"pure" survivable, or "mixed" mandatory?

[Umbran]

My general feeling is that if you don't optimize your character, my character might die... and vice versa.

This should only be an issue if the DM is not taking the party composition into account when doing adventure prep or design. For the common campaign at home, the DM can generally adjust to meet your level of effectiveness.

Now, a party with mismatched levels of optimization is a bit more of a challenge for the DM to deal with.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

Nobody cares about how fluffy your feats are.

Well, now, some people do care about these things. You aren't taking MY time commitment seriously if having Skill Focus: Diplomacy instead of leather armor proficiency is an issue. I gain pleasure from having a character with fluffy feats. My time playing D&D is wasted without it.

This is a playstyle difference here is all. Some people like playing "optimized" some people kinda hate feeling pressured to. I think 4e does a good job in supporting both styles. It's why it's important to play with people who have similar tastes.

 

[jbear]

What about the Bard? Would you consider them 'non-pure' if they multi-class? Multi-class versatility is after all part of their design build.

 

[gizmo33]

Nobody cares about how fluffy your feats are.

Nobody IME is actually this rude in real life. Only on the internet. It would be bizarre IME for the adults that I game with to cop this sort of attitude about Dungeons and Dragons and not get laughed at.

 

[roguerouge]

Well, now, some people do care about these things. You aren't taking MY time commitment seriously if having Skill Focus: Diplomacy instead of leather armor proficiency is an issue. I gain pleasure from having a character with fluffy feats. My time playing D&D is wasted without it.

This is a playstyle difference here is all. Some people like playing "optimized" some people kinda hate feeling pressured to. I think 4e does a good job in supporting both styles. It's why it's important to play with people who have similar tastes.

Skill Focus: Diplomacy is a completely valid choice. When did I say otherwise? The ability to make nice with the locals, defuse potential combat situations, gather additional resources from those in power... Completely valid optimization approach. As I made clear, optimization is about teamwork. That selection fits an incredibly important role.

And, as I wrote, optimize away RPing at the table and at home in your journals. I love reading 'em. I'm not taking any of that away from you by asking that you pull your weight as a team member in both the tactical and the interactive phases of the game.

I've played one session of 4e thus far and already I can see that teamwork is incredibly important in this edition. If someone's busy taking feats that make them feel grand or choosing builds without an eye towards party survivability, well, that puts the entire party at risk... That's not really teamwork in my book. If everyone's on board with your play style, though, go to town and have fun. That's teamwork of a different sort. See my sig before you go the gizmo33's route.

But, if you don't have everyone on board, consider that having a good mechanical character is good role playing when you consider that most adventurers would choose to get better at things that would keep them alive in their primary occupation: adventuring.

Edit: I think the difference, from my perspective, is that optimized choices will never make me responsible for your character's death while non-optimized choices might. I don't want to spoil your fun, so I optimize. Your character isn't going to die by taking a more mechanically sound build. That's my point.

 

[roguerouge]

I gain pleasure from having a character with fluffy feats. My time playing D&D is wasted without it.

Okay. Why? Seriously and respectfully. Why is this THAT important to you?

 

[gizmo33]

That's teamwork of a different sort. See my sig before you go the gizmo33's route.

So you're suggesting that it would be fun to try telling another player that his fluffy feat choices are something that "nobody" is interested in? And that he's wrecking the game for everyone? Wooohoo. Sounds like blast. I think it would make for a great "example of play" in the PHB for a transcript of one player berating another player about his feat choices.

(Disclaimer: YMMV. So presumably then, my ideas cannot be commented on.)

 

[MrMyth]

As always, you can optimize or choose not to do so. Thus far, in 4E, I find a character has to go significantly out of their way to be ineffective - an optimized character might be more powerful, but not so far out of their league that the two don't fit in together at the same table.

In terms of optimization, multiclass and similar feats are typically strong, but no more so than many other options - and certainly not to the extent that they are mandatory.

In short: Yes, 'pure' characters are entirely viable, and there are plenty of builds that leave pure characters just as strong as characters who go for diversity. Expanding ones options is certainly useful, but not remotely necessary for competency, effectiveness, or contribution to the party. Some 'mixed' characters will be designed better than 'pure' characters, some 'pure' characters will be designed better than 'mixed' characters, and there is no one single build that is the 'best'.

 

[roguerouge]

As always, you can optimize or choose not to do so. Thus far, in 4E, I find a character has to go significantly out of their way to be ineffective

This, I largely agree with.

 

[Piratecat]

You're both being rude. Stop it, please. If you find yourself posting just to rail against another person, it's far better to skip to the next thread or put them on ignore. It's okay if you don't agree with one another, but we expect you to be polite and mature about it.

Thank you.