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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mkill" data-source="post: 5091775" data-attributes="member: 55985"><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/271985-char-op-box-3.html" target="_blank">http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/271985-char-op-box-3.html</a>This 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.</blockquote>

Verification