How Can You Politely Say, "Your Character Sucks?"

[malraux]

Wasn't 4E supposed to be the D&D where you couldn't accidentally gimp your character? Where you couldn't make a choice so weak it would throw the game off?

Seriously, if 4E's balance is so tenuous that a player has to know that only an 18 can make an optimal character, how in the world do 4E proponents criticize 3E's system mastery aspect (with a straight face)?

For what it's worth, my 4E character was an archer ranger, and he didn't have max Dexterity. (He did have an 18, because he was a shifter. But he wasn't maxed out.)

Clearly one can make continually weak choices in 4e. Not using armor, picking mostly ranged powers for a mostly melee character, etc. Its just harder/less likely to happen. For example, the PHB is pretty clear that whatever is the key stat for your class should receive your highest stat allocation. An 18 isn't necessarily the best, especially if your secondary stats affect cool things.

With the point buy that's at the key to this, I would want to be sure the player didn't have a hangup about how things worked in 3e. IE, to be sure that he understood that now most of his attacks were Int vs AC, not Str, or that he knew that he could use a feat to use Int for basic melee attacks, both things that someone who hadn't read much of the rules might have missed.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Because the difference between an optimal character and a non-optimal one is relatively low. [...] The systems mastery aspect gets critisised as it was possible to make some characters several times more powerful than others (depending on your DM, edging out to tens or hundreds of times more powerful in extreme cases), whereas now the difference between the very best and very worst characters is of the order of +50-100%.

Okay, I'll buy that. In that case, then ... nine pages? Really? When the PC in question is perfectly playable?

 

[Gimby]

Okay, I'll buy that. In that case, then ... nine pages? Really? When the PC in question is perfectly playable?

People like to argue about things on the internet. Film, as they say, at 11

 

[fuzzlewump]

Okay, I'll buy that. In that case, then ... nine pages? Really? When the PC in question is perfectly playable?

I'm not sure everyone agrees on that, otherwise it would have ended 9 pages ago. What seems obvious to you seems to be obviously the other way for me. There's obviously, to me, no reason to play a character with a 14 in your primary stat. None at all.

A character with a 10 in a primary stat, or even an 8, is indeed perfectly playable. But, you wouldn't do that, would you? It's only +2/+3 hit away from what you consider perfectly playable (which I assume means effective) so is it really that much worse?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

A character with a 10 in a primary stat, or even an 8, is indeed perfectly playable. But, you wouldn't do that, would you? It's only +2/+3 hit away from what you consider perfectly playable (which I assume means effective) so is it really that much worse?

Not only would I play a PC with a 10 in the primary stat, I have done so.

 

[Runestar]

Not only would I play a PC with a 10 in the primary stat, I have done so.

And the end result?

 

[jmucchiello]

And the end result?

Most likely he and his friends had a good time playing D&D.

 

[Runestar]

Most likely he and his friends had a good time playing D&D.

Because he had a 10 in a key stat, or in spite of it?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Does it matter?

 

[Nifft]

Does it matter?

"I saw a guy score with a supermodel in spite of having no feet!" -- he has my admiration.

"I saw a guy score with a supermodel because he had no feet!" -- where's my hacksaw?

Cheers, -- N