D&D 4E Min/Maxing in 4e

[Kzach]

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.

Yeah, I've always resented this attitude. As a player and DM I've always expected characters to be optimised. And I've expected characters to be roleplayed.

I can, and do, do both. They're not mutually exclusive.

 

[Kzach]

1. It is?

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

Ah, I see you've missed the entire thread.

You have a low primary stat, you see.

Here, let me min/max you so you won't miss again...

 

[hong]

Ah, I see you've missed the entire thread.

You have a low primary stat, you see.

Here, let me min/max you so you won't miss again...

1. It is?

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

 

[Felon]

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

My observations lead me to believe that stating concerns about 4e is dismissed as "theorycrafting" in a virtually automatic fashion. If you wish to gush unreservedly about the new edition based on first impressions, that's OK. You will receive accolades. But expressing criticism or skepticism has a requisite of extensive research.

I really want to turn the clock forward a year to see how things actually pan out.

 

[Nifft]

My observations lead me to believe that stating concerns about 4e is dismissed as "theorycrafting" in a virtually automatic fashion. If you wish to gush unreservedly about the new edition based on first impressions, that's OK. You will receive accolades. But expressing criticism or skepticism has a requisite of extensive research.

Would you highlight what you are calling "gushing"?

Thanks, -- N

 

[Felon]

Would you highlight what you are calling "gushing"?

Are you asking because you dispute that gushing has transpired, or because you think I might be taking pot shots at one person specifically (I'm not)?

 

[mattdm]

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

So, here's where I'm confused. On the one hand you say this, but on the other hand you said that giving them the dilettante-stat-swap for free would be too much. What's the middle ground?

 

[Cadfan]

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.

How convenient, then, that point buy charges you more points for improvements to high stats than it does to improvements to low ones, so that declining the final +1 to your attack stat permits you pick up several +1s to lesser stats.

In any case, that's not the issue here. The issue is 1) will I honestly notice missing 1 out of 20 times I attack, and 2) can I make up for it with a diversity of targetable defenses.

On top of which, you're being a bit melodramatic about the benefits of an additional +1 to attack. Its good, yes. Its not the only thing which is good. And it isn't THAT big of an effect on your character's survivability and success. Mathematically, it can't be. If a combat lasts 10 rounds, and you attack once per round, your expected difference due to a +1 to attack is half of a hit.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Personally - just IMO, mind you - this entire debate is rather pointless (or maybe just beside the point). Players who desire to ABUSE a game system will do so regardless of whether that system is actually PRONE to abuse or not. Players who do not derive enjoyment from abusing the system might even actively AVOID abuses they do find. Apparantly it bears repeating - good DM's and players can and will overcome bad systems, but problem players can and will kill a game no matter how fantastic the DM, the other players, or the system. Good or bad system, problem players are still problem players and the game system doesn't make them that way just because it has more flaws than the next system.

Can 4E be abused? I don't have a real grasp of it yet, but why SHOULDN'T it? Every other edition of D&D has been. Was 4E supposed to have been notably different in this regard?

SHOULD it be abusable? No, of course not. This should not even bear asking it's so obvious - no game EVER should. It can be fought and even reduced, but it's never going to be eliminated so I tend to see ulterior motives in all the hubbub.

By all means PLEASE DO continue to point out potential abuses of ANY edition of D&D and ways to fight them. But again, players who abuse the game are the real problem - NOT the fact that a given game CAN be abused nor even the level to which it can be abused (short of demonstrating that it is so rife with brokenness that it cannot but be unplayable because of it.) Otherwise, I don't see this as an issue of concern any greater than it ever was before and 4E isn't deserving of any particular criticism for it.

Or maybe I should just consider myself lucky that my players are reasonably mature, sensible, and their playing styles and preferences (almost ) never perpetrate these horrific potential abuses even when they are plainly evident.

 

[Nifft]

Are you asking because you dispute that gushing has transpired, or because you think I might be taking pot shots at one person specifically (I'm not)?

I ask because I don't see it. I see people discussing how stuff works, not ... doing whatever you think "gushing" means.

So point some out, would you?

Thanks, -- N