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

[fuzzlewump]

Certainly, it's one thing that turned me off 4e. I like abstraction... useful abstraction. Characters in D6 Star Wars have high attributes because they're heroic... if you see Dexterity 3D6, it's not because some backwaters governor is secretly a ninja, it's because he's expected to hit more often than not when he shoots a stormtrooper. But the view that you put your 16 or 18 in this stat, you dump that stat because it doesn't matter, etc. to me feels arbitrary.

Why have a trait that at all that never comes into play? Why does 4e have ability scores at all... couldn't you just skip right to shuffling points between your basic attack, your special attacks, your defense, etc.?

So, dumping or putting a 16-18 in a stat is arbitrary? And, it's not in previous editions? Or is this condemning all of D&D?

I agree, why have a trait that doesn't come into play. I can't remember a non-sorceror type caster that I played that had above a 10 in charisma in 3.x. Both games have all the stats being used in skills, as well.

Good call on the Paladin actually being weak as far as lifting and breaking stuff (without weapons), but that kind of stuff pretty much never comes up in my games. I can definitely see where it would matter to you.

 

[Nifft]

See, we solve that problem by bringing back the ability minimum for classes. It would even fit with the 4E philosophy of avoiding newbie traps. Creating a character with a low score in your class's primary attack stat is one of the few ways left for people to screw up their character, so why not just make a minimum 16 (after racial adjustments) be required and also require that one of your two +1's at the every 4th level stat increase be devoted to it?

It's probably a good idea in general, even without trying to make old school stat items work.

This would have zero negative impact on any game I've played, so it sounds good to me.

One area for caution would be the split-stat classes (e.g. Cleric, Ranger, Paladin, and Warlock) -- but those seem to be the exception rather than the rule these days, so maybe they're not worth bending the rules around.

Good call on the Paladin actually being weak as far as lifting and breaking stuff (without weapons)

Perhaps the Paladin is a gentle soul who doesn't really like breaking stuff. He's a civilized tea-drinking gentleman, not a bull in a china shop.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Herschel]

An un-optimized party will have more deaths than an optimized party in the same encounters with the same players. Of course, your powergaming friend should* have played the meta-game an seen that he needed a character that stays out of problems to keep alive. In other words a bow-ranger or a dwarf battle vigor fighter or something.

Although in 4E an unoptimized party using good tactics is often stronger than an optimized party using basic tactics.

 

[pawsplay]

Oh, probably. M&M or True20 show us what can be done on this basis. Can you imagine the howling of "Its not D&D!" if they had done that though?

I think we've already heard it. The ability scores in 4e are just a mini-game to arrive at those numbers. I think people understand that. Not everyone likes 4e. done.

 

[pawsplay]

So when you said this: ... you didn't mean that those constraints impaired your PC? If they did impair him, that's the only meaning of "gimped" to which I refer -- you need not sleep in a box, nor wear only paraphernalia, to be "gimped".

Gimped means "crippled." My character was not crippled; he was quite effective, he simply was not exceptional at (for instance) damage dealing.

 

[Runestar]

Although in 4E an unoptimized party using good tactics is often stronger than an optimized party using basic tactics.

And the optimized party is mysteriously barred from using the very same good tactics because...?

This means nothing, since all other things equal, assuming both parties are using similar tactics, the optimized party should always come out ahead.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

So did you get to high level with that PC?

well there were no levels in that game, it is a point based, but yes I was played for a year and had lots of points...

I ended up with a little better then starting jedi force powers, less then starting jedi light saber skill, and lots of knowladges, computer skills, and most of the diplomacy type skills... I was totaly not a master jedi...

infact I just remembered well typeing this, I only built my own light saber in the last game we played... so that was when I was recognized in game as a KNIGHT...

 

[Raven Crowking]

The clear solution here is to let the other players make his character for him. And, if he uses less than optimal tactics, play the character as well. The offending player can then be sent out for pizza.


RC

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Of course! Choosing stats to suit a concept is a time-honored --

-- but you didn't choose stats, you rolled them. The stats preceded the character concept.


You are playing silly buggers, again.

Not at all.

I had the concept. Then I rolled stats. Then I placed the resulting numbers to reflect the concept. Had my top stat been 12 and my low stat been 6, I'd still have arranged the stats the same way.

Right, you were a high-Dexterity archer. That's a fine character.

It's just that it's not really the same as: ... since your primary attack stat as an archer is Dexterity.

Do you remember 2Ed? Strength was the single most important stat for ANY warrior because of the way Str damage bonuses increased faster than any to-hit bonuses available.

Had I wished, I could have had the twin 17s in Str & Dex. That would have pushed his damage bonus per arrow up from zilch and into positive numbers. As the PC advanced, he could have had his Strength boosted further: if he had just gotten it up to 18/00, that would have doubled his maximum damage per shot. If, somehow, he had maxed out his Str to 25, his damage bonus per arrow would have been +14.

Instead of opting to advance his per-shot damage, he improved his accuracy. To get a +6 to your ranged attacks based on Dex was essentially impossible- the charts stopped at a Dex of 25 with a bonus of +5.

If you do a statistical analysis, you'd see he was giving up a LOT of damage over time. He simply couldn't make up for the lost damage with increased accuracy. That 10 Str was definitely sub-optimal.

But if you still don't buy that, I ran a 3Ed Ftr/Th who did have a 15Str, but his Dex was only a 12. Contrary to my usual builds, I placed his other high score- also a 15- in Con. The was a thug and an intimidator, not a sneak, but he was smart.. Another, dumber thug Ftr/Th was even higher in Str and lower in Dex...and Int (both 9's).

I've also run Wizards who could barely cast a spell (most multiclassed into something else, but at least one was a mute), relatively unwise Clerics and Monks, and the like.

Why?

Because those were the PCs I wanted to play, and those concepts drove how I arranged their stats.

 

[Hussar]

DannyA, there was no strength bonus for ranged weapons in 2e. You could have had an 18/00 strength and this would make no difference to your damage with a bow. Even strength bows were not standard equipment in 2e. I believe they appeared in the Complete Fighter's guide IIRC.

The only bonus you could get to damage with a bow would be through specialization.

So, no, dump statting strength in 2e for an archer character does not affect his capabilities one whit.