Balanced & Optimised or Not?

[Jhaelen]

I would never, as either a DM or a player, try to "enforce" any sort of balance among the roles. Ever. I'll make them aware that they're potentially impeding themselves, to make sure they're okay with it, but that's it.

4E is not so fragile that it's going to fall apart if the group isn't perfectly composed. Yes, they'll probably have some troubles that a "proper" group wouldn't, but that's their decision. As the DM, I'll tweak some of the encounters to account for the group's composition, since that's obviously what people wanted to play. I won't cater to it completely, but I'll keep it in mind.

And if it still turns out to be an issue? It's a self-correcting problem. If the party is too weak to function, eventually one or more characters will die and be replaced by someone more effective. But until/unless that happens, so be it.

Wow, I was going to write a reply but Mouseferatu perfectly expresses my stance on this issue! This is exactly the way I'm doing it

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

When I started running KotS with a new group, I made it clear that this was a generic adventure written by someone else with the expectation that the group would cover all four roles. Happily, I also have seven players (of which I normally get 5 or 6 playing in any one session) and so far it's working well.

However, in my other game we've got a wizard, a ranger, a warlock and my cleric. Possibly also a Paladin, but I don't know if she'll turn up. Could be an interesting game - I hope we don't run into too many soliders as I know I'll have a hard time dealing with them!

 

[fba827]

I say, let people play what they want. heck, for most of the campaigns I DM for, I don't encourage (though it happens) for the players to tell each other what they're planning.

Do I make accomodations in strength of encounters? No, so no going easy on a party if they are without a healer type.
Do I switch around the types of encounters? Yes (more minions if several area attack PCs, more high HP enemies if lots of high-damage-dealers, etc)

1) As a player, it's no fun if you have to play something you didn't want to
2) As a DM and as a player, it's interesting to see the variety of tatics that different party compositions will have, rather than always having the tank who always stands in the front, the cleric that's always behind him, and so on -- all campaigns would start to blur as the same with consistantly similar tactics.

Of course, all this is just my own opinion based on my own experiences.

 

[Runestar]

In 3e, I admit to having promoted optimization indirectly by running tough encounters which only "properly-built PCs" have a chance of overcoming, in a bid to weed out the cream from the crap. Not yet run enough 4e games for this issue to surface.

How would you account for power disparity in the party then? If some PCs optimize while the rest don't, you get cases of some players being stronger than than the others. So it would be hard to design proper encounters, since any foe strong enough to challenge the optimized PCs would be too tough for the unoptimized PCs, and vice versa. It wouldn't really be fun either way.

Is it the fault of the optimizers for outshining the non-optimizers, or the fault of the latter for dragging down the optimizers and robbing them of their opportunity to shine?

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

In 3e, I admit to having promoted optimization indirectly by running tough encounters which only "properly-built PCs" have a chance of overcoming, in a bid to weed out the cream from the crap. Not yet run enough 4e games for this issue to surface.

How would you account for power disparity in the party then? If some PCs optimize while the rest don't, you get cases of some players being stronger than than the others. So it would be hard to design proper encounters, since any foe strong enough to challenge the optimized PCs would be too tough for the unoptimized PCs, and vice versa. It wouldn't really be fun either way.

Is it the fault of the optimizers for outshining the non-optimizers, or the fault of the latter for dragging down the optimizers and robbing them of their opportunity to shine?

At this point in the release schedule, there's not especially much of a difference between optimized and nonoptimized characters. Maybe two points either way.

The thing I demand is at least minimal competence. There's a difference between optimizing and being competent, and some people I know don't realize that exists.

Brad

 

[tombowings]

Well, the thing about optimization is, you have to be optimized for something. If you're optimized to deal damage, odds are you'll be lacking in something else. If your worried a PC , or set of PCs, has overoptimized beyond of the rest of the group, throw different situations at the party so that everyone has a chance to shine. If a PC is optimized for damage and outshines the rest of the party, throw in more minions.

 

[Danceofmasks]

In 3e, I dealt with it with by simply ignoring party when world building.
Party is sub-optimal and got TPKed?
That's just what happens when you take on more than you can handle.
Of course, that kind of approach doesn't really work if the plot is linear.

4e is a little trickier, as the system assumes PCs are the center of the universe (or whatever equivalent), and mechanics revolve around them.
*shrug*
I have no qualms killing PCs off even if they're optimal (and failed to do their homework) and decides to take on the green dragon on its home turf.
After all, it shouldn't be overly difficult to learn that Luring Glare + cliffs = TPK.

 

[Runestar]

Well, the thing about optimization is, you have to be optimized for something. If you're optimized to deal damage, odds are you'll be lacking in something else. If your worried a PC , or set of PCs, has overoptimized beyond of the rest of the group, throw different situations at the party so that everyone has a chance to shine. If a PC is optimized for damage and outshines the rest of the party, throw in more minions.

Depends on what you are comparing the optimized PC to, IMO. If it is relative to another optimized PC, then yeah, by definition, the former being good at something would have to come at the expense of being weaker at another aspect, all other things equal.

If it is compared to an unoptimized PC, then it is not impossible for the op'ed PC to be superior (or at least not inferior) to the latter in every aspect. So in the very least, he is not more disadvantaged even if you play to his supposed 'weaknes'.

 

[Skyscraper]

I believe there are many types of D&D games. Players and DM should set their expectations for the game. If the DM wants to run the players through a hack-n-slash slugfest, and the players have rolled 3d6/no reroll for each ability and include a party of 4 dagger-wielding fighters, then yeah there may be a problem. If everyone agrees on the type of game they like playing, the PCs will probably be aligned with the adventure requirements.

Sky