|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
There are different levels to it, but the absolute worst feat taxes (and the reason Combat Expertise in particular gets so much flack) are the ones that are completely disconnected from what you're actually trying to do. Having Combat Expertise does not actually make you any better at combat maneuvers - if anything it makes you worse at them since using the feat reduces your attack bonus for combat maneuvers that use that.
Compare with the fix that came out much later in PF1's life cycle, Dirty Fighting. The benefit of this feat is directly correlated with a combat maneuver specialist's job; I could show the rules text of this feat to someone who knows nothing about Pathfinder's meta and they'd be able to guess what kind of character wants to take it. I cannot say the same about Combat Expertise.
Would the "You basically always take this feat if you want to do this thing" feats be less of a problem if they were built in as a character choice?
Like Ranger Combat Styles or the 5E paths. So instead of taking Power Attack or Precise Shot or TWF, you take the TwoHander, the Archer or the Two Weapon Style and get those abilities. (Leaving aside that Precise shot has a feat tax to take it.)
I'm all for not having to take specific feat chains to do your basic thing, but I'm not sure that making those the default makes sense either, since then even those for whom it wasn't their basic thing could take advantage of it.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
I wouldn't call stuff like Iron Will or Toughness a feat tax. They're not prerequisites for any game-changing feats, aren't required to make any particular combat style or build viable, and provide a bonus that is actually useful. You pretty much don't take them unless you've got a free feat space in your build and want to bump your stats up a bit. That's very much different from taxes like Power Attack / Deadly Aim (very useful but also basically required for damage scaling on martials) and Combat Expertise (largely useless and a prerequisite for feats that combat maneuver builds need just to function).
LuniasM wrote: I wouldn't call stuff like Iron Will or Toughness a feat tax. They're not prerequisites for any game-changing feats, aren't required to make any particular combat style or build viable, and provide a bonus that is actually useful. You pretty much don't take them unless you've got a free feat space in your build and want to bump your stats up a bit. That's very much different from taxes like Power Attack / Deadly Aim (very useful but also basically required for damage scaling on martials) and Combat Expertise (largely useless and a prerequisite for feats that combat maneuver builds need just to function). Or in the case of Iron Will, you've got a bad Will Save and it's just necessary to keep you from being too casually dominated. It's kind of necessary just to not be too much of a danger to the party in many cases.
In that sense, it's like Power attack/Deadly Aim/TWF, a necessity. Just this time to cover a weakness rather than to do your thing.
I agree, not really a feat tax, since you're taking it for itself, not as a prerequisite for other things.
I will admit Iron Will is one the least "feat tax" feat of the bunch. I think it's barely in because every character with poor will saves (and some with good saves) absolutely need to take it or else just auto lose vs save or suck spells (a good bunch are will saves).
Other feat taxes were: Dodge (similar to weapon focus), Mobility (people saw the benefit as useless (it's not really) and it was the pre-req for most mobility atk options.), and "dex to damage" feats (similar Iron Will, not really used as a feat pre-req but needed to fix math for DPR)
There is also of what I believe is a sizeable group that saw feats chains in general as feat taxes (true with some Ex Spring Attack).
***********
Actually, thinking about it and the number of straight up feat taxes isnt really big compared to the total number of available feats, but they get so much more use.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
I would suggest that people will eventually decide that one of the feats that let you add your level to untrained skill checks is a feat tax if enough people take that feat as soon as they can get full benefit from it.
Rysky wrote: Uh, Toughness and Improved Toughness got combined in Pathfinder. You get 3 HP immediately and then at 4th level and every level after you get an extra HP Tells you how long its been since I looked at it, then, huh? :D
It sounds like there are two kinds of ‘feat tax’.
1) prerequisites tax; I.e. combat expertise
2) math balancing tax; I.e. iron will
I would put the ubiquitous ones into the second category.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pumpkinhead11 wrote: It sounds like there are two kinds of ‘feat tax’.
1) prerequisites tax; I.e. combat expertise
2) math balancing tax; I.e. iron will
I would put the ubiquitous ones into the second category.
Even then, there aren't too many. Fundamentally, there can't be too many. You can't take that many feats. There can't be 20 required math balancing feats, since you can't take that many. Even split among multiple disciplines, you can't have too many each and the narrower the focus, the less they seem to matter.
I can't really complain to much about the ones that are needed to make the math for a particular approach to combat effective. Those feats are what define how your character approaches things. They might be better off structured as a Combat style kind of thing, where you pick it once and then get the feats as they become level appropriate, but that would replace getting feats, not be additional abilities.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Except there are feats that grant number bonuses that are just straight-up necessary to function (ie Precise Shot, Power Attack and its ilk) and then there are feats that just grant a useful numeric bonus (Iron Will, Toughness, Improved Initiative, etc). That first group is a tax because you essentially have to take it on every character for certain roles and classes or fall seriously behind.
But the second group isn't a tax because there's no character that will have a weakness completely fixed by feats like Iron Will or Toughness. Those feats help, but a +10% success rate on a single save or +1hp / level isn't going to make or break a character, and often there are other available options that are just as good if not better at solving the same issue (for instance, it's better to shore up your AC or use defensive buffs like Mirror Image than try to get as much HP as possible).
I was simply defining the different ways people were using the term.
LuniasM wrote: Except there are feats that grant number bonuses that are just straight-up necessary to function (ie Precise Shot, Power Attack and its ilk) and then there are feats that just grant a useful numeric bonus (Iron Will, Toughness, Improved Initiative, etc). That first group is a tax because you essentially have to take it on every character for certain roles and classes or fall seriously behind.
But the second group isn't a tax because there's no character that will have a weakness completely fixed by feats like Iron Will or Toughness. Those feats help, but a +10% success rate on a single save or +1hp / level isn't going to make or break a character, and often there are other available options that are just as good if not better at solving the same issue (for instance, it's better to shore up your AC or use defensive buffs like Mirror Image than try to get as much HP as possible).
I'm not sure Toughness really qualifies at all - I thought is just generally considered a bad feat. It's rarely advised, as far as I know, unless you've run out of better feats to take.
Iron Will, OTOH, is often advised, since Will Saves can be critical and having Will as a bad save is a huge weakness. No, Iron Will doesn't fix the problem, but it helps keep you in the running.
(If you've got a better option to cover that, I'd love to know it.:)
shroudb wrote: in this edition, if an Alchemist HAS to get increased bulk feat to be able to carry just his bare necessities, then it's a feat tax. I noticed the chirurgeon can use the alchemist kit (crafting) instead of getting an entirely new kit. I don't think the bulk problem for alchemist is a real problem.
totoro wrote: shroudb wrote: in this edition, if an Alchemist HAS to get increased bulk feat to be able to carry just his bare necessities, then it's a feat tax. I noticed the chirurgeon can use the alchemist kit (crafting) instead of getting an entirely new kit. I don't think the bulk problem for alchemist is a real problem. They can use the alchemist kit for the roll but it doesn't change that the skill checks say "Requirements You have healer’s tools". As such, you need to have both if you with to use the ability as nothing in the Chirugeon ability changes that.
page 248-249, medicine skill actions.
PS: alchemy kit 2 bulk, book 1 bulk, healers kit 1 bulk, armor 1 bulk, weapon 1 bulk... JUST the alchemist kit and a healers kit is over 6 bulk.
Chiminig in far later but..
for me?
Having to take Dedication feats in order to get something like Quick Draw. It seems like its something that should be relatively tied to profieincy (skill) level to me.
i just hate that I have to take dedication to rogue or ranger, in order to learn how to draw and use a weapon. It basically causes a annoyances on my dart/shuriken or other throwing builds.
I really feel like Quick Draw (weapons) and Reloado n the move. Should also have been obtainable vai General feats. Perhaps at a later level but it very much feels painfully locked behind semi pointless to me.
graystone wrote: totoro wrote: shroudb wrote: in this edition, if an Alchemist HAS to get increased bulk feat to be able to carry just his bare necessities, then it's a feat tax. I noticed the chirurgeon can use the alchemist kit (crafting) instead of getting an entirely new kit. I don't think the bulk problem for alchemist is a real problem. They can use the alchemist kit for the roll but it doesn't change that the skill checks say "Requirements You have healer’s tools". As such, you need to have both if you with to use the ability as nothing in the Chirugeon ability changes that.
page 248-249, medicine skill actions.
PS: alchemy kit 2 bulk, book 1 bulk, healers kit 1 bulk, armor 1 bulk, weapon 1 bulk... JUST the alchemist kit and a healers kit is over 6 bulk. Hm. Another houserule for my game.
Ok, I can appreciate the sentiments expressed thus far.
But when it comes to dipping into other class's abilities, I don't necessarily think it is unfair to require spending 2 feats to get them - even if you still end up getting the desired abilities a later level. Requiring 2 feats means you actually have to give up something, not just that it's delayed. So if you're a wizard who wants to wield a bastard sword, you can still do it without giving up an entire level of wizardry. But you'll have to give up taking 'Widen Spell' or something like that on the way towards getting the feat you really want.
It seems like 2E archetypes are a nice way to allow you additional options without breaking the game.
Wielding a Bastard sword shouldn't cost a full wizard feat, getting the abilities of another class should.
Wether there should be generic melee abilities anyone can take with no feat chain/dedication is a different matter. One that would probably get yelled at as "anti fighter".
Pumpkinhead11 wrote: It sounds like there are two kinds of ‘feat tax’.
1) prerequisites tax; I.e. combat expertise
2) math balancing tax; I.e. iron will
I would put the ubiquitous ones into the second category.
There’s a common theme behind these. People call a feat a tax when they feel like they “have to” take it. “I don’t want combat expertise, but I have to take it because it’s a prerequisite for the feat I do want” is pretty universally agreed upon as being a tax. “I don’t want iron will but I have to take it because if I don’t I’ll fall behind the expected Will save bonus for my level” is a bit more subjective, but it certainly can feel like a tax. I think what it comes down to for the latter type is whether or not the perceived necessity of the numerical bonus is in fact necessary. Does the DM and/or the AP writer expect every PC to have Iron Will, and balance encounters using that expectation as a baseline? Then Iron Will is a tax, because you genuinely do have to take it to keep up. Does taking Iron Will put you above the expected baseline for Will Saves? Then it’s not a tax, it’s a true bonus you might choose to take over other Feats.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Another one is having to pick up snare crafting before you can pick up Snare Specialist (Ranger feat). If the class feat is just modifying and providing some free per day. It k ind of sucks that you have to pick up the basic crafting feat.
More so if you're multiclassing and want the snare feat line.
Because of how snares work (without the ranger feats) they're so expensive that they won't really be something you craft much. More so because you have to craft in place--so no downtime supplying.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Charlaquin wrote: Pumpkinhead11 wrote: It sounds like there are two kinds of ‘feat tax’.
1) prerequisites tax; I.e. combat expertise
2) math balancing tax; I.e. iron will
I would put the ubiquitous ones into the second category.
There’s a common theme behind these. People call a feat a tax when they feel like they “have to” take it. “I don’t want combat expertise, but I have to take it because it’s a prerequisite for the feat I do want” is pretty universally agreed upon as being a tax. “I don’t want iron will but I have to take it because if I don’t I’ll fall behind the expected Will save bonus for my level” is a bit more subjective, but it certainly can feel like a tax. I think what it comes down to for the latter type is whether or not the perceived necessity of the numerical bonus is in fact necessary. Does the DM and/or the AP writer expect every PC to have Iron Will, and balance encounters using that expectation as a baseline? Then Iron Will is a tax, because you genuinely do have to take it to keep up. Does taking Iron Will put you above the expected baseline for Will Saves? Then it’s not a tax, it’s a true bonus you might choose to take over other Feats. That’s pretty much why i split the two into seperate categories. They both address issues, but the issues they address aren’t always the same issue. Personally, identifying both usages makes it easier to understand others’ viewpoints so far.
Recent threads in General Discussion
|
