D&D 4E Min/Maxing in 4e

[Cadfan]

By way of example, we have a ranger build in another thread in this forum that employs min-maxing to leverage the Blade Cascade daily ability, which is highly exploitable due to its design--you get to keep rolling attacks until you miss. I don't think it's very hyperbolic at all to say that's a lax design, and that the only reason not to cap it is that whole "thoroughness and complexity is bad" mentality.

Ah, you've edited again.

1) I'll happily agree that Blade Cascade is poorly designed.

2) That's hardly got anything to do with the game encouraging min maxing though. The way to exploit Blade Cascade is with bonuses from your allies, not dumping Int to get an additional +1 to strength. Sure, the +1 to strength helps, but if it weren't for about a hundred other things that have nothing to do with the relation between Int and Str, we wouldn't even be discussing Blade Cascade.

3) The only reason not to cap Blade Cascade is no reason at all. Adding a line like "You may not attack more than 5 times in this manner." would hardly increase complexity in any meaningful way. Not including this was a screwup.

 

[Felon]

The dichotomy between complex rules with few holes (but much to learn or memorize) and general rules with more holes (but ease of application and memorization) has nothing to do with min maxing your ability scores. Or for that matter, with min maxing anything at all, as evidenced by the fact that there is nothing involved in that topic to minimize, and nothing in that topic to maximize.

Most rules that are subject to exploitation are quite tame in practice as long as the person utilizing them exercises moderation. Exploiting loopholes is all about optimization, and to optimize, you both minimize and maxize the numbers in your build. The correlation seems rather self-evident to me.

 

[Felon]

Ah, you've edited again.

Ah yes, I edit a lot. It's usually less pronounced, but ENWorld is slow-posting today.

You seem to insist that min-maxing is limited to the arena of ability scores. Is that the case? Seems to me that any area where you can shift numbers around is subject to the principle of min-maxing.

3) The only reason not to cap Blade Cascade is no reason at all. Adding a line like "You may not attack more than 5 times in this manner." would hardly increase complexity in any meaningful way. Not including this was a screwup.

I agree that bullet-pointing some simple caveats doesn't increase complexity in any meaningful way. But this is hardly an isolated example of that laxness. There are lots of abilities that don't have reasonable caveats. They seem to want to have had the design goal of paring down the number of sentences in any given power's description.

 

[Nifft]

But you can use both if you like, and it usually works out. Chances are they attack different defenses, and thanks to the point buy/ array rules, odds are you'll either have 18 main stat + whatever, or 16 in two main stats + whatever. So you're trading +1 attack and damage for diversity of options and targetable defenses.

Nope. You get the same number of options either way: two at-will options, one encounter option, one daily option.

You have the choice of being inferior (but pretending you have options), or of being competent (and having the same number of options).

Cheers, -- N

 

[Storminator]

Nope. You get the same number of options either way: two at-will options, one encounter option, one daily option.

You have the choice of being inferior (but pretending you have options), or of being competent (and having the same number of options).

Cheers, -- N

That's only at 1st level.

PS

 

[The Little Raven]

There are already two builds which can solo Orcus (Orcus = high level solo enemy).

I'll believe it when it happens in actual play.

After all, theorycrafting after 3e's release told me that dwarf monks were way overpowered and we saw how accurate that assessment turned out.

 

[WalterKovacs]

Nope. You get the same number of options either way: two at-will options, one encounter option, one daily option.

You have the choice of being inferior (but pretending you have options), or of being competent (and having the same number of options).

Cheers, -- N

It depends. If you are a Human [or Half-Elf] you gain additional options.

The main reason to diversify attributes is not so much to be able to use powers from the "other build" [there are admitedly some cross build powers for certain characters, like the Rogue for example, that are still quite usable for either build, and with Dex as the primary stat either way, there isn't as much of a loss as say ... a high WIS cleric taking a STR vs. AC power that will be hard to hit with] but to get access to certain feats. With the "spell damage" feats, you aren't getting much benefit at low levels [you are giving up probably +1 to hit and damage to get +1 to damage] ... once you get to 2nd tier, you at least get more damage than you are losing ... At that point its whether you spread the points out earlier, or later on when you are increasing your ability scores as you go up.

There are some feats worth 'dipping' for. [Charisma is nearly useless for a Wizard ... but starting with 12 instead of 10, for example, means you don't have to spend 4th and 8th upping CHA [with INT] to get Spell Focus, and instead you can level INT and WIS.

Still, it's hard to justify not having a 16 [with racial +2 to make it 18] in your primary ability score for determining attacks. However, the "options" generally come from deciding how to spread out the rest ... having a great secondary and a tiertiary, or having 3 "good" secondaries [for a total of 4 'good' stats].

The situations where spending 16 points to get an 18 in one stat seem to be quite uncommon though ... so right out of the gate, people are already chosing to drop their primary modifier by one "level" to be able to have decent secondaries. One of the few times I'd spend on the 18 would be for STR. If it's PHB only, you have to go with Dragonborn or Human to get the STR buff ... so if you went Dwarf, you'd be behind without the 18 STR. Fortunately, you can then get 3 secondary stats to 12 ... 14's for Con and Wis with your racial bonus, then slightly improve Init and Reflex with your Dex score. Thank goodness for heavy armor

So, as far as min max goes ... the lack of "first level" 20s at least show that MAXING isn't exactly happening ... but nearly everyone whould have something at 18, preferably their means of attacking. [With race becoming EXTREMELY important for class selection].

 

[Cadfan]

Nope. You get the same number of options either way: two at-will options, one encounter option, one daily option.

You have the choice of being inferior (but pretending you have options), or of being competent (and having the same number of options).

Cheers, -- N

Nonsense. Lets say you're creating a Star Pact Dwarf Warlock. You get +2 from your race. You could set your stats so that you have an 18 Con, your Int is your next best stat, and you have a smattering of other things. You could then select Constitution based attacks for your Warlock. That would be one option.

Another option would be to set your charisma to 16, your con to 14 (16 after racial stat modifiers), and put the remaining points into Int and the other stats.

The first option gets you +4 attack and damage with all of your abilities.

The second option gets you +3 attack and damage with all of your abilities. But look at the choices you gained. Your constitution based attacks generally target Fortitude. Your charisma based attacks generally target Will. And of course both characters can use Eldritch Blast versus Reflex.

Not only have you gained the option of selecting a wider variety of powers, you've gained the option of attacking multiple defenses. This is NOT a trivial benefit, it only really cost you +1 attack and damage.

The same is true of clerics (strength for AC, wisdom for Reflex and Will) and Paladins (strength and charisma based attacks have different generalities about them). I can't think of anyone else with this issue.

I'm not going to claim that generalizing is objectively better than specializing, but its certainly not a foolish decision. If you're decent at eyeballing what defenses to target, that +1 attack and damage you spent could grant you significant increases in your chance to hit.

 

[Plane Sailing]

God yes it favors min maxing! We've gone from having 1 dump stat (usually CHA) to 3. Since stats are determined from the better of 2 and attack rolls are always from your classes 1, much easier to have 3 8s and not care (or 10, 10, 8, whatever). The 3 dump stats vary from class to class but they are there.

You may not have noticed the threads that say "Not fair! Why should Spell Focus have a Cha 13+ requirement when it is so blatantly needed by all wizards!".

It seems from a casual view that secondary attributes have been made desirable for useful feats, so that the 3e method of "pump the primary stat as high as you can" isn't necessarily the best option in 4e.

In 3ed, having a bunch of 14s was decent in a number of builds. So you have 2 less to hit than someone with an 18, big deal?

But in 3e compare 14 str to 18 str with a two handed weapon. One guy is +2 hit, +3 damage. The other is +4 hit, +6 damage. If the second guy uses power attack he would be the same +2 hit and +10 damage. Seems pretty significant to me.

For casters consider the spell DC increase and the bonus spells gained for the high ability score.

I don't think that a 4e character is gimped through not having an 18 in a primary stat. Indeed, one of the good things about the point buy is that it rewards someone as a better all-rounder and with more choices if he doesn't pump his primary stat as high as possible. There is a slight reward for the non-monomaniacal PCs

Cheers

 

[Thasmodious]

First, the cascade of blades thing is one of those ridiculous examples of theoretically broken, but not game broken. In a normal group, in normal gameplay, you don't hit defenses of your same leveled opponents on a 2+ while packing 4 rerolls to hit a near infinite loop that stretches every sense of the common variety. To even make such a thing possible requires the resources of several party members and building an entire party around getting that one power to novabomb. In a normal game, the power will play fine and good tactics will be for the team to try and buff the ranger a bit so he has a better chance to get a few more attacks in. But engineering a specific situation where the ranger his same leveled opponent's AC defense on a 2+ requires a ridiculous amount of min/maxing that the system nor basic gameplay lends itself at all to. Min/maxing just to pull of a cascade bomb would leave the whole party gimped for every other encounter of the day. But hey, if you are playing in that kind of game anyway, I'm sure you can revive the 15 minute adventuring day.

Second, this belief in the 3 dump stat myth is something that has already been dispelled and really needs to be buried and forgotten. Go ahead and play your fighter with an 8 Con, Int, and Cha and bask in the mockery of your DM and fellow players as your "uber fighter" gets taken down in two hits every fight and is the one begging for extended rests because he has too few hit points and 3+ less heal surges than a normal fighter. Or waste two of your feats on toughness and durable just to try and be as good a defender as a fighter built by a new player. Well, I guess its not so much of a waste of feats, since your crappy scores leave you with a much more limited feat selection. All that min/maxing over just your defenses leaves you with a +1 or +2 at most to a defense over what the non min/maxed character would have, and leaves you terribly gimped in many other areas.