Is an 18/19/20 an absolute must?

[FireLance]

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.

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.

You know, I'm starting to sense echoes of the issues raised in the minitaur/darkvision-less kobold thread in the General Forum in these statements.

It's basically the same question of whether a PC's abilities have/should/ought to be the same as a typical member of his race, or to address what is perhaps the underlying concern, what is the benefit of being treated, in terms of flavor, as a member of race X (or at least, an atypical or unusual member of race X) while being treated, in terms of mechanics, as a member of race Y?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I dislike automatically refluffling my race to better fit "mechanically" into a class. Though I wouldn't consider it "munchkinized" behavior.

Partially because mechanics sometimes play into "fluff". Eladrin have their Fey Step. Pretty obviously not just mechanics, but also fluff. It doesn't matter if the Eladrin abilities are not relevant to a Cleric here.

But I think it couldn't hurt if there were more feats for Eladrin (or any race, in fact) to fit into "suboptimal" classes. Eladrin Cleric feats. Dwarfen Warlord feats. Elven Warlock feats. Whatever. Someone just has to create them, post them in House Rules or sell them to WotC.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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

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

1. I don´t have to show you one... but its fairly easy to pick an example where picking a paragon path is inferor to picking a multiclass.

e.g.: a longtooth brawny rogue with a rapier, paragon multiclass as ranger is arguably better than a longtooth shifter brawny rogue wih rapier taking daggermaster as paragon path...

edit: if you allow for dragon magazine, a scimitar dancing duelist brawny rogue also looks quite workable...

stats: 18/12/16/10/14/8 after racial

I also created a goliath valorous bard with paragon multiclass barabarian... with howling strike and heart strike his melee damage is 1d10 + 2d6 + 11 at level 11 at +15 (no magic items, no expertise (which i had a spare feat for if i wanted) which is not too shabby...

16/16/13/8/12/16 base stats (including racial) 19/17/14/9/12/19 at paragon... such a build is viable if you accept that you begin your career with a 16 in your main stat.

2. No he is right... if you want to play a drow, use the drow stats... if you want to be a drow but have genasi stats, thats powergaming...

 

[FireLance]

No he is right... if you want to play a drow, use the drow stats... if you want to be a drow but have genasi stats, thats powergaming...

Are you talking about just the stat bonuses, or the entire mechanical package (i.e. the "drow" with genasi stats has to take genasi feats instead of drow ones)? If the latter, as I asked earlier, what is the benefit of being treated, in terms of flavor, as a member of race X (or at least, an atypical or unusual member of race X) while being treated, in terms of mechanics, as a member of race Y?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

i think the stat bonus shift is he real offender...

the other thing is:

if you want to refluff a race, you do it because of its mechanical benefit. If you wouldn´t really care you wouldn´t even ask to refluff something, but take options which are present.

if you would however want to play an artful dodger rogue and like the eladrin teleport, but you want to look like a drow, i would consider it not powergaming...

so ask yourself what will happen more often...

 

[FireLance]

i think the stat bonus shift is he real offender...

the other thing is:

if you want to refluff a race, you do it because of its mechanical benefit. If you wouldn´t really care you wouldn´t even ask to refluff something, but take options which are present.

if you would however want to play an artful dodger rogue and like the eladrin teleport, but you want to look like a drow, i would consider it not powergaming...

so ask yourself what will happen more often...

I generally prefer to discuss principles rather than specific cases, but let's go with this one.

Playing a drow artful dodger rogue who looks like a drow is not powergaming.

However, playing a drow artful dodger rogue who looks like an eladrin is powergaming because?

 

[Infiniti2000]

Although I don't agree with his writing style, in general I agree with Nai_Calus. I don't like "reskinning" things. I think that the mechanics are intrinsically tied to the fluff and I hate separating them like that. IMO, the mechanics only make sense, i.e. are only viable, with the supporting fluff.

I would be opposed to the design concept of having generic racial abilities that you pick and choose from, which is what people who support reskinning desire.

 

[Nifft]

I don't like "reskinning" things. I think that the mechanics are intrinsically tied to the fluff and I hate separating them like that. IMO, the mechanics only make sense, i.e. are only viable, with the supporting fluff.

The really funny thing here is that Eladrin only exist because in a previous edition the "supporting fluff" for Elves failed utterly to support their mechanics.

Even if you hate "reskinning", looking at Elves and Eladrin as interchangeable isn't much of a mental leap.

Oh well, -- N

 

[FireLance]

Although I don't agree with his writing style, in general I agree with Nai_Calus. I don't like "reskinning" things. I think that the mechanics are intrinsically tied to the fluff and I hate separating them like that. IMO, the mechanics only make sense, i.e. are only viable, with the supporting fluff.

These are reasons for not liking reskinning, but they don't seem to me to be reasons why reskinning is powergaming or being a munchkin. Once again, what additional benefit does reskinning provide?

 

[Zustiur]

Having played a cleric with 16 str and 16 wis, followed by a 'typical' elf 20 dex archery ranger. I know which I prefer.
Give me the hyper optimized character in any 4e game. I get far more role play value out of the ranger's 'spiked' 20 dex and 'dumped' 8 int.
My cleric who had fairly reasonable stats across the board was boring mechanically AND in terms of flavour/roleplay value. So I'd just like to remind everyone that having an optimized character and having a really awesome role playing experience are not mutually exclusive.

I feel that 4E encourages, and works far better with, having optimized characters. But whether the 18 is necessary or not boils down to two things.
1) What's the combat level of the campaign? i.e. mostly party level encounters or mostly partly level +2 encounters?
2) Who's your DM?

With my DM, and the H1-3 modules? Yes, I believe 18s, or even 19 and 20 are a necessity.