Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tripgnosis" data-source="post: 4487000" data-attributes="member: 27760">I have to agree with you on this perspective, at least somewhat. I too feel like the race builds and class builds kinda push you towards that min-max way of building a character. But only if your goal is to make the best possible ranger. But there's more to a character than that. Or at least their could be. So what if some aspects of your character aren't &quot;optimal.&quot; This mindset just helps it to be like a videogame. The problem is that there are is so much more in the way of mechanic to 4e, that people are having a hard time seeing past the mechanics and just making the character you want to make regardless of what would be &quot;optimal&quot; A halfling ranger may not be as good at being a ranger than an elf would, but it doesn't mean he wouldn't be fun to play. He'd certainly be more interesting, and unique. I think the halfing would be saddened to hear that the only important thing about him is how good he is at his class. To me, ho I do in combat and how optimal my stats are aren't the only important thing about my character. And I often forego the optimum choice in favor of what gives my character more depth and makes him more interesting and complex. Like giving my fighter skill training in sleight of hand to represent his shady childhood as a pickpocket. I happily spent the 2/1 skill point ratio in 3.x to do this, and I've 'wasted' a feat to get skill training like this in 4e as well. The DM is as much to blame as the player for these things. If he/she sticks to the 'everything is a specific kind of encounter' mechanic, these freeform, non-optimal choices never get to shine. This is why i hate skill challenges. On one hand they provide a good mechanic for handling non-combat situations. But DM's are using it as a crutch. A good DM was already handling these situations well, and didn't need the help of this new mechanic, but now their stickin to it. Again, their having a hard time thinking outside the given mechanics.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tripgnosis, post: 4487000, member: 27760"] I have to agree with you on this perspective, at least somewhat. I too feel like the race builds and class builds kinda push you towards that min-max way of building a character. But only if your goal is to make the best possible ranger. But there's more to a character than that. Or at least their could be. So what if some aspects of your character aren't "optimal." This mindset just helps it to be like a videogame. The problem is that there are is so much more in the way of mechanic to 4e, that people are having a hard time seeing past the mechanics and just making the character you want to make regardless of what would be "optimal" A halfling ranger may not be as good at being a ranger than an elf would, but it doesn't mean he wouldn't be fun to play. He'd certainly be more interesting, and unique. I think the halfing would be saddened to hear that the only important thing about him is how good he is at his class. To me, ho I do in combat and how optimal my stats are aren't the only important thing about my character. And I often forego the optimum choice in favor of what gives my character more depth and makes him more interesting and complex. Like giving my fighter skill training in sleight of hand to represent his shady childhood as a pickpocket. I happily spent the 2/1 skill point ratio in 3.x to do this, and I've 'wasted' a feat to get skill training like this in 4e as well. The DM is as much to blame as the player for these things. If he/she sticks to the 'everything is a specific kind of encounter' mechanic, these freeform, non-optimal choices never get to shine. This is why i hate skill challenges. On one hand they provide a good mechanic for handling non-combat situations. But DM's are using it as a crutch. A good DM was already handling these situations well, and didn't need the help of this new mechanic, but now their stickin to it. Again, their having a hard time thinking outside the given mechanics. [/QUOTE]

Verification