Why is it a bad thing to optimise?

[Dice4Hire]

I would also second, or fifteenth the suggestion to audit the ranger. +4 or _5 on top of a Rogue? Only if the rogue is using a +2 proficiency non-dagger. In my game now, our 3rd level rogue has a bonus 2 above anyone else nd is targeting reflex nearly every round. He hits more than anyone else.

Rogues are the to-hit kings of 4E.

 

[Kobold Boots]

However, that being said, KB, are you saying that the DM should make everyone's character for them?

Hi Hussar -

I think the word "should" is a bit strong and implies that it's the preferable way of doing things universally. I think that's not the case.

But what I am a proponent of is the role of DM as a resource manager, player mentor, facilitator of the story and protector/guarantor of the enjoyment value the players receive. I've found in general that people play games for a few reasons:

1. To hang with friends and be or look cool
2. To hang with friends and take part in the story of the game, whatever it is.
3. To hang with friends and be useful to those friends, either as an opponent or an ally.
4. To hang with friends and eat lots of bad food at the game site

So considering the philosophy above (and my apologies for the long, borderline soapbox post.. no preaching intended)

If there's a real risk that my players are going to damage the game for each other without intending to, and I've seen it happen with other games with the same players I very well may create their initial characters for them after doing a short session of character history and mad lib with the group.

I certainly wouldn't do it without player input and I would build in that mad lib history development into the leveling process to both prevent the game from devolving into combat after combat and remind people what's important to the campaign (again provided that I'm actually running a story first game).

Best,
KB

 

[Hussar]

Hrm. Kobold Boots...

I'm not sure I'd want to do that as a DM. A player's character is the only thing that they actually own in the game. It's their's. I can see what you're doing and since it's being done with a lot of input from the player, it could work. I'm just not sure I'd be comfortable statting up someone else's character.

Then again, I suck at mechanics by and large, so, I suppose everyone would suck equally.

 

[Kobold Boots]

Hrm. Kobold Boots...

I'm not sure I'd want to do that as a DM. A player's character is the only thing that they actually own in the game. It's their's. I can see what you're doing and since it's being done with a lot of input from the player, it could work. I'm just not sure I'd be comfortable statting up someone else's character.

Then again, I suck at mechanics by and large, so, I suppose everyone would suck equally.

Completely respect your point of view. It requires a lot of trust and a good amount of work on the part of the DM and group. I'm also the type to approach things from the "be awesome equally" perspective

I think what I've found in the one instance I've done this is that while there's a lot of decision making being done by the DM at first level, the player ends up getting what they asked for and has carte blanche over his character from that point forward with the benefit of having the rest of the group involved as he or she advances.

It also tended to leverage the skills of the two people in the party that optimized everything for the benefit of the entire group but I freely admit as stated in the first paragraph above that this isn't for everyone. It's one solution.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

he ended multi encounters with his combo of attack with 3 or 4 attack ranged encounter power, drop a target, spend his action point use twin strike then use his power from his paragon path to spend a 2nd action point (goten from the killing of a non minnon) to gire 3 or 4 more shots...8-10 shots needing single digits to hit and dealing massive damage... dropping the whole fight.

he had a higher plus to hit then any player by multi points, he had more attacks in a round then any 2 players added togather, he had a better to damage bonus then anyone by 5 or 6 pts to the next highest... and he had a tie with the fighter for best AC, and a tie with the wizard for best ref and will... he had the second best fort.

he braged about being a one man party...

Be sure to check math.

I really don't see how he's doing all that much more damage than the rogue, unless the rogue's really been built awfully. I don't recall many high-[W] ranger bow powers, which might suggest he's using his Quarry dice too often, though if he's able to drop one non-minion/round, that still could be an awful lot of quarrying.

OTOH, how on earth is he killing all these non-minions by himself? I mean, really? Are y'all using a lot of lower-level monsters instead of near-level?

Brad

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I would also second, or fifteenth the suggestion to audit the ranger. +4 or _5 on top of a Rogue? Only if the rogue is using a +2 proficiency non-dagger. In my game now, our 3rd level rogue has a bonus 2 above anyone else nd is targeting reflex nearly every round. He hits more than anyone else.

Rogues are the to-hit kings of 4E.

ok, I am quoteing you, but it is to a bunch of you saying the same idea...

Background: we started in sept the first year of 4e...we had phb1 and frpg, and av1 to start. and we all kinda didn't know what we were doing... 3 of the 5 of us caught on faster, 2 slower... and becuse it was our first 4e try some of it was pretty bad. We ran the H1-e3... the player of the ranger started as a fighter, but died in h2 and had to bring in a new character...now having the edge of understanding and the opt board, and martial power + a few books and starting higher level he came in better.

the rouge was useing a rapier (cost feat) was the str build (from phb1 can't rmeember name of build) he was multi into cleric at low level, and he wanted a good Con and Int too, so he was spread thin.

The ranger on the other hand went 20 dex and a good wis, and almost nothing else.

The rouge wanted holy symbols, and spent a feat on lingustics. The ranger took focus and got the great bow asap,

the tanger had archery bracers

the rouge had bracers that aloud him to use an at will on a charge.

the ranger increased his dex and wis every 4 levels
the rouge split his stat ups to str, dex, wis, and Int...

no matter what item I droped if it had a higher + the ranger player would ask for it to be transfered to his bow...so he always had atleast tied for the highest +.

 

[Andor]

Besides, NPCs have been hitting up PCs for help since, well level one, so in the grand scheme of things, having an "optimized" character really means jack. If the GM needs to get the characters involved in something, they'll do so regardless of how optimized they are.

So... what was the problem again?

 

[Janx]

Now this is something I do agree with. There is a tendency in many groups for people to treat their characters in a vacuum and not pay any attention to the group or the larger campaign. Particularly at chargen.

This is not to say that chargen should be done as groupthink and you get no control over your character. That's obviously taking things too far. But, stepping back, just a little bit and trying to envision your character as part of the group generally helps ameliorate a lot of the more egregious behavior.

In the spirit of that, I generally think groups should have a house rule that all PCs must be built/backstoried such that the party would have an inherent reason to trust and accept this person into their party.

Simply because, the players are socially forced to let the new PC join the party because he controlled by a player. Therefore it should not be acceptable for a PC to violate that meta-game principle that got him into the party.

It would seem an extension of that is, don't build PCs to outshine the rest of the party.

 

[Mark CMG]

Players that optimize to the setting and the group are generally not problematic. Players that optimize to a fault are generally those who ignore the setting and the group and exploit the rules in ways the system may not have foreseen. The latter need the GM to step in during chargen and explain why this might not be a fun pursuit if the whole group is not on board. Beware the player who asks no questions about setting and the group before presenting you with their character. Also, if they haven't named their character when they claim to have finished, keep your eyes open. If their entire background consists of them saying. "I'm a (insert class/profession here)," this might be a warning sign that the player doesn't know the difference between creating a roleplaying character and statting up a battlebot.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Be sure to check math.

I really don't see how he's doing all that much more damage than the rogue, unless the rogue's really been built awfully. I don't recall many high-[W] ranger bow powers, which might suggest he's using his Quarry dice too often, though if he's able to drop one non-minion/round, that still could be an awful lot of quarrying.

OTOH, how on earth is he killing all these non-minions by himself? I mean, really? Are y'all using a lot of lower-level monsters instead of near-level?

Brad

we were useing the mods, and he was only quarry once + once for action point he was useing D12's and most of those attacks were at 1w or 2w but he (and I know I am not really doing all of this) +x stat +2 focus +4 armbands +3 or 4 enchantment

so a 2w 3 attacks does 2d12+17, his quarry is +2d8 if all 3 hit that is 51+6d12+2d8 then follow it up with a 3 attack 1w, witch if all hit is 3d12+2d8+51.

that is already impressive, but add in the warlord +4 damage (from action point and the feat (we did do that wrong and add it to every att)) so avrage just ove 200hp


edit; I was told to add brutal accuracy, and hunter advantage, but I dont have time to look them up...