If it's an obvious choice then it's broken

[Kzach]

It was playable before.

Then I guess it really comes down to what you determine to be 'playable'. I define 'playable' as including enjoyment. I'm not playing D&D to be frustrated and annoyed, therefore your playable is not... playable to me.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It has nothing to do with what other people in the group are doing or how the DM runs the game. The system itself has an internal mechanic that is fundamentally flawed and requires certain choices to be made in order for the balance to be restored.

I once again call BS...

This is, of course, assuming you use the basic rules for balancing combats by XP and level. If you balance an encounter using the method recommended for doing so, and you play a character without optimal choices,

what do you mean by optimal? does the fact that I dont take sup weapons or implments 9/10 times and take expertise less then half of my characters count? becuse I can take lots of good feats and still make food characters that can hold there own...or do you mean taking 8 skill training/skill focis feats?

you end up playing a character that doesn't do enough damage,

um a dagger rouge with no feats...over all 30 levels
a double long sword ranger
an avenger with just about any 2 handed weapon
a Barbarian with any 2 handed weapon
I can make a level 1-15 atleast of any of them with inherant bonus and no feats can all throw striker level damage

I think I could (not sure) do the same with a sorcerer.

Monk and warlock would be hard...

or doesn't hit often enough,

and this is a big sticking point..so I will skip the argument for this (god knows there are plenty of other threads for the attack thing)

or doesn't heal enough,

BS...totaly tacticle play allows any leader (well maybe not shamn) can do just fine with no buffs

or fails at every skill challenge,

please tell me this is a joke... what build could possible fail EVERY skill challange...I can see failing 1 of the 3 types (physical, mental, or social) but it is immpossible to have 3 skills at +5 (You know trained) and not have atleast a good chance...

As I said, we are not playing "Peasants & Peons". We're supposed to be playing a game where we are the heroes.

and I play heroes that don't optimaize at every turn...and still am a hero.

That means we should be capable of actually succeeding at the challenges presented to us. The success shouldn't be guaranteed but neither should it be next to impossible.

OK, but I can play any weapon useing class, have a 16 in my prime stat (after race) and a 14 in my second stat (after race) and take feats that no optimizer takes...and still meat that metric...so

By not optimising a character, you're bringing it in under par and that creates a drag on everyone else. By bringing in an optimised character, you're simply adjusting for the flaws in the system and bringing everything back into balance.

do you really belive that optimization is the only way to play?

There is an extreme beyond optimisation that goes into min/maxing, but that is another issue entirely.

ok, maybe I have miss read you up till now...but you do understand base line is very low in 4e

The funny thing here that you don't seem to realise is that I'm on your side. I want a system where I DON'T have to choose these options in order to make a balanced character.

The funny part is that is the system I am playing (99% raw 4e)

I would love nothing more than to have a character be able to speak ten languages through feat choices. My argument is that I can't do that without becoming a burden to the rest of the group by not fulfilling my role successfully in encounters, whether they be combat or non-combat.

I have seen builds with 2 or 3 'dead' feats and still be viable and useful...and NOT A BURDEN



tell me what level character should I make to show you that I can make a useful non burdemn with out optimization...just give me a role and a level...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Then I guess it really comes down to what you determine to be 'playable'. I define 'playable' as including enjoyment. I'm not playing D&D to be frustrated and annoyed, therefore your playable is not... playable to me.

OK, well I ran h1-e3 with only 1 of 6 PCs taking expertise and we had a ball...

I also ran up into the 27th level pre phb2...and have played all tiers with out being frustrated or annoyed

 

[Kzach]

OK, well I ran h1-e3 with only 1 of 6 PCs taking expertise and we had a ball...

I also ran up into the 27th level pre phb2...and have played all tiers with out being frustrated or annoyed

Yes but you haven't accounted for one key thing: your super-duper awesomeness.

 

[Argyle King]

Here's where your point diverges from the norm of the gaming public. Not everyong cares about "mechanically better" feats and if you don't need them, many people don't take them. It's when they feel they need them just to survive and accomplish things where they become a bigger deal.

I don't feel I need Expertise to survive. I'm someone who feels Expertise is not needed.

However, I still take it because it's vastly better than every other option -even if I don't need it, it still significantly magnifies the potential of my character in the area of the game which is often the largest portion of the 4E games I've been in.

Even if I look at it from a character point of view, it still makes sense to take it over other choices. "Hmm, I could learn this one technique and improve my ability on the second Tuesday of the third month when I have one sandal on my right foot and a frost weapon in my right hand, OR I can learn this other technique and my ability is better at all times."

 

[Herschel]

I'm not sure where you're getting this, or if this is just an outdated impression, but this just isn't the case now. At least on the WotC CharOp forums. The metric is not only damage. CharOp'ers try to figure out how to make an effective character, whether it's to do damage, defend, lead, control, whatever. Just take a look at the handbooks that are floating around those forums. Yes, overall combat effectiveness is more frequently emphasized than other situational effectiveness, but 1) bulk of the rules is devoted to combat, and 2) noncombat effectiveness is often difficult to quantify.

You mean like the Seeker Handbook that was never completed because the groupthink just wrote it off?

Or the Swordmage Handbook that's utterly limited in scope and never updated after a few quips about Frost Backlash being the only 3W power you'll get for a while and focusing solely on trying to make a Shielding Swordmage that plays like other defenders?

Or the ubiquitous listing of Expertise/Focus/damage buff in nigh every build?

Need I go on?

 

[Jhaelen]

See, I wouldn't call this a flaw with *the* game... I'd call it a flaw with *your* game. If your DM runs a game such that you feel you are forced into these five choices because otherwise you're just screwed when it comes to surviving... then in my opinion your DM needs to take a long, hard look into what he's doing and what he's throwing at you. You in no way should have to take any of these feats, if your DM is running a game meant for everyone at the table to have fun.

Phew, now I'm relieved!
The thing is we recently started a 4e Dark Sun campaign and I decided to play a dragonborn dragonmagic sorcerer focusing on fire spells. I even didn't put a 16 in my primary score (though I took the dragonborn feat granting +1 to attack & damage if a power's energy type matches my breath weapon's to compensate).

And so far everything's working out great because I get the full support of my party members. It didn't take them long to realize how much damage I could dish out if they helped me to buff my attack rolls and tried to maneuver our enemies into bunching up without getting in the way of my close blasts.

So I felt entirely safe picking the Arcane Familiar (dragonling) feat at second level.

I'll have to see if I feel a need to buff my defenses at level 4; so far my discouragement method seems to work well (using powers dealing auto-damage to anyone attacking me).

I just have to find a good way to deal with those pesky long range artillery monsters. For some reason they tend to focus fire on me after having seen me in action

 

[aurance]

You mean like the Seeker Handbook that was never completed because the groupthink just wrote it off?

Or the Swordmage Handbook that's utterly limited in scope and never updated after a few quips about Frost Backlash being the only 3W power you'll get for a while and focusing solely on trying to make a Shielding Swordmage that plays like other defenders?

Or the ubiquitous listing of Expertise/Focus/damage buff in nigh every build?

Need I go on?

None of those things dispute what I wrote.

 

[SabreCat]

Or the ubiquitous listing of Expertise/Focus/damage buff in nigh every build?

I don't know about the Seeker and Swordmage guides, but it's hard to think of why a character of any role wouldn't at least want to consider those feats, so I'd scratch my head if they weren't included. The main arguments are "hitting is usually better than missing" and "'dead' is the most powerful status effect"--what's the refutation of those?

Defender: Role's shtick is to keep damage off your companions. If you help the monsters die faster, by hitting more often and doing more damage when you do, thus letting them attack fewer times, you perform your role better.

Controller: Role's shtick is to hit wide arrays of targets at once and/or inflict debilitating status effects upon them. Hitting more often helps you deliver these effects more reliably, and if some extra damage kills the monster outright, that's even better than the daze or whatever would have come along with the damage.

Leader: Role's shtick is to help allies fight more effectively, by granting them extra actions, keeping them conscious/unafflicted by conditions, and buffing their attacks. Hitting typically gives better buff effects, and killing a monster outright helps keep your allies in the fight.

Striker: Pretty self-evident.

There are some cases where you don't care much about personal hit chances (hardcore Lazy Warlord) or where damage output can be back-seated or ignored (pacifist Cleric), but the CharOp guides usually take these into account when recommending feats etc. It puzzles me why it's a criticism of the guides that they steer you to these options that in the vast majority of cases do help your class perform better at its role.

 

[tiornys]

You mean like the Seeker Handbook that was never completed because the groupthink just wrote it off?

Or the Swordmage Handbook that's utterly limited in scope and never updated after a few quips about Frost Backlash being the only 3W power you'll get for a while and focusing solely on trying to make a Shielding Swordmage that plays like other defenders?

Or the ubiquitous listing of Expertise/Focus/damage buff in nigh every build?

Need I go on?

The Seeker was written off due to a perceived inability to apply appropriate levels of control, which is hardly the same as a tunnel-vision on the damages.

I'm not familiar with the Swordmage Handbook.

Expertise is ubiquitous because it is overpowered and every role benefits from hitting. Focus and other damage buffs are often downplayed or ignored for Leaders and Controllers--case in point, the Warlord's Handbook (arguably the most damage-focused leader) rates Weapon Focus at Blue, not Sky Blue/Gold, and is delayed until level 26 in the sample TacLord build. That same build takes exactly 0 other feats to boost personal damage (not even Superior Weapon Proficiency). One of the BraveLord builds throws in Weapon Focus as an afterthought at level 30 (the other, focused on personal damage as well as leading, manages it fit it in at L20, but does take a superior weapon early). The Wizard's Handbook features multiple builds without Implement Focus, and at least one build that lacks Dual Implement Spellcaster. Even the builds that take DIS are often fitting it in during mid to late epic, simply because it's less important than stuff that enhances accuracy, durability, or control.

t~