General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
I saw some pretty mad specialists in high (15th+) level D&D, and they left any generalists far, far behind.
Yeah, I saw that a bit too, although I never really played much 3e beyond about 15th level. We had one campaign get up around 23rd, all the rest ended by 15th (one way or another). For me, 4e specialisation kicks in right from 1st level, as evidenced by how incredulous you seem at the rangers stats. In 3e, a 14, 14, 14, 12, 12, 11 character certainly wouldn't be optimised, but he'd still play pretty well. I don't think the same is true of 4e, even at low levels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MerricB
We've just hit paragon levels, and it's been fun so far.
I also really enjoyed the game, up until about mid paragon. That was about the point that a) fights started getting really grindy; and b) we started noticing the "auto -win" abilities (like bigbys icy grasp) and the fights started getting too easy (though still long and boring). I'm not sure if it was because the game itself changed, or because we went from home brew to WotC (P2, P3) adventures, or maybe a combination of both.
I do know that on Tuesday we went back to a home brew adventure, and (other than the poor ranger) it was the most challenging and fun session we've had in a while (though still noticably grindy unfortunately).
The Weapon Expertise is definitely significant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MerricB
I'm still astonished by that ranger. The starting stats are bad, and it just gets worse from there.
You have to understand that it was the first ever 4e character that player made, and he didn't realise at that point just how much 4e rewarded specialists. He assumed that he could make a good, effective, RP focussed generalist character like he could in 3e.
I think about half way through Heroic he decided he sucked at melee and changed over to become a bow ranger (bumping Dex instead of Str), then realised he sucked just as bad at that and changed back... that didn't help him much either.
Basically the player made some bad choices right at the start, and isn't really an optimiser.
And yeah, he was noticably worse at Paragon too, but the gap just seems to be increasing. His skills are a little higher than most of us, and his non-AC defences are all good (though with the way PC defences scale vs monster attack, it isn't significant - not enough to make up for the lack of Robust Defences anyway). But yeah, generally speaking he's maybe a point or two better in skills that are never used and his worst non-AC defence in exchange for being 6 or so points worse at attacking. In 4e, definitely not a good trade.
Last edited by gribble; 23rd July 2009 at 04:19 AM..
He assumed that he could make a good, effective, RP focussed generalist character like he could in 3e.
See, I don't get this statement.
But this is becoming a tangent, so I'm going to put this in a spoiler block:
Spoiler:
Your stats or your feats really don't impact your "RP focus". I mean, you don't need stats to be RP focused; you just need to play your character.
But even that, a combat optimized character with Skill focus is probably better than a generalist with skill focus. He gets to do EVERYTHING. A generalist is, well, good at nothing.
Honestly though. If the guy wants a GENERALIST, the Bard is the way to go.
Rituals. Very versatile.
Tons of skills.
Can multi-class multiple times. So, got the dabbler/generalist down.
Gets a net +1 to any untrained skill.
Inspire Competence (Bard Utility 2)
All attacks are based on Cha, so he can mix up melee and ranged (implement, or ranged weapon with AP) if he really wanted to.
Outside of a bard or a rogue, I really don't see how you could do a Generalist in 3e, either. Your typical class had 2+Int skill points, and their class features keyed off their important stats (Skills for rogues were dex based, anything involving combat was either melee or dex, spellcasters used the spellcasting stat). Where's the "generalist"? Playing a wizard or a cleric with finagled spell lists so they cover all grounds?
he didn't realise at that point just how much 4e rewarded specialists.
I think that uniform ability scores is just not the way to be a generalist in 4E.
You can broaden your scope in so many other ways that don't make you totally suck. Training in a wide variety of skills. Feats and/or backgrounds and/or magical gear to provide bonuses to skills for which you don't have the best of stats. Utility-type magic items that do unusual (for your class/role/race) things.
I mean, you could build a reasonably good ranger that can switch ably from ranged to melee, and who has plenty of skills of all types (knowledge, physical, and social) with bonuses high enough to be of use. Although frankly I think that there are some builds that do not lend themselves well to the notion of the generalist, and the STR + DEX Ranger is one of them.
The way to do this is NOT to put 14s in your starting STR and DEX.
The way is to put 16s (before racial bumps - hopefully you have at least one of STR or DEX, but you can get by without) in your starting STR and DEX, grab a nice background that gives you access (and +2) to a skill not normally on your class list, bump both STR and DEX at every 4/8 level, and spend about 1/3 to 1/2 of your feats on skill training/focus. Because you are deliberately spreading your focus, yes Expertise starts to become a bit more necessary. You do get stacks and stacks fo feats though. As for defense, since your STR and DEX are pretty good, Will is the weak spot, so spend a feat to improve it. As for other general use things, look for items like Hedge Wizard's Gloves, which add neat but unexpected abilities to a character.
You still won't hit as often or as hard in melee as a melee-specialist, nor at range as a ranged-specialist. You won't have the Diplomacy of a Bard, nor the Arcana of a Wizard. Your AC will not be as high as the Paladin, nor will your Fort be as high as a Barbarian. However, you can have reasonable amounts of all of these things, enough that you should really only be +1 to +3 behind the min-maxers in attack rolls, and succeeding on most skill checks at the DMG suggested DCs.
Personally, I have more than one PC that I would consider "generalist". These PCs can heal, can attack in melee, can attack at range, can do bursts and blasts, have moderate-to-good defenses, and are trained in lots of weird skills. None of these PCs started play without at least a 17 (after racial bumps) in their prime ability score.
Conclusion:
1) "Generalist" has a much wider definition than "all ability scores are roughly equal". It means "good, but not the best, at many things", and can be reasonably attained through many means.
2) The PC in your group is NOT a generalist. It is a badly built PC (this is not not a comment on the player - when I switched to 4E I built about 7 or 8 PCs that were terrible before I found one that I liked and was any good).
3) There are some builds for which generalist is not a good fit. Basically any class with two different "attack" stats, when you are tying to take advantage of both. Clerics going for both STR and WIS, Rangers going for STR and DEX, star-pact Warlocks going for CON and CHA, and paladins going for STR and CHA. I would personally never try to make any of these builds into generalists. Any of the other classes though, or even one of these classes that focuses a bit more upon one or the other of the builds, can be made into something of a generalist.
Additionally, if the PC wanted to go both melee AND ranged, one route is to go with heavy thrown weapons. Ask the DM if the ranged attack powers can be used with Str, to allow the ranger to throw heavy weapons using his STR.
Additionally, if the PC wanted to go both melee AND ranged, one route is to go with heavy thrown weapons. Ask the DM if the ranged attack powers can be used with Str, to allow the ranger to throw heavy weapons using his STR.
Boom, both ranged and melee, covered in one stat.
Spoiler:
And with only one magic weapon required, and only one Expertise feat. Nice idea.
I agree this is becoming a tangent. Suffice to say that IME there were many ways to make a playable 3e generalist who wasn't noticably worse than the rest of the party (multiclassing, monks/paladins who were somewhat forced to because of MAD, as you point out, rogue/bard). In 3e, you at least had skill points that you could sink into skills and they weren't making you worse at combat. In 4e, if you sacrifice a feat to pick up skill training (thievery) - as this player did - it is one less feat to sink into TWF, TWD, WE, WF, better armor, etc.
It's not really about making an effective 4e character - believe me I know how to do that. It's about the fact that in 4e you pretty much need to have a 16+ (arguably an 18+) in your primary stat to make an effective character.
The player in my game is evidence that 4e definitely hasn't removed the whole system mastery thing that 3e had going on. He didn't set out to make a crap character, but by virtue of not realising how specialised 4e characters have to be, and some admittedly poor choices, he's ended up well behind the curve.
Anyway, that's the last I'll say on it to stop the sidetrack. To bring things back on topic, the difference between optimised and non-optimsed characters is vastly amplified in high level 4e (as Merric pointed out, probably just like it was in 3e).
Ok, I have to reply to this because I think I'm being a bit misunderstood:
Quote:
Originally Posted by amysrevenge
"Generalist" has a much wider definition than "all ability scores are roughly equal". It means "good, but not the best, at many things", and can be reasonably attained through many means.
When I said "generalist", I said it in the context of the 3e generalist. 14s across the board got you:
+2 to hit and damage with ranged attacks
+2 to hit and damage with melee attacks
+2 hp/level
+2 AC
+2 to Fort, Ref, Will saves
+2 skill points per level
+2 to every skill
In conjunction with the right class and/or multiclassing the above meant something and you could make an effective character. Not stellar at any one thing, but not a dead weight either. By high levels (all else being equal) the difference between the above fighter and one who started with an 18 was that you had -2 to hit and -2 (-3 with a 2H weapon) to damage. Pretty inconsequential stuff in 3e combat really, and when you consider how much better your skills were (and that most of your saves were a couple of points higher) it was a worthwhile trade.
Sure, in 4e you get mostly the same numerical benefits (minus the skill points), but in the context of the system the secondary bonuses seem to mean a lot less. And the primary bonus means a lot more - a +2 bonus to hit and damage in 4e is a pretty big thing, right across all levels of play.
This player went into 4e with the same attitude as 3e. He got burned. You're absolutely right - in 4e you just can't be that general with your ability scores. In 4e an effective generalist isn't someone who is good at everything but exceptional at nothing. It's someone who does everything he does exceptionally well. Anyone in 4e who isn't "exceptional" at something might as well not bother. If you aren't trained in a skill? Don't bother rolling it. Low Str and no melee training feat? Don't bother with those basic melee attacks.
Sure, you can be a "generalist" by picking up skill training. You then go from "don't bother" to "exceptional" territory - you aren't just "good" at it. Want to do some healing? Pick up a multiclass feat. You're now are as good as the party leader (admittedly once per day, but that one time you do it, you're just as good).
I know, because my character in the game is a Warlord who multiclassed into Wizard. He's now both the party controller and the party leader and he's exceptional at both. He heals as good as another other leader, and he is just as good as any other controller with his Evards in the first 5 encounters of the day, followed up by his at will thunderwave to push enemies who escape back into the Evards. He is a 4e "generalist" - exceptional (i.e.: "specialised") at everything he does.
I'm not taking a position on whether it's a good or bad thing - it is what it is. But if you go into it not realising how bad trying to be generalist is in 4e, you will get burned (especially at Epic levels).
And that really is the last I'll say (somewhat) off-topic.
Last edited by gribble; 23rd July 2009 at 05:48 AM..
In conjunction with the right class and/or multiclassing the above meant something and you could make an effective character. Not stellar at any one thing, but not a dead weight either. By high levels (all else being equal) the difference between the above fighter and one who started with an 18 was that you had -2 to hit and -2 (-3 with a 2H weapon) to damage. Pretty inconsequential stuff in 3e combat really,
Mind you, your ranger hasn't even followed that course. In 3e, a 20th level fighter would have put 5 bonus points into Strength, gained a +6 Strength item, taken Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, have a +5 weapon, and possibly even a +2 book or similar. Your ranger hasn't done any of the equivalent of that. Instead, the ranger has continued to make suboptimal decisions.
If your ranger was a 3e fighter, I'd expect him to have put 1 bonus point into Strength, gained a +4 Strength bonus, and have a +4 weapon. At this point, his attack bonus would be a full 7 points behind the optimised fighter... and he'd have the same problem as in your 4e game...
Mind you, your ranger hasn't even followed that course.
I agree entirely. The player of the ranger has made a series of bad choices - as I pointed out in a earlier post. As in 3e, the gulf between optimised and non-optimsed characters is very wide at high levels. That was kind of my initial point - someone reading the 4e propaganda could be forgiven for thinking that problem had been fixed. It hasn't.
<sidetrack>
Spoiler:
But I still maintain that the +2 to hit/damage means a lot more in 4e than in 3e. People seem to agree by saying a character with 14s across the board isn't really feasible in 4e.
Having good stats, and appropriate and specialized stats was just as important in 3E than in 4E. The only real difference is that the mechanics are more generalized and universal and you 4E ALWAYS gives you a bonus point to put into a secondary or tertiary ability.
As a striker class, he has to at least keep one of his attack attributes respectable. He can pull off 2 to be at least decent, but he's going to have to sacrifice Wisdom to do it.
We all know "jack of all trades and master of none". He simply can't be good at everything. He's spreading himself too thin. He can't be good at melee, good at ranged, and good a tertiary ability and skills. He can choose 1 to be very good, and 2 to be mediocre, 2 fairly good and 1 mediocre, or all 3 as mediocre to bad. We see which was chosen, even if not intentionally.
I suppose there are exceptions where one could be really good at several things early on in 3E... but that's usually going to because of stats being rolled instead of a point buy. However, then what we are comparing isn't 3E and 4E, but point-buy vs rolled stats.
__________________ Law's Game Style: Storyteller 83%, Tactician 75%, Specialist 67%, Method Actor 58%, Power Gamer 33%, Casual Gamer 25%, Butt-Kicker 17%
I suppose there are exceptions where one could be really good at several things early on in 3E... but that's usually going to because of stats being rolled instead of a point buy
I suspect this thread isn't going to get very on topic because not a lot of folks have played high paragon/epic yet.
True here, I suppose. I'm about even with Merric - just peeking my head into Paragon.
Spoiler:
But I reckon an all-14s PC would be almost as terrible at level 1 as at level 22. :P
And while I'll freely admit that the amount of terrible is smaller in 3.x, I posit that an all-14s PC in 3.x is also reasonably terrible (but without armor class scaling with level you can make a non-caster, or even a caster that doesn't provoke many saving throws, that would be reasonably successful I suppose). Part of my problem with it, I guess, is that I don't find characters who have no strengths or weaknesses to be very interesting, so I have a bias built-in against them.
The real problem here is not that 4E does not reward the generalist. The problem is that building a 4E character with 3.x design guidelines doesn't always work. The way you build a generalist in 4E is very different from the way you build a generalist in 3.x. If it was my game, I'd let someone rebuild their first 4E character once they gain some experience with the system, if it wasn't doing what they wanted it to do.
It seems that 4e, more than any other version of D&D, really rewards specialists over generalists.
Are you sure you played 3e? (And yes, I read the rest of your posts)
Anyway, back to topic.
My players just hit level 17, and for us, the game-speed (while never a problem) seems to have increased during the paragon tier. Our long combats have been epic combats (Aspect of Tiamat goes *splat*), not grindy.
Of course, if you are looking for 10 minutes combats, 4e is probably not your game.
__________________
355 hours played
Gnoguh, human fighter/cleric (kensei->adamantine soldier)
Carric, elf cleric/ranger (radiant servant->saint)
Torn, tiefling wizard/cleric (divine oracle->sages of ages)
Truxas, human feylock/bard (feytouched->feyliege)
Tagron, human rogue (daggermaster->deadly trickster) 21th level Musings of an Epic Virgin
In 3e, you at least had skill points that you could sink into skills and they weren't making you worse at combat. In 4e, if you sacrifice a feat to pick up skill training (thievery) - as this player did - it is one less feat to sink into TWF, TWD, WE, WF, better armor, etc.
This is a very bad thing in 4e. Most people would just shrug and take the combat optimized powers even if they wanted a skill-monkey.
We had a warlord in one of our campaigns that 'sacrificed' two feats for out of combat/RP situations -- Skill Focus Diplomacy and Linguist. The first was good for a lot of situations, while Linguist was helping out with the fact that none of our PCs knew how to talk to goblins or orcs -- an enemy and an ally -- for us in story. Even the DM's attempt to have a handful of both races speak common didn't help in the eyes of the player, due to in character reasons. It made sense for the story, but then in combat situations the party wasn't operating according to what would be termed the mathematically optimized capability. In the end, it just put a lot of pressure on the other members of the group to work as a team.
C.I.D.
Anyway, my point was that
__________________ Journey into the world of the Spire and the Abyss! A 4e Campaign based around airships and exploration of a recovering world.
I don't know if I would call it a trap to ignore the advice in the ability scores line and class build to put a high stat there. If it's a trap, it is a large pit trap with no trap door or other concealment and a conveniently placed sidewalks to avoid it.
We haven't reached Epic Tier yet. But we're at 19th level. Seems to work fine. Grindy combats we had, every time against enemies that can daze, stun or even dominate - oh, or are Black Dragons. Other combats seem to go pretty fast. Since we also play other campaigns, it often requires a short "adjustment period" to get into the characters abilities and their synergies.
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
our group is in low-paragon level and things are running fine. Sometimes I wonder if it's too easy actually going by a normal encounter buy of XPs. The group isn't super optimized, like they haven't discovered weapon expertise and some have invested feats in "RP feats" like linguist and skill focus etc. Even the ones using the RP feats aren't having trouble hitting things. In general the group is very tactical and focuses heavily on teamwork which tends to shore-up individual shortcomings.
I don't really think the feats swing much (at least at this level of play) but pumping your prime ability has always been true for DND. You wouldn't make a wizard with 14 int in 2E - 4E.
Got a question. I play with some folks who don't seem very interested in any kind of adventure that requires a character over 6th or so level. My persaonl feeling is things don't really get interesting until you're at least 10th.
So my question is this: how is 4e for high-level adventuring?
I have been playing since the 70's and have never really had too much trouble with high-level things getting out of hand until 3.5 came along. My 22nd level fighter/sorcerer/arcane archer was doing up to 600 points of damage in a round, which got a little crazy. But my 17th level Magic-User from 2nd edition got in and out of more scrapes (barely) than I can shake a stick at.
I've been in the same boat which is why I run games so I can take campaigns from 1st to 20th level. I haven't gotten in 4e but I heard that grind is about the only "bump" for high-level play.
I suppose I was saying that while 3e certainly rewarded specialists over generalists, it was possible (or at least much easier) to make an effective generalist in 3e than it is in 4e.
So yes, I stand by both my statements. D&D has always been a game for specialists, and 4e rewards specialists more than any previous edition.
I'm going to disagree here. The gap between the two was massively larger in 3rd edition, in my experience. And while you could build an effective generalist in 3e, you could also build a terrible one. The same is true in 4eE - you can build a good generalist, this player simply didn't do so. Weapon Expertise definitely is an issue, sure, but it sounds like he went down a weaker path at every possible opportunity, and I don't see an easy answer to that - forbid characters from ignoring their primary stats? Prevent them for using lower level weapons?
And honestly, ending up with 6 or 7 points 'to hit' between optimized and non-optimized is fine - I think the problem is that you ran into a monster that the optimized characters needed a disproportionately high number to hit. In general, say I expect an average character to be hitting enemies on an 11 (around half the time), then an optimized character might generally hitting on an 8, and a non-optimized character would be hitting on a 14 or say. Drifting +3/-3 from the norm seems like a reasonable level of difference between such characters without making any one of them either too good or useless. (As in 3rd, when I'd run into a party that had one character hitting on 2+ what required another character a 20 to hit.)
But if you run into something designed to be hard enough that it shifts the curve so that the optimized characters are intended to struggle at hitting... then yeah, the non-optimized character is going to struggle. The problem might be that your DM is running a campaign to challenge not the party, but the optimized characters along. ~shrug~ So it goes.
Last edited by MrMyth; 23rd July 2009 at 06:06 PM..
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
