How Can You Politely Say, "Your Character Sucks?"
- Thread starter Kinneus
- Start date
pawsplay
Hero
New for 2014: Dungeons & Dragons Hero
M.L. Martin
Hero
The idea wasn't to have them affect nothing--there's still damage, healing, skill checks, Initiative (for Dex), hit points (for Con) and other factors. You could even leave them in for defenses if you adjust the math.
The problem is rooted, IMO, in the fact that the center of 4E mechanics is the attack roll. It's the roll you make the most, it's a binary roll (with the exception of critical hits) and it's the roll where the player has the most choice of how to do it. That means that anything that affects the attack roll becomes, IMO, disproportionately important to the character, especially if it's not situational, and this emphasis can squeeze out alternatives that may suit a character better. Cf. the Expertise feats.
What flavor is he? If he's Shielding and max boosted Con that makes his mark stronger and he doesn't need to hit to do well, just mark and stay away to make baddies take opportunity attacks and suffer from his mark. Definitely NOT my choice of a fun character, but if you face a lot of solos, etc. then maybe it can work okay.
jmucchiello
Hero
I still want to know why he isn't allowed to learn what he has done wrong IN PLAY? Did you come to 4e fully aware of all the proper ways to make a character? Didn't you enjoy learning how to better optimize your character? Why are you denying him the chance to learn too? If he never is shown how a 14 in a prime stat is "too low" how can judge why 18 is correct?
This is not the same as a player who fails to use all his actions in combat. He used all his point buy. You are just saying he used them improperly. If he decides to charge willy-nilly all around combat when playing a build designed to stand still are you allowed to tell him to knock it off?
It is not badwrongfun to play a suboptimal character whether by ignorance or on purpose. If at some point he is dissatified with his character then you can help figure out what went wrong. But if you just tell him up front "you really should do X" you are giving him a fish and not a fishing pole.
Human beings learn best from their mistakes. It's a racial advantage.
He's an assault swordmage, as I've said a few times in this thread before. 18 Str, 16 Con, 14 Int.
It's all a moot point, however. The DM just emailed us all, informing us there would be no more games because his schedule changed unexpectedly. I'll probably never play with these people again.
Not that that'll stop this thread from continuing for several more pages, of course...
malraux
First Post
I again disagree. It is badwrongfun to play a suboptimal character by ignorance (on purpose is perfectly fine). Teaching or explaining how to build a better character is the essence of teaching how to fish. I'l agree that just handing him a character from the char-op boards is a bad idea, but I don't see anyone proposing that strawman.
jmucchiello
Hero
I didn't say anything about a char-op build. My basic question is still unanswered: Didn't you have to learn what builds are better than others? How did you learn that 14 is too low for a primary stat? I'm betting you learned it organically, through trial and error. Why shouldn't he (our now theoretical player given the lasted update by the OP) get the chance to experiment? To try? To fail? And to later succeed? Doesn't success after failure make you feel even better than just success alone?
Let me approach this yet another way: the very process we are talking about is optimizing. Optimizing is taking something that works and making it better. By its very definition it is not a task done by a novice. When you are teaching something to someone you don't start with an advanced topic first. You start with the basics and work your way up to the advanced topics at the student's pace of progress.
You are starting with an advanced topic. He has no frame of reference with which to compare optimized versus non-optimized. You might hand wave the optimizations but once you do that you are not instructing, you are dictating.
I suspect we will hit the agree to disagree wall shortly.
fuzzlewump
Explorer
Your principles aren't faulty, but your application is. You're not teaching a man to fish, you're giving a man a fishing rod and saying "have fun." This man has only a vague idea of the goals of fishing, let alone the mechanics of the rod itself. Basically, learning through trial and error is definitely a good thing. But blind application of that principle would also say that teaching, in general, is wrong; that everyone should learn everything through trial and error. So, the line must be drawn somewhere.
I say that the line be drawn AFTER teaching someone about the fundamental importance of stats. Then, allow them to experiment with adjusting the stats to get a better balance of defenses or skills or whatever. I think the PHB agrees with me, because of the existence of listing "Primary" stats in the class descriptions. That's not the say it's the best way, but it does show that there is indeed official support for teaching the importance of stats. I would, however, say that allowing them to experiment with stats such as giving themselves a very low main-stat with the stipulation that they can change at ANY time. Right when they realize their mistake, they can fix it, rather than having to reroll, wait for a rest, wait for the session to end, whatever. That would be my compromise, but I see no good reason to do that.
Having a 14 as a main stat would likely mean the player is ignoring the "Primary Stat" listing, because he or she would either have pretty much all 14's or have a non-primary stat higher. So, I think that is clearly a mistake, statistically, and from the suggestions of the PHB.
A more grey-area example is a 16.
malraux
First Post
All the more reason to give help him create a decent build first. Figuring out why his character doesn't work well might not be obvious. I would think that he would learn better with someone to explain what works and what doesn't. Playing a suboptimal character to my mind is an advanced topic. The basic lessons would be how to play a decent character well. If the character isn't great, then its much harder to see if the problem is the build, his tactic, the DM screwing him over, or 4e just being a sucky game.
In learning, there is a concept called scaffolding. A common example is the keyhole essay, taught at around the junior high level. Keyhole essays are not a great format, but they are an adequate format. Before you can learn to do more complicated writing styles, you need to learn how to do the simpler styles to see how they work.
Help building a decent character in 4e, to my mind, would be a great way to learn the system. There's a lot to figure out in 4e, especially for any class that marks. But with a suboptimal character, what you learn from play won't necessarily self-teach you how to either to build a great character or how combat works. There are too many variables.
Essentially what I see you arguing is that having a teacher is necessarily worse than learning on your own. That doesn't strike me as a particularly true statement.
As to how I learned stat allocation in 4e, well, to me it was mostly obvious. At least the basic distribution was reasonably obvious (put your highest number in your key stat, second highest in your secondary stat, etc). What is absolutely best, I have no idea.
Now, you seem to be saying that I don't want an inexperienced player to be able to experiment or make mistakes. I don't see anything like that in my statements. I clearly think that just handing him a character sheet and then telling him what to do on every turn would be a bad idea. Yes, he should be able to experiment. What I am saying that a guiding light showing what most other people have found to be a pretty good idea is more valuable than just tossing the player to the dark to let him discover every single trap for himself.
Similar Threads
- Poll
