How Can You Politely Say, "Your Character Sucks?"
- Thread starter Kinneus
- Start date
Yeah, but look at the low grade human(oid) monsters in the MM:
random page - Hobgoblins:
Grunt (minion 3) STR 18
Warrior (minion 8) STR 19
Archer (Artillery 3) DEX 19
Soldier (Soldier 3) STR 19
Or the humans:
Rabble (minion 2) STR 14
Lackey (minion 7) STR 16
Bandit (Skirmisher 2) DEX 17
Guard (Soldier 3) STR 16 CON 15
Berserker (Brute 4) STR 17 CON 16
Mage (Artillery 4) INT 18 WIS 17
In 4e STR 14 is the typical STR of human rabble. If your Fighter has STR 14, that is *not* impressive. Hobgoblin Grunts are one of the weakest foes in the game, yet they have STR 18, and so on. The stat inflation is for everyone, not just PCs.
In fact, I think what WoTC has done is assume a very high baseline so that their number crunching can't be thrown off by outrageous stats. If they assume you have an 18 Prime, then you having the maximum of 20 won't make a huge difference.
Nifft
Penguin Herder
18 isn't the minimum, it's more the expected. It's your default setting. If you don't want to optimize your character, just put an 18 (post-racial) in your primary attack stat, and the rest is gravy.
If you do want to optimize -- and that includes putting a 16 (post-racial) in your primary attack stat, in order to boost some other stat -- then you can go right ahead. Putting a 20 (post-racial) in your primary attack stat is another route, but that's often sub-optimal too, because most PCs need a secondary stat or two.
4e may not be for you. That's okay. Playing other games remains legal.
4e is a much "tighter" game. The designers assume you'll do the obvious optimization, and in return they have eliminated the less obvious optimizations which broke the game in previous editions. For example, it's no longer possible for a Cleric to be a strictly better Fighter than the Fighter.
It's a trade-off, restricting some choices in favor of balancing all classes against each other. They succeeded admirably, by the way. Fighters and Barbarians and melee-based Clerics are all fun, and nobody gets overshadowed at high level.
Cheers, -- N
ExploderWizard
Hero
Unless someone does something completely insane like having only a +2 bonus to an attack stat. At that point you not only get overshadowed, but belittled and told that you suck.
The best part is that you don't have to wait for high levels. You can get heaps of abuse from level one. More fun than one could hope for I suppose.
Personally I don't quite like it when the options I have left is hoping for a lenient DM. I feel much more in control and in character if I know I can rely on my characters abilities.
That said, I really love it when I have an idea that might be a bit improbably and certainly not what the DM planned, and the DM goes along, sets a reasonable difficulty and we get going*. It's the core of ROLEplaying as opposed to ROLLplaying or computer RPG's.
*I want a real chance of failure - and success. If I am playing to my characters strength I want a higher chance of success.
Vartan
First Post
Personally I don't quite like it when the options I have left is hoping for a lenient DM. I feel much more in control and in character if I know I can rely on my characters abilities.
That said, I really love it when I have an idea that might be a bit improbably and certainly not what the DM planned, and the DM goes along, sets a reasonable difficulty and we get going*. It's the core of ROLEplaying as opposed to ROLLplaying or computer RPG's.
*I want a real chance of failure - and success. If I am playing to my characters strength I want a higher chance of success.
I agree, and that's why I "min/max" when I play and encourage my players to do so when I DM, but I think some of the previous arguments in this thread assume that min/max-ing is an "all or nothing" exercise.
There is a spectrum of min/max-ing that ranges from "I want my character to be good at what he most often does" to "I want my character to be as good as he can possibly be at what he most often does." If you want to go far along that spectrum then the Character Optimization forums and wiki at WotC's website can obviate the need for most chargen choices: some 4E classes have been "solved," their options have been so thoroughly vetted by the community that you can make a maximally effective (from a mechanical standpoint) character of any level without making too many choices. I prefer to use these resources as "cheat sheets," but I'll put my own spin on the character (even if that involves taking a few "black" powers or feats).
There is also a spectrum of "non-min/max-ing" that ranges from "I don't know how to make my character effective at what he most often does" to "I don't care if my character is especially effective at what he most often does." Everybody will make their share of regrettable choices during chargen, and can learn from them. On the far end of the spectrum, I have a lot of respect for someone who wants to take a crack at playing a fighter with average strength or a wizard with average intelligence: it isn't my cup of tea, but the challenge of role-playing a character who isn't perfect (and has to compensate in other areas to stay alive) has a lot of fun potential for someone who wants to try it. I've DM-ed for a few players like this: they never ruined anyone's fun and their exploits were often memorable because of their statistical "handicap." I don't have the patience for this play style but that doesn't mean it's Badwrongfun.
Lastly, to repeat the refrain of previous posters (including myself), unless you're playing in a way that is disruptive to the game the choices you make for your PC are your's and your's alone. If the game truly hinges on something like minimum attributes then the DM and group should bake that in to their group's "contract" before the first die is even rolled.
Starfox
Hero
The problem is that ability scores have very little meaning or relation to anything in 4E. They are functions of class/role and tell you nothing about the character.
I used a Water Archon Waveshaper in my game today. This is a level 16 Controller, an elemental. Archons are the footsoldiers of the primordials in their war against the gods; they have very rudimentary personalities. Guess what; it has excellent mental attributes:
Wis 25 (+15)
Int 15 (+10)
Cha 17 (+11)
As a comparison, the party's lvl 20 rogue has an Int of 9.
I used a Water Archon Waveshaper in my game today. This is a level 16 Controller, an elemental. Archons are the footsoldiers of the primordials in their war against the gods; they have very rudimentary personalities. Guess what; it has excellent mental attributes:
Wis 25 (+15)
Int 15 (+10)
Cha 17 (+11)
As a comparison, the party's lvl 20 rogue has an Int of 9.
I see a couple of possibilities here.
The obvious one is that this player is coming from 3.5, where a +2 bonus to your primary attack stat is considered just fine -- especially since class choice generally overwhelms stat differences in the long run. This possibility can be taken care of by ensuring that the player understands just how important the attack bonus stat is in 4E. If that is the case, it should be dealt with quickly -- ability scores assignment is one of the few initial decisions that cannot be fixed by retraining.
On the other hand, I could see a player who knows exactly what he is doing giving an assault swordmage from a race that has a bonus to strength but none to intelligence a 14 intelligence and a higher strength. Suppose he is aware of the Intelligent Blademaster feat but has other ideas for his initial feat -- say, multiclassing into a strength based melee class. His basic function of teleporting to make a basic attack against his marked foe would work just fine, and he can pick some class powers that are still reasonably effective when they miss -- so it is possible (albeit very difficult) to make a combat effective swordmage with that low of an intelligence. Still, I would not go that way -- my preference in this case has always been to have both strength and intelligence at 16+, with intelligence a point or 2 higher.
The obvious one is that this player is coming from 3.5, where a +2 bonus to your primary attack stat is considered just fine -- especially since class choice generally overwhelms stat differences in the long run. This possibility can be taken care of by ensuring that the player understands just how important the attack bonus stat is in 4E. If that is the case, it should be dealt with quickly -- ability scores assignment is one of the few initial decisions that cannot be fixed by retraining.
On the other hand, I could see a player who knows exactly what he is doing giving an assault swordmage from a race that has a bonus to strength but none to intelligence a 14 intelligence and a higher strength. Suppose he is aware of the Intelligent Blademaster feat but has other ideas for his initial feat -- say, multiclassing into a strength based melee class. His basic function of teleporting to make a basic attack against his marked foe would work just fine, and he can pick some class powers that are still reasonably effective when they miss -- so it is possible (albeit very difficult) to make a combat effective swordmage with that low of an intelligence. Still, I would not go that way -- my preference in this case has always been to have both strength and intelligence at 16+, with intelligence a point or 2 higher.
Saeviomagy
Adventurer
"Your character's ability to <insert good thing here> is great. He'd be even better if his powers worked more often, which you could achieve by moving a couple more points into intelligence."
And leave it at that. Avoid negative language (ie - don't prefix the second sentence with "but", or phrase it as "he'll miss too much unless he does it").
In play, I really doubt you'll notice. 4e has made tactics far more important than stat mods.
And leave it at that. Avoid negative language (ie - don't prefix the second sentence with "but", or phrase it as "he'll miss too much unless he does it").
In play, I really doubt you'll notice. 4e has made tactics far more important than stat mods.
Similar Threads
- Poll
