D&D 4E Min/Maxing in 4e

[Rystil Arden]

In addition to adding choice in what defense to target at the time of battle, characters with two attacking stats also have a much greater advantage in selecting powers known at time of level up.

This may seem obvious, however those advocating a purely one attack stat mentality for the split stat classes(cleric, paladin, warlock, and ranger may suffer consequences that aren't immediately obvious.

For example, what does a STR focused paladin with dump stat CHA select for a level 9 daily power?

The answer is I don't know because all three of the paladin's level 9 daily attack powers are CHA based. To add insult to injury, the paladin can't even select a lower level STR based power instead, because he already has the sole STR based level 1 daily and the sole STR based level 9 daily already.

This is an extreme case, however being MONO-attack stat can and will at some levels reduce your "choose a power" choice at level up to a "take the only power you don't suck at" non-choice.

The Str Paladin has the perfect chance to grab a level 9 daily power from her Warlord, Fighter, or Str Cleric multiclass.

But for Cleric, there is always a balance of powers such that there are two Wisdom choices per level (and of course, the Charisma Paladin who dumps Strength has, comparatively, no trouble at all choosing powers).

 

[hong]

Ah, I think you're confusing min/maxing with abuse.

Using a loop-hole to get a benefit that far outweighs the balance of the system is abusing the system. Min/maxing, aka optimising, isn't.

Also, the question is whether or not 4e is or isn't a system that encourages optimising and, if optimising should or shouldn't be encouraged.

Has there ever been any version of D&D, ever, that didn't say a fighter should have good Str?

If you define optimising to mean "put your best stats where you're going to use them", then every game where stats are meaningful encourages optimising. I would think having a fighter with good Str is unobjectionable to any reasonable person. This does not seem a very interesting topic of discussion.

Now if you meant taking that minmaxing to an extreme degree, then we might have a more meaningful topic. There are some people who think that if it's allowed RAW, it's allowed in play. Others consider some degree of restraint to be desirable.

 

[mattdm]

A feat, like I said in the other thread. It works out to about the same bonus that other Encounter attack boost feats give.

Clear now?

Err, no, not clear. I get where you figure it to be worth about the same as those feats, and that all seemed sound enough. But the other races get those feats on top of a power which works, not on top of one which appears to need a fix.

If it works out to be the same as the others, it's probably not enough overall, yeah? Either the feat should be more valuable, or else there should be something else included in the base race.

And making the feat more valuable makes it "elf has to take it", so although that has the appeal of "I'm not house ruling anything, just creating a new feat!", it seems like a tweak to the race itself is better.

 

[Kzach]

This does not seem a very interesting topic of discussion.

Bai

 

[Eldorian]

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.

Then you come up with a character concept so COOL that the game master lets you get away with anything. Back in high school, we used to fantasy roleplay at lunch, no rules, just a gamemaster type guy. Awesomeness was our only stat, and it's limit was was you could think up.

My character was so cool his sword was named Genocide.

 

[Stalker0]

I'll be honest, my current belief is that the best way to go in 4e is to have a very high attack stat or close to it, 18 or better to start.

However, I'm ready to find out, to see if the 16 offers near the advantage and the other stat bumps you get are worth it. I hope it is.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I'll be honest, my current belief is that the best way to go in 4e is to have a very high attack stat or close to it, 18 or better to start.

However, I'm ready to find out, to see if the 16 offers near the advantage and the other stat bumps you get are worth it. I hope it is.

You want to qualify for feats, and use the secondary statistics. I found a starting 15 with a racial +2 bonus works fine for this. (Strangely enough, 15 was also the standard for a high stat I used in 3E 25-point buy)

But these are just theoretical exercises, not actual playtest results. But I definitely found trying to focus on just one statistics limits your feat options, and the benefits of many powers.

 

[TimeOut]

I choose: Yes, you should allow min/max, but no, 4e is not a min/max system.

If someone wants to optimize his character for a particular role: Fine, as long as he has a reason to do so. If I ask: "Why has <character name> Dex 18 and Cha 18, but only Int 8?", answering with "Doh, better Sly Flourish of course!" would be awkward.

Something like "Well, he was never one to study much. But he joined a travelling circus in his youth and spent a few years performing various acts and artistic stunts." would tie in nicely and even give some possible background plot hooks.

But basically 4e is not a true powergaming system. Sure, you can look for loopholes and you will find them, that is true for every game based on exception based design.
However the basic design goals are clear: 4e is based around the balance of power levels all around; it is not based around finding and choosing the "true" build for your character.

3e was a system for maximum optimization and powergaming quirkiness. 4e can be used to optimization, but it is not the default assumption.

I ran a test group of optimized characters through the first three encounters (ending with the Irontooth encounter) in KotSF.

No deaths, only one character dropped to single digits.

We did the same and got TPK'ed on Irontooth and nearly died on the roadside ambush (but that was bad luck on our side). I think the biggest problem was that the characters themselves were optimized, but the team was not. My warlord was the only "teamplay" character and so we got badly mashed up (by Irontooth himself, after all other kobolds died).

 

[Nifft]

Err, no, not clear. I get where you figure it to be worth about the same as those feats, and that all seemed sound enough. But the other races get those feats on top of a power which works, not on top of one which appears to need a fix.

What comparable power do Humans get, aside from access to the Action Surge feat?

If it works out to be the same as the others, it's probably not enough overall, yeah? Either the feat should be more valuable, or else there should be something else included in the base race.

And making the feat more valuable makes it "elf has to take it", so although that has the appeal of "I'm not house ruling anything, just creating a new feat!", it seems like a tweak to the race itself is better.

Almost every races has a feat it really wants to take.

Tieflings: Hellfire Blood. Oh god yes, Hellfire Blood. EVERY CLASS wants this feat.

Dwarves: Dwarven Durability (Paragon). It's too amazing for any Dwarf to ever overlook.

Elves: Elven Precision. Obvious and awesome.

Halflings: Halfling Agility (see above), but some will also enjoy Lost in the Crowd.

Dragonborn: Three feats, one of which seems more optional than the other two.

Half-Elves have sucky exclusive feats, and they don't have access to the one good Elf feat. Their access to the Human feats is nice, though.

Cheers, -- N

 

[mattdm]

What comparable power do Humans get, aside from access to the Action Surge feat?

Well, they get an additional at-will power from their own class, where presumably there's a match for one of their high stats.

As I understand it, what you're saying is that you agree that the half-elf could stand to be slightly bolstered, but that the only reason is that they don't have a strong enough option for racial feats and that adding one comparable in power to the other racial feats is all that's needed. Is that about correct?