Is an 18/19/20 an absolute must?

[Infiniti2000]

off-topic a little

You can have a 10 in your WIS if you want, you'll just hit 15% less often than the 16 WIS, or 20% less often than the 18 WIS cleric. Assuming with a 16 you'll hit about 50% of the time, with a 10 you'll hit 35% of the time.

The statistical math on this was clarified in another thread, but your word usage here is wrong. If you want to compare how often you hit with the two abilities, you'll have to come up with a base value. Since you used 50% with respect to 16 WIS, then with a 10 WIS, you'll hit 30% less often (twice as much as you think), because you're comparing using the 50% relative value and not the 100% (out of 20) absolute value. It is 15 percentage points less, however.

I'm only clarifying this because it supports your point better than you originally thought.

 

[Nai_Calus]

Yeah there's your example, you're screwing over the team if you're not optimizing. k.

I'm not talking about an elf taking eladrin feats, I'm using a half-elf being houseruled as half-eladrin and taking eladrin feats as an example of reflavoring using different mechanics than the default that I find acceptable. I can't find a DM that will let me do *that*, so I have a half-'elf' PC that makes no sense because he has options open to him from a race he isn't related to. And that's something that just plain doesn't exist and *has* to be houseruled/homebrewed into existence.

I cannot even begin to *imagine* a DM letting me get away with the equivalent of 'lol I want to RP this thing that exists but lulz I want to be a munchkin and avoid all the mechanical flaws involved in it, can I say I'm it but be something else entirely? ' If I were DMing and a player tried that with me I'd laugh in their face and then watch every single thing they ever did with their characters like a hawk since my expectation would be that they're a rampant powergamer, and I like casual RP-heavy games where combat is that thing you do when you have to because the monsters are mindless or the party totally screwed up negotiations.

I'm also not an optimizer and I don't like meatgrinder campaigns where you have to be optimized to the hilt or you're going to die in five seconds. I'd take Linguist if the character was one who would speak a bunch of languages. Combat is my least favourite part of D&D. I build my characters. I make sure they're not completely crappy and analyze which powers I'm taking. But I don't sit there thinking 'well what kind of killer build can I make that will be a horrific combat machine?'. I suppose that screws over the party if the rest of them are powergamers gushing about their awesome 'build' instead of how cool their character's backstory is or the DM is incapable of tailoring encounters to the party because he just wants his deathtraps, but that's OK, I don't want to be in those kinds of campaigns anyway.

Besides, as I've said before. My dice luck is terrible. I routinely miss by 4 or more, and usually hit by 4 or more as well on the occasions I do. Yeah I'm so crippled by that -1 vs having an 18 I'll have if I make an Eladrin cleric. :| (I own a good 80something d20s. You'd think one of them would be capable of routinely rolling more than a 10. You'd be wrong. No, they're not 0-9 twice.)

And obviously there are many people who do think that 'you must have an 18/19/20 or you suck', or this thread wouldn't even be here in the first place and I wouldn't be annoyed by the mindset I've encountered too damned many times.

Ironically nobody ever complains that oh god my Swordmage sucks because he only has 14 CON your Aegis is terrible you're screwing us over. But I guess it's all about the glorious to-hit/damage.

 

[Blackbrrd]

As noted here, paying for an 18 is painful, and for some builds not practical. (Eladrin Cleric).

As a DM I would be happy to allow the player to move one of his +2 racial stat modifiers to that stat. - Most of the time. I don't think I would allow your elf to get +2 str/dex.

In other words, if you have an unoptimal build that would be ok with the moved stat bonus I would allow it. I can spot an optimizer a mile away. I am a part time munchkin myself (but can control myself most of the time).

 

[The Human Target]

Put me down as not being a fan of the idea that in order to play several race/class combos you have to do very specific things to make them mechanically viable.

 

[Nifft]

I cannot even begin to *imagine*

That's quite a terrible limitation you're laboring under, especially given the role that an active imagination plays in RPGs.

a DM letting me get away with the equivalent of 'lol I want to RP this thing that exists but lulz I want to be a munchkin and avoid all the mechanical flaws involved in it, can I say I'm it but be something else entirely? ' If I were DMing and a player tried that with me I'd laugh in their face and then watch every single thing they ever did with their characters like a hawk since my expectation would be that they're a rampant powergamer

You really think playing an Elf Cleric (in all mechanical ways) but calling it an Eladrin = "rampant powergamer"?

Hmm, -- N

 

[Nifft]

Put me down as not being a fan of the idea that in order to play several race/class combos you have to do very specific things to make them mechanically viable.

Some choices are better than other choices.

If this weren't true, it would be a very different game. In fact, it might not be recognizable as a "game" at all.

Cheers, -- N

PS: IMHO 4e does better than 3.x in this regard, because (1) the good choices aren't that much better than the bad choices, and (2) the good choices are much more obvious.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Now that's just crazy talk.

Cheers, -- N

If you have a character with a neither a secondary nor a primary that fits with your primary of your multiclass you should not consider paragon multiclassing.

If you however put a better score in your multiclass primary than in your secondary, you would want to make use of this bonus a lot. especially with an at-will

and there is your reason. Paragon multiclass is not as bad as everyone believes. although i am still thinkng an action point bonus would have been a good idea to put in.

 

[Nai_Calus]

Trying to ignore something that exists because it's mechanically inferior and whining to the DM that no you simply must play this other thing because it's mechanically superior, but you don't want to play it, you want to play the fluff of the other inferior one? Yeah, that's powergaming. That's got nothing to do with roleplaying and everything to do with being a munchkin.

You want to play something mechanically inferior? Suck it up and play it. Don't cry that you want to play something else but still say you're the mechanically inferior thing. There's a big difference between 'this doesn't exist, can we make it exist' and 'this exists but it sucks can I play something else but still say I'm this?'.

And thanks for the snide little attack on my imagination, much appreciated. But, sorry, no, can't see any DM I've ever played under allowing it, and I sure as hell wouldn't. Play what you're frakking playing. Who cares if it's not omg teh best. It's not so horrifically unviable that you must play something else while claiming to be it. Drow have off stats for Swordmages, can I play a Githyanki and say it's a drow? Devas don't have the stats to be Rogues, can I play a drow and say it's a deva? The answer to both of these should be 'No, play your damned race and stop trying to be a munchkin'.

 

[Nifft]

Paragon multiclass is not as bad as everyone believes.

Show me one, please. Just one example where paragon multiclassing is better than what you could get via a paragon path.

you want to play the fluff of the other inferior one? Yeah, that's powergaming. That's got nothing to do with roleplaying and everything to do with being a munchkin.

Changing flavor, with no mechanical implications, is orthogonal to power. It's impossible for it to be any more or less power-gamer-ish than using those same mechanics with whatever the original flavor was.

Cheers, -- N

 

[FireLance]

I enjoy role playing. I enjoy good challenging encounters where characters contribute evenly to the party's success. I don't see the two as mutually exclusive.

I suppose the key question is: do you believe there is an acceptable range to character viability, or do you believe that characters must always be optimized? In the event that there is a conflict between a character's flavor and concept and his effectiveness in overcoming challenges, is it acceptable for the player to choose the weaker option from time to time, as long as the character is still reasonably effective*? Assume for the sake of argument that there is no third option that suits the character's concept and is just as effective as the more powerful option.

* Assume a moderate level of required effectiveness. After all, the former "acceptable range" philosophy with high levels of required effectiveness tends to approach the latter "always optimize" philosophy anyway.