Balanced Character vs Glass House

[exile]

In 4E, is it better (mechanically) to play a character who is very much focused on doing one thing well, or is it better to have a balanced character who can do multiple things, but none of them expertly?

I ask because I have an elven rogue who is extremely adept at dealing damage (and quite good at moving across the battlefield as well). She has maxed out her DEX and has a decent STR. I have had a great time playing her from level 1-4. That said, I have heard such characters called "glass houses" when compared to more balanced characters. True, I have noticed that she does get knocked out fairly easily, a problem that I have recently tried to remedy by taking the toughness feat (with plans to pick up durability pretty soon). Is there much truth to the "glass house" comment? Does the problem become worse at higher levels?

In contrast, I also have a human cleric of Amauntator. While technically a "battle cleric", her strength (16) is not much better than her wisdom, which is not much better than her charisma. It seems that she has a terrible time hitting things in melee, and even worse luck using her non-STR based powers. As a so-called balanced character, will she get any better at doing things (anything) as she progresses in level or will her incapacities only become more evident?

If it helps your frame of reference in answering these questions, both of these are Living Forgotten Realms characters, the rogue being my primary, and the cleric my first alt.

Chad

 

[fba827]

It partially depends on how many and what types of other characters in the group.
You can be great at dealing damage and mobility, but if you're only one of a few other characters in the group, or if you don't have any defenders to lock down an opponent (so that it doesn't come after you) then you will never get to live long enough to do your fancy moves.

In my 4e experiences with my group so far, we do tend to have specialized PCs and it's worked fine when we're all there. However, as soon as player's don't show up for a session we start getting killed off _very_ easily because we lose the balance and our extreme specialization makes us lack in being able to pick up the noticable slack.

Having a 16vs 18 in a particular stat is the difference of +1 in modifier. It's only a 5% increase, but if it is your primary stat it does get used a lot more than a secondary stat. I've heard (but have no personal experience) that the Living campaigns tend to harsh and expect strong primary stats.

As you gain level, the difference really won't be any more noticable than it is now (it doesn't exponentially increase - it's just a constant difference).


standard disclaimer: all this based on my own experiences and opinions, yada yada yada. your mileage may vary.

 

[77IM]

I think the term you are looking for is "glass canon," not "glass house." It means you have strong offense but weak defense.

There's nothing wrong with being a one-trick pony, if it's a trick you really enjoy. Because of the way skills work in 4e, you will at least have a mediocre chance of succeeding in other areas. However, it does help to have more varied stats. For example, if you were a Charisma rogue instead of a Strength rogue, you could be good at a social skill or two. IMHO, Skill Training is one of the best feats at Heroic tier and remains useful at upper levels.

Trying to play a "balanced" character (like your cleric) is tougher, because missing a lot sucks. My suggestion to everyone is to get your primary attack stat as high as you can stand -- 18 if possible, 16 at minimum -- and then decide whether to apply your other stats in a "balanced" or "focussed" manner. E.g., I would try to get your cleric's Strength up to 18, and then decide whether to invest in Wisdom (for some ranged attacks) or Charisma (for better secondary effects) or some of everything (to be well-rounded).

-- 77IM

 

[Rechan]

Trying to straddle two different builds is a bad, bad idea. When you try to do it all, you excel at none of it. Not to mention that when you do that, you are splitting resources (A Battle cleric/Devoted cleric need equal magical item and implement, so the attack scores are competitive. Same with a Charisma paladin).

A "More well rounded" character would be a multi-classed character whose secondary class compliments their existing build. I.e. a Warlord with high Int going into Wizard or Swordmage, a Feylock MCing into Bard, etc. The "Well balanced" part comes from the character having more situational options.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I pretty much subscribe to the idea that "well-rounded" characters should only play in a party with other "well-rounded" characters. Because if they play in a group made up with quite a few "one-trick-ponies"... they will always seem to come up short in comparision to those characters (especially with regards to combat).

Now if your DM and game is such that skill checks and skill challenges make up just as much of the game as combat does... and thus having multiple ability scores raising 2/3rds of your skills to higher-than-normal levels... perhaps it might be worth it. However, it sounds like on these boards that those kinds of games tends to be few and far between.

As a result, there will always be a one-trick-pony outshining you in some form or fashion in the game. And that is not fun at all. Thus my recommendation would be to get your primary stat to at least 18 to start. Being only 1 point behind the one-trick-pony is much better than being behind 2.

*********

I've actually thought about setting a game up where the maximum score a player could start with in any ability score was 16 (including the racial bonuses). By doing this... every class could match up with every race and certain combos wouldn't have to blow all their point-buy points on an 18 straight away (for those combos that don't grant the +2 racial bonus to the primary stat of the class). You'd have everybody with well-rounded characters, because you wouldn't be able to blow all your points on just one or two stats... you'd pretty much have to spread them around.

It'd keep everyone on more equal footing, and would also keep a tighter rein on power creep (especially when the magical weapons and implements came into play).

Haven't tried it yet, but it's certainly something I'm thinking about.

 

[nittanytbone]

I'm not sure how spreading out your stat array would boost defenses at all. Your high DEX contributes to AC and REF. Your STR contributes to FORT. The only weak point is WILL, and most characters will have at least one weak defense.

CON would give you a few extra HP and surges.

As has been pointed out, a MC can give extra versatility. For example, with a lot of STR, a Fighter multiclass might be viable. With the DEX, Ranger would also make sense.

If you find yourself short on HP, don't discount Toughness. Durability will extend your adventuring day. Most helpful of all will be sticking closer to your defender so that you can benefit from their mark; even if enemies defy the mark, you'll get +2 to your defenses.

 

[Nail]

In 4E, is it better (mechanically) to play a character who is very much focused on doing one thing well, or is it better to have a balanced character who can do multiple things, but none of them expertly?

IME, it's better to be "focused", rather than "balanced".

...because usually "balanced" doesn't mean what you think it means. It typically means you're trying to cover too many bases.

In the case of your cleric, much depends on how your powers stack up against your stats. You say you're a "battle cleric"; does that mean you took the 2 Str-based At-Wills? Righteous Brand is one of the best At-Wills in the game (so far), but the other one (Priest's Shield) is awful. Yet Sacred Flame (the other excellent cleric At-Will IME) needs Wis + an implement. How low is your Wis? Do you have a magic weapon and a magic implement? Etc.

And did you try to cover Chr too? Trying to get 3 good stats (with Method 2: Point Buy) is a poor choice, and leads to sup-par - rather than "balanced" - characters.

Think of PC building like this: You're in a race. You don't "win" this race, but it's always best to be ahead of the pack. Having two different racing shoes doesn't make you run faster.

 

[Nail]

If you find yourself short on HP, don't discount Toughness.

This may surprise you as much as it surprised me: Toughness is The Best feat out there for front-line PCs. Bar none.

(In 3.xe, this was the opposite.)

 

[DracoSuave]

Depends what you need Charisma for....

If it's for healing hitpoints, Wisdom is a much better stat than Charisma, even for Charisma-based healing powers. Charisma will only better the healing powers that say so, Wisdom affects -all- of them.

 

[Runestar]

Assuming all players always show up for every game, won't it be better to specialize? For example, when attempting a skill challenge, you don't really need 2 PCs each with a perception score of +15; you are typically better off with a single PC that has a perception score of +20.

So it seems that for skill challenges at least, the party seems better off by allocating a set of skills for each player to max. For instance, the party cleric focuses perception since he would possess a comparative advantage in that area, given his incentive to pump wisdom. And because he can and will automatically succeed on any passive perception check, plus no one else can hope to beat his perception score, no other PC need bother with said skill.