How Can You Politely Say, "Your Character Sucks?"

[Runestar]

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.

Yes and no.

Some concepts I did discover for myself. Others, I read about them on the net. However, I didn't blindly follow them (regardless of whether they resembled or differed from my own gaming experiences). I then engaged in constructive debate with many other posters no less learned than myself, and in the process, learnt much more about said aspect of the game than if I had played it myself.

I would then proceed to implement the new knowledge I had picked up in my subsequent games. If they worked, I could then use that as a springboard to test out other concepts based of it and in turn learn newer concepts. Concepts I would likely never have a chance to actually try out if I was still stuck figuring out basic concepts such as how best to allocate my stats or what race complemented which class.

If the idea turned out to be a dud, I would then report my findings to the forum, igniting another wave of discussion. That idea could then be refined or rejected.

Either way, knowledge of the game is advanced. The process repeats.

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?

Do you think a computer company today figures out how to build a PC from scratch with no prior knowledge and completely shut off from the world? No, they take the best in the market, reverse-engineer it, improve upon it and come up with their own model.

It is just plain more efficient, and leaves the player with more time and resources to try out more meaningful and advanced experimentation with his character. The player doesn't learn anything meaningful from discovering that a 14stat is too low for 4e.

Why do you think dnd knowledge has progressed so quickly? People were able to quickly latch on to key fundamental ideas proposed by others, and either build upon them or reject them using contradicting findings (which in turn lets them branch off to newer findings). Thus, they were able to do a "rise above", to use knowledge building terminology.

Through such knowledge building, people are able to discover newer findings much more rapidly than if they each had started off from scratch.

The information you need is already there. Right in front of you, a mere mouse-click away. There is no reason to take the longer route and find it out the hard way.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

As long as stats make an effect on the game, there will probably remain bad and good distributions. The INT 14 Swordmage would still be "suboptimal" if his stats wouldn't affect his attacks and merely his damage.

"You deal 10 % less on average per round! Are you sure that's a good move?!"

 

[jmucchiello]

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.

And we disagree on the location of the line. I never said just hand him a book and disappear. You never said you give him a character sheet written in pen and refuse to answer questions. Let's not put words in each others' mouths.

I say that the line be drawn AFTER teaching someone about the fundamental importance of stats.

This is in my opinion an advanced topic. We aren't just talking about chargen. We are talking about teaching the whole game. The more you attempt to explain the WHY of it the more confused the player will be. So I'm trying to save as much brain space as possible so the player can also make attacks, maybe role-play an encounter in a tavern, etc., before dealing with the details of high CON versus high INT for a particular class.

My problem continuing this is we are completely in the realm of theory right now. I'm guessing neither of us would allow a completely new player to build a character by themselves. So the whole argument has no foundation in reality. We don't know how the OP's teammate made his character nor who was there to hold his hand.

So, on topic, I would assume that if the player in question showed up to the game with a character sheet that looks properly built, he must have some idea what he's doing. Additionally I can't imagine someone new to D&D stumbling on ENWorld and joining a random MapTools based game without some knowledge of how to build a character. And from that perspective I would not question why he put a 14 in a prime stat. Let him learn why 14 is too low a value for his prime stat for himself. Or let him teach me why 14 isn't so bad.

 

[BryonD]

As long as stats make an effect on the game, there will probably remain bad and good distributions. The INT 14 Swordmage would still be "suboptimal" if his stats wouldn't affect his attacks and merely his damage.

"You deal 10 % less on average per round! Are you sure that's a good move?!"

This isn't meant to be a direct reply to MR.

But there are different ideas of what constitutes "optimal". Clearly, maxed out expected damage dealing is a fair form of assessing optimization.

But what if your play experience goal is to create the feeling of a relatively normal characters thrust into the role of heroes? It seems obvious, to me, that changing the character to squeeze out that extra 10% damage would be distinctly less optimal. To the contrary, full on max/min would destroy the sense of the underdog overcoming obstacles.

I don't at all claim that the later option is in any way a more virtuous option. My games tend to be more the high power end of things. But, both options are equally valid.

So, I'd think that the polite way to say "your character sucks" would be something like "Hey man, our game plays with a bit different assumptions than your characters."

 

[fuzzlewump]

So I'm trying to save as much brain space as possible so the player can also make attacks, maybe role-play an encounter in a tavern, etc., before dealing with the details of high CON versus high INT for a particular class.

Explaining why a swordmage wants high intelligence is fundamentally important. Explaining why a rogue wants a higher con than intelligence is not. You can't blanket it either way, and in the context of the OP, the 14 intelligence swordmage, explaining the folly is fundamentally important.

So, on topic, I would assume that if the player in question showed up to the game with a character sheet that looks properly built, he must have some idea what he's doing.

If someone shows up to your class with your textbook and has his nose in it every day, turns in a wonderfully written paper, and his paper is absolutely wrong but well written, you would correct him. Shutting down communication is how bad customs get started. In my research class we learned that back in the 80's it was just accepted in American hospitals (or, at least at the hospital my professor worked at, and according to her it was widespread) to lay infants on their stomachs when they sleep, and no one, or not enough people, questioned it. It was later revealed through research to be safer to have infants sleep on their backs; allowing play on their stomachs.

Obviously, it's not nearly as vital or dramatic, but the principle is the same. Communicate with the 14 intelligence character to see why he is doing what he is doing, to make sure he has a good idea of the importance of it, no matter how confident he looks.

 

[Herschel]

He's an assault swordmage, as I've said a few times in this thread before. 18 Str, 16 Con, 14 Int.
...
Not that that'll stop this thread from continuing for several more pages, of course...

Yeah, I skipped about 6 pages of "stuff". It's an interesting build. It would appear he's gambling on making a lot of melee basic attacks. Con is all but useless to the character, but if he's played fighter types in previous editions that's a hard one to overlook.

Then again, if one wanted a "simple" character that played like an earlier edition fighter that might not be a bad way to go (except for the suckitudinal part).

 

[pawsplay]

The idea that 4e impels you to play an 18 in in your primary state is, IMO, one of it's turn-offs. "I would like to play a swordmage who is more brawn than brain" is a workable concept. The problem is not, however, the system, which appears to be rather forgiving of a vast range of attack bonuses. The problem lies in the presentation of the game, in which little incentive is ever given to look at your ability scores beyond their primary uses, and the community surrounding it, which has rallied to the build-oriented play style as much as they have to streamlined resolution systems.

In short, if I were ever tempted to play in a 4e game, perhaps out of friendship or lack of any better options, I would probably be annoyed if someone took one of my least favorite aspects of 4e and insisted I embrace it. Imagine a 4e player reluctantly dragged into a 3e game... will you win her interest by insisting she drop a "suboptimal" greatsword-wielding fighter in favor of a fighter/swashbuckler/warblade multiclass monstrosity using a spiked chain? If someone prefers fantasy to supers, will you win their loyalty in a Mutants & Masterminds game by suggesting they replace their "suboptimal" fencer with a cheeseball Superman knockoff?

 

[Gimby]

The idea that 4e impels you to play an 18 in in your primary state is, IMO, one of it's turn-offs. "I would like to play a swordmage who is more brawn than brain" is a workable concept.

It certainly is workable concept, and indeed does work fine. The question is more whether or not the player *had* that concept, or was building their character at random. If they were building to concept, then fine, no problems. If they had no idea what they were doing, then offering help is simply polite.

<snip>If someone prefers fantasy to supers, will you win their loyalty in a Mutants & Masterminds game by suggesting they replace their "suboptimal" fencer with a cheeseball Superman knockoff?

No, but if the player is new to M&M, its not unreasonable to help them make the best fencer that they can.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Wasn't 4E supposed to be the D&D where you couldn't accidentally gimp your character? Where you couldn't make a choice so weak it would throw the game off?

Seriously, if 4E's balance is so tenuous that a player has to know that only an 18 can make an optimal character, how in the world do 4E proponents criticize 3E's system mastery aspect (with a straight face)?

For what it's worth, my 4E character was an archer ranger, and he didn't have max Dexterity. (He did have an 18, because he was a shifter. But he wasn't maxed out.)

 

[Gimby]

Wasn't 4E supposed to be the D&D where you couldn't accidentally gimp your character? Where you couldn't make a choice so weak it would throw the game off?

Seriously, if 4E's balance is so tenuous that a player has to know that only an 18 can make an optimal character, how in the world do 4E proponents criticize 3E's system mastery aspect (with a straight face)?

For what it's worth, my 4E character was an archer ranger, and he didn't have max Dexterity. (He did have an 18, because he was a shifter. But he wasn't maxed out.)

Because the difference between an optimal character and a non-optimal one is relatively low. A 20 is probably too expensive to be worth it, a 16 is perfectly reasonable, a 14 certainly can work but an 18 is often best. The difference between the 20 and the 14 though is only 3 points of hit and damage, which between feats, targeting different defenses and weapon proficiencies is not a huge difference.

The character with a 14 here is certainly functional and can fufill his role fine. He's not helplessly gimped to the extent of throwing off the game assumptions. While its probable that it could be built to fufill that role *better* the improvement is of the order of 10% or so.

That there are optimal choices is tautological in a game as complex as D&D. What's important, and what 4e achieves in my experience, is that the differences between an optimal character and a non-optimal one are relatively small. The systems mastery aspect gets critisised as it was possible to make some characters several times more powerful than others (depending on your DM, edging out to tens or hundreds of times more powerful in extreme cases), whereas now the difference between the very best and very worst characters is of the order of +50-100%.