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

[MrGrenadine]

Despite the focus on combat built into 4e by WotC, and despite the focus on combat by some people playing 4e, some people do not play in campaigns where the focus is on combat. This is truth.

Now, perhaps--in the opinion of some people--some other version of D&D, or some other RPG entirely, would be a better vehicle for a campaign not focused on combat. This, however, is beside the point. People will play the version they want, and they will play the way they want.

And one of those ways to play is a puzzle/mystery/political intrigue focused campaign, wherein combat happens rarely, and even then, almost never ends in the death of an NPC or a character.

Its true--I've seen it happen.

I'm not saying this was the case in this particular (now moot) situation--but it amazes me that after 30 years of people house-ruling and bending D&D to their own visions and desires, all of a sudden we're all supposed to say "Well, the game is built to put a your highest ability score in the slot that the PHB says is the prime ability for that class, so thats what we have to do now. Period."

D&D has been, is now, and should forever be a system of rules robust enough to include all sorts of play styles and interests.

 

[Nifft]

And one of those ways to play is a puzzle/mystery/political intrigue focused campaign, wherein combat happens rarely, and even then, almost never ends in the death of an NPC or a character.

If you don't use the rules, you don't need to worry about the implications of those rules. That is 100% true.

... but given that, why NOT make a combat-effective character? It's not like putting an 18 in your primary attack stat is going to HINDER your ability (as a player) to solve puzzles, or to handle political intrigue. It just means you retain the option of using the 4e combat rules as written.

D&D has been, is now, and should forever be a system of rules robust enough to include all sorts of play styles and interests.

"Should"? Really?

There are lots of games out there. 4e D&D is one game I enjoy, but it isn't the be-all and end-all.

Cheers, -- N

 

[outsider]

And one of those ways to play is a puzzle/mystery/political intrigue focused campaign, wherein combat happens rarely, and even then, almost never ends in the death of an NPC or a character.

Its true--I've seen it happen.

I've seen it happen too. It's just typically more fun when it happens in a more appropriate game than D&D. If you are not looting dungeons and fighting dragons, D&D isn't the game that best serves your needs. Never has been, and never will be.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

And the end result?

My PC did just fine. He was a Fighter who relied more upon intellect & wit and his accuracy with a bow than wading into battle. He held his own.

After several months of play, the campaign imploded due to an in game (role-play) disagreement between the DM and one of the players whose character was considerably more optimized.

 

[fuzzlewump]

Not only would I play a PC with a 10 in the primary stat, I have done so.

1. Was it a tactical warlord? and

2. Why you do this?

Did everyone have similarly combat-bad characters? This goes back to that idea in the 'other' thread where combat-effectiveness matters to an extent, unless the entire group is doing it in which case the DM can just use appropriately bad encounters. But against normal challenges, L+0,1,2,3 I think the primary stat 10 would be a significant disadvantage with not much real advantage.

So, why do it? Why would anyone do it? Do you believe you're a better roleplayer if you do that? Do you believe statistics must match character concepts in order to be playable? Or, are you just doing some kind of reverse min-maxing where actually the character is more effective maxing out secondary stats or whatever?

Look forward to hearing back, thanks.

EDIT: Just saw your post, think I got my answer.

 

[Nifft]

My PC did just fine. He was a Fighter who relied more upon intellect & wit and his accuracy with a bow than wading into battle.

Did everyone have similarly combat-bad characters?

It looks like he wasn't actually "combat-bad" -- he was an archer, built using the Fighter class, so his Dexterity was high but his Strength was 10.

He's playing silly buggers with the language, since the primary attack stat of any 3.x archer would be Dexterity*, not Strength.

So yeah, you can play a great low-Strength Fighter and do just fine... if you are an archer, or if you use Weapon Finesse + some kind of precision damage.

Cheers, -- N


*) ... unless you're using something like Zen Archery.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

tonight my normal Dm has plans (damn real lif things) so we are trying this out for real...

we are running the orginal H1 keep adventure with 2 "bad" characters 1 "normal" character...and our resdent powergamer who will not under any sircumstance NOT have expertise by 2nd level...

So far I am a swordmage, we have a Bard, Ranger, and Hybrid Invoker/Wizard...

the ranger will be optimized to the max... the bard will be about normal... and I will post my character in a few mins when I finish...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&D Character Builder ======
Suckszor the unwise, level 1
Revenant, Swordmage
Build: Assault Swordmage
Swordmage Aegis: Aegis of Assault
Choose your Race in Life: Half-Elf

FINAL ABILITY SCORES
Str 14, Con 14, Dex 14, Int 14, Wis 14, Cha 11.

STARTING ABILITY SCORES
Str 14, Con 12, Dex 12, Int 14, Wis 14, Cha 11.


AC: 15 Fort: 12 Reflex: 12 Will: 14
HP: 29 Surges: 10 Surge Value: 7

TRAINED SKILLS
Arcana +7, Endurance +9, Intimidate +7, Athletics +7

UNTRAINED SKILLS
Acrobatics +2, Bluff, Diplomacy, Dungeoneering +2, Heal +2, History +2, Insight +2, Nature +2, Perception +2, Religion +2, Stealth +2, Streetwise, Thievery +2

FEATS
Level 1: Half-Elf Soul

POWERS
Dilettante: Whirling Rend
Swordmage at-will 1: Greenflame Blade
Swordmage at-will 1: Booming Blade
Swordmage encounter 1: Foesnare
Swordmage daily 1: Whirling Blade

ITEMS
Short sword (2), Leather Armor, Adventurer's Kit, Dagger
====== Copy to Clipboard and Press the Import Button on the Summary Tab ======


duilweilding swrodmage who doesn't have twin strike...could I have botten any worse??

 

[MrGrenadine]

"Should"? Really?

There are lots of games out there. 4e D&D is one game I enjoy, but it isn't the be-all and end-all.

Should D&D be a game that appeals to all sorts of different players and campaigns? Yes. A million times, yes.

And I'm NOT stating its the only game. I'm saying it shouldn't pinhole itself as a combat-only tactical battle-mat and minis game.

And yeah, I said "shouldn't".

 

[pawsplay]

I'm not sure everyone agrees on that, otherwise it would have ended 9 pages ago. What seems obvious to you seems to be obviously the other way for me. There's obviously, to me, no reason to play a character with a 14 in your primary stat. None at all.

At least you understand your limitations.