A (brief) rant about circular discussions

[Prestidigitalis]

Just got back from the official WotC forums, where I was reading a thread about how nasty Attacks vs. Will can be. Dominated every turn, blah blah.

Know what came next? Of course you do: a long series of comments in which characters with high Will defenses were described.

The problem with these threads (and yes, they happen on ENWorld too) is that collectively they create a vast circular discussion.

"Low Will defense? Raise it at the expense of feats that increase damage."

"Low damage output? Raise it at the expense of attribute distribution that raises your AC."

"Low AC? Raise it at the expense of your Fort."

Etc.

Ad nauseum.

Fade to black.


Almost all of these discussions completely ignore the elephant in the room: D&D in all it's guises is a matter of balance, tradeoffs and prioritization. You may be weak all over, or you may have a single Achilles Heel. The one thing that is simply NOT an option, short of Gestalt characters or 40-point buy, is to have no weaknesses at all.

So a request please: If you are going to suggest a solution to such a problem, please bear in mind that the solution has to work holistically.

Otherwise, it is nothing but a comb-over.

Rant complete. Entering maintenance cycle. Power off.

 

[DracoSuave]

I would like to subscribe to this product and/or service.

Translation: Agree!

 

[Ceraus]

I would like to subscribe to this product and/or service.

Translation: Agree!

That.

 

[ppaladin123]

While I agree, the OP in the thread described was complaining that every member of his party was easily hit. It turns out that all of them dumped their charisma and wisdom and no-one in the party took any preventive measures (items, scrying to know what they were up against, etc.).

Nobody can be strong in every defense and every choice has an opportunity cost in feats not taken and and items not purchased. However what you can do is build a party of diversified strengths and weaknesses. Some characters can focus on will defense while others focus on fortitude or reflex. Some characters can have access to weapons that are particularly effective against undead while others focus on powers that effect creatures with minds. Each characters can purchase defensive items/potions to deal with particular threats. That way two things happen: 1. your entire party is not rendered totally useless when they meet an enemy they aren't specialists in. 2. those characters that can resist the stuns or domination or whatever gets thrown at them can help their allies shake off the effects (heal checks, items, powers, evacuation, etc.).

D&D is a cooperative game(especially in 4e) and diversity of strengths makes for a safer adventuring experience. Over-specialization at the group level can be deadly

 

[Mengu]

Yes if you're playing an actual campaign, balance is paramount. Throughout my character's career, I try to make sure I spread my abilities around offense, defense, and utility.

I might start a human fighter with a superior weapon and toughness, then grab warrior of the wild for perception and some offense, then pickup plate proficiency, etc.

Playing an elf ranger with greatbow, weapon focus, lethal hunter, weapon expertise, brutal accuracy, predatory action, etc. is well and good, and I might even consider it for a delve, but not for a campaign. Being a good adventurer almost requires some multidimensionality.

And I'll agree that group diversity is also expected for a successful adventuring party, though I don't mean this in the sense that you must have all the roles covered. Just don't play a party of 5 battleragers.

 

[Danceofmasks]

But ... a party of 5 drow is made of awesome.
Gonna actually try to assemble a team of drow in LFR.

 

[Skallgrim]

While I agree, the OP in the thread described was complaining that every member of his party was easily hit. It turns out that all of them dumped their charisma and wisdom and no-one in the party took any preventive measures (items, scrying to know what they were up against, etc.).

Nobody can be strong in every defense and every choice has an opportunity cost in feats not taken and and items not purchased. However what you can do is build a party of diversified strengths and weaknesses. Some characters can focus on will defense while others focus on fortitude or reflex. Some characters can have access to weapons that are particularly effective against undead while others focus on powers that effect creatures with minds. Each characters can purchase defensive items/potions to deal with particular threats. That way two things happen: 1. your entire party is not rendered totally useless when they meet an enemy they aren't specialists in. 2. those characters that can resist the stuns or domination or whatever gets thrown at them can help their allies shake off the effects (heal checks, items, powers, evacuation, etc.).

Totally good point. Our group somehow learned it in play. Our fighter's got the Fort defense locked down, the Rogue has Reflex, and the Cleric's got Will. The Ranger has no defense as the highest, but also isn't the lowest anywhere. The wizard, being a staff wizard (with Shield) can easily pump any one of them to be the best against any single attack.

The fun thing for the DM is that this means that different enemies pick on different characters. The Cleric gets a LOT of reflex attacks (his lowest defense, which makes sense, being a guy lumbering around in chain and shield). The fighter gets a lot of Will attacks. The Rogue gets a lot of Fortitude attacks, being a wispy little halfling. It makes the game seem more "real" that knowing what a monster does means you know who it's gonna target. "Oh, no! An enchanter! Clobber him while the fighter goes after his minions."

 

[Mengu]

But ... a party of 5 drow is made of awesome.
Gonna actually try to assemble a team of drow in LFR.

Theme parties are all right I think. Drow Paladin, Drow Rogue, Drow Warlock, Drow Sorcerer, Drow Bard could make a pretty interesting group. On second thought, Drow Barbarian might be an interesting addition to the group as well.

You could have a stealth party consisting of eladrin swordmage, halfling rogue, elf ranger, shifter avenger, tiefling warlord (with ranger multiclass for stealth).

There can still be plenty of diversity in a theme party.

 

[Doctor Proctor]

The fun thing for the DM is that this means that different enemies pick on different characters. The Cleric gets a LOT of reflex attacks (his lowest defense, which makes sense, being a guy lumbering around in chain and shield). The fighter gets a lot of Will attacks. The Rogue gets a lot of Fortitude attacks, being a wispy little halfling. It makes the game seem more "real" that knowing what a monster does means you know who it's gonna target. "Oh, no! An enchanter! Clobber him while the fighter goes after his minions."

This is why I don't get those DM's who complain about one character being too powerful, then someone responds and says "attack their weak defense", only to have the DM say he shouldn't have to tool encounters to counter specific characters. It's ridiculous. Your DM is doing it right in that you encounter enemies that play to different to character's weaknesses. Sometimes it will be a Will user and he'll go after the Fighter, other times it will some Reflex targeting Skirmishers or Artillery going after the Cleric.

The important thing is that you rotate them so that every character has a chance to shine, and a chance to get their butt kicked. If you run every encounter exactly the same without regard to how the PC's are set up it will get boring because you'll almost end up with someone who is going to better equipped to handle that encounter type (which effectively means EVERY encounter) better than the others.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

Valid points all. There were indeed a few reasonable responses in that thread, as well as the ones that set me off.

But my rant was triggered by a specific instance of a common, general pattern that I have been observing ever since 4e came out. (I don't really remember it happening in Ye Olde Dayse of 3e.)

Although my post count is low, I have been a lurker for a long time, and actually posted quite a lot under the name "Elseth Arnelian" back in 1999-2001. I have high esteem for the enthusiasts who gather in these sites, especially here at ENWorld, and simply wish to see high quality comments continue to dominate the board.

Thank you, responders above, for your thoughtful comments.