizards say "this feat is so important you have to take it, the sooner you can start controlling the battle field, the happier your team will be" or something like that.
If you do not take the feat, you will not go first, and you might get killed or your team will suffer a disadvantage. So while choosing it looks like a choice, you are actually being forced to make that choice by the meta of the game.
In short, a feat tax is when you "need" a feat to stay viable, changing it from a choice to a necessity.
Typical feat tax is Weapon Finesse for Rogue.
Typical feat tax is Weapon Finesse for Rogue.
Agreed. Took a page from the D&D Next playtest and said it doesn't exist for my Curse of the Crimson Throne game. Any finessable weapon can use Dex to attack automatically, and anything that required Weapon Finesse as a pre-req just got easier to pick up. Definitely helped players be encouraged for Dex/swashbucklery builds they wouldn't have considered otherwise for an urban game.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
An example of a feat tax is Improved Initiative for Wizards.
I disagree. No matter what the guides say, wizards do not NEED to take this feat to be effective wizards. Sure, this is an awesome feat, almost every adventurer should consider taking it, not just wizards. Almost everyone who takes it will be better in combat than they would be without it. I'm not disputing that.
But it's not a "feat tax".
Taking Improved Initiative makes you able to do something that you couldn't do without it (in this case, respond more quickly in combat). Furthermore, you WILL use this feat all the time. Every combat. That means it's not a "feat tax", but rather, a useful new ability that you will constantly use.
In short, a feat tax is when you "need" a feat to stay viable, changing it from a choice to a necessity.
I disagree.
By this definition, every feat is a feat tax. Every feat makes you better at something. Is Power Attack a feat tax? Is Iron Will a feat tax? Is Empower Spell a feat tax? Is Stealthy a feat tax?
No, no, no, and no.
Just because a character gets better by taking a feat doesn't mean that feat was a "tax". Even if the feat is super mega awesome, it's still not a "tax" - it's just a new super mega awesome thing the character can do.
Typical feat tax is Weapon Finesse for Rogue.
Again, I disagree. That feat gives a rogue a new thing he couldn't do. Is it necessary? No. Lots of rogues do just fine with high STR and hacking enemies to death with greatswords. Other rogues do just fine sticking with ranged attacks and using concealment for their sneak attacks.
For a rogue who wants to use light weapons and has a higher DEX than STR, this is a super awesome feat and should probably be taken. It lets him do something very useful that he could not do before. This is not a "tax". It's gaining a useful new ability that this kind of rogue will constantly use in every combat.
A "feat tax" is literally when you're required to take a feat you don't want and won't use, just to unlock an ability you need. Combat Expertise is (usually) a Feat Tax, since most people take it to get access to other feats that have it as a requirement but most characters never, or very rarely ever, use Combat Expertise in actual combat. In many cases, Spell Focus (Conjuration) is a Feat Tax for conjurors who want to unlock Augment Summoning - many of them have no plans to prepare or use spells with saving throws so the Spell Focus that increases Save DCs for spells they will never cast is just a Feat Tax to get the feat they really want.
Those are examples of a "feat tax".
Why is it that people hate on Combat Expertise so much? I *love* it on any front-liner...they have no problem hitting, and for a small trade-off, *bump*, up goes the AC? That can make a huge difference when you're getting jumped by 3-4 opponents that hit on 15-16...
I did say "most characters never, or very rarely ever". Your example is the exception I allowed for with "most characters". A tank with good BAB who is deliberately drawing fire and needs extra AC benefits from using Combat Expertise just fine.
Other characters with lower BAB who really just want access to Improved Feint or Improved [Combat Maneuver] but who never really plan to use Combat Expertise because they can't spare the attack bonus and because they're often relying on monsters to be pounding on your character rather than theirs, these are the characters who see Combat Expertise as a "feat tax".
I see far more of the latter.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A feat tax to me is the feat that you don't want to take, but you need it to qualify for the PrC or feat you do want to take.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The meaning of the term "feat tax" seems to have changed since I first heard it. To me, a "feat tax" is a feat you have to take to stay competitive with the opponents, and not an onerous prerequisite for the feat you actually want.
I have never heard this definition. Every time I've heard it was in reference to some useless Feat that had to be taken to get the Feat you ACTUALLY wanted.
Another good example is my new character. I'm trying to go for the "Deathless" Feat line to make him kind of a tank, a bit harder to kill than the rest of the party.
I have to take Endurance and Die Hard to qualify for them.
They are ORC Racial Feats. See the problem?
Feat Tax/ n.
A mythological element of rpg design cited by gamers in a discussion of mechanical elements of game systems.
Tehehehe.
Combat Exp is a good feat. Just because you never use it is not an indicator of it being lame. It represents a characters ability to do more than just club stuff to death in battle. To use style and finesse to alter combat. Much like tripping or disarming. It's also awesome in those rare instances where you get ambushed in the middle of the night and all you have on is smallclothes. Unless you sleep in armor (which requires a feat).
Improved Inititive is one of the 5 best feats ever. It isn't strictly necessary ever, but who doesn't take it eventually?
Weapon Finesse is a solid feat but can be completely ignored if you like. Folding it into a weapon is ok I guess but it's also power creep. Look at Dervish Dance and it's near ubiquity in certain optimizer threads. I understand the urge to have all combat abilities be ruled by a single stat but it's bad design.
Now an actual feat tax is needing to take Skill Focus; diplomacy to enter a PrClass. It's there to deliberately stall entry past 3rd level or some such but it usually fits in thematically so it's "tax" value is questionable. Actually it's only questionable if you think skills are dumb and useless.
I think the term is overused and wildly inaccurate.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Combat Expertise very well is a Feat tax if you don't want it and are never going to use it. It's just a Feat that sits in your list and takes up space because the developers decided that your Fighter needs to have held a B average in high school to learn how to knock people over.
You can trip, disarm, dirty trick or whatever WithOut taking taking Combat Exp.
You're just better if you take CE.
Ever try to disarm someone for real? It's dangerous. The ability to buff up your defensive fighting abilities is invaluable in that situation. Thats CE.
The game over favors attack, since some twerp with a CLW spell/wand is always standing behind you.
But seriously? The ability to perform a combat trip in a defensive fashion shouldn't require the ability to just do combat in a defensive fashion? That's counterintuitive.
Combat Maneuvers are harder than just hitting something with a stick.
So it stands to reason that pulling off a Maneuver without getting smacked would require some basic training in just not getting smacked.
The only issue I've ever had with CE is the Int. Req. It should have a prereq that's kinda doable across classes regardless of the available point buy. Maybe allow a Dex sub or Wisdom?
Or just pick, or write up, an archetype that gives up something for a free feat.
The thing is, that even a class like Fighter Lore warden, that gets Combat Expertise as a class ability, seem to be needing INT 13 to take depending feats.
I think that Combat Expertise is something redundant that really feels like a toll. Either greatly buff it or get rid of it. Paying a feat for a combat maneuver is already good enough, considering that most classes need to invest a lot more to be able to succeed with them on higher levels.
|
Why is it that people hate on Combat Expertise so much? I *love* it on any front-liner...they have no problem hitting, and for a small trade-off, *bump*, up goes the AC? That can make a huge difference when you're getting jumped by 3-4 opponents that hit on 15-16...I did say "most characters never, or very rarely ever". Your example is the exception I allowed for with "most characters". A tank with good BAB who is deliberately drawing fire and needs extra AC benefits from using Combat Expertise just fine.
Other characters with lower BAB who really just want access to Improved Feint or Improved [Combat Maneuver] but who never really plan to use Combat Expertise because they can't spare the attack bonus and because they're often relying on monsters to be pounding on your character rather than theirs, these are the characters who see Combat Expertise as a "feat tax".
I see far more of the latter.
Fair enough then. They're usually the ones I see taking it...so...ymmv.
Combat Maneuvers are harder than just hitting something with a stick. So it stands to reason that pulling off a Maneuver without getting smacked would require some basic training in just not getting smacked.
And yet they are far less effective in many situations then just using that stick, which kinda leads back to the idea that a lot of people just shrug and don't bother. The feat that you're never going to use as a prerequisite to even be kinda ok at a maneuver is just an extra slap in the face.
|
|
Why is it that people hate on Combat Expertise so much? I *love* it on any front-liner...they have no problem hitting, and for a small trade-off, *bump*, up goes the AC? That can make a huge difference when you're getting jumped by 3-4 opponents that hit on 15-16...The major trouble at this point is that, compared to Fighting Defensively it's just not as good after third level. With the existence of Crane Style, you can get more bang for the buck, but I've never seen Combat Expertise ruled compatible with Fighting Defensively. This requires a slightly greater investment, because it requires two feats instead of one, and three ranks in Acrobatics.
Three ranks in Acrobatics increases the AC gained by 1, Crane Style makes the penalty -2 and increases AC by 1 again. So at this point for taking -2 to hit, you get +4 AC. Later, Crane Riposte (which you'd have to be insane not to take along with Crane Wing if you're 'tanking' in this fashion) reduces the penalty to -1. And the thing is, the only downside to this method is taking Improved Unarmed Strike.
Combat Expertise, on the other hand, requires investment in Intelligence. While I'm usually the first to argue that more skills are a good thing on a combat class, I usually take that to mean not dumping Int, rather than investing in it. Three points in Intelligence for a primary martial character isn't really trivial, and can hurt you in the low levels where Combat Expertise is better. Those points are usually better invested in Strength and Dex to improve your armor and AC all the time.
All in all, it's an iffy prospect on its' own when there's an alternate available, and the cost is often too high unless you're going for one of the many things that use Combat Expertise as the start of a feat chain.
You can choose to fight defensively when attacking. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 to AC until the start of your next turn.
Is somehow better than...
Benefit: You can choose to take a –1 penalty on melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +1 dodge bonus to your Armor Class. When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every +4 thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the dodge bonus increases by +1. You can only choose to use this feat when you declare that you are making an attack or a full-attack action with a melee weapon. The effects of this feat last until your next turn.
...when?
Make note...untyped bonus on Fighting Defensively. They stack.
Why is it that people hate on Combat Expertise so much? I *love* it on any front-liner...they have no problem hitting, and for a small trade-off, *bump*, up goes the AC? That can make a huge difference when you're getting jumped by 3-4 opponents that hit on 15-16...The major trouble at this point is that, compared to Fighting Defensively it's just not as good after third level. With the existence of Crane Style, you can get more bang for the buck, but I've never seen Combat Expertise ruled compatible with Fighting Defensively. This requires a slightly greater investment, because it requires two feats instead of one, and three ranks in Acrobatics.
Three ranks in Acrobatics increases the AC gained by 1, Crane Style makes the penalty -2 and increases AC by 1 again. So at this point for taking -2 to hit, you get +4 AC. Later, Crane Riposte (which you'd have to be insane not to take along with Crane Wing if you're 'tanking' in this fashion) reduces the penalty to -1. And the thing is, the only downside to this method is taking Improved Unarmed Strike.
I've never seen anyone say you couldn't fight defensively and use combat expertise at the same time. And taking four feats to master crane style should provide a better benefit than taking the one feat (Combat Expertise).
I would like it if Combat Expertise scaled like the other similar feats (Power Attack/Deadly Aim) and give you +2 AC for every -1 attack.
For me, "feat tax" is a feat you don't want but has to take in order to get something you actually wanted (Combat Expertise is the classic example here). To make things even worse, most of the time, feat taxes are prerequisites for feats that are not even that good.
However, I've seen the term used to mean "false choice" as well.
As in: a feat that is too good to pass up (e.g.: Power Attack, Natural Spell) or too bad to even consider taking it (Sure Grasp, Water Skin).
My general understanding of a "feat tax" (a phrase I've heard used since the WotC days of yore) is a mechanical element that is not so much an option as it is a requirement to function (IE - power attack) OR in some cases a feat that is such a no-brainer that everyone takes it, virtually negating the fact you have the feat as an option and basically making it a feature of pretty much every character of that kind (IE - natural spell). A newer definition on me (but still a fair one to group into the definition of "feat tax") are worthless feats as prerequisites (these have existed since 3.0, but only recently have I seen these being called feat taxes). Diehard falls into this category as its prerequisite Endurance is of limited value to most of the character classes, though feats such as Point Blank Shot probably qualify as well (seriously, why the hell do you need Point Blank Shot to pickup Farshot or Rapid Shot?).
For the first, feats like Power Attack are near required for certain characters to functionally remain viable in the game. The biggest advantage that full BAB classes have right now is the ability to convert excess to-hit to damage. Pretty much any martial is going to get so much mileage out of feats like Power Attack and Deadly Aim that to not have these feats means you are generally going to preform far under the expected bar. These feats are essentially must-haves if you want to remain relevant as levels progress. Because of this prerequisite to merely function you are getting "taxed" a feat for something that should arguably be part of the core rules (IE - the penalty for damage mechanic being built into the system similar to fighting defensively).
The second is similar though not necessarily required. It's similar in the way that choosing the feat is basically a no-brainer in the sense that your functionality without it is so drastically different than your functionality with it. Natural Spell is the iconic example as the difference it makes is tremendous to druids and virtually every druid ever should have this feat, whether they emphasize wildshape in their build or not. This makes it a sort of false-choice and the druid class might as well read "5th level, -1 feat, +natural spell" and it wouldn't change anything.
The third is basically the age old problem of feat chains. Sadly the majority of feats aren't very good and what ones actually are pretty decent are often prohibitively placed behind a bastion of crappy feats guarding them. Many of them require you to take feats that are often nonsensical. The iconic feat here is Improved Trip. On its own not a bad feat, but having to pickup Combat Expertise beforehand means having to jump through some hoops and select feats that likely have nothing to do with your character.
As a house rule try this;
Allow CE to be reversed.
As in take a -1 to AC (regular and touch) and Gain a +1 to attack.
I guarantee people would use it.
Not that it's needed. The secret to CE is that it stacks. It works in under water combat. While squeezing etc.
One of the things I see in low level games is that people PUMP AC early on. They do it with magic, armor all kinds of stuff but the defensive stack on CE, def Fighting and Crane is silly effective.
I have never heard this definition.The meaning of the term "feat tax" seems to have changed since I first heard it. To me, a "feat tax" is a feat you have to take to stay competitive with the opponents, and not an onerous prerequisite for the feat you actually want.
Possibly because 3.x D&D and Pathfinder (arguably) don't have such feats, so the phrase takes on a different meaning in a different context.
Possibly because 3.x D&D and Pathfinder (arguably) don't have such feats, so the phrase takes on a different meaning in a different context.The meaning of the term "feat tax" seems to have changed since I first heard it. To me, a "feat tax" is a feat you have to take to stay competitive with the opponents, and not an onerous prerequisite for the feat you actually want.I have never heard this definition.
I disagree. Depending on what you want to do, you need some very specific feats to be able to do it.
For martial classes, doing anything other than hitting stuff will often require serious feat investment.
|
I'm really surprised nobody has mentioned Selective Channeling yet. Every cleric gets the channeling ability, but you're pretty much required to take the feat to make it useful in combat.
And I'm surprised it took so long before anyone mentioned Point Blank Shot. Every archer has to have it, because it's the prerequisite of every single other archery feat, even if the archer's entire mission in life is to never come within 50 feet of an enemy.
|
|
I'm really surprised nobody has mentioned Selective Channeling yet. Every cleric gets the channeling ability, but you're pretty much required to take the feat to make it useful in combat.
And I'm surprised it took so long before anyone mentioned Point Blank Shot. Every archer has to have it, because it's the prerequisite of every single other archery feat, even if the archer's entire mission in life is to never come within 50 feet of an enemy.
I've used channeling successfully in combat without it...you just have to position very carefully for healing...and of course, against undead, it hardly matters. Still, I do love selective channeling. :)
For me, "feat tax" is a feat you don't want but has to take in order to get something you actually wanted (Combat Expertise is the classic example here). To make things even worse, most of the time, feat taxes are prerequisites for feats that are not even that good.
However, I've seen the term used to mean "false choice" as well.
Shrug. I hope this isn't going to degenerate into semantics. I think there's a pretty clear generalization that a feat tax is a feat that you don't WANT to take, you HAVE to.
There are several reasons that you HAVE to:
1) because it's something that without which, your character will be ineffective (a druid without natural spell)
2) because it's a requirement for something else you want (a trip fighter needing combat expertise)
3) or even both (a summoning specialist without spell focus[conjuration])
4) et cetera
The whole idea is that I've got a limited supply of feats, and I should be able to CHOOSE them instead of having choice taken from me. Hence it's a tax, in the same sense that I should be able to choose how to spend my money. And it feels unfair, because I wouldn't have to spend my feat if I had a slightly different concept (if I were a grapple fighter, or if I were a monk).
Obviously, the exact details of what constitutes a feat tax will depend on where you draw the line for "effective," and also on what you want to do. But there are a lot of feats that I have never seen come up in game (Combat Expertise), and others that I have never seen anyone try to avoid (Natural Spell).
Yeah, I can agree with Orfamay's definition.
I'd not say a Druid without Natural Spell is ineffective, but the feat makes them so much better, it might as well be a class feature by this point.
Same goes for Power Attack/Combat Expertise/Deadly Aim and Bullseye Shot...
They are either too good to not have or too weak to justify spending a feat on it, but more importantly, they're all actions that you shouldn't need a feat for and they already have penalties included.
IMHO, making them general combat options a la "fighting defensively" instead of restricted feats wouldn't break anything. In fact, it'd even make the game more balanced.
Yeah but point blank shot actually gives you a bonus you can use which also stacks with weapon focus...
Yeah but point blank shot actually gives you a bonus you can use which also stacks with weapon focus...
True. Personally, I'd just fuse PBS and Precise Shot into a single feat and be done with it.
That makes it less of a tax, just a useful feat with a secondary benefit.
I've used channeling successfully in combat without it...you just have to position very carefully for healing...and of course, against undead, it hardly matters. Still, I do love selective channeling. :)
Sometimes you don't even need to position. It doesn't really matter if the dragon has 10hp or 30hp if the next guy to act is the Barbarian with an average DPR in the 50s, the dragon-smiting Paladin or the Ranger with dragons as his FE.
Sometimes, healing yourself and your allies is worth healing a few enemies too. Just make sure it's a good trade.
- Saving the wizard's life at the cost of having the Barbarian roll 1 extra attack against the BBEG may not be such a bad deal.
- Healing the Barbarian to full HP while bringing back 10 mooks from the dying/unconscious condition is pretty dumb, though.
Yeah but point blank shot actually gives you a bonus you can use which also stacks with weapon focus...
If you find it useful, then (to you) it's not a feat tax. Personally, I rather dislike the game-of-inches bonuses and try as much as possible not to use artillery at arm's length (e.g. if I'm within PBS range of you my archer is doing something wrong). But I don't think it's as bad a tax as the Spell Focus (Conjuration) that is required for every summon-based caster.
|
Distant Scholar pretty much has the right definition for what an actual feat tax is and an excellent example of what one really is. It is something that every character needs to take no matter the build, class, race or whatever.
Just because you don't want it or think you don't make it a feat tax. That's completely you deciding that. You (or your dice) decided to have a 10 strength and a 20 dexterity. The game didn't choose that. The game doesn't build your character.
Whining about not being able to tank your intelligence to 7 because you want combat expertise (and then also likely whining when you do tank it to 7 and only get 1 skill point) is close to passing the line where it is hard to love and tolerate.
|
|
Uhm? No. Combat expertise itself do nothing for tripping/disarming builds. Absolutely nothing.
Actually that isn't entirely true. As it applies a penalty to your attack rolls while your using it which also applies towards any combat maneuver checks.
Plus it raises your armour class while used (including touch AC) so your character might not get murdered by goblins.
Who knows? By forcing your character to have a positive intelligence bonus it might have given you that extra skill point you needed to take that rank of swim and not have your character drown! :)
|
|
I've used channeling successfully in combat without it...you just have to position very carefully for healing...and of course, against undead, it hardly matters. Still, I do love selective channeling. :)Sometimes you don't even need to position. It doesn't really matter if the dragon has 10hp or 30hp if the next guy to act is the Barbarian with an average DPR in the 50s, the dragon-smiting Paladin or the Ranger with dragons as his FE.
Sometimes, healing yourself and your allies is worth healing a few enemies too. Just make sure it's a good trade.
- Saving the wizard's life at the cost of having the Barbarian roll 1 extra attack against the BBEG may not be such a bad deal.
- Healing the Barbarian to full HP while bringing back 10 mooks from the dying/unconscious condition is pretty dump, though.
Absolutely. Agreed. :)
|
|
Yeah but point blank shot actually gives you a bonus you can use which also stacks with weapon focus...If you find it useful, then (to you) it's not a feat tax. Personally, I rather dislike the game-of-inches bonuses and try as much as possible not to use artillery at arm's length (e.g. if I'm within PBS range of you my archer is doing something wrong). But I don't think it's as bad a tax as the Spell Focus (Conjuration) that is required for every summon-based caster.
Yeah...the only archer that ever wants to be within 30' is a rogue archer, and that's rather situational.
Another reason why I don't consider Selective Channel a real feat tax is that Channel Energy can be used out of combat without problem. So the ability is still useful even if you don't have the feat (and many players would say healing out of combat is the better alternative anyway).
Combat Maneuvers, OTOH, are pretty much only used in combat. But you still need 2 feats to be passable at using them. So the ability is useless unless you have those feat, and one of them doesn't even help you at using the ability.
Combat Expertise is the worst kind of feat tax. It's weak, doesn't help you with maneuvers at all (in fact, it makes you worse at them!) and has prerequisites of its own, an attribute that adds very little to most character who would want the feat in the first place.
eeehh, not true since point blank master
Well, to be fair, it's still generally better to stay away from your enemies and kill them before they can reach you than standing next to them and surviving their attacks.
Besides, Point-Blank Master is very restricted.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
what is a feat tax
what is a feat tax
I do not really know which one you guys are actually talking about
while trying to type feat tax I also managed to type
teat fax
fat tax
feat fax
fext tex
curse you, fingers
|
|
Another reason why I don't consider Selective Channel a real feat tax is that Channel Energy can be used out of combat without problem. So the ability is still useful even if you don't have the feat (and many players would say healing out of combat is the better alternative anyway).
Combat Maneuvers, OTOH, are pretty much only used in combat. But you still need 2 feats to be passable at using them. So the ability is useless unless you have those feat, and one of them doesn't even help you at using the ability.
Combat Expertise is the worst kind of feat tax. It's weak, doesn't help you with maneuvers at all (in fact, it makes you worse at them!) and has prerequisites of its own, an attribute that adds very little to most character who would want the feat in the first place.
eeehh, not true since point blank masterWell, to be fair, it's still generally better to stay away from your enemies and kill them before they can reach you than standing next to them and surviving their attacks.
Besides, Point-Blank Master is very restricted.
I disagree that CE is weak, but admittedly it's pretty situational.
Agreed on everything else.
Shrug. I hope this isn't going to degenerate into semantics. I think there's a pretty clear generalization that a feat tax is a feat that you don't WANT to take, you HAVE to.
Agreed.
Which is why I balked at earlier suggestions that Improved Initiative, an awesome feat that pretty much everybody wants, would be considered a tax, and likewise for Weapon Finesse which is awesome for anybody who wants it and everybody else never takes it.
Why are we here, anyway? I'm still not sure what the OP was asking. He asked "what is a feat?" but did he mean "what is a feat tax?"? If so, I hope he's gotten his answer. If he really only wanted to know what a feat is, well, I think the CRB already makes that perfectly clear and he quoted it himself.
So, why are we here?
The only issue I've ever had with CE is the Int. Req.
That int requirement is part of the reason people hate the feat. Not only do they have to give up a feat slot, they have to boost a stat they don't want to post, and if your GM is running a monster based campaign Combat Manuevers start to fall by the wayside around level 10.
A feat tax is a feat that you don't want that you have to take in order to get something else you want, either another feat, to qualify for a PrC, or to be reasonably effective in your class.
Expertise is a feat most people don't want (because of the 13 Int) that you have to take for many feats you do.
Dodge and Mobility are feats you have to take to become a Duelist, even if you don't want them.
Power Attack and Natural spell are feats you have to take to be reasonably effective as melee and druid, respectively.
They are all feat taxes.
They are called taxes because they are onerous things you have to put up with to get the stuff you want.
Contrast with spells. You don't have to acquire Burning Hands and Minute Meteors to learn Fireball. No spell tax. You just get the spell you want.
And that's the reason why it's a tax...the other side of the learning by level table doesn't have to pay it.
==Aelryinth
I agree with most of the posters here that my personal definition of a feat tax is some crap feat you need to take in order to get the good feat you actually want.
I hate feat taxes, but then again I hate feats entirely. The comment above that a fighter should have a b average in order to be able to trip someone didn't just resonate with me on its own. As a 2e guy, the idea that a fighter would require a feat to do most of the things feats allow you to do seems annoying at best.
I agree that would be horrifically boring, but to create a mechanic that says 'heres what you need to be a bullrusher, or a tripper or a grappler... Here's a way you can swing so hard it goes completely through your opponent and on to the next one... Here's how you use a light weapon in a dextrous way instead of swinging a rapier like a claymore... Since just being a fighter doesn't make you smart enough to know such trivia on its own....
I do realize most of those things were handled by houserule and that certain people really needed a firm set of rules in order to even consider such cinematic combat, and that some people have trouble being creative about combat unless there's a checklist of 'you could try these things instead of just hacking at the guy...' I just don't think you need to build the entirety of the non spell combat mechanic around it. Battlemat mechanics and feats are the worst things to happen to D&D in my mind, so Feat Taxes are even worse... IMHO. But if you cant find enough players to play what you like... Feats it is I guess. At least I can comfort myself through these dark times by being a full caster or summoner with magic crafting... Handled well its reward enough for having to put up with a system built on battlemat mechanics and feats.... *sigh*
The third on my list would be the 'kill it with dice' or 'quadratic fighter' damage and hit point escaalation mechanic, but now i'm really getting off topic.
I love feats. I don't love how certain feats are required for one reason or another.
My understanding of game design is that presenting the player with a wealth of options but, in reality, requiring him to take certain options is poor design because the choice is only an illusion.
And some feats represent things that anybody should be able to do regardless of "special training" or "quirks of birth". Any strong character should be able to swing his sword extra hard for more damage (power attack), but it is arbitrarily made impossible for some character just because of a game abstraction.
To that I say no, and thank goodness I have the power to do that being the GM.
I love feats. I don't love how certain feats are required for one reason or another.
My understanding of game design is that presenting the player with a wealth of options but, in reality, requiring him to take certain options is poor design because the choice is only an illusion.
And some feats represent things that anybody should be able to do regardless of "special training" or "quirks of birth". Any strong character should be able to swing his sword extra hard for more damage (power attack), but it is arbitrarily made impossible for some character just because of a game abstraction.
To that I say no, and thank goodness I have the power to do that being the GM.
I agree with the first bit that it's presented as a wealth of options, but in reality it isn't, however I disagree with the second part. All strong characters can swing their sword extra hard for more damage (a 18 strength on a d8 damage longsword, used one handedly is an 88% boost in power vs the same sword handled by an average commoner, with 10 strength; a 2d6 damage Greatsword is a 92% boost vs that same sword handled by the commoner). Feats, to me, should be ways to customize your characters beyond what the class and race do. For example, the Step-up and strike chain allows a fighter to tie down foes more effectively than normal fighters.