D&D 4E What I want from 4E DnD in 3 simple steps.

[delericho]

Technically, a character operating at 99% of maximum numerical effectiveness is "suboptimal", because he's not at 100%. But 1% doesn't matter. 5% probably doesn't matter, unless you're really paying attention.

If you stack your stat-16, prof+2, no Expertise character up against the stat-18, prof+4, Expertise character, that's much more than a 5% difference.

I'm DMing a group at 17th level at the moment, and not a single character has an expertise feat. They do just fine in combat and have a great time otherwise.

Here's the rub: if everyone at the table is of the same mind (either they all care about the math, or none of them do), then everything will be fine. But groups tend not to be homogenous, and if you put a player who doesn't care together with a player who does, then the big disparities start to become apparent.

Unfortunately, those big disparities can cause serious problems. Over the course of the campaign, it is likely that the optimised character will come to dominate the game. This has two likely effects: the player with the weaker character may become frustrated at being forever outshone, or the player with the stronger character may become frustrated at forever 'carrying' the others (or both). This really can't be a good thing.

That's why "fixing the math" is important. For the players who don't care, it doesn't matter if it's 'right' or 'wrong' - they don't care. But for the players who do care, it does matter.

Some system mastery options are a good thing. But too many can create big imbalances between characters, to the detriment of the game. And 'must have' feats are a very bad thing, especially if they're not clearly flagged as such. (Not to mention, obvious 'must have' feats aren't exactly system mastery.)

4e did well in its initial efforts to "fix the math". When problems were found, the online tools gave WotC the scope to patch the underlying assumptions, had WotC chosen to do so. (Essentials certainly did.) That they instead decided to apply a patch, in the form of 'must have' feats, was a big mistake.

YMMV, of course.

 

[Fifth Element]

If you stack your stat-16, prof+2, no Expertise character up against the stat-18, prof+4, Expertise character, that's much more than a 5% difference.

It's much more than a 5% difference in attack bonus, surely. But that stat-16 character has the same limited resources as the stat-18 one, and has invested them differently. If he has a lesser attack bonus, he necessarily has other advantages. Whether these other advantages make up for that difference in attack bonus is a matter of perspective, and cannot be solved mathematically, unless a damage-per-round calculation (or something similar) is all you're after.

From this perspective, a defence-focused character will always be suboptimal because his attack bonus could be higher due to his resources being invested in defence rather than offence. Even if his AC is 10 points higher than the attack-optimized character, he's suboptimal because his attack bonus trails by 3 points. There's just too many mechanical aspects to a character; you can't point at one and say "suboptimal."

That's why "fixing the math" is important. For the players who don't care, it doesn't matter if it's 'right' or 'wrong' - they don't care. But for the players who do care, it does matter.

I absolutely agree, and find that 4E is much better in this regard than previous editions. However, given the enormity of available options, "the math" will never be perfect, and trying to make it perfect detracts resources from other aspects of the game. To me, as long as it's within an acceptable range of balance, it's fine and we don't need to be picking over every feat and power.

It's certainly a tradeoff, but not just in the direction you're arguing. If you get too obsessed with balance like this, you limit the design space too much (IMO). You might have some cool new idea to try out, but you find it's too difficult to balance and worry that the CharOp people will break the hell out of it, so it goes in the dustbin.

Balance is definitely a concern. But it's not the only concern. That's the trouble with relying too strictly on CharOp: the numbers are not the only thing that matters. As long as things are not obviously out-of-whack, that's probably good for most of your market, and trying to fix it for the rest may harm it for the majority.

 

[kaomera]

It's much more than a 5% difference in attack bonus, surely. But that stat-16 character has the same limited resources as the stat-18 one, and has invested them differently. If he has a lesser attack bonus, he necessarily has other advantages.

But that isn't always true, or at least the advantages he does have just aren't worth as much. Expertise is an obvious example, but ability scores are also an issue, because of racial boosts. (Actually, maybe that's backwards? I was thinking that going from 16->18 was more valuable than going from 14->16, but buying a "16" in the first place costs 4 more points than a "14". There still may be a value issue due to NAD pairs, but I'm not so certain as when I started to type this...)

From this perspective, a defence-focused character will always be suboptimal because his attack bonus could be higher due to his resources being invested in defence rather than offence. Even if his AC is 10 points higher than the attack-optimized character, he's suboptimal because his attack bonus trails by 3 points. There's just too many mechanical aspects to a character; you can't point at one and say "suboptimal."

I would point at defense-focused characters as being suboptimal for the game in general. In some cases it might be reasonable, but even defenders can have too high of a defensive base (so that marks are no longer much disincentive to attack other PCs). Overly defensive characters slow the game down, and at higher levels this is compounded because more rounds = more conditions that also slow things down.

 

[pemerton]

Here's the rub: if everyone at the table is of the same mind (either they all care about the math, or none of them do), then everything will be fine. But groups tend not to be homogenous, and if you put a player who doesn't care together with a player who does, then the big disparities start to become apparent.

This seems to me to be an argument against Expertise feats, in favour of either (i) leaving the game as it was at publication, or (ii) directly fixing the maths. It's not an argument for leaving any maths-fix in the hands of individual players, who vary in just the ways you describe.

Unfortunately, those big disparities can cause serious problems. Over the course of the campaign, it is likely that the optimised character will come to dominate the game. This has two likely effects: the player with the weaker character may become frustrated at being forever outshone, or the player with the stronger character may become frustrated at forever 'carrying' the others (or both).

Because (i) we're talking here only about combat balance, and (ii) 4e is a game with distinct combat roles, I'm not actually sure that this is true. As long as the weak and strong player aren't both trying to fill the same role in combat, the disparity may well go largely unevinced at the table (though the strong player will still, presumably, notice the suboptimality of the weak players build).

 

[Fifth Element]

I would point at defense-focused characters as being suboptimal for the game in general.

Don't focus on the specific example too much, it was just a random thing picked for illustration. The point is that characters have many numbers that, in aggregate, produce its mechanical results. There is no way that a character can be "optimal" in all of these numbers at the same time, due to the limited resources available. Therefore, having an attack bonus less than the maximum possible may be a suboptimal attack bonus, but that does not in turn imply a suboptimal character.

 

[Herschel]

I would point at defense-focused characters as being suboptimal for the game in general. In some cases it might be reasonable, but even defenders can have too high of a defensive base (so that marks are no longer much disincentive to attack other PCs). Overly defensive characters slow the game down, and at higher levels this is compounded because more rounds = more conditions that also slow things down.

This is patently untrue in many circumstances though, especially where defenders are involved. Defenders specialize in punishing foes who ignore their mark. Any solid party should have a durable enough composition where every member takes hits. Take an Assault Swordmage and Rogue, for example. Depending on terrain, a Swordmage and rogue standing side-by-side where the rogue is demonstrably eaiser to hit it is often still better to swing at the defender. Why? Because even though the foe is more likely to land that hit on the rogue, the payback is much worse for the foe where the defender gets to flank, an extra attack and it and the rogue are at +2 to attack and the rougue now gets its sneak attack dice.

Also, using the same defender as an example, status effects would become essentially pointless. I can tell you from play they are not. The two most usefull encounter powers I have are dimensional vortex and hypnotic swordplay. While the vortex some times does involve dealing some decent damage, an Int modifier damage coupled with STUN is very effective even with its minimal damage output.

Also, a fighter getting great use out of Come And Get It better have high enough defenses to take some major swings because he will take them. If someone ignores his mark, he'll get in an extra attack also.

 

[kaomera]

Don't focus on the specific example too much, it was just a random thing picked for illustration. The point is that characters have many numbers that, in aggregate, produce its mechanical results. There is no way that a character can be "optimal" in all of these numbers at the same time, due to the limited resources available. Therefore, having an attack bonus less than the maximum possible may be a suboptimal attack bonus, but that does not in turn imply a suboptimal character.

The issue is that not all of the ways that you can spend your limited resources are equal. I'm not saying what's optimal and what's not because ideally a player is going to optimize for the highest value of "I have the things I want on my character sheet", and not any numerical value or aggregate thereof. However, while I expected that the fact that a +2 attack bonus is pretty much flat-out better than the benefits of any other feat for any character who actually needs / wants to hit things would drive players away from other feats that they actually might want or enjoy more, there aren't enough such feats that it makes a difference. Players are still taking expertise (indirectly) because it's "best" or "most optimal", but the direct reason they are taking it is because the way 4e is designed you do your best "cool stuff" when you hit, and players want to do their cool stuff as often as possible.

This is patently untrue in many circumstances though, especially where defenders are involved. Defenders specialize in punishing foes who ignore their mark. Any solid party should have a durable enough composition where every member takes hits. Take an Assault Swordmage and Rogue, for example. Depending on terrain, a Swordmage and rogue standing side-by-side where the rogue is demonstrably eaiser to hit it is often still better to swing at the defender. Why? Because even though the foe is more likely to land that hit on the rogue, the payback is much worse for the foe where the defender gets to flank, an extra attack and it and the rogue are at +2 to attack and the rougue now gets its sneak attack dice.

I think my post was pretty vague, but you're not talking about anything near as severe a focus on defense as I am. For one thing, all of the mark punishment you're talking about actually requires you to hit. I really don't like overly defensive characters, and I think they're sub-optimal for the game in general in the sense that they aren't fun. But I'm probably obsessing over an extreme example.

 

[Aegeri]

MM3 design mocks defensive characters anyway, because they often end up being auto-hit by certain effects (Auras/zones, powers like Gloomshroud and Acidic Blood) or monsters can still have miss effects to ruin their day (Damage or effects). Defensive characters can be rapidly ground down, particularly because aura damage overlaps and stacks now (something it didn't previously do).