Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="eamon" data-source="post: 5090933" data-attributes="member: 51942">A DM can fix most any imbalance 4e throws at him.  I don't think that's an excuse for the system to encourage trade-offs between power and roleplay.  Aligning a class's primary stats to racial bonuses matters, just as expertise does and buying a high primary stat.  If half of the party does these things and the other half does not (and we're not talking super-OMG-te-brokzors optimization here, this is simple stuff), then the "optimizing" half will noticeably outshine the non-optimizing half.And many DM's will choose to use premade adventures with little to no rebalancing; or may DM at a living X campaign and will not compensate for optimization much.  Others might not compensate much by choice - it is, after all, not unreasonable to let the players reap the fruits of their labors.  Others may rebalance but choose to award XP+treasure strictly according to the rules.I'm a staunch supporter of math-fixes to avoid this dilemma.  Optimization can be fun, and some amount of divergence between optimized and non-optimized characters is inevitable and even fun.  But false choices - where one option is strictly superior to the other, in terms of power - aren't a good thing, and there are too many too obviously in basic character building.Avoiding expertise and aligned stats frankly doesn't bring many advantages to the out-of-combat front; and when it comes to roleplaying, it's the player much more than the PC that matters anyhow - having a mere +1 or +2 to this skill rather than that isn't going to be a driving force here.I think the idea of granting a flexible bonuses to all races (requiring just one aligned bonus) is an interesting suggestion - though for races with some flexibility already, primarily human, you may want an alternate bonus, and there may be a few balance issues, so tread carefully.  Separately, I also think that at levels 4/8/14/etc. all stats should rise, that expertise etc. should be banned and finally that a blanket +1 bonus to attacks + non-AC defenses at levels 5/15/25 be instituted instead (which would avoid the most egregious non-choice feat+build options, and  almost balance attack/defense progression with those of monsters (even for non-typical character builds such as light-armor shamans without a dex/int primary or secondary stat), along with reducing other stat-related imbalances (as ability scores diverge over levels, all ability-dependent stats such as skills necessarily also become less balanced).The problem is real; blaming the community is an exercise in futility; the balance issues detract from 4e's strength in gameplay (being team-oriented combat) by diverting attention from team play individual optimization.The idea of a PC using some non-optimal combo is potentially cool, and the players that want to try these don't deserve the cold shower they get now.  If you've a character that doesn't play by the book, then, right now,  you're negatively impacting the team effort.</blockquote>

Verification