Why is it a bad thing to optimise?

[S'mon]

You're getting into strawman territory here. Again I say, none of those things are excluded from the game simply because I bring an optimised character to the table. If YOU can't see that, then you're the one being wilfully ignorant.

*shrug*

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

This means that you're going to make your rolls the majority of the time, and by doing so, you avoid any opportunity for the DM/GM to spur a side venture where assistance from an NPC will be required, unless he has already planned out such directions for the game to take.

I'm with Kzach on this one. There are other ways the DM can introduce the NPC. If a DM is unwilling to seek these other avenues, then he is most likely trying to railroad the players. Even sticking with the original premise, the NPC could own a bit of 'lost lore,' something the PC would have little to no opportunity to know (high or impossible DC). An ancient unique tome in his possession, etc.

I'm not going to call games where the PCs always rely on NPCs badwrongfun, but there have been many a thread about DMPCs and this gets pretty close to it if the characters always have to rely on someone else to achieve anything.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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

Kinda/sorta/not really.

You begin with more HP in 4th edition, but gain less per level. Same with monsters. Damage doesnt see the massive highs of 3rd edition either, but the low end is up a bit. Damage is less spikey overall. In 3rd edition, we'd routinely see huge amounts of damage from a power attacking barbarian's 2 handed crit, rogues landing multiple big dice sneak attacks or ray spells.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

So all thieves are assassins? - I guess I missed that memo

No, professional murderers. Think about how many sentient beings most characters kill as they rise in level.... its crazy!

The theif class really is centered around spike damage though. Items that add to it are likely to be what both the player AND the thief would want to equip. Its quite in character to want something like a quick rapier or bracers of mighty striking.

 

[DEFCON 1]

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.

Guess what, Kzach? If the reader isn't getting your intent, that means as a writer YOU FAILED.

If you want us to understand what you're saying and what you mean... that's ON YOU. YOU have to write clearly so that we get it. And if we don't get it... you didn't do your job as a communicator. YOU bear that responsibility, and you can't turn around and then blame us for not getting it.

 

[Janx]

I'm with Kzach on this one. There are other ways the DM can introduce the NPC. If a DM is unwilling to seek these other avenues, then he is most likely trying to railroad the players. Even sticking with the original premise, the NPC could own a bit of 'lost lore,' something the PC would have little to no opportunity to know (high or impossible DC). An ancient unique tome in his possession, etc.

I'm not going to call games where the PCs always rely on NPCs badwrongfun, but there have been many a thread about DMPCs and this gets pretty close to it if the characters always have to rely on someone else to achieve anything.

I think that's awhol nother avenue of problem, not what the orignal writer was talking about.

If PCs could truly do everything, they'd never talk to blacksmiths to make something for them, sages to google up answers from the gods, or other subject matter experts. that is basically what the initial concern was.

However, I doubt a PC made by Kzach is going to have ranks in every skill to cause this sort of problem. Odds are good his PC is good at killing, and good at whatever his highest stat favors for skills. So there's a buttload of things he still needs from others.

As such, i think that concern is a non-issue.

I think the matter is really simple. When in Rome, do as the Romans do.
If Kzach shows up to the table, and all the other PCs suck, he should not build a PC that super-outshines them.

As from some other post in here I pointed out there is a minimum baseline of making a decent PC (focusing on skills that use your best attributes), as kzach indicated they don't even do that. but making build plans out, and that kind of behavior, don't do it.

If the party all has the similar power-level, odds are good the DM scales combat to support that. So a party of sucky PCs does not suck. They only suck when 1 player shows up with SuperMan.

As to why the rest of the group might object? Because they don't play that way. True Story: Its like playing basketball during lunch with your friends, and then having guys from the basketball team show up wanting to join.

Without the jocks, you all had fun. because nobody was better at blocking than anybody was at shooting, baskets were made by just about everybody in equal measure. The moment jocks show up, even if you split them across the 2 teams, suddenly, they are the ones making ALL the shots, and blocking YOUR shots.

Now the jocks just wanted to play ball. And you could argue that we should have improved our game. But to Jocks, basketball was something they dedicated time to improve their game on. Everybody was having fun until that point. Because nobody WANTED to devote that kind of effort to it, but still wanted to spend some time together doing something.

I've seen the same thing in Halo when doing Live Parties. i get all my friends into a 8 man party, and we have a great time doing 4v4 team games. We take it to the wide internet, and we get scrambled up with strangers, and most of the strangers are kids who focussed on getting good at Halo. The result, we sucked, and we did not have fun.

So a mismath in skill/power-level often reduces the fun. So knock it off.

 

[Umbran]

either you're being wilfully obnoxious or you need to read much more carefully.

If YOU can't see that, then you're the one being wilfully ignorant.

Hey, guys - arguments of the form, "either you agree with me or there is a fault in your person," are rhetorically weak, and rude on top of it.

Stop getting personal. Address the content of the post, not the person of the poster, please and thank you.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Wait, the ranger is the one you would kick out of your group? Seriously? It sounds like a competantly built striker, doing exactly what a sriker is supposed to do, deal a lot of damage.

ok maybe I did not type it clear, or maybe you miss read it... he could with out fail out damage the other 4 players (one being a rouge, and one being a fighter) added togather. He ended multi encounters in a row on his own, by going first, and killing the entire encounter. He could do more in an encounters then others with dailys.

If another player makes a poorly build character in the same role, and doesn't perform as well your solution is to fire the guy who knows what he's doing?

my solustion was to ask the guy way far a head to come back to were the others were... I don't want one person so far ahead that everyone else says "Why should we be here"

Even though he's moving the game along and the other player is dancing around the table and getting upset that his nerf-bat wielding charcter is less effective than one that uses steel?

ok, when Kurt was happy and danced around becuse for the first time in levels he felt good about his character I loved it, and so did the other players (minus 1 guess who) we all gave him high fives too.

we also celebrate crits once in a blue moon when our unlucy player rolls them...it is part of the game to us.

Personally I'd be more upset at the disruptive player. I'd also be inclined to keep my employee who performs his job effectively over the lazy whiner,

well this is not work...it is supose to be fun..

and to pick Mike Tyson in a fight over Don Knotts.

in a fight yea, but what about to hang out with and share some laughs? or you know to play a fun game that you all enjoy? I would choose Don Knotts then.

If I am in a real life fire fight I want the best...when playing a game I want fun... and being a one man show stoper is not fun

 

[S'mon]

So a mismath in skill/power-level often reduces the fun. So knock it off.

With 4e I find it's only a problem intra-role. In the campaign I play in my Thief is probably the most optimised as I think the other players are all new to 4e, though the Fighter is close. It doesn't matter if I outshine the Fighter, the Cleric, the Warlord or the Wizard in single-target damage, because that's my role. It does matter if I outshine the Ranger, because he's also a Striker.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

With 4e I find it's only a problem intra-role.

I agree if the warlord optimizes and oaths best leader ever he does not outshine the battlemind with little to no optimization in fact thesameayer as our only defender or leader has been fine but when we double up or striker in general he still causes some problems