Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5575095" data-attributes="member: 18280">If it is possible to optimize a character, perforce, some characters must fall below that level of optimization.  Moreover, it implies that there are tips and tricks to share to enable that optimization; it doesn't "just happen".Therefore (1) there are optimal and sub-optimal characters, and (2) without knowing what you're doing, optimal characters don't just happen.  Therefore, any statement that players game X do not create sub-optimal characters, due to the nature of game X alone, is manifestly false.And well I know it!  Even when you are swayed by an argument, you seem more conservative than I.  Conversely, when an argument has demonstrated that I am wrong, I accept my error, admit it, and change my mind.  Most recently, this occurred when it was demonstrated that the Skill Challenge mechanic could be used to produce effects that I would be happy with in-game.....even if the vast majority of examples I've seen leave me utterly cold.So, I don't expect you to start a "Raven Crowking is Right" parade; I just want to provide you the opportunity to see where I am coming from, if that is an opportunity you want!Obviously, you know your own play experiences better than anyone else.  Equally obviously, though, they are not universal, and it is possible to produce sub-optimal characters in 4e, by accident, simply because you don't grasp how to optimize a character.  Or those threads would not exist, or be extremely barren if they did.I'm not sure how that is relevant at all.If you only want X from a game, then characters who are good primarily at not-X might seem useless to you.  Granted.  But, that doesn't make a character "useless" in any objective sense.  If a game is designed to do more than X, then it is going to produce a greater variety of characters, and characters that shine at more than just X.You can say, game X "won't support the sort of play that I am getting out of 4e" -- but if you are honest, you should also then agree to the obvious corollary -- that 4e won't support the sort of play that some others are getting out of X.Different games support different things, with differing levels of success.  That out to be obvious, and non-controversial.  Nor should pointing that out be considered "edition warring" or, worse yet, supporting "bad rules".(And I know that the quotes in that last paragraph are not yours, pemerton, nor your general opinion AFAICT....but they are representative of some others in this thread.)RC</blockquote>

Verification