Char-op Box

[Nifft]

I feel there is a mentality among many 4e players (and of many RPG players in general) that if you build a character without the list in the OP as a guide (or various other lists of important things you must do when making a character), you are not making a "good" character".

Your list is irrelevant, because the order in which you consider various things is irrelevant.

The only thing that will make a "good character" is: you need to think about how your choices will work.

The question I am trying to pose is this: Do you believe 4e in paticular is an rpg where optimization is mechanically (hitting ac of recommended-level monsters a reasonable % of the time) necessary to a point that they support this mentality? Or do you believe that the idea that a non-optimized character is "not good" is entirely community originated?

All games require thinking.

All games feature choices, and some choices are better than others.

4e has drastically cut down the space for optimization. It's also tightened up the math such that -- unless you're trying to fail -- you can pretty much do the obvious thing with your ability scores, and come out okay. (When I say "the obvious thing", what I mean is putting an 18 (post-racial) in your primary attack stat.)

Cheers, -- N

 

[Mad Hamish]

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.

1 & 2 are a possible approach but far from the only one.
Dwarven Fighters are very popular for example.

3) Many classes are better served by a different spread of abilities.
Archer Rangers, Rogues and Wizards are the most likely (certainly of the PHB1 classes) to have an unadjusted 18 stat.
It also impacts pretty heavily on what feats you can get later in a lot of areas
4) heavily campaign dependent as to what feats are worthwhile.
If you're a hack and slash campaign then combat feats rule strongly.
Expertise is probably the best feat in the game for increasing combat effectiveness though.

 

[Flipguarder]

Wow, ok lets see if I can't fix this thread.

The specifics on what you actually need to do to make a "good character" is irrelevant to the topic I'm attempting to discuss.

I'm trying to ask enworld posters if they think the very idea of there being specific things you need to do to make a "good character" is something mechanically required due to the game by design, or if it is entirely originating from the community.

I'm not really interested in discussing the specifics of it, but more about the mentality in general.

 

[Saeviomagy]

okay so I've let this topic stew for a while, now I'll attempt to clarify parts of my post that seem to confuse people.

I feel there is a mentality among many 4e players (and of many RPG players in general) that if you build a character without the list in the OP as a guide (or various other lists of important things you must do when making a character), you are not making a "good" character".

The question I am trying to pose is this: Do you believe 4e in paticular is an rpg where optimization is mechanically (hitting ac of recommended-level monsters a reasonable % of the time) necessary to a point that they support this mentality? Or do you believe that the idea that a non-optimized character is "not good" is entirely community originated?

Define non-optimized. If you're talking about fighters with 8 str who choose two-weapon fighting style while wielding a one-hander and nothing else, and who spend all their feat picks to power swap to strength-based paladin abilities, then yeah: your character is not good, and it may prove impossible for a DM to change encounters such that he plays any part without making the game silly for the other players.

And I think that, in the end, that's the real qualifier for a 'bad' character: if the DM has to make allowances that worsen the play of the game, you've made a bad character. Unfortunately D&D is MORE likely to experience this happening off of one end or the other of the spectrum than other games, purely because of the silly idea that you can take a group of random individuals and their characters and have them play a good game together.

If you want to do that, then by necessity you have to limit the character design space, and you would have to do so far, far more in most games than you do in D&D.

 

[DracoSuave]

The more I consider it, the more I think having certain feats that are 'optimization-friendly' is a good thing.

By that, I mean feats that are like weapon focus, implement expertise, et-al, that are non-build specific. Any character can use these feats, and be effective at what they want to do.

Making effectiveness accessible for any character concept, even 'sub-optimal' ones, is a good thing, as you always have an option to make 'sub-optimal' characters.

Fact is, optimization will exist in power-fantasy games like D&D no matter what the system does. The system could use d20s, d10s, d6s, coin flips, what have you, but because the -tone- of the game is power fantasy, it will appeal to those who want fantasies about moar power.

So, can you optimise? Yes. BUT...

...it's not hard, so what's the point of doing it as a thought exercise? Optimization in 4e is better served on niche builds.

 

[Nytmare]

If you're talking about fighters with 8 str who choose two-weapon fighting style while wielding a one-hander and nothing else, and who spend all their feat picks to power swap to strength-based paladin abilities, then yeah:

...

Unfortunately D&D is MORE likely to experience this happening off of one end or the other of the spectrum than other games, purely because of the silly idea that you can take a group of random individuals and their characters and have them play a good game together.

Is it even possible for someone to decide to do that who isn't purposefully trying to make some kind of point that they can break the system in the other direction?

I don't see that as being a realistic threat in 4E, and if it's a real problem, I'd assume that it's the players who are doing that, and not the system.

 

[mkill]

http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/271985-char-op-box-3.htmlThis whole thread is based on an old fallacy. Let me explain from the beginning.

RPGs have a number of game elements which are orthogonal to each other, mathematically speaking. In other words, these are all elements of the game, but in any given group they will be more or less present at the table.

One of these elements is the "game" aspect. The DM proposes a set of challenges (win the fight, get the treasure, free the kingdom) that the PCs try to achieve. To optimize a character for this aspect, you do mechanical optimization.

Another aspect is "acting". The players create a new personality and act it out. You are no longer Peter the second year college student but Lysander the mighty elf wizard. To optimize a character for this aspect, you give him a detailed background, some NPCs he can interact with, a unique personality and quirks, i.e. you make him/her "interesting".

Now, imagine a chart, with "game" on the X axis and "acting" on the Y axis. Any given player could be anywhere on the chart. Some are very interested in the game aspect but don't like to act out their characters much. Some like to act out their characters but don't care so much about the challenges. Some like both a lot, others don't care about either so much and just hang around for the entertainment and the pizza. The only important part is that all players are somewhere near each other on the chart, otherwise you have a lot of friction within the group and with the GM.

Now, as I said, both elements are orthogonal. You can have a bad-ass optimized feycharger swordmage or critfisher avenger or stormwarden or whatever rocks your boat, and still give him a unique personality and an interesting backstory. In the same way, you can have an unorganized mess with a 12 main attack stat and gobbled together powers and feats, without any personality and who never says a word at the table.

4th edition is pretty solid in that regard, as most iconic fantasy concepts also work well mechanically (elf ranger, dwarf fighter, eladrin wizard...). There are a few duds (half-elf ranger) but most concepts that you aim for for story reasons can be made reasonably powerful for the game part. In the absolute worst case, you'll have do to without bonuses to your main attack stat and secondary stat and a useless racial power. However, I've seen such characters in play (eladrin fighter, dragonborn invoker) and they were able to contribute without any problm. The maximum power difference between an optimized synergistic concept and an optimized non-synergistic concept is maybe 10%. With some crazy char-op build that abuses developer mistakes before the errata comes in you can probably eke out another 10%.

In 4th edition, tactical skill on the player side is much more important than the perfect build anyway. And tactical skill is mostly possessed by experienced players, players who will also have the experience to make an interesting character on the acting part.

The fallacy is the idea that "character optimization" (game) and "interesting character" (acting) are reciprocal, that if you have one the other suffers. Some people even go so far to suggest that you have to gimp your character (reduce the game) to make him interesting (increase the acting). That is just not true. "Interesting" and "Mechanically powerful" are two independent measures of a PC, and they can be both high, both low, or one high and one low.

 

[Flipguarder]

The fallacy is the idea that "character optimization" (game) and "interesting character" (acting) are reciprocal, that if you have one the other suffers. Some people even go so far to suggest that you have to gimp your character (reduce the game) to make him interesting (increase the acting). That is just not true. "Interesting" and "Mechanically powerful" are two independent measures of a PC, and they can be both high, both low, or one high and one low.

You almost understand my topic. I want to talk about this fallacy and whether or not WotC encourages it, or is it completely from the community and specifically powergamers.

 

[DracoSuave]

Exactly.

While I don't buy into the philosophy that you MUST go for optimal class/races, I also know that 'gimping' yourself unnecessarily is not always 'good roleplay.'


In fact, in a game like D&D, it often indicates a disconnect with the tone of the system... like the character who creates the fireball-slinging paradox-magnet in Mage: The Ascension.

One should always strive to be the best example of that character they can be... unless 'incompetant' is your character concept, one should not make their scores reflect incompetancy.

 

[Roger]

Do you believe 4e in paticular is an rpg where optimization is mechanically (hitting ac of recommended-level monsters a reasonable % of the time) necessary to a point that they support this mentality?

No.

Do you believe that the idea that a non-optimized character is "not good" is entirely community originated?

No.


Hope that's helpful.



Cheers,
Roger