D&D 4E Min/Maxing in 4e

[ProfessorCirno]

Every system is min/max friendly. Or, if you want, there's no such thing as a "min/max friendly game," because you can't encourage or defeat it. Munchkins will always find a way. Always. The only way to stop them is to have a near stat-less system.

 

[KidSnide]

The problem with min/maxing in 4E is that the primary ability for your powers dominates almost everything else. So, for Fighters, Rogues, Warlods and Wizards, you are best off cranking everything into your dominant stat. And, for the other classes, you are better off picking a dominant stat and limiting your power choices to that one.

Sure - you lose all sorts of side benefits, but it sure looks like the sum of those side benefits is less than that extra +1 to hit and damage, at least for most classes. And, that's mostly because a weaker side effect doesn't matter that much when the power hits more often.

 

[Zaruthustran]

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.

Irongorn can hit the AC range appropriate for his level on 2+ without needing anyone else, especially if you use the alt build that's on page 4 (swords and frost weapons). He doesn't have re-rolls, but it's still pretty effective.

But I want to comment on your last sentence. I think 4E rewards party optimization even more than character optimization. Cooperating with your friends to defeat a common foe is what D&D is all about, and 4E is the system that most encourages (mechanically) that sort of thing.

To the OP, I simply don't understand the "should min/maxing be allowed?" question. Of course players should be "allowed" to make choices that increase their character's (and party's) chance for success. That's why those choices are in the game! I mean, In 4e, the major player rewards are feats and powers (as opposed to older editions, where the major reward was treasure/equipment).

Rejecting character optimization in 4e is like playing draw poker and only playing with the hand you're dealt. Sure, technically you can play that way. But by rejecting optimization, you're not really getting the most out of the game's rule system.

I'm going to run with that a bit, and use it to reject the subtext that optimization and "roleplaying" are on a sort of slider/that more optimization requires less roleplaying, or more roleplaying requires less optimization. That's simply not the case. In the poker example, if you play poker because you like getting together with friends, look at cards, and make bets, then you'll have a good time regardless of whether you optimize (throw out bad cards in an attempt to make a better hand) or not (play with what you're dealt). In the same way, if you sit down at the D&D table to evoke a fascinating character it doesn't really matter if your character is optimized or not. After all, combat is only one component of D&D.

 

[Nifft]

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

Yup. Human Wizards and Human Warlocks can be interesting. But those other classes? Not so much.

And Half-Elves? That racial ability is frequently useless. It's hard to find cases where an effective choice is available.

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].

True. People see the importance of their secondary and tertiary stats.

And yeah, race is very important. If a race can boost both your secondary and tertiary stats, it's sometimes as good as a race that can boost your primary stat. (Thus the Elf Wizard.)

- - -

Cadfan: You should play those characters you're designing, with a split selection of attack powers. Maybe you're clever enough to overcome the penalty you're inflicting on yourself -- or maybe not. I can tell you this: from my group, 3/5 of the PCs had "attack 16"s when we started 4e. Three sessions later that number is down to 1/5, and the remaining PC with an "attack 16" is a Dwarf Fighter who uses his secondary stats (Con & Wis) to good effect.

Being ineffective sucks, and 4e is a tight game: there are no feats like Weapon Finesse to make a bad choice feel less painful. Attacking is everything, even for a Cleric.

So good luck with your PCs. I have a feeling you'll need it.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Mistwell]

The more I read about 4e, the less I think it is dependent on a single stat.

For example, on first read I thought Wizards need Int, and the rest is mostly preference.

On the contrary, the more I get into the nitty gritty, read threads about them, look at statistical breakdowns, match-ups with Monster Manual average creatures, etc.. the more important other stats become.

Already a lot of folks think Wisdom is a more important stat for Wizards than Intelligence for many (perhaps most) builds, and Dex (and the annoying fact that a key Wizard feat is linked to it), Con, and even Chr and Str are all listed as critical secondary stats for various builds I've seen (and often a third and even fourth stat is required).

I'd say 4e does not reward more min/maxing, however so many build choices force certain stats that most players will naturally optimize to a certain degree because that is one of the only paths available right now. If you want that feat X, you had to make a stat choice Y to get there - which meant you chose that other power Z linked to that stat Y too, and therefore certain tactics are suggested by the combination of X, Y, and Z, which itself encourages other choices, etc..

 

[Thasmodious]

Irongorn can hit the AC range appropriate for his level on 2+ without needing anyone else, especially if you use the alt build that's on page 4 (swords and frost weapons). He doesn't have re-rolls, but it's still pretty effective.

I've got to give you that badass. That is a sweet build. I still don't think it leaves blade cascade broken. It's meant to bring the pain on occassion, and even with that build it requires a heavy set of circumstances to set it up ideally. Even ideally, you aren't necessarily hitting 2+, and even at a 5+ you are talking averaging 4 hits before a miss. And thaat's once a day, with your AP and at least two other powers. So I could live with that in actual gameplay. The times you really land a string with it would be awesome and what the power is meant to do, but it isn't the definite Orcus slayer that many are claiming. It's a cool, nicely flavored, badass daily, as any 15th lvl daily should be.

But I want to comment on your last sentence. I think 4E rewards party optimization even more than character optimization. Cooperating with your friends to defeat a common foe is what D&D is all about, and 4E is the system that most encourages (mechanically) that sort of thing.

I agree 100%. I love that about 4e. I was saying optimizing an entire party around one character's daily power is not exactly what the game has in mind, nor would it make for a very effective team overall.

 

[Derren]

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.

Those builds are not pre release theory but except for one maybe are based on calculations.
Oh, and it are now 3 builds.

 

[Cadfan]

Cadfan: You should play those characters you're designing, with a split selection of attack powers. Maybe you're clever enough to overcome the penalty you're inflicting on yourself -- or maybe not. I can tell you this: from my group, 3/5 of the PCs had "attack 16"s when we started 4e. Three sessions later that number is down to 1/5, and the remaining PC with an "attack 16" is a Dwarf Fighter who uses his secondary stats (Con & Wis) to good effect.

Being ineffective sucks, and 4e is a tight game: there are no feats like Weapon Finesse to make a bad choice feel less painful. Attacking is everything, even for a Cleric.

So good luck with your PCs. I have a feeling you'll need it.

Cheers, -- N

You seriously think I'll be pained by a difference of 1 on my attack rolls? I'm a big proponent of the "every +1 counts" theory of character design, but by definition that +1 is only going to show up in terms of hitting or missing every 20th roll. And that's without any bonus from eyeballing the foe's likely stats.

 

[Kzach]

You seriously think I'll be pained by a difference of 1 on my attack rolls? I'm a big proponent of the "every +1 counts" theory of character design, but by definition that +1 is only going to show up in terms of hitting or missing every 20th roll. And that's without any bonus from eyeballing the foe's likely stats.

Yes.

99% of your power comes from successfully hitting an opponent. A +1 to hit, therefore, is ten times better than a +1 to damage.

It's fairly obvious that they recognised this fact as they have severely limited bonuses to hit in the game.

Over the life-time of a character, their survivability and ability to overcome obstacles will be hugely impacted by that +1. Whereas getting an extra +1 on damage or moving someone an extra square of distance or making them save less frequently, is entirely situational and therefore has far less impact on the character's viability.

 

[hong]

Now before I go on, I should say that there is nothing personal about this thread and I totally understand where the DM is coming from, it's just that I realised something about 4e in that moment that made me think.

4e is designed for min/maxing.

1. It is?

2. Do not turn "is" into "ought".