Char-op Box

[Flipguarder]

This may be a volatile topic but I believe it warrants discussion.

I've heard a lot of people I know explaining that they think the ONLY reasonable way to build a character follows this suit.

1. Find a race you want to play.
2. Find a class which has its secondary and primary stats line up with your races bonuses.
3. Ability scores at 1st level should be something like: 20, 16, 11, 10, 10, 8
3. If you are a weapon class, take weapon prof first.
4. Take expertise and "necessary" feats like painful oath before any skill or RP related feats.

This limits the amount of character choices substantially, and eliminates a lot of RP options for those who want them.

Now my question is this. Is this something that has been created by the community in its "optimization furor" (this is my personal opinion). Or is it a product of WOTC and thus a design flaw.

 

[surfarcher]

Not sure about the "forced match" between races and classes. Doesn't point buy make that a non-issue?

 

[Turtlejay]

I don't think this is 100% the case, but it may be really common among the more avid fans. Since they are the ones most likely to frequent message boards about D&D, it may *appear* to be more prevalent than it really is. In my game, we have every character with a race class combo that makes a lot of sense (Genasi/Swordmage, Elf/Ranger, Elf/Cleric, Kobold/Assassin, Gnome/Wizard|Warlock). That does not mean that every other aspect of their character is 100% optimized though. The Ranger, for example, did not take the feat that turns his quarry from d6 to d8 till 6th level or so. I always thought that was a 1st or 2nd level mandatory for OP rangers.

It helps if your DM works with you, too. Ours has banned Expertise feats, but works with the encounters to make sure they are not needed. Lessen the burden of hyperengineering characters and allow them to build what is fun (my character took skill focus at 2nd level, is that OP?).

Jay

 

[babinro]

In my case, Role play comes from the character I'm building...rather than building a character around a role play concept.

I typically build characters by choosing class, then paragon path, then class features, then race, then feats, then skill points to best suit my desired feat progression. Finally powers.

Example: I've wanted to play a Fighter. I figure I'd end up going STR and CON since that seems to be the most predominant type. However, after review or paragon paths I caught sight of Pit Fighter. The Pit Fighter add Wisdom to its attack rolls. Upon review of feats, it started to make sense that this should be a shield bearer. As such, I focused my race on STR/WIS/dex. I ended up going Half-Orc Flail wielder which supports my primary and tertiary stats.

I could have gone with a Shifter to optimize primary and secondary roles, but the half-orc race seemed to better suit what I was building for a sense of RP based on prior decisions made.

Wizards definitely designed the races to focus on certain classes. I consider it a design flaw of sorts. The positive being that this sort of design ensures a large variety in races being played in 4E as a whole. The negative being that I could never see myself taking Gnome, or Eladrin, Half-elf, Halfling etc for the above fighter build due to the current design.

Though I've never implemented it, I like the house rule of using one of the two Ability boost options per race as a mandatory, and allowing anything else as its secondary. Thus opening up a lot more options to the players to choose from without sacrificing their vision of 'optimization'.

 

[Nytmare]

The thing that bothers me most about character optimization in 4th Edition is that with this game, more than any other edition of D&D I've ever played, the DM is encouraged to challenge the players more than just beat the crap out of them.

I've never had the kind of control that I have now when building encounters. Matching the power level of the players against a bunch of baddies is a lot easier than I've ever found it before.

If the focus on building a party, or a character is "ride the jagged edge and make the characters as powerful as we possibly can, so that a challenging encounter is way at the upper bounds of what we're supposed to be able to handle", then fine. But if you don't make that party of characters, the DM has absolutely no reason to build those encounters.

Saying that you there's ONLY one character build that you HAVE to play to be able to play the game well is completely ignoring the fact that the DM is going to just adjust the window of what he's going to throw at you to match what that character finds challenging.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

From what I have seen, it is the players who create characters with race+class combinations that are rich with roleplaying potential but poorly matched for ability scores who possess a large collection of strangely unlucky dice.

Quelle coincidence.

 

[DracoSuave]

The thing that bothers me most about character optimization in 4th Edition is that with this game, more than any other edition of D&D I've ever played, the DM is encouraged to challenge the players more than just beat the crap out of them.

One thing to address with this post.


In fourth edition, optimization isn't as much of an 'I win' button as it was in 3rd.

If you optimized in 4th, your character doesn't get as much enhanced performance as he would if he optimized in 3rd.

This means that taking a 'gimp' combination isn't as bad... in fact... power op usually involves taking a few general feats and you're good to go, the 'gimp' combination is quite viable and capable of taking on the challenges the game brings. It isn't WoW Raiding you're doing here, so the power-level difference isn't really much of a difference, so long as everyone is having fun.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

In my case, Role play comes from the character I'm building...rather than building a character around a role play concept.

In real life it can go either way.

In the case of Deion Sanders, phenomenal talent (high ability scores) led to his career in the NFL and a certain amount of arrogance and flamboyance. In the case of Spud Webb, an incredible amount of drive and persistence (roleplaying) led to his career in the NBA.

(It's just an analogy. Reductio ad absurdum arguments need not apply.)

 

[fba827]

well also keep in mind that in a discussion on a message board, people would be asking for opinions on crunch.

If a player has a concept in his head, he's more likley to roll it out on his own and not want/need to seek out assistance as to how it can be min/maxed. Thus, the traffic of conversation regarding PC builds is more likely to be related to "min/maxed" choices (i.e. which is better, this power or that) rather than the silent players who don't need to ask others what would fit their concept.


(Personally, I am the sort that starts with a bunch of concepts that i want to play, then i narrow it down, then if there is a tie, i'll see what would work in best synergy with the others in the party. i readily admit (as is evident to those who play with me) that my PCs are hardly ever "optimized" I wouldn't call them total losers either... they can at least do something. it's just not always a guarenteed hit unless i roll at least average, etc. - but that's just me).

Everyone's method works for them .. concept then stats, stats then concept, some mixture of the two, etc. I would hardly claim that one method is a 'default' method chosen by everyone/most people.

 

[Nifft]

Character Optimization in 4e is nothing like it was in 3e. Like Draco says, it's no longer a single-player "I win" button.

This is for two reasons:

1/ The smallest unit of battle in 3e (and earlier) was the PC. You could plan your dude in isolation, and you lived or died mostly on your own merits. In 4e, the smallest unit of battle is the party. You live and die based on party synergy, not on the strength of your PC's build in isolation.

2/ The optimization ceiling is a lot lower in 4e. In 3e, a spellcaster could literally win fights by himself. Initiative was huge, because a save-or-die battle could be over in the surprise round. 4e eliminated this in several ways, but the important upshot is that you can no longer build a dude who can win every fight by himself (this is only mostly true, as loopholes do still exist).

However, in trade for the lower optimization ceiling, the game seems to have a higher optimization floor. In the previous edition, you could have a sucky casting stat, but make up for it by casting spells which didn't allow a saving throw, like party buffs or battlefield control. Sure, you'd also have fewer spells per day, but you could make up for that with the Scribe Scroll feat and some cash.

4e doesn't allow that kind of trade-off. Everything is an attack: it's a nice unified mechanic, and it makes the DM's job a lot easier, but it means your PC can't avoid making attacks -- if you can't buff your allies without also hitting, you can't compensate for being bad at hitting by buffing your allies.

So: you no longer have the "freedom" to break the game, but you also no longer have the "freedom" to suck at your chosen class.

- - -

In contrast, because of these changes, optimization is no longer a spotlight-hog's tactic. I can -- and do -- play a Cleric who is as ZOMG TEH BORKENZ as he can be, but only in so far as he pushes the rest of the party's expected damage through the roof.

In past editions, the "optimal" tactic was usually to buff yourself and then out-fighter the Fighter -- in 4e, the "optimal" tactic is teamwork: help the party focus fire, keep them healed so they don't waste actions healing themselves, and attract OAs from foes whom your allies have marked.

- - -

Finally, there are some great characters who don't have an 18 (post-racial) in their primary attack stat. They are the exception to the rule -- and they are the minority -- but they do exist. The 16/16/16 Dwarf Fighter is a good example.

Cheers, -- N