Why is it a bad thing to optimise?

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Judging by the words used and the damage levels cited, does 4e have a higher damage ammount in general?

Has there been a damage inflation in the game?

Yes.

A 1st-level PC has a lot more hp than in previous editions, but a 1st-level monster has more hp as well. Damage at 1st-level is about the same though. As a result, a 1st-level character has about an equal chance of killing a kobold by themself as in 3rd Edition, but neither can kill each other in one hit. (One-hit-kills in 4e are pretty much banned, and there's no sudden death spells either.)

MM3 and onward, monster damage actually scales properly with level. The owlbear is sort of an "outside" example as it first has to use an AP (only elites and solos, plus a few rare templates, get these) and then it's doing +10 damage on top of that. (Brutes do a lot of damage, and the owlbear and other brutes can do pretty much nothing except damage.)

I've gotten big numbers for damage in 3e. On my >15th minotaur fighter with a great axe and 24str (belt of giant strength) and improved crit and rolling max damage. And yes, that was awesome.

but that was a maxed out crit. And those same characters wouldn't last 2 rounds taking 80/a round in return.

The owlbear could only do the 80 damage combo once. Afterward, it could cheerfully inflict 40 damage a round. That's actually right on the ball for an 8th-level elite brute. A typical monster does 8 damage + 1/level per hit, double that if elite, +25% if brute, more with encounter powers, and less with AoE and/or strong control powers.

I once built a horrid NPC in 3.x - a were dire bear barbarian. PCs could only escape its grapple if they rolled a "20", and were still a few points short. And no, I didn't deliberately do that, it's just that 3.x math was a lot fiddlier. (You couldn't assign damage, you just had to built.) And said NPC could probably deal 80 damage a round with a claw/claw/bite routine. (I've lost said NPC, but I recall the CR being only 15.)

Once upon a time, 12 damage from a big weapon + strength + 1 was the most a 1st level PC could pretty much do.

A 1st-level PC in 4e can do more with encounter and daily powers, but note 1st-level monsters generally have 26 hp at minimum (1st-level monster that isn't artillery or lurker and Con 10; most have a few more).

And HP couldn't keep up if the enemy swung that, so it sounds like 4e gave PCs more HP. And then in return, made monsters hand out more damage to eat those HP faster.

No, 4e doesn't give out more hp like that. You get more at 1st-level (I think the minimum is 12 plus Constitution score) but after that you only get 5 or so hp per level. You start with more but the math is "flatter".

It sounds like the game additions and charops behaviors have created an arms race.

I wouldn't call it a race. Once the MM3 was shipped, NPC/monster damage stopped increasing, and WotC doesn't deliberately create broken combos.

 

[Kzach]

However, the part I quoted has relevance. In just about all of your threads, I see a manner of speaking that isn't diplomatic.

Sure, I get antsy sometimes and retaliate with forceful words, but 90% of the time I think it comes down to perception of the reader, not intent of the writer.

Try reading what I write whilst imagining me with a big (possibly wry) smile on my face INSTEAD of a grimacing snarl, and I'll bet you come away with a different impression of my intent than you may currently.

Contrary to possible popular belief, I'm actually a pretty laid-back kinda guy and quite congenial in polite company. I'm also very good at customer service and sales. That shocks most people I meet after they've known me online. Then again, I'm also a raging bull if I feel you do something to me or a friend that is unjust or unfair or simply immoral

Anyway, back to your regular programming.

 

[Kzach]

And, on top of that, your response was to actively and publicly try to lay the entire blame for the misunderstanding on faults in me, rather than take it to be simple misunderstanding, take some of the blame for yourself, or even (*gasp*, perish the thought) apologize for giving offense.

I didn't give offence, you took it.

Before you take the moral high-ground, have you ever checked out Circus Maximus?

 

[Hussar]

I no longer bother with games if success is based on decisions primarily made away from the situation at hand. If not having the right benchmark numbers = fail then I will seek a more sensible game.



Aye. I want to play an enjoyable game not participate in some rules driven arms race.

So, because you cannot be bothered to make a competent character, everyone else has to carry you along? It's bad that another player makes a character that is effective, but, it's perfectly fine that you make a character that is sub-par to the point of being ineffective? Why?

To be fair though, let's not get too far into hyperbole. Playing a 3.5 D&D bard might put you bit down on the scale for power, but you shouldn't be totally ineffective. Bards just tend to be a bit less capable in some situations. That's fine. Nobody is talking about that.

However, playing your bard with a 7 Cha because "well, it's a challenge" is just as bad as the powergamer. IMO.

 

[ExploderWizard]

So, because you cannot be bothered to make a competent character, everyone else has to carry you along? It's bad that another player makes a character that is effective, but, it's perfectly fine that you make a character that is sub-par to the point of being ineffective? Why?

I have no trouble creating competent characters and don't go out of my way to make incompetent ones. If making a competent character means wading through stacks of bloat supplements then yeah I suppose I can't be bothered. I can make a nice fighter or wizard character right out of the PHB with intelligent stat, skill, and feat choices that I would be comfortable calling competent.

However, playing your bard with a 7 Cha because "well, it's a challenge" is just as bad as the powergamer. IMO.

That is sheer pigheadedness and such a situation falls under Wheaton's law.

 

[Pilgrim]

When I sit down as a player in an RPG session, I don't come to the table with the mindset of wanting to win. I don't look at RPGs as being a competition or confrontational where the DM/GM is concerned.

As a DM/GM I don't run my games with the intent of beating the PCs or winning the game against the players. As a DM/GM I'm simply the moderator between the players and the game world, no more, no less.

When I think of optimization in gaming, I think of situations in which one side of something is trying to gain an advantage, be the best, or simply beat the other. For me, and more or less my group where RPGs are concerned, this simply shouldn't be an aspect of playing.

Board games, miniatures, CCGs, etc., these are all games in which optimization is not only a good idea, but pretty much expected. You want to build and play to the best of your ability, priming everything to gain every advantage and win.

Personally, I find players too often sacrifice creativity to their character when their only pursuit is to optimize, especially if it is always combat oriented, and that's something I can do without.

 

[Connallmac]

However, playing your bard with a 7 Cha because "well, it's a challenge" is just as bad as the powergamer. IMO.

I disagree, neither style is badwrongfun. Both are equally valid approaches to RPGs, just be mature enough to realize that perhaps the two sides shouldn't play together, or perhaps they should find a different game that everyone in the group can enjoy.

I used to play 3.5 with a group that had one serious powergamer, the rest of us were drifting into Call of Cthulhu and World of Darkness and the like. The powergamer brought in several new players who were also powergamers, which eventually caused the the group to split. The powergamers went off and did their thing with 3.5, and the rest of us went towards more character and story driven games. No hard feelings or name calling, just a recognition of different interests.

 

[Hussar]

I have no trouble creating competent characters and don't go out of my way to make incompetent ones. If making a competent character means wading through stacks of bloat supplements then yeah I suppose I can't be bothered. I can make a nice fighter or wizard character right out of the PHB with intelligent stat, skill, and feat choices that I would be comfortable calling competent.



That is sheer pigheadedness and such a situation falls under Wheaton's law.

I'd agree with that. I actually generally only make my characters using the PHB, mostly because, like you, I just can't be asked to spend that much time on things.

I disagree, neither style is badwrongfun. Both are equally valid approaches to RPGs, just be mature enough to realize that perhaps the two sides shouldn't play together, or perhaps they should find a different game that everyone in the group can enjoy.

I used to play 3.5 with a group that had one serious powergamer, the rest of us were drifting into Call of Cthulhu and World of Darkness and the like. The powergamer brought in several new players who were also powergamers, which eventually caused the the group to split. The powergamers went off and did their thing with 3.5, and the rest of us went towards more character and story driven games. No hard feelings or name calling, just a recognition of different interests.

I would say that it's badwrongfun when taken to extremes. Like I said, being on the weaker end of the spectrum is fine, as is perhaps being on the stronger side. It's the guy who makes a character that is outright useless and then expects to be carried along by the rest of the group that's just as much of a problem as the combat wombat.

I've seen more than a few times someone claim that they cannot be bothered learning the rules, that they're just here to "roleplay" and then start bitching and whining because the guy sitting beside him can actually succeed more than a quarter of the time because he actually took the time to spend more than ten seconds creating his character.

Yes, it's great when a player wants to hand me a six page backstory on their character. Wonderful. Joyous. But, if you spend two hours creating your backstory on a character that's an albatross hung around the neck of the group, then the time is not well spent.

Just as the powermonkey is about stealing spotlight, the one legged peasant is just as much about stealing spotlight.

 

[Kzach]

When I sit down as a player in an RPG session, I don't come to the table with the mindset of wanting to win. I don't look at RPGs as being a competition or confrontational where the DM/GM is concerned.

I'm not confrontational with the DM either. I often encounter different or plain wrong interpretations of rules in groups I play with but most of the time I just shrug it off and keep going. I don't sit there arguing to win even if it nixes something about my character.

Sometimes I'll ask for a clarification and sometimes I'll go so far as to mention that I understood it differently. And if a particular interpretation is something I feel is unfair to the group, I might bring it up for discussion, but at the end of the day if the DM says no, I'll play on.

The same goes for players. I'm not creating my character to beat them, I'm creating my character to be fun, and squishing things and taking their loot is fun. Dying and running for my life (all the time) gets kinda old pretty fast.

When I think of optimization in gaming, I think of situations in which one side of something is trying to gain an advantage, be the best, or simply beat the other. For me, and more or less my group where RPGs are concerned, this simply shouldn't be an aspect of playing.

What's wrong with being the best at something?

One of my wizard builds focuses heavily on Arcana. He can't fail average rolls has a good chance of succeeding at very difficult checks. I love that! He's the Arcana guy. When you need something Arcanery answered, you ask him. I call that fun, why shouldn't it be an aspect of playing?

 

[MichaelSomething]

It's the guy who makes a character that is outright useless and then expects to be carried along by the rest of the group that's just as much of a problem as the combat wombat.

You would think those two types would cancel each other out!