High Level 4e

[gribble]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Rechan]

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:
[sblock]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? [/sblock]

 

[amysrevenge]

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.

 

[Rechan]

To follow up on amysrevenge...

[sblock]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.[/sblock]

 

[amysrevenge]

To follow up on amysrevenge...

[sblock]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.[/sblock]

[sblock]And with only one magic weapon required, and only one Expertise feat. Nice idea.[/sblock]

 

[gribble]

See, I don't get this statement.

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).

 

[gribble]

Ok, I have to reply to this because I think I'm being a bit misunderstood:

"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.

 

[MerricB]

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...

Cheers!

 

[gribble]

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>
[SBLOCK]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.[/SBLOCK]
</sidetrack>

 

[N0Man]

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.