High Level 4e

[gribble]

Originally Posted by MrMyth

I think the problem is that you ran into a monster that the optimized characters needed a disproportionately high number to hit.

I know this wasn't the case, for a couple of reasons:

Firstly, the rest of the party (apart from the ranger) were barely threatened. I think we spent a grand total of 1 or 2 healing surges between us, and a couple of dailies each (given that one of these for my character was the Evards he uses pretty much every encounter, that wasn't much). IME, you need to make Epic characters roll a base of 13+ to challenge them at all. By the time you add in combat advantage and leader buffs, starting at a 13+ you normally end up with an 8/9+ with Epic PCs. As I said above - that was one of the problems for the ranger as well. As a leader, would you rather buff the ranger so his 20 to hit goes to a 16 to hit, or the rogue so his 13 to hit goes to a 9 to hit? I know which I'd choose (and did).

Secondly, afterwards the DM said that it was a level 22 encounter. Well within the range/ability of a level 21 party to deal with.

[WalterKovacs]

The group I'm currently running through the WOTC adventure modules is fairly optimized. The Barbarian and Warlord were 16 str to start, the fighter and wizard had 18 in str and int respectively, while the rogue went with 20. The rogue is a daggermaser, so above and beyond everyone else, has the best to hit chance in the party. Even then, the group is relatively balanced with each other. Most of the fights are pretty easy for them, but that is because Trolls consist mostly of Brutes and they are very easy to hit (unless you are going after Fort). They've had two challenging fights recently ... one involving a second encounter interupting the first, and the other involved a roper which rendered most of the melee fighters useless against the 'main' monster and it was hard to hit on it's own.

They haven't hit level 15 yet, but everyone has taken expertise.

The monsters do get more exciting, and the players get a bit more options. so I definitely like the low paragon a bit more than some of the earlier play. I would agree though that homebrew campaigns designed with the PCs in mind might be a bit more challenging than just the 'straight' adventure paths provide. There is a gap between ultra optimized (the rogue) and less optimized (the barbarian/warlord), but even a +3 gap hasn't been that nasty. Even when the warlord was +4 behind, it wasn't too bad ...the rogue was basically +2 above the 'baseline' while the warlord was +1 to +2 behind it. The game is a little forgiving, but not to the point where you can start at 14's in your attack stat AND not take expertise AND not raise them at every chance and be comparable to someone that started 2 ahead, upped it at every opportunity and took a feat for an extra +2.

[Oni]

Originally Posted by gribble

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.

The part I've bolded is largely my problem with your assertions. You keep holding up the worst 4e character I've seen to date as an example as though it represents the norm for a casual non-optimized character and then keep pointing to this enormous gulf in capacity as though it is a common issue. If you put your stat bumps on your main attack stat and picked powers that matched that stat and class out of a hat you'd come up with a decently functional character and I think that says a lot about how robust the balance of 4e is. You can only handhold so much in character creation and advancement though, at some point some actual thought has to be put into it.

[Elric]

Originally Posted by gribble

As a leader, would you rather buff the ranger so his 20 to hit goes to a 16 to hit, or the rogue so his 13 to hit goes to a 9 to hit? I know which I'd choose (and did).

It doesn't matter what the initial numbers required to hit are as long as you wouldn't need "more than a 20" before the bonus or "less than a 2" after the bonus. You should just give the to-hit bonus to the character with the higher damage increase per point of to-hit bonus.

If characters have no miss damage (or additional effects besides damage on a hit), and one attack roll per action, this means giving the to-hit bonus to the character with higher damage. This will tend to be the more optimized character, everything else equal, as the character who ended up with a lower attack bonus probably also ended up with lower damage.

Still, the hit-numbers before you add the to-hit bonus don't have much to do with it.

[MerricB]

With 3e, it was quite possible to build a really gimped character like a Wizard 5/Fighter 5/Cleric 5/Rogue 5. That's a PC that is far, far worse than Gribble's ranger.

Try doing that in 4e!

One of the chief complaints about Weapon Expertise was how it made the attack bonus structure of 4e no longer so predictable. I agree with that; I wish it hadn't been printed.

Cheers!

[gribble]

Originally Posted by Oni

The part I've bolded is largely my problem with your assertions.

The "As in 3e", which directly precedes the part you've bolded, is largely my problem with your bolding and subsequent commentary.

Edit to make the post (and whole thread of conversation) a bit more useful to the OP:
To me, the important part of the post is this bit:
Someone reading the 4e propaganda could be forgiven for thinking that problem had been fixed. It hasn't.
Sure, the ranger is a fairly extreme example. But I maintain that I've found it very easy in 4e for a casual player to drop a point of magic here, start with a slightly lower primary stat and drop a point or two there, not pick up expertise and drop another 2-3 points.
In 4e, each point of attack bonus you lose is very costly. Much more so than 3e. When you get to Epic level, those points here and there can quickly add up to a big gap between optimised and non-optimised characters.

I've found it's definitely something to keep an eye on and be wary about.

[gribble]

Originally Posted by Elric

You should just give the to-hit bonus to the character with the higher damage increase per point of to-hit bonus.

Sure, I realise the math behind it, but we're talking about a game here where psychological elements come into play as much as pure math.

I could buff the ranger, and have a 3 out of 4 chance that he'd still miss anyway and my buff would be wasted, or buff the rogue and only have a 1 in 4 chance it'd be wasted... admittedly from a pure math POV, if the rogue rolls high enough to hit without the buff, then the buff is still wasted, but when a player hits you don't tend to think of a buff as a waste so much as when they miss. At least I don't, and I'd wager most players are similar.

And, in this case, the optimised Rogue was dealing far more damage anyway...

[the Jester]

I run a game with certain characteristics that tend to exacerbate the gap between the top pc's attack bonus and the bottom pc's attack bonus- the party isn't all the same level, nor do new pcs have nearly the level of gear that established pcs start with.

The warden in my campaign- who is our most recent addition- tends to need a 16 or 17 to hit what the fighter needs a 7 or 8 to hit, but the fighter has been played up all the way from 1st level, so she has good gear and is one of the highest level members of the party. At the time the warden joined, she was 14th and he was 10th. Now, with the gap narrowing (because I tweak the game a little to help lower-level pcs catch up) the warden just hit 14th and the fighter 16th. The gap between them is still a good 4-6 points (I think- not quite sure, since I don't keep a copy of the pcs' character sheets) but narrowing. The fighter has also invested in Expertise, while I don't think that the warden has.

So, yes, there's a gap- but even starting with a pretty extreme gap, it has closed rapidly. One thing that really helped the warden out was after he realized he couldn't hit a monster's AC and he realized that every one of his powers targeted AC, he leveled, took a 'vs. Fort' power and retrained another to a NAD-targeting defense as well (I think also vs. Fort, but it might be vs. Reflex).

Is the gap a huge problem? Not if the player and the dm recognize it and work to avoid having it be the overwhelming determinate of whether the pc can ever accomplish anything. A few brutes make my warden very happy, for instance. Just like anything in the game, it just takes awareness and intention to smooth out this issue.

[catsclaw227]

I haven't read the entire thread yet, there's 3 1/2 pages, I wanted to respond to the OP.

I am glad you asked this question and I'm grateful that others responded. I have been wondering this myself lately.

I Dm'ed a converted Age of Worms at the beginning of 4e a year ago, PCs were just entering paragon at 11th level. We played until about 17th level and the game dissolved for player issues, one was relocated - his PC was deeply rooted in the story (my bad, as DM to let a PC have a MAJOR plot point issue) and another PC died. We all decided to start anew with a new player at the table and do Scales of War. They're now 5th level, and just got a nice daily and whooped butt in their first two encounters at this level.

I was also curious what are the sweet spots in 4e leveling as a PC goes up and up and up? What levels really seem to make a difference when the PCs hit them, and the encounter balance is noticeably changed?

[catsclaw227]

Originally Posted by the Jester

The warden in my campaign- who is our most recent addition- tends to need a 16 or 17 to hit what the fighter needs a 7 or 8 to hit, but the fighter has been played up all the way from 1st level, so she has good gear and is one of the highest level members of the party. At the time the warden joined, she was 14th and he was 10th. Now, with the gap narrowing (because I tweak the game a little to help lower-level pcs catch up) the warden just hit 14th and the fighter 16th. The gap between them is still a good 4-6 points (I think- not quite sure, since I don't keep a copy of the pcs' character sheets) but narrowing. The fighter has also invested in Expertise, while I don't think that the warden has.

How is it DMing a game with a 16th level Fighter? Is he real sticky? Does he do a lot of damage? I have read that high level fighters, while being defenders, still have the possibility to do do hoards of damage.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by gribble

Sure, I realise the math behind it, but we're talking about a game here where psychological elements come into play as much as pure math.

I could buff the ranger, and have a 3 out of 4 chance that he'd still miss anyway and my buff would be wasted, or buff the rogue and only have a 1 in 4 chance it'd be wasted... admittedly from a pure math POV, if the rogue rolls high enough to hit without the buff, then the buff is still wasted, but when a player hits you don't tend to think of a buff as a waste so much as when they miss. At least I don't, and I'd wager most players are similar.

And, in this case, the optimised Rogue was dealing far more damage anyway...

In a way it starts with a far-from-optimized build and then you add an apparantly suboptimal tactic, too.

If you are talking about psychology, think about how much more fun the Ranger character and the Ranger player would have if someone would buff him more - and how much more rewarding this would feel to the buffing character, too.

[vagabundo]

I've seens some less than optimal characters created for 4e and they can fall behind the curve. I think the issue here is whether the character is viable and I believe they are and could still contribute to combat.

I don't think we would want a situation were it was impossible to build a poor character by making poor choices, but 4e is very transparent and does give good advice - if the players read it, which, I'm afraid to say my little sis didn't and created a fairly poor warlock. She just picked things that sounded cool to her and it didn't work together very well or work well with how she wanted to play it.

So I created an archer ranger for her that suited what she wanted all the better. But - trust me - her 3e characters were much much worse. My brother had a similar issue with his Wizard character - this is someone who always played a fighter in previous editions. But I regiged a couple of things and changed out a few spells and feats, and he is chuffed now.

These two examples where for early heroic tier, but in both cases they were viable characters, they just weren't run very well; tactically.

All I believe 4e promised was that it would move away from the system mastery situation - with its hidden traps. And to my mind it does a damn fine job of it.

[sobran]

Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully

In a way it starts with a far-from-optimized build and then you add an apparantly suboptimal tactic, too.

If you are talking about psychology, think about how much more fun the Ranger character and the Ranger player would have if someone would buff him more - and how much more rewarding this would feel to the buffing character, too.

I completely agree with this statement. It sort of seems like this player is having a tough time and it doesn't sound like much is being done to mitigate it. Would buffing the ranger have made the difference between failure and victory in this encounter? No, by your own admittance.

By the same token, why has the DM not addressed this shortcoming. If not rerolling, at least letting the character be tweaked a bit in hindsight would address the poor character planning. If this goes against the DMs philosophy, he could throw him a bone a couple other ways. A sweet magical bow that just screams "give it to the ranger," social and skill challenges that play to his non-combat strengths, or a cloak that allows him to assume the shape of a raven, thereby allowing him to aid the party in creative ways.

Granted, I don't have all the facts here. This player could be an obnoxious twit that no one wants to help. But this sounds like a failure on the part of more than just the one player that clearly didn't know what the hell he was doing. In a hobby like this, it takes some teamwork to ensure everyone has fun.

[Jack99]

Originally Posted by catsclaw227

How is it DMing a game with a 16th level Fighter? Is he real sticky? Does he do a lot of damage? I have read that high level fighters, while being defenders, still have the possibility to do do hoards of damage.

The lvl 17 fighter in my group is scary as hell. He does huge damage and is sticky as hell. Once he gets to a monster, it's basically SOL, unless it can stun or something like that.

[MrMyth]

Originally Posted by gribble

Sure, I realise the math behind it, but we're talking about a game here where psychological elements come into play as much as pure math.

I could buff the ranger, and have a 3 out of 4 chance that he'd still miss anyway and my buff would be wasted, or buff the rogue and only have a 1 in 4 chance it'd be wasted... admittedly from a pure math POV, if the rogue rolls high enough to hit without the buff, then the buff is still wasted, but when a player hits you don't tend to think of a buff as a waste so much as when they miss. At least I don't, and I'd wager most players are similar.

Sure, but that is your choice to do so. It may well be the better tactical choice, if the rogue's damage is significantly higher. (Though I'd be surprised if it was - if the rogue already has a decent chance to hit, then far better to multiply the ranger's chance of hitting by five, since his damage - even non-optimized - should still be fine.)

But that's the thing, in the end - D&D is a game of choices. In this case, you have one character who has made many choices that would enhance him, and a party that makes the explicit choice to further enhance him. And another character who has avoided any options that would enhance him, and is unsupported by the party.

Up against a monster that I feel, again, probably had unusually high defences. It doesn't sound like a difficult fight, but if an optimized rogue is only hitting on a 13 or 14 by default, its defenses definitely seem high. As you say - apparently intended to challenge optimized characters being enhanced by buffs. Of course it will be untouchable for the non-optimized character not receiving the buffs.

So, with all those factors - yes, there will be a gap. The only way to shorten that gap is to reduce the effect of any individual choice. Reducing the effect of different levels of weapons, reduce the effect of differences in stats, reduce the ability for feats/weapon proficiency/classes to give minor bonuses to hit.

If you go too far with that... characters become identical, and there are no choices to be made.

There is certainly a line that needs to be set. With the exception of the Expertise feats, I think 4E has done a fantastic job of it, and the problem is almost nonexistent compared to how it used to be. The Expertise feats have definitely made it worse, though, and I would be glad to see them gone or fixed in some fashion.

But even without that, it wouldn't solve the issue for the character here - someone who has a non-optimized character to start with, who doesn't have even one appropriate magic weapon of his level (cause even dual-wielding, his main-hand should at least be on par with the rest of you guys), who doesn't receive the same support from the party other characters get, and who is fighting encounters specifically geared to challenge an optimized party. His character not being effective in combat is inevitable, and you can't fix that without removing the ability to make the choices that led him there - choices he made, choices the party made, and choices the DM made.

[Elric]

Originally Posted by MrMyth

Sure, but that is your choice to do so. It may well be the better tactical choice, if the rogue's damage is significantly higher. (Though I'd be surprised if it was - if the rogue already has a decent chance to hit, then far better to multiply the ranger's chance of hitting by five, since his damage - even non-optimized - should still be fine.)

The rogue [with a much better attack bonus]'s damage doesn't have to be "significantly higher" to justify giving the Rogue a plus to hit rather than the ranger. What the initial hit numbers are before the bonus to hit doesn't have much to do with it. There's nothing special about "multiplying chance to hit by 5." Percentage increases don't kill enemies. The rogue just needs to have a higher damage increase per point of to-hit increase, in the sense laid out below.

Originally Posted by Elric

It doesn't matter what the initial numbers required to hit are as long as you wouldn't need "more than a 20" before the bonus or "less than a 2" after the bonus. You should just give the to-hit bonus to the character with the higher damage increase per point of to-hit bonus.

If characters have no miss damage (or additional effects besides damage on a hit), and one attack roll per action, this means giving the to-hit bonus to the character with higher damage. This will tend to be the more optimized character, everything else equal, as the character who ended up with a lower attack bonus probably also ended up with lower damage.

Decently-optimized Rangers who don't deal damage on a miss (e.g., Scimitar Dance) should tend to have a higher damage increase per point of to-hit bonus than Rogues, particularly at epic tier, but with a well-optimized Rogue versus a poorly optimized ranger, this won't necessarily be the case.

[Armadillo]

Is there a reason the GM hasn't awarded some magic items as treasure that would specifically address the Ranger's shortcomings?

[Amphimir Míriel]

I don't really have a comment on the original question, however I wish to comment on the "worst 4E character ever" issue

Spoiler:

I call shenanigans.

If you are playing 4th edition for the first time, you are strongly recommended to use the standard array. You are also given two "1st level build suggestions" for every class.

In short, in 4E you almost have to go out of your way to make a crappy character, whereas in 3.5 it is very easy to make a substandard character by mistake.

Originally Posted by amysrevenge

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.

This.