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

[UngeheuerLich]

No, combat doesn´t take longer with an unoptimized group... thats a false assumtion:

If you are less powerful, you will just have more encounters until you level up... your DM has the responsibility to make combats fun... if he needs to adept, he has to do so...

a 14 in the main stat in 4th edition is suboptimal, and you can´t make up for it later... the best thing you can do is paragon multiclass or take an off class paragon path at least (but you will swap out as much powers as possible)

edit: i know i am somehow optimizing here, but i guess you always find a nice way to make use of your better stats later on...
In 3.x it is easy to change your class to a more fitting one (which could tell a very nice character story)

I don´t like single attribute dependence, because not putting anything in your single main stat makes you way underpowered... so its a system feature to put your best score in the main stat.

I believe in 4th edition you should take a class which can make use of the stats you like to fokus in.

However if you want to play an 18 wisdom, 18 con, 11 strength 13 dexterity fighter it could actually work... you just have to switch to warpriest later on and take sure strike at the beginning. your defender capabilities don´t suffer too much...

 

[Raven Crowking]

And, yes. When 1 player goes against the desires of the group on a consistent basis, he is the problem, not the group. Doesn't matter if the 1 guy is "weakness is the height of rp!" guy or "I want to play Punpun!" guy.

I actually agree with this, but I wonder why the DM approved the character if the character goes against the desires of the group. Perhaps this alone is an indication that the character doesn't go against the desires of at least one member of the group -- the only one AFAICT who has the authority to say what characters are appropriate (or not) for a given milieu.

RC

 

[outsider]

If someone came in saying I want to play the intelligent fighter and dumps strength for intelligence, we would either say NO or basically calculate him as a 1/10 character or something for encounters.

The truly bizzarre thing is that in 4th edition, they could create this character with 16 str and 16 int, and the character wouldn't be drastically weaker than a more standard fighter. Or, even better, they could create a tactical warlord. Yet, for some reason, the players that do this sort of thing would insist on going 10 str and 16 int fighter. For some reason, some players just HAVE to do things the rules say they shouldn't. On the roleplaying end, you get the low strength fighters, on the powergaming end you get the guys who try to find loopholes and poorly written rules to justify power characters that clearly aren't intended to be in the game. I really don't get the mindset, but I've seen it as long as I've played D&D.

 

[pawsplay]

Try me. Or not, it doesn't matter. But don't make the assertion that I cannot understand. You, really, don't know.

EDIT:Missed the last post. I'm not sure, but it seems like you think that I encountered "other intelligible viewpoints" but actually, I hadn't. I was waiting for those viewpoints. With Danny's explanation, I feel indeed a better sense of understanding of of our different values.

Yeah, conversations get awkward with people posting on top of each other. I was basically just echoing that you didn't get the idea, checking in that it was a values issue, rather than a misunderstanding based on my or someone else's idea of optimization.

 

[outsider]

I actually agree with this, but I wonder why the DM approved the character if the character goes against the desires of the group. Perhaps this alone is an indication that the character doesn't go against the desires of at least one member of the group -- the only one AFAICT who has the authority to say what characters are appropriate (or not) for a given milieu.

RC

I don't follow the "DM decides everything" philosophy. While the DM has the authority to decide what is appropriate for the setting/theme of the game, the player group has the authority to decide what is appropriate for the pc group(within the campaign limits set out by the DM). The conflict described above is why I and the people I played regularly with came to this conclusion.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Just pointing out that your definition of "everybody" isn't everybody in the group.

 

[rjdafoe]

If I had to theorize, I'd say that the issue came to the forefront because of 3e's move to unify the stat bonus progression. As near as I can tell, in 1e and 2e, the differences between most stats is almost always a +1, at least till you get to the 18 ability score. A greater strength would affect skills like bend bars or carrying capacity, but not as much your attacks. In that case, a STR 10 fighter just isn't a major hinderance. Whereas, in d20, there is a very quantifiable difference between STR 12 and STR16. In that kind of rule set, its isn't the MMO influence that will drive powergaming, its the fact that the system itself lends itself to powergaming and optimization. The basic truth is that stats in d20 are very dissimilar to stats in older edition. Comparing the two is a dishonest tactic because the differences at just too great.

Again, these are my experiences with people who where not like this before they started playing MMOs. That is how I attribue it. These people, while they wanted a good character, where not obsessed about it until they encountered it in MMOs. That is what changed these particular people.

Again, it is the change of attitude, not the act of doing it. I am sure that there are exceptions, as there always are. I just don't think it was as widespread. And even at cons, there where no "your character sucks" attitudes that I encountered.

To me, it is all attitude and expression of that - jsut like this title. How do I tell someone their character sucks is the attitude. Now maybe I am putting mroe weith into MMOs than I should, and maybe it is a progression of games or whatever. I know how 15 people where playing 3E before we got into MMOs and I know how, 1 year later, these same people 3E game changed dramaticly.

 

[outsider]

Just pointing out that your definition of "everybody" isn't everybody in the group.

Okay, this is starting to get a bit annoying. I never said "everybody" or even "every player"(as somebody else misquoted me), I said "Every player but one".

 

[Raven Crowking]

My error, then. I thought "When 1 player goes against the desires of the group on a consistent basis, he is the problem, not the group." meant the group (i.e., everybody but that one player) not part of a group, which is what you apparently meant.

So, when 1 player goes against the desires of some people in the group on a consistent basis, he is the problem, not those people in the group?


RC

 

[outsider]

So, when 1 player goes against the desires of some people in the group on a consistent basis, he is the problem, not those people in the group?


RC

Change "some" to "most", and the answer is yes.