Do you all make any changes to starting characters for your games? I was thinking of giving an extra 2 points for 24 points for starting characters and giving people the option to also change their 8 to a 10 (for 6 10s across the board before allocating points) unless it was crucial to their character concept to be weaker than average, dumber than average, etc.
I also really don't like minions as more than set dressing so the first time they run into ten enemies and think it's gonna be a cake walk on Athas they will be very surprised indeed!
I plan on cranking it up a few notches on the difficulty, and they are foolish enough to not bring a leader role to the party. It's gonna feel like Dark Sun of old that's for sure.
I know back in 2nd edition you rolled 4d4+4 for your stats and started off at 3rd level. They mentioned the harshness of growing up on Athas and if I remember correctly they also said there was no such thing as level 0 characters in Dark Sun in 2E either.
Do you all make any changes to starting characters for your games? I was thinking of giving an extra 2 points for 24 points for starting characters and giving people the option to also change their 8 to a 10 (for 6 10s across the board before allocating points) unless it was crucial to their character concept to be weaker than average, dumber than average, etc.
Between Wild Talents, Themes, and the general hardiness of first level characters in 4E, I don't think it is necessary to buff new PCs more. Dark Sun is still deadlier, but now the PCs don't need to be significantly beefed up to compensate.
With the new MM3 damage expressions, monsters are even more deadly than before, and the Dark Sun monsters even moreso, if the D&DE and Free RPG Day modules are any indication.
2e DS had 4d4+4 for stats because in order to have a +1 to hit, you had to have 16 str.
4d4+4 averages out to 14 (which means +0 to hit in 2e). Average stats in 4e are 12 or 13 (+1 to hit in 4e).
Baseline 4e characters are actually tougher than 2e DS characters.
With the themes, players are not stuck going "I guess I'll use my single encounter power now" at 1st level. They get a choice between 2 encounter powers, and that combined with Wild Talents puts them closer to 3rd level.
If you make the players tougher, you're gonna make the world weaker, unless you make the world tougher. It's just easier not to make the players tougher to begin with. Cheese graters with smaller holes hurt more than cheese graters with larger holes.
Now will some other people PLEASE copy this to a text file on their desktop or memorize this and post it anytime you see "4d4+4," or "2e DS characters were tougher."
2e DS had 4d4+4 for stats because in order to have a +1 to hit, you had to have 16 str.
4d4+4 averages out to 14 (which means +0 to hit in 2e). Average stats in 4e are 12 or 13 (+1 to hit in 4e).
Baseline 4e characters are actually tougher than 2e DS characters.
With the themes, players are not stuck going "I guess I'll use my single encounter power now" at 1st level. They get a choice between 2 encounter powers, and that combined with Wild Talents puts them closer to 3rd level.
If you make the players tougher, you're gonna make the world weaker, unless you make the world tougher. It's just easier not to make the players tougher to begin with. Cheese graters with smaller holes hurt more than cheese graters with larger holes.
Now will some other people PLEASE copy this to a text file on their desktop or memorize this and post it anytime you see "4d4+4," or "2e DS characters were tougher."
I was thinking a couple bonus points in ability scores might possibly come close to offsetting the fact that the PCs will probably never get their +2/4/6 Item bonus to damage via magic items or be able to reliably build a character based on CharOp magic item combos.
I was thinking a couple bonus points in ability scores might possibly come close to offsetting the fact that the PCs will probably never get their +2/4/6 Item bonus to damage via magic items or be able to reliably build a character based on CharOp magic item combos.
As an alternative to giving them +1 inherent bonuses, you could give them +2 to all stats (note: you could also give +2 to fewer stats, if you'd prefer) - you could also use a combination: example, a +1/2/3 magic item coupled with +2/4/6 to all stats.
Might make higher tiered character feel like they have power because of their super-high ability scores?
I was thinking a couple bonus points in ability scores might possibly come close to offsetting the fact that the PCs will probably never get their +2/4/6 Item bonus to damage via magic items or be able to reliably build a character based on CharOp magic item combos.
The inherent bonuses take care of the players not having the magic item bonuses to damage, attack, crit dice, and defenses. The rules already compensate, you don't need to compensate further.
As for compensating for not being able to use CharOp magic item combos? So what? Why in the world would you need to compensate for not allowing them to break their characters?
As has been pointed out upthread; 4E PCs are already more powerful than previous editions, Themes and Wild Talents make them more powerful still, Dark Sun monsters and environment are more deadly to compensate for this. By buffing the PCs, you make the Dark Sun world less deadly.
That the Dark Sun world is more dangerous is part of the draw of the setting, why would you want to weaken it?
I was thinking a couple bonus points in ability scores might possibly come close to offsetting the fact that the PCs will probably never get their +2/4/6 Item bonus to damage via magic items or be able to reliably build a character based on CharOp magic item combos.
The inherent bonuses take care of the players not having the magic item bonuses to damage, attack, crit dice, and defenses. The rules already compensate, you don't need to compensate further.
As for compensating for not being able to use CharOp magic item combos? So what? Why in the world would you need to compensate for not allowing them to break their characters?
As has been pointed out upthread; 4E PCs are already more powerful than previous editions, Themes and Wild Talents make them more powerful still, Dark Sun monsters and environment are more deadly to compensate for this. By buffing the PCs, you make the Dark Sun world less deadly.
That the Dark Sun world is more dangerous is part of the draw of the setting, why would you want to weaken it?
Its not just CharOp combos that are nerfed, but lack of access to significant magic items hurts flexibility and power a bit even including inherent bonuses. Not to mention giving a base of all 10s and giving a 24 point split doesn't significantly boost power but does boost flexibility. 24 is small enough that you aren't going to see anyone with 18/16 preracial, but big enough that you'll see someone have the points to put into a tertiary stat even if they are optimizing.
A common misconception is that CharOp is about breaking the system, as opposed to making the rules work in concert like a well-practiced symphony orchestra.
I'm assuming most monsters nowadays are balanced assuming that PCs will be rocking either a Staff of Ruin or the +2/4/6 item bonus bracers and that the party will be using "frost cheese" or "radiant mafia cheese". I'm giving out a few extra points as both consolation and to represent the harsher background.
A common misconception is that CharOp is about breaking the system, as opposed to making the rules work in concert like a well-practiced symphony orchestra.
I'm assuming most monsters nowadays are balanced assuming that PCs will be rocking either a Staff of Ruin or the +2/4/6 item bonus bracers and that the party will be using "frost cheese" or "radiant mafia cheese". I'm giving out a few extra points as both consolation and to represent the harsher background.
Why would you assume this? When things like frost cheese, orblocking, and feycharging trivialize the game, they issue errata to fix it. They do not make the game harder to compensate for these things, which is a lot more work.
The act of optimization implies that one is going to squeeze out every bit of effectiveness that is possible. If that means breaking the game, so be it. It has been long understood that the Char Op boards have helped the designers understand where the game breaks down, and which elements need to be changed in order to fix the problem. People optimizing are, by definition, pushing their characters beyond the design specifications into uncharted territory.
Since we have been told in no uncertain terms that Dark Sun is intended to be a harsher setting, and that magic items will be much more difficult to come by, any optimization that depends on magic items for its goal must expect to be dissappointed. Since the players will be going into Dark Sun with this knowledge, I see no reason to compensate them if they choose to continue on such a design path. "They knew the risks. They bought their tickets. I say, let 'em crash!"
Well, the inherent bonuses system and the scarcity of magic items on Athas does not completely eliminate the use of magical items. That said, I'd gladly houserule those bonuses in if it meant my players would go for something more interesting for their item slots.
I'd love that as a player. Feeling like I have to get AIP on a Warlock and pick up a Staff of Ruin just to be competitive with everyone else is frustrating to say the least.
Well, the inherent bonuses system and the scarcity of magic items on Athas does not completely eliminate the use of magical items. That said, I'd gladly houserule those bonuses in if it meant my players would go for something more interesting for their item slots.
I'd love that as a player. Feeling like I have to get AIP on a Warlock and pick up a Staff of Ruin just to be competitive with everyone else is frustrating to say the least.
Everyone should realize that the only person you should be competing with is the DM, right? Each player's character should occupy a niche, so the only time you should be comparing your performance to another party member is when they occupy the same niche. For example, my party has two Strikers. The Rogue has a higher damage cap, but the Sorcerer has higher average damage. When both of the concentrate on the same monster, it tends to melt. They don't have "Rogue envy" or "Sorcerer envy" because, even though they fill the same role, they occupy a different niche.
Stop competing with each other, and start working together, and all this silly stress about whether or not you are "optimal" should go away.
Do you all make any changes to starting characters for your games? I was thinking of giving an extra 2 points for 24 points for starting characters and giving people the option to also change their 8 to a 10 (for 6 10s across the board before allocating points) unless it was crucial to their character concept to be weaker than average, dumber than average, etc.
I don't see the need. The 4E system has already significantly buffed the viability of level 1 characters, and with the way the encounter rules are structured, there's no need for me to start them off higher than that in order to give them a chance of survival. I can throw harder encounters at them to give them that "athas hard" feel, but I can do that just as easily at level 1 as I can at level 3.
Stop competing with each other, and start working together, and all this silly stress about whether or not you are "optimal" should go away.
Another common misconception about CharOp. Being optimal is not about competition, so I'm afraid that "fix" doesn't actually work. It also has absolutely nothing to do with a perceived lack of teamwork (in fact, this is the complete opposite).
Let me put it to you this way: don't you strive to be the best you can be at anything you do? Do you always seek to improve yourself in all things? If this is the kind of person you are, doesn't it follow that this attitude would color even your leisure hobbies?
Stop attributing your bad anecdotal experiences with terrible players to symptoms of a desire to optimize, and all these silly misconceptions about optimization should go away.
Stop competing with each other, and start working together, and all this silly stress about whether or not you are "optimal" should go away.
Another common misconception about CharOp. Being optimal is not about competition, so I'm afraid that "fix" doesn't actually work. It also has absolutely nothing to do with a perceived lack of teamwork (in fact, this is the complete opposite).
Let me put it to you this way: don't you strive to be the best you can be at anything you do? Do you always seek to improve yourself in all things? If this is the kind of person you are, doesn't it follow that this attitude would color even your leisure hobbies?
Stop attributing your bad anecdotal experiences with terrible players to symptoms of a desire to optimize, and all these silly misconceptions about optimization should go away.
That's all well and good, except I was replying to this post from the OP:
I'd love that as a player. Feeling like I have to get AIP on a Warlock and pick up a Staff of Ruin just to be competitive with everyone else is frustrating to say the least.
Which states in no uncertain terms that he feels the need to stay competitive with everyone else.
A Warlock is a Striker with a side of Controller. As long as he is doing decent damage and hindering the enemies, he is doing his job. As a character with a dual role, he cannot reasonably expect to outdamage the Twin Striking Ranger. So, if such a beast is also present in the party, as long as he takes advantage of the powers which exert some control over the enemies, he will be making an equal contribution. Each player contributes more than just DPR, but the great majority of "X class sucks" or "Y class is overpowered" posts seem to be based entirely upon DPR.
You are competing with one person, and one person only, and that is the DM. If the encounter is over faster with you there than without you, then you are making an active contribution to the success of your party. You do not need to be optimal to achieve this goal.
While I have had bad experiences with Optimizers in previous editions, I have yet to have such with Optimizers in 4E. I engage in optimization myself as a mental exercise. I love puzzles, so while optimized characters are fun to make, and sometimes fun to play, I get equal fun out of finding ways to make subpar characters work.
A Warlock is a Striker with a side of Controller. As long as he is doing decent damage and hindering the enemies, he is doing his job. As a character with a dual role, he cannot reasonably expect to outdamage the Twin Striking Ranger. So, if such a beast is also present in the party, as long as he takes advantage of the powers which exert some control over the enemies, he will be making an equal contribution. Each player contributes more than just DPR, but the great majority of "X class sucks" or "Y class is overpowered" posts seem to be based entirely upon DPR.
Damage is everyone's job not just the "pure" striker's job. Every character should try to improve their damage output so that the party as a whole can get through combats faster and one of those means is by getting a +item bonus to damage magic item like the Staff of Ruin or either of the bracers. There is RARELY another implement out there for any of my staff using implement characters that can compete with a flat item bonus to damage from the Staff of Ruin. The only item I can think of that can provide enough "control" to rival the damage boost from the Staff is maybe the Orb from AV2 that forces enemies to roll their saves twice as a daily power. Another exception being beast form Druids and the Staff of the Serpent because they can combine that with Iron Armbands of Power to bring in some severe pain.
You are competing with one person, and one person only, and that is the DM. If the encounter is over faster with you there than without you, then you are making an active contribution to the success of your party. You do not need to be optimal to achieve this goal.
Barring horrible interparty conflicts, it is not you who is competing with the DM it is your party who is competing with the DM and trying to push that little bit more performance out of your character via optimization is very helpful in making sure everyone(or at least yourself) comes home alive. Comparing your own character to other characters in your role(or role you're stepping in for with some more hybridized classes) is a way to keep yourself honest when asking yourself if you are doing your best.
Also you can't really use the encounter being over faster with you as opposed to without you PoV, because some DMs actually bother to scale encounters to the size of the party. So in some games it is very possible for the presence of your character to make the encounters drag on longer.
Damage is everyone's job not just the "pure" striker's job. Every character should try to improve their damage output so that the party as a whole can get through combats faster and one of those means is by getting a +item bonus to damage magic item like the Staff of Ruin or either of the bracers. There is RARELY another implement out there for any of my staff using implement characters that can compete with a flat item bonus to damage from the Staff of Ruin. The only item I can think of that can provide enough "control" to rival the damage boost from the Staff is maybe the Orb from AV2 that forces enemies to roll their saves twice as a daily power. Another exception being beast form Druids and the Staff of the Serpent because they can combine that with Iron Armbands of Power to bring in some severe pain.
How othen does it come down to one or two points of damage, really? Isn't it much more common that the hit that kills a creature does way more damage than their remaining hit points? Last session, my players fought eleven monsters. Only once would an extra point of damage or two have killed the monster, they never hit the remaining hit points on the nose, and five of the monsters had less than ten hit points remaining when they were hit for 20+ damage.
If you lose out on 3 points of damage that wouldn't have killed the monster anyway, but force the monster to miss or waste an action instead, haven't you made a greater contribution to the success of your party?
In order to defeat monsters, not every member of the party needs to be cranking out every possible point of damage, because much of that damage will wind up being wasted. More important than raw DPR, since that DPR will never be evenly distributed over every monster for every attack, is that every player work together in concert to defeat the challenge in front of them.
If DPR were the only, or even most important, concern, then why would any player ever play anything other than a Striker?
You are competing with one person, and one person only, and that is the DM. If the encounter is over faster with you there than without you, then you are making an active contribution to the success of your party. You do not need to be optimal to achieve this goal.
Barring horrible interparty conflicts, it is not you who is competing with the DM it is your party who is competing with the DM and trying to push that little bit more performance out of your character via optimization is very helpful in making sure everyone(or at least yourself) comes home alive. Comparing your own character to other characters in your role(or role you're stepping in for with some more hybridized classes) is a way to keep yourself honest when asking yourself if you are doing your best.
Considering that I talked about cooperating with your party rather than competing with it in a previous reply, it should be obvious that I don't completely disagree with you. I also made plain that I feel if two players were occupying the same role, then each needed to find a niche. The Sorcerer in my party has higher average damage. The Rogue in my party has a higher max damage (and is really scary if he crits). Each one has a different focus, so they aren't competing against each other. They each have a perfect understanding of how they contribute. Instead of trying to outdo each other, they concentrate on the important things, like destroying the monsters I put in front of them.
I should add that my players understand the value of control effects like combat advantage, prone, stun, daze, immobilize and blind, and have selected powers that do these things in addition to damage rather than focusing on the attacks that do damage and damage only. By limiting the options of my creatures, they enable the Defender to get into position, and give themselves time to thin out some of the weaker monsters and reduce the number of total attacks the party suffers. This just strikes me as good tactical thinking that goes beyond simplistic DPR calculations as the only metric for good performance.
Also you can't really use the encounter being over faster with you as opposed to without you PoV, because some DMs actually bother to scale encounters to the size of the party. So in some games it is very possible for the presence of your character to make the encounters drag on longer.
Is the game made better by your presence? Is everybody having fun? Is everybody contributing to everyone's good time, including their own?
These are the most important considerations for any game, not just D&D. DPR is probably somewhere about #30 on my list of things that contribute to a fun session of D&D. Your own mileage may, and probably does, vary.
How othen does it come down to one or two points of damage, really? Isn't it much more common that the hit that kills a creature does way more damage than their remaining hit points? Last session, my players fought eleven monsters. Only once would an extra point of damage or two have killed the monster, they never hit the remaining hit points on the nose, and five of the monsters had less than ten hit points remaining when they were hit for 20+ damage.
When you hit how often is it that you hit by just 1 point? Most of the time don't you hit by 2 or more points? Despite that most people would still rate something along the lines of Versatile Expertise a must take feat. Weapon Focus and Superior Implement Training are up there with them, because over the course of a long time a single point matters greatly. Take a person who runs a nine minute mile and compare them to someone who runs a 10 minute mile. If they both run a marathon the 9 minute mile guy can darn near watch an entire television show with all the time he saved by running 1 minute faster.
If you lose out on 3 points of damage that wouldn't have killed the monster anyway, but force the monster to miss or waste an action instead, haven't you made a greater contribution to the success of your party?
Show me an item that can consistently let me give up 3 points of damage every round to make the monster miss or waste an action every round and I will be one happy controller.
In order to defeat monsters, not every member of the party needs to be cranking out every possible point of damage, because much of that damage will wind up being wasted. More important than raw DPR, since that DPR will never be evenly distributed over every monster for every attack, is that every player work together in concert to defeat the challenge in front of them.
Teamwork is very important to defeating a challenge, but so is every person in the party having higher than a 12 in their primary stat.
If DPR were the only, or even most important, concern, then why would any player ever play anything other than a Striker?
DPR isn't the only concern and sometimes it isn't the most important concern, but if your character willingly chooses to deal less DPR then there better be some amazing reason why.
Considering that I talked about cooperating with your party rather than competing with it in a previous reply, it should be obvious that I don't completely disagree with you. I also made plain that I feel if two players were occupying the same role, then each needed to find a niche. The Sorcerer in my party has higher average damage. The Rogue in my party has a higher max damage (and is really scary if he crits). Each one has a different focus, so they aren't competing against each other. They each have a perfect understanding of how they contribute. Instead of trying to outdo each other, they concentrate on the important things, like destroying the monsters I put in front of them.
I completely agree with everyone having their own niche, but every character should be able to step out of their niche somewhat. Strikers should be able to also control or help support the party to a small degree, non-strikers should be able to bring the pain, etc. Sometimes emergencies or wierd encounters come up and the AoE specialized Wizard has to fight a solo and needs to be able to fall back on something.
I should add that my players understand the value of control effects like combat advantage, prone, stun, daze, immobilize and blind, and have selected powers that do these things in addition to damage rather than focusing on the attacks that do damage and damage only. By limiting the options of my creatures, they enable the Defender to get into position, and give themselves time to thin out some of the weaker monsters and reduce the number of total attacks the party suffers. This just strikes me as good tactical thinking that goes beyond simplistic DPR calculations as the only metric for good performance.
Goodness no, I don't believe you should go for damage only powers, but if you have the choice between your Thunderwave doing 1d6+5 damage and pushing 3 squares or doing 1d6+8 damage and pushing 3 squares then the choice should be easy. If you are giving up 3 damage on your Thunderwave for some additional benefit like pushing further or w/e else then that is a different thing entirely.
Is the game made better by your presence? Is everybody having fun? Is everybody contributing to everyone's good time, including their own?
I agree those are the most important aspects of a game.
These are the most important considerations for any game, not just D&D. DPR is probably somewhere about #30 on my list of things that contribute to a fun session of D&D. Your own mileage may, and probably does, vary.
I don't consider DPR to be the end all and be all of everything, but whenever I make a character I always ask myself "what do I gain by not doing more damage?"