I do care about their subpar characters being killed, as it slows the game down, but what really infuriates me is that their incompetence got my precious killed.
Leaving the game is not an option, this is the only game in town. To give examples really how bad they really are, one of them played a ranged Avenger, the other one a wizard with Hypnotism and Magic Missile. No forced movement, no area damage, nothing really.
We have offered several times to help them "improve" thier characters, but they mostly refuse it. I do not want to offend them, so could you share some of your experience how I should deal with this?
Be aware that this may be a slow process. But just informing them on some of the basics, like "you need a good to-hit bonus so always have an 18 in your attack stat at level 1 and take Expertise as one of your first feats", can set them on the right track.
After that, just inform them of an awesome feat you've seen for one of their characters (just look at one of the CharOp handbooks) and ask them to consider it. In time, they will warm up to optimization. Just don't expect them to start placing it before roleplay stuff. Your goal should be to make them effective, not overpowered.
Or you could suggest they only play Essentials characters. Those practically build themselves, not a lot that can go wrong with those.
If I may use my idea for a 3.5 Catfolk as an example of what a character might feel in-game about "optimization:"
(16+4 DEX, 14 CON, 13 INT, 12 STR, 10 WIS, 8+2 CHA)
His version: he knows that he is a lot faster than he is strong, so he has learned specific swordfighting techniques that depend on speed instead of strength
(My version: I would start him at level 1 as a Fighter so he can take the Weapon Finesse feat to take advantage of his +5 DEX modifier over his +1 STR)
His version: he learns everything he can about vital organs, vulernable areas, and how to go for them specifically (lethally or otherwise) in order to get the fight over faster. His opponents would have to be surprised or distracted for him to be able to attack them that precisely without them blocking him, but he is very good at catching enemies off-guard and more importantly has friends who would back him up in a fight.
(My version: exclusively adding levels of Rogue after 1 level in Fighter [the SA damage would more than make up for a smaller STR bonus to damage], taking the Improved Initiative feat [possibly in exchange for the Shaky flaw to get it at level 1], racially he already has faster movement [40 vs. 30] and +2 Move silently checks)
His version: he has had bad experiences being unable to defend himself or his friends without his sword, so he learns everything he can about martial arts that don't require weapons in case his gets stolen/confiscated again.
(My version: gradually taking the Improved and Superior Unarmed Strike feats)
I would point out that in the extremely violent world that D&D takes place in, making characters better at combat isn't somehow "bad roleplaying," it's role-playing them as people who know that they are living in a very violent world and want to learn how to keep living.
I tried this one, they just did not get it.
Its so easy to differentiate mechanical features from roleplaying flavor hopefully they can grasp that, or maybe just try and coach them toward greater effectiveness without compromising their sillyness, get the wizard to take the theme which grants magic missile for free and hope he takes something useful as his 2nd at-will; see if the avenger, well, that one is harder, hybrid seeker? I don't know...
Do they notice how much more effective you and the other two players are in combat? You can use that as an "in" to show them a bit more about optimization.
Be aware that this may be a slow process. But just informing them on some of the basics, like "you need a good to-hit bonus so always have an 18 in your attack stat at level 1 and take Expertise as one of your first feats", can set them on the right track.
After that, just inform them of an awesome feat you've seen for one of their characters (just look at one of the CharOp handbooks) and ask them to consider it. In time, they will warm up to optimization. Just don't expect them to start placing it before roleplay stuff. Your goal should be to make them effective, not overpowered.
Or you could suggest they only play Essentials characters. Those practically build themselves, not a lot that can go wrong with those.
I do not even have to look at the guides to find better feats/items/powers. But every time I suggest something, they just ignore it. One of them just made another wizard, one of the feats does literally nothing (enhances a racial feature his racial variant does not even have) the other one gives 5 cold fire and thunder resistance. In the 5 sessions these never came up. The At-wills are Hypnotism and Phantom Cage. An improvement over Magic Missile, but still. The sad part is he knows the character is not strong, but he explicitly said he does not want strong.
Obviously you can't "force" them to do anything they don't want to in a game.
Its so easy to differentiate mechanical features from roleplaying flavor hopefully they can grasp that, or maybe just try and coach them toward greater effectiveness without compromising their sillyness, get the wizard to take the theme which grants magic missile for free and hope he takes something useful as his 2nd at-will; see if the avenger, well, that one is harder, hybrid seeker? I don't know...
The DM does not allow Themes. I told him we obviously need any form of extra power we can get, but he "does not see the need".
At least one of the two deliberatly builds subpar characters. "It is more fun".
The sad part is he knows the character is not strong, but he explicitly said he does not want strong.
Make it clear to them that there's a difference between 'strong' and 'pulling your weight'. You don't have to win a race, but it's nice to actually finish it.
From your story, I feel they don't actually realize how the combat roles in 4E work (striker, defender, controller, leader). Ask them to consider picking a role and building for it, since otherwise they won't be pulling their weight in combat. If they don't understand how a role works, help them figure it out.
Also, if their underpowered characters are actively interfering with your fun, tell them that. D&D is a team game, and you can't make your characters survive without their help (as evidenced). Tell them you're not fine with your character dying every few sessions, and that you need their help for that too.
Finally, leaving the game is ALWAYS an option. No D&D is better than bad D&D. This obviously has bothered you enough to ask for help about it. If it really bothers you that much, quit and perhaps start your own game.
Bottom line, don't be afraid to OFFEND. If other players get bent out of shape when you reasonably and politely request that things change, then that's THEIR problem, not yours. Just state openly, politely and honestly what you want and why you want it. Your desires are just as important as everyone else's. If the rest of the group can't accomodate you in some manner, either deal with it and carry on, or leave.
Or, if you want to be snarky, ask the other players how much fun they have playing their character being unconscious. Inform them that you thought the way just sat on the floor like that and did nothing really was cool. You could also suggest interesting ways for them to roleplay making death saving throws. Things like seeing how long they can be quiet, leaving the room to simulate being dead, tearing up their character sheet to inspire them to act out their dramatic death scene etc. ;)
Ultimately, the characters are their own. You cannot force them to build their character how you want them to, and attempting to do so will just create bad feelings. RedSiegfried is right when he says not playing D&D is better than playing a game you are not enjoying.
If they do not want your advice, then there is no point in offering it. Until they realize that their ability to optimize and their ability to roleplay are unrelated, there is nothing you can do. They might even start making their characters even worse, just to spite you, or conspire to otherwise irritate you further so that you either leave or the DM/group ejects you.
Either grin and bear it, or depart.
Bottom line for me is that if you want someone to change the way they are doing things, you have to come out and say so. That doesn't mean you'll always get what you want, but you certainly won't unless you ask. Regardless, be polite, patient, and be willing to take no for an answer.
Or do this.
Let them play their characters how they want.
Ahh, but are they letting him play his character the way he wants to: somebody that doesn't get killed multiple times per session?
Let them play their characters how they want.
Ahh, but are they letting him play his character the way he wants to: somebody that doesn't get killed multiple times per session?
That's not a way to play a character, that's an outcome determined (if the DM still insists on boring failure mores) in part by the way one plays that character. It's also determined in part by how others play their characters, and other factors, but one is still allowed to make one's own choices during play.
It also bears noting that the DM should be adjusting the encounter difficulty to the abilities of the PCs.
Or setting up ways to fail that are more interesting than character death. Do we all see how this would be less of a problem if death wasn't on the line and the game was still interesting for the poster despite the party's failures?
They are having fun running what they want. Let them run what they want. You can insinuate, you can point out every bad move they make, you can keep asking them. But in the end, what they see is you constantly pestering them to play your way. If you keep bringing this up, they are just going to get rid of you. Stop bothering them about it.
Ultimately, you should leave if it is keeping you from having fun. Don't tell me this is the only game in town. Either run a game yourself, or do it online with maptools or something. It's better to not play, then to force yourself. You will just ruin it for yourself and others.
I need to get this straight in my head. You are a player, right?
They are having fun running what they want. Let them run what they want. You can insinuate, you can point out every bad move they make, you can keep asking them. But in the end, what they see is you constantly pestering them to play your way. If you keep bringing this up, they are just going to get rid of you. Stop bothering them about it.
Ultimately, you should leave if it is keeping you from having fun. Don't tell me this is the only game in town. Either run a game yourself, or do it online with maptools or something. It's better to not play, then to force yourself. You will just ruin it for yourself and others.
I think his point, which he may have not made clear in this thread, is that the other player's unwillingness to contribute in combat is making the part of the game he enjoys the most less fun for him. This culminated in the recent death of the character he was playing and liked. He is trying to find a solution to this problem other than "leave the game" because he still wants to play.
You cannot force players to make characters the way you want, nor can you tell them how to play them.
I suggest talking to them about your frustrations. If that doesn't work seek another game.
I was in game D&D 3.5 where I played a Rogue who was a Guild Leader the other Rogue was an assassin.
One day we came to a large door of a Temple we were going to rob and eliminate the Head Cleric.
As we came to the door it was locked. It was then I realized that my Open Lock skill was horrible for my level since I had put all my points into social skills.
So I asked the assassin to open it. He had put all his points into Stealth, Move Silently and such.
Between us we couldn't pick the lock.
We found this hilarious, the other players...not so much.
After that we talked about it with your DM and requested to modify our skills around to be more party friendly.
9 deaths in 5 sessions is too much. If the players refuse to optimize, the DM needs to lower the difficulty of the encounters.
Eh, high mortality can be fun in a pure delve. As long as you don't get too attached to your characters. Like, say, attached enough to call it your precious.
9 deaths in 5 sessions is too much. If the players refuse to optimize, the DM needs to lower the difficulty of the encounters.
Have you ever played Hackmaster?
9 deaths in 5 sessions is too much. If the players refuse to optimize, the DM needs to lower the difficulty of the encounters.
Have you ever played Hackmaster?
If '9 deaths in 5 sessions' is an endorsement, I never will.
If they have a character concept they want to play, let them.
I would rather play in a game with a bunch of non-optimized characters that are fun than in a game with 5 cardboard characters that are fully optimized and have 0 personality.
Why are you even trying to force them to optimize?
If they have a character concept they want to play, let them.
I would rather play in a game with a bunch of non-optimized characters that are fun than in a game with 5 cardboard characters that are fully optimized and have 0 personality.
How about 5 optimized characters with full personalities, because optimizing and roleplaying are not inversely proportional?
But good role playing does not require optimization. And if I had to choose, RP beats OP every time.
True.
But good role playing does not require optimization. And if I had to choose, RP beats OP every time.
the whole point is that you shouldn't have to choose
True.
But good role playing does not require optimization. And if I had to choose, RP beats OP every time.
the whole point is that you shouldn't have to choose
True.
But you shouldn't be forced to optimize if you don't want to.
True.
But good role playing does not require optimization. And if I had to choose, RP beats OP every time.
the whole point is that you shouldn't have to choose
True.
But you shouldn't be forced to optimize if you don't want to.
Right, but there is a certain level of optimization you really should do. Like a rogue with Cha as their main stat and 10 dex. That guy isn't "sub optimal" that guy is "useless in combat". He doesn't need to learn about frost cheese, but he does need to learn a couple of basics of how to not be completely useless. Just like the player who doesn't want to RP at all should make the barebones of a backstory and participate out of combat with more than grunts. They are two sides of the same thing and a good character needs some of both to function.
Assigning appropriate stats, equipment, and skills is Functionalizing.
Working out all the class-features, feats, magic items, theme, paragon path, and epic destiny features so that the maximum synergy of attack, damage, and side-effect is achieved is Optimizing.
Nor does it change the fact that the OP should in clear terms let the other player know that he has a problem with the way his character is built and nicely request that he change things up a bit. And if that doesn't work out he should either smile and deal with it (haven't we all?) or leave the game if it upsets him that much.
A good player should be a good RPer AND be effective in combat to the extent that group consensus requires. If you're falling down on one or both of those legs, others in the group have a right to ask you to change things, and a responsibilty to help you do that if you want help.
True.
But good role playing does not require optimization. And if I had to choose, RP beats OP every time.
You don't have to choose.
-------------------> The point
Your headTrue.
But good role playing does not require optimization. And if I had to choose, RP beats OP every time.
You don't have to choose.
-------------------> The point
Your head
No.
The point, as already stated, is that you do not force other players to optimize.
And if the player does not want to make a Functional character, well, you can't force that either. But I would question whether this player actually wants to play, or just be a sphincter.
Functional: highest stat into primary skill. Pick the powers that make sense for your build.
Optimize: you have to put your highest stat in this, and it has to be a base 18 at first level, and you need this race so you get the racial bonus, And you really should play this race so that you get the bump to the secondary class stat, and you should take this feat....
After that campaign got done we did some delves, so I did a standard charge package Thief, to show them what really frontloaded damage looks like. This is somewhat misleading, because Thief itself isn't especially optimized, but the charge package really just sprays dice everywhere, which looks impressive.
Couple weeks after that, we started up a new level 1 campaign, so I built a skirmishing Rogue that didn't use any magic items, just to rub it in how much better I could do in combat with 0 items than fully geared players, all while having a really rather compelling character to roleplay. Again, this was kind of a dirty trick by me, just because the math of the game lets you get away with crap like that for about 6 levels before it gets truly untenable, but luckily, they didn't know that.
Finally, after a couple of sessions of playing that character, one of the kids asked me how can I make chararacters so cool, and from there, I managed to turn the rest of them.
Long story short, being That Guy worked for me to get them to come around. Maybe it can work for you, maybe no. Good luck at any rate.
The other option is to play something really overpowered. Something with the charge package in low-mid heroic, a breather in high heroic, paragon or higher. A PMC scout (Mia from Erachima for example). Play something that does something so goofy overpowered that you are just chucking an entire handful of dice at the opponent. The Rebreather is a great example of this because you are rolling so freaking many dice.
@whisper: That is pointless semantics using a new word to the conversation you just felt like adding. I know it may seem like a different thing to you, but to everyone else its just the difference between low, med and high op. All are optimization, just not to extremes. I understand what you are trying to say, you just don't really say it well.
[
No.
The point, as already stated, is that you do not force other players to optimize.
And if the player does not want to make a Functional character, well, you can't force that either. But I would question whether this player actually wants to play, or just be a sphincter.
Functional: highest stat into primary skill. Pick the powers that make sense for your build.
Optimize: you have to put your highest stat in this, and it has to be a base 18 at first level, and you need this race so you get the racial bonus, And you really should play this race so that you get the bump to the secondary class stat, and you should take this feat....
Neither of which has anything to do with how well the character is roleplayed.
-----------------------------> The point
Your head[
No.
The point, as already stated, is that you do not force other players to optimize.
And if the player does not want to make a Functional character, well, you can't force that either. But I would question whether this player actually wants to play, or just be a sphincter.
Functional: highest stat into primary skill. Pick the powers that make sense for your build.
Optimize: you have to put your highest stat in this, and it has to be a base 18 at first level, and you need this race so you get the racial bonus, And you really should play this race so that you get the bump to the secondary class stat, and you should take this feat....
Neither of which has anything to do with how well the character is roleplayed.
-----------------------------> The point
Your head
The point, as already stated, is that you do not force other players to optimize.
This getting my teeth kicked in because the group refuses to try to build functional characters while the DM presents challenges designed for functional characters has to stop. Something's got to give."
EVERYONE at the table should have the right to have fun. It's the DMs JOB to /ensure/ that happens, regardless of the party composition.
9 deaths in 5 sessions is too much. If the players refuse to optimize, the DM needs to lower the difficulty of the encounters.
What is the appropriate number of deaths per session? I've never seen it mentioned in the rules?
It seems to me, that the OP needs to sit down with the entire group, DM included and say "Look. This is /not/ fun. Either you (pointing to the other players) make better characters, or you (point at the DM) tone things down a bit.
This getting my teeth kicked in because the group refuses to try to build functional characters while the DM presents challenges designed for functional characters has to stop. Something's got to give."
EVERYONE at the table should have the right to have fun. It's the DMs JOB to /ensure/ that happens, regardless of the party composition.
9 deaths in 5 sessions is too much. If the players refuse to optimize, the DM needs to lower the difficulty of the encounters.
What is the appropriate number of deaths per session? I've never seen it mentioned in the rules?
[chuckle]
I don't think they've ever given an offical number.
I am curious now on how many encounters do you run a session?
Centauri always does this to me.
9 deaths in 5 sessions is too much. If the players refuse to optimize, the DM needs to lower the difficulty of the encounters.
What is the appropriate number of deaths per session? I've never seen it mentioned in the rules?
Zero. It's not mentioned in the rules, and shouldn't need to be. Dying is not fun. Sometimes it happens to be necessary, but you are never going to justify 9 players /needing/ to die in 5 sessions. To attempt it is a sad waste of time. Any arguments to the contrary are going to sound like someone being an apologist for bad DMing. The DM is /not/ always right.
If it were fun, the OP would not be here complaining about dying too much, and that's the proof that the DM is doing it wrong if the players refuse to change.
Thanks for the many replies.
DnD4 was released more than 4 years ago but some people, unfortunately including most of my DMs still does not understand that it was build around math. Expertise is a must no matter how boring some of them might be. They do not see magic items as a necessary part of an equasion, but as a fun and rare reward, ADnD style. They are plain and simple wrong, no matter what self-proclaimed real roleplayers think.
Going back to my actual play this weekend. I prepared a fun and powerful Tielfling Elementalist, and I wanted to offer it to the first dead, saying that he could take over, I prefer Defenders anyway. I had a Battlemind ready. To my surprise, one of them brought a quite capable Slayer, with the most fitting race even, half-orc. The other one created a workable Swordmage. Both are surprisingly good, even if the Slayer refuses to charge
Nobody died, everyone had a good time.But good role playing does not require optimization
The game was declared a hack and slash from the start. Halls of undermountain, without any adjustment for character strength. Open a door, the inhabitants charge you without hesitation. Optimization required, roleplay optional.
I think if you are in constant danger, in a world where werewolf attacks are commonplace, optimization is rolepaly. The indians who killed Custer did not refuse the use of rifles because it did not fit their "character concept". If your life is on the line, you do not settle for good enough. Unless of course you are decidedly suicidal.
A Melee Ranger at level 2 with Scimitar instead of Longsword is not a good roleplayer. The numbers are the representation of the actual properties of these weapons. +3 vs +2 means Longsword is more accurate, everyone in their right mind should chose it. You only see muzzleloaders in the hands of hobbyists. If you want to roleplay it, imagine your sensei/master/training sergeant beating you bloody until you finally take the best at-will/feat/weapon. He knows because he tried them all, and lived long enough to teach about it.
Also roleplaying games are not only about roleplay, you have to make compromises. If the church gives a mission to the paladin, the assassin/wizard/whatever goes along. If you find an Endless Canteen on Dark Sun, you do not live off of it for the rest of your life. The above ranger ran away for the first combat. Not when we were loosing, but at the start of combat. It makes perfect sense as roleplay, everyone wants to live. However, after the second, the rest of the characters threatened the ranger with a beatup if he ever does it again. After the 3rd, the players threatened the player of the ranger.
You can roleplay with LEGO figures and Barbie dolls, you should only bother with the rules of DnD4 if you actually want to participate in combat.
But good role playing does not require optimization
The game was declared a hack and slash from the start. Halls of undermountain, without any adjustment for character strength. Open a door, the inhabitants charge you without hesitation. Optimization required, roleplay optional.
I think if you are in constant danger, in a world where werewolf attacks are commonplace, optimization is rolepaly. The indians who killed Custer did not refuse the use of rifles because it did not fit their "character concept". If your life is on the line, you do not settle for good enough. Unless of course you are decidedly suicidal.
A Melee Ranger at level 2 with Scimitar instead of Longsword is not a good roleplayer. The numbers are the representation of the actual properties of these weapons. +3 vs +2 means Longsword is more accurate, everyone in their right mind should chose it. You only see muzzleloaders in the hands of hobbyists. If you want to roleplay it, imagine your sensei/master/training sergeant beating you bloody until you finally take the best at-will/feat/weapon. He knows because he tried them all, and lived long enough to teach about it.
Also roleplaying games are not only about roleplay, you have to make compromises. If the church gives a mission to the paladin, the assassin/wizard/whatever goes along. If you find an Endless Canteen on Dark Sun, you do not live off of it for the rest of your life. The above ranger ran away for the first combat. Not when we were loosing, but at the start of combat. It makes perfect sense as roleplay, everyone wants to live. However, after the second, the rest of the characters threatened the ranger with a beatup if he ever does it again. After the 3rd, the players threatened the player of the ranger.
You can roleplay with LEGO figures and Barbie dolls, you should only bother with the rules of DnD4 if you actually want to participate in combat.
Something else is...in the real world, you're never going to be an adventurer, going and doing dangerous things...with people you don't trust. Is anyone really going to trust a figher with 9 strength or whatever? Or the ranger that continually runs away? Heck no they aren't, yet in in game, a player can make whatever awful character choices they want, and everyone is stuck with them. There's nothing for that, but it's a bit frustrating when everyone decides to make poorly built characters.
EDIT: The scimitars in question aren't a world ending choice. You can still use them and be fine. The +3 bonus from longsword is better (imo) but scimitars have their plus sides too. The running away part is a bigger problem than the weapon selection.
But good role playing does not require optimization
The game was declared a hack and slash from the start. Halls of undermountain, without any adjustment for character strength. Open a door, the inhabitants charge you without hesitation. Optimization required, roleplay optional.
I think if you are in constant danger, in a world where werewolf attacks are commonplace, optimization is rolepaly. The indians who killed Custer did not refuse the use of rifles because it did not fit their "character concept". If your life is on the line, you do not settle for good enough. Unless of course you are decidedly suicidal.
A Melee Ranger at level 2 with Scimitar instead of Longsword is not a good roleplayer. The numbers are the representation of the actual properties of these weapons. +3 vs +2 means Longsword is more accurate, everyone in their right mind should chose it. You only see muzzleloaders in the hands of hobbyists. If you want to roleplay it, imagine your sensei/master/training sergeant beating you bloody until you finally take the best at-will/feat/weapon. He knows because he tried them all, and lived long enough to teach about it.
Also roleplaying games are not only about roleplay, you have to make compromises. If the church gives a mission to the paladin, the assassin/wizard/whatever goes along. If you find an Endless Canteen on Dark Sun, you do not live off of it for the rest of your life. The above ranger ran away for the first combat. Not when we were loosing, but at the start of combat. It makes perfect sense as roleplay, everyone wants to live. However, after the second, the rest of the characters threatened the ranger with a beatup if he ever does it again. After the 3rd, the players threatened the player of the ranger.
You can roleplay with LEGO figures and Barbie dolls, you should only bother with the rules of DnD4 if you actually want to participate in combat.
Something else is...in the real world, you're never going to be an adventurer, going and doing dangerous things...with people you don't trust. Is anyone really going to trust a figher with 9 strength or whatever? Or the ranger that continually runs away? Heck no they aren't, yet in in game, a player can make whatever awful character choices they want, and everyone is stuck with them. There's nothing for that, but it's a bit frustrating when everyone decides to make poorly built characters.
EDIT: The scimitars in question aren't a world ending choice. You can still use them and be fine. The +3 bonus from longsword is better (imo) but scimitars have their plus sides too. The running away part is a bigger problem than the weapon selection.
THIS
The same goes to every weapon. Until you have Flail expertise with a sliding at-will, or Dizzying Mace, or Hammer Shock, or whatever, you take Longsword. +1 to hit > +1 damage. Your trainer told you that. He had experience.
9 deaths in 5 sessions is too much. If the players refuse to optimize, the DM needs to lower the difficulty of the encounters.
What is the appropriate number of deaths per session? I've never seen it mentioned in the rules?
[chuckle]
I don't think they've ever given an offical number.
My point.
I am curious now on how many encounters do you run a session?
2 to 3.
Zero. It's not mentioned in the rules, and shouldn't need to be. Dying is not fun.
Also my point.
Also:
Obviously roleplaying is optional. Always has been. But optimizing is also optional, especially in 4th Edition.
The only plus side to the scimitar in heroic is High Crit. You only crit on 20 in heroic, and it gives you +1d8. That is 4.5/20=0.225. It has plus sides, just not visible. The negatives are clear.
The same goes to every weapon. Until you have Flail expertise with a sliding at-will, or Dizzying Mace, or Hammer Shock, or whatever, you take Longsword. +1 to hit > +1 damage. Your trainer told you that. He had experience.
What I'm saying is that picking scimitar is not OMG bad! It's quite playable.
The only plus side to the scimitar in heroic is High Crit. You only crit on 20 in heroic, and it gives you +1d8. That is 4.5/20=0.225. It has plus sides, just not visible. The negatives are clear.
The same goes to every weapon. Until you have Flail expertise with a sliding at-will, or Dizzying Mace, or Hammer Shock, or whatever, you take Longsword. +1 to hit > +1 damage. Your trainer told you that. He had experience.
What I'm saying is that picking scimitar is not OMG bad! It's quite playable.
Optimizers speak a different language. If something isn't the best, it's the worst. It's tied into a deep desire among geeks not to look uninformed or stupid.
The only plus side to the scimitar in heroic is High Crit. You only crit on 20 in heroic, and it gives you +1d8. That is 4.5/20=0.225. It has plus sides, just not visible. The negatives are clear.
The same goes to every weapon. Until you have Flail expertise with a sliding at-will, or Dizzying Mace, or Hammer Shock, or whatever, you take Longsword. +1 to hit > +1 damage. Your trainer told you that. He had experience.
What I'm saying is that picking scimitar is not OMG bad! It's quite playable.
Optimizers speak a different language. If something isn't the best, it's the worst. It's tied into a deep desire among geeks not to look uninformed or stupid.
Oh I'm aware. I spend plenty of time lurking on the charop forums. I'd personally take the longsword over the scimitar, but I wouldnt think someone bad made a stupid choice by picking a scimitar. It's not optimal, but not game breakingly bad either. Putting 14 as your primary combat stat and taking skill training instead of expertise is game breakingly bad.
The only plus side to the scimitar in heroic is High Crit. You only crit on 20 in heroic, and it gives you +1d8. That is 4.5/20=0.225. It has plus sides, just not visible. The negatives are clear.
The same goes to every weapon. Until you have Flail expertise with a sliding at-will, or Dizzying Mace, or Hammer Shock, or whatever, you take Longsword. +1 to hit > +1 damage. Your trainer told you that. He had experience.
What I'm saying is that picking scimitar is not OMG bad! It's quite playable.
Optimizers speak a different language. If something isn't the best, it's the worst. It's tied into a deep desire among geeks not to look uninformed or stupid.
Oh I'm aware. I spend plenty of time lurking on the charop forums. I'd personally take the longsword over the scimitar, but I wouldnt think someone bad made a stupid choice by picking a scimitar. It's not optimal, but not game breakingly bad either. Putting 14 as your primary combat stat and taking skill training instead of expertise is game breakingly bad.
Challenge accepted!
The thing is, there's no way to justify any not optimal choice to an optimizer. Not "roleplaying," not "style," not "different goals." Nothing. So, don't. Play the way you want, and tell others to back off.
Edit: If you're taking that challenge, no damned attack granters, that's not fair.
Edit: If you're taking that challenge, no damned attack granters, that's not fair.
Certainly not. But if I were to take this challenge, we'd have to outline terms. Me, I don't have any particular standards, like DPR, or the like. I'd play just about anything with 14 in primary, and skill training instead of expertise. I can't generally stand Expertise. I might multiclass, but that's generally considered non-optimal too, I think.
Edit: If you're taking that challenge, no damned attack granters, that's not fair.
Certainly not. But if I were to take this challenge, we'd have to outline terms. Me, I don't have any particular standards, like DPR, or the like. I'd play just about anything with 14 in primary, and skill training instead of expertise. I can't generally stand Expertise. I might multiclass, but that's generally considered non-optimal too, I think.
Almost every Opped build has an MC. MC feats on their own (especially a couple of them) are the most powerful non-math fix feats in the game.
The thing is, there's no way to justify any not optimal choice to an optimizer. Not "roleplaying," not "style," not "different goals." Nothing. So, don't. Play the way you want, and tell others to back off.
That's not true.
Well it's true with some optimizers, but certainly not all of us.
See, even within CharOp there are 3 different levels of charop (arguably 4).
Low Op is basically meeting benchmarks (functionalizing, so to speak).
Mid Op beats benchmarks easily , but not enough to break most games.
High Op is often too powerful for normal games and often discouraged.
So very often you'll see players wanting a build for a low-op game (typically one staying in heroic), and the advice is typically along the lines of making the character a little more efficient while maintaining the charactor concept.
And, far less frequently, someone will post a level 30 build and ask for help making it kill solo's in one round.
And really, there is nothing wrong with any of that.
Edit: If you're taking that challenge, no damned attack granters, that's not fair.
Certainly not. But if I were to take this challenge, we'd have to outline terms. Me, I don't have any particular standards, like DPR, or the like. I'd play just about anything with 14 in primary, and skill training instead of expertise. I can't generally stand Expertise. I might multiclass, but that's generally considered non-optimal too, I think.
So let's see.
Start with a 14 in your primary stat, boost it 8 times, that gives you a 22 stat at level 30.
We'll assume a +6 magic weapon, that has a +2 proficiency bonus. No Expertise.
That gives you a total of +29 to hit (15 level+6stat+6enh+2prof)
We'll assume you are fighting level 31 mobs, they have a 45 armor class.
Lol, you certainly don't need DPR standards, you need to roll 16 just to hit them.
Sorry, that's not functional.
That's not true.
Well it's true with some optimizers, but certainly not all of us.
Glad to hear it. Character optimization is still beholden to the misperception that fights to the death are the only way to run combat, but that's not their fault.
And really, there is nothing wrong with any of that.
Except when character optimization thinking applied to people who don't want it.
So let's see.
Start with a 14 in your primary stat, boost it 8 times, that gives you a 22 stat at level 30.
We'll assume a +6 magic weapon, that has a +2 proficiency bonus. No Expertise.
That gives you a total of +29 to hit (15 level+6stat+6enh+2prof)
We'll assume you are fighting level 31 mobs, they have a 45 armor class.
Lol, you certainly don't need DPR standards, you need to roll 16 just to hit them.
Sorry, that's not functional.
Sorry, I'd play that, probably as a defender or non-attack-granting leader.
[Character optimization is still beholden to the misperception that fights to the death are the only way to run combat, but that's not their fault.
Are you sure? I wasn't getting the impression that the OP thought that running away is always bad, just when one specific player/character creates the impression that he will back up his friends in a fight, but doesn't.
My understanding of character optimization isn't that the characters are too stupid to do anything but fight to the death and don't care about anything else, it's just that they know that the world they live in is very violent and they want to train to survive. I'm personally not very interested in role-playing a character that thinks that the world is non-violent enough that he doesn't need to learn to defend his friends.
[Character optimization is still beholden to the misperception that fights to the death are the only way to run combat, but that's not their fault.
Are you sure? I wasn't getting the impression that the OP thought that running away is always bad, just when one specific player/character creates the impression that he will back up his friends in a fight, but doesn't.
Linked to that misperception is the misperception that if you're not fighting to the death, then you're running away or being captured. Does no one watch action movies? One can survive, and not back down, and not be captured, and still lose. One can run away or die or be captured and still win. All it takes is a bit of forethought by the DM. But players don't control the DM, and DMs want to meet player expectations, so we're stuck in this loop.
My understanding of character optimization isn't that the characters are too stupid to do anything but fight to the death and don't care about anything else, it's just that they know that the world they live in is very violent and they want to train to survive.
Surviving is not necessarily winning.
I'm personally not very interested in role-playing a character that thinks that the world is non-violent enough that he doesn't need to learn to defend his friends.
Play however you want. And let others do the same.
I've seen you really, REALLY push this argument. I can't help but wonder, though....
Even though fights to the death are not the only way to run combat (a concept I whole-heartedly and definitely agree to, btw) how would you handle a fight that is actually, in fact, really to the death? Something could happen to break up the fight, granted, but if this happens more than twice it likely becomes less interesting as a plot device. Have you EVER had a character die in your campaigns?
1) Tell your 3 optimizers they should step up their game. They are obviously not doing much to assure their party members survive. And that's their role, as super-optimized-tanks-of-war. Not very good role-playing there.
2) Advise the 2 non-optimizers to hire, no... hypnotize... some optimized hirelings as bodyguards. Especially designed by you to show the party how optimization is REALLY done.
3) The one I recommend most: Consider changing your own DM style to accommodate the type of characters they seem content to make. Maybe give them a chance to succeed. Not a guarantee... just a chance. Make some encounters that require brains not brawn. Yes. Even in a dungeon crawl. Make them more important in the preparation leading up to the dungeon... perhaps have some contacts that can procure an old map or other useful thing that might help the entire party make it through the dungeon. The 3 optimizers don't really seem to be placing much value on their comrades.
By the way:
Hypnotism is a great choice if the DM puts something in the dungeon that can be hypnotised. Maybe the goblin can tell you how he has survived in this carrion crawler and ghoul infested, trap-filled tunnel. Where some secret doors are. And so on. Not so good a choice in a room full of zombies.
Magic missile is pretty awesome when the monster has a high AC or damage reduction only overcome by magic. It is best used to guarantee a finish on an already badly wounded opponent... provided the optimized character has enough fore-sight to keep the wizard alive as well as hack and slash his opponent. Not so good against traps.
1) Tell your 3 optimizers they should step up their game. They are obviously not doing much to assure their party members survive. And that's their role, as super-optimized-tanks-of-war. Not very good role-playing there.
The issue with this is how those players make take that suggestions. Depending on the player they might take that as that the deaths in the party are their fault.
2) Advise the 2 non-optimizers to hire, no... hypnotize... some optimized hirelings as bodyguards. Especially designed by you to show the party how optimization is REALLY done.
An interesting idea if the DM allows it.
3) The one I recommend most: Consider changing your own DM style to accommodate the type of characters they seem content to make. Maybe give them a chance to succeed. Not a guarantee... just a chance. Make some encounters that require brains not brawn. Yes. Even in a dungeon crawl. Make them more important in the preparation leading up to the dungeon... perhaps have some contacts that can procure an old map or other useful thing that might help the entire party make it through the dungeon. The 3 optimizers don't really seem to be placing much value on their comrades.
The OP is not the DM.
Hypnotism is a great choice if the DM puts something in the dungeon that can be hypnotised. Maybe the goblin can tell you how he has survived in this carrion crawler and ghoul infested, trap-filled tunnel. Where some secret doors are. And so on. Not so good a choice in a room full of zombies.
One of the groups I play with the Enchanter abuses hyptonism powers with the Knight's Aura to great effect.
So let's see.
Start with a 14 in your primary stat, boost it 8 times, that gives you a 22 stat at level 30.
We'll assume a +6 magic weapon, that has a +2 proficiency bonus. No Expertise.
That gives you a total of +29 to hit (15 level+6stat+6enh+2prof)
We'll assume you are fighting level 31 mobs, they have a 45 armor class.
Lol, you certainly don't need DPR standards, you need to roll 16 just to hit them.
Sorry, that's not functional.
Sorry, I'd play that, probably as a defender or non-attack-granting leader.
That defender would not be able to defend, if you have no mark punisment (because you always miss), the enemies have no reason to attack you. Or even stand next to you, then cause just walk away as you miss your OA.
As for a leader, you wouldn't be much of a leader. Since leaders need to hit to get the effects on their powers to work...
You could probably dump all of your everything into making really big heals, but then you aren't a leader, you are a mmo healer. Combats will drag, and your party will need the extra heals, so you pump more resources into heals. The viscious cycle perpetuates....
As far as your other comments about charop: not really.
See, charop operates on numbers. And some aspects of the game, don't have numbers, so you can't really optimize them.
But every D&D game has combat, and when you are dealing with math and statistics of combat certain things are superior. So optimizing around combat is the *easiest* thing to optimize, but it is far from the only thing. I agree that it leads to a stigma that CharOp is all about putting out obscene amounts of damage, but really, it's just not true.
There are several threads on boosting skills/skill optimization, and just being generally effective (to use the term again, functionalizing). Several handbooks recommend taking utility powers that boost skills, and even the feat Bard of all Trades is pretty highly rated.
And to be perfectly clear, if a given dm tends to run a lot of combats that have a built in skill element or skill challenge, then building a character with high skills for that game *IS* optimizing.
But even at a functional level, it's really not hard to make a functional character that keeps up with the basic combat math the designers built into the system - in most cases it takes a 16-18 starting stat, and 2 feats (expertise and improved defenses).
And keeping to those basic minimums shouldn't ever interfer with someone's ability to roleplay their pc.
But if everyone (DM included) really hates the idea of spending 2 feats on math fixes, then the DM should just give them 1 or both for free (maybe as a reward at a certain level). It's a pretty common houserule for a reason...
That defender would not be able to defend, if you have no mark punisment (because you always miss), the enemies have no reason to attack you. Or even stand next to you, then cause just walk away as you miss your OA.
It's like we're not even playing the same game. Not all defenders need to roll to impose their mark and not all mark effects depend on the defender's damage output.
And you're using optimizer language: "you always miss." It wouldn't "always miss," and even if I'm using the fighter, the more the monsters ignore the mark, the more attacks the fighter makes.
But, okay, sure. As long as I can mark them, my allies are still defended, because they have improved defenses. Not much, admittedly, but enough for me.
As for a leader, you wouldn't be much of a leader. Since leaders need to hit to get the effects on their powers to work...
False on its face. It's easy to find powers (even some at-wills, I believe) that have effect lines, meaning that their main purpose functions even without a hit.
It's really not hard to make a functional character that keeps up with the basic math the designers built into the system. And keeping to those basic minimums shouldn't ever interfer with someone's ability to roleplay their pc.
And if everyone (DM included) really hates the idea of spending a feat on a math fix like Expertise, then the DM should just give it to them for free. It's a pretty common houserule for a reason...
About that: there's yet another thread in the "What's a DM to Do?" forum about how easy combat is at Epic levels. So, which is it: is Epic combat easy, or does everyone need Expertise feats? Both can't be true.
Anyway, none of that matters. I'd play that character. Since there's not a chance I'd want to be in your game, what's it to you?
Yes, you could mark the enemy without actually hitting him.
But if you miss him 3x in row, he may decide that he can ignore you and walk away/attack someone else. Yes, you've still imposed a -2 penalty to his roll, and if that is all it takes to be effective in your game, then i fully agree: we are playing different games.
RE: Leaders
It is easy to find Dailies that have effects.
It is possible to find some encounters and at-wills that do the same, but again, this will largely depend on your class.
So sure, you can find some. But that isn't enough to make (the char in question) effective (unless you define spamming the same at-will and missing 75% of the time effective).
RE:Epic
Why not? didn't it ever occur to you that the encounters are too easy because everyone has fully optimized characters? Why is this such an unbelievable statement: "The fights were really hard, but when i took a feat to give me +3 to hit, they got a lot easier"
There is this imaginary line that i've been calling functional. Basically, i define it as having roughly the same attack/defense values of a same level enemy. Meaning AC = level 14, defenses =lvl+12, to hit AC lvl+5, to hit nads lvl+3.
Those basic numbers mean you have roughly a 50/50 change of hitting your enemy, or being hit by him.
The monster scaling math means that if a player pays exactly zero attention to remaining on this line he will fall behind (as evidenced by my prior post about that level 30 char that needs a 16 to hit his average opponent).
If a player pays minimal attention (Starting stat at 18, all stat bumps and 1 feat on expertise), he stays on this line.
If a player chooses to start mid->high end optimizing they can get well above this line and start trivializing encounters by the end of epic (sometimes even in paragon).
Hell, in a level 4 game i am currently dming, the rogue in my group hits on a 2. Consistantly. If you don't beleive me, i'll post his build. And guess what he'll still be hitting on a 2 in epic. Heh, the game isn't really going to get much harder or easier for him...
As for the thread you mentioned, i haven't actually read it yet, but there is also a possibility that the dm is using pre-errata monsters and/or just not balancing them properly. I'll check it out now.
Meet you there.
RE:Epic
Why not? didn't it ever occur to you that the encounters are too easy because everyone has fully optimized characters? Why is this such an unbelievable statement: "The fights were really hard, but when i took a feat to give me +3 to hit, they got a lot easier"
You misstate it.
First of all, what I didn't say, was that people were saying Epic was easy even before Expertise.
Second of all, it's not that the fights are "a lot easier" as in "they were impossible and now they're just challenging." No, the fights are easy, not challenging. I bet if they all dropped expertise (or optimized a lot less) the fights would be challenging, not easy.
The monster scaling math means that if a player pays exactly zero attention to remaining on this line he will fall behind (as evidenced by my prior post about that level 30 char that needs a 16 to hit his average opponent).
That's not evidence, that's just math.
I think what optimizers miss in their philosophy, is the interconnection. They look at individual characters, because the other characters are unknown variables. The individual is all they can look at. But then they mistakenly assume that that's the whole game. It's clearly not, as evidenced by threads like that one. Maybe not every group can steamroll in Epic, but enough of them seem to do it easily to really make me wonder.
As for the thread you mentioned, i haven't actually read it yet, but there is also a possibility that the dm is using pre-errata monsters and/or just not balancing them properly.
Look at what you're saying: with pre-errata monsters, it was possible for fights in Epic to be too easy. So why the call for Expertise? Why the drive for optimization? Optimization clearly has very little to do with even basic functionality.
I've never, not once in this entire thread said people should go all out and optimize to the point that encounters don't even matter, i said it is possible, but i didn't say that people should do it.
All i've suggested is that people give basic lip-service making sure they remain functional as the system math scales (under the current post-errata rulesset).
If pre-errata mobs were too easy, because of a lack of playtesting at higher levels, then maybe as soon as the puplic complains about it wotc should errata them to make them harder. Oh wait, they did that.
If they notice that high level play is cumbersome in multiple editions in a row, then maybe they'll consider that when they make the next edition of dnd. Oh wait, didn't they say the core of Next will only be up to level 10, with higher levels being supported in supplements?
If pre-errata mobs were too easy, because of a lack of playtesting at higher levels, then maybe as soon as the puplic complains about it wotc should errata them to make them harder. Oh wait, they did that.
AND they added Expertise. AND Expertise came first. Why didn't they just not add Expertise, for starters?
If they notice that high level play is cumbersome in multiple editions in a row, then maybe they'll consider that when they make the next edition of dnd. Oh wait, didn't they say the core of Next will only be up to level 10, with higher levels being supported in supplements?
I don't know, I lost interest in Next when they backpedaled from 4th. But it sounds like they're not really considering the problem, they're just giving up on it, at least until these imagined supplements come out.
Unfortunately, they have a real problem, because the problem isn't mechanical as much as it's philosophical. Some people like optimization for the mathematical challenge, but some like it because they hate failure, and looking stupid. The designers could look to that, and how to make failure something that moves the game along, and maybe even rewards players. Other games have done this. Other games have made optimization something that requires failure, so the optimizer tendencies are judo flipped into something that augments games rather than stressing them.
But no.
Unfortunately, they have a real problem, because the problem isn't mechanical as much as it's philosophical. Some people like optimization for the mathematical challenge, but some like it because they hate failure, and looking stupid. The designers could look to that, and how to make failure something that moves the game along, and maybe even rewards players. Other games have done this. Other games have made optimization something that requires failure, so the optimizer tendencies are judo flipped into something that augments games rather than stressing them.
But no.
It would be so sweet if the designers even considered this. As you say, there are games that have already done this and it is so much fun. No reason D&D shouldn't be going in this direction. "Wait, I get more powerful if I put myself in danger or fail miserably? Hell yeah, I fall in that pit!"
But it sounds like they're not really considering the problem, they're just giving up on it, at least until these imagined supplements come out.
This was unfair. They're obviously considering something, instead of just assuming that the same approach works at all levels. Still, I'll be surprised if what they come up with isn't just tweaks to the rules, rather than something that questions the fundamental assumptions about challenge in D&D.
If pre-errata mobs were too easy, because of a lack of playtesting at higher levels, then maybe as soon as the puplic complains about it wotc should errata them to make them harder. Oh wait, they did that.
AND they added Expertise. AND Expertise came first. Why didn't they just not add Expertise, for starters?
Phb1 Expertise is a math fix on attack rolls. Nothing more, nothing less. The ones from the essentials books have a bit extra built in so they at least have a minor benefit (Like +2 on your AC against OA's - Heavy Blade Expertise)
The scaling math has nothing to do with how hard monsters are hard. They should be harder because they have higher damage and better mechanics, not because the system math has broken down to the point where players have a 20% lower chance of hitting a same level mob than they did at first level...
If you still dont get it, look at a very simple example.
Open your MM1 and look at the Elder White Dragon (lvl17, solo brute) and compare him to the one in the MV (or online compendium) Elder White Dragon (lvl17 solo brute).
The difference between those two dragons is night and day - and this example isn't even at Epic Tier.
The answer is, he wouldn't. Playing an incompetently designed character forces bad roleplay in that people will not knowingly risk their lives with incompetent companions.
Why would my sorcerer go out into dangerous situations where combat may be likely with a bumbling fighter who rarely hits anything to protect his back? The answer is, he wouldn't. Playing an incompetently designed character forces bad roleplay in that people will not knowingly risk their lives with incompetent companions.
Which is why "optimized" does not mean "cookie-cutter."
Why would my sorcerer go out into dangerous situations where combat may be likely with a bumbling fighter who rarely hits anything to protect his back?
The answer is, he wouldn't. Playing an incompetently designed character forces bad roleplay in that people will not knowingly risk their lives with incompetent companions.
Your poorly designed sorcerer will not keep me from playing a bumbling fighter if I so choose. If you want to wait behind while I bumble into danger alone, so be it. Should I return, perhaps you'll think better of me.
If your sorcerer and the fighter are somehow related, your family might wonder how you could let your brother get in over his head without so much as lifting a finger to help. If not, other people may consider what kind of friend you really are.
And should the bumbling, incompetent fool actually survive? After having earned a few battlescars and having learned a few tricks from the denizens of the deep (and coming to know a taste of just how near to mortality we all actually are), you might not even recognize him. He may look at you with envy thinking that he was just as green as you once, but after what he's been through 'down there', he's not even sure how to relate to you any longer.
If the bumbling fighter's quest was a noble one, he will be remembered as daring and brave and your sorcerer will fall into obscurity unless he was part of the group, in which case it will be remembered fondly as the clever sorcerer who made it all possible.
There's exactly 398,794,256 reasons I can think of why someone might travel on a dangerous quest with someone who isn't quite up to their standard. I bet there are twice as many reasons I haven't thought of. And you only need one.
My point was that some level of competency should be expected. If your character doesn't hit even level monsters approximately 50% of the time, it's an incompetent pc
If the only thing a pc can contribute is combat ability, that's an incompetent pc.
Optimized = to make as perfect as possible.
Perfect = conforming absolutely to an ideal type
Cookie-Cutter = marked by sameness and lack of originality (such as when conforming absolutely to an ideal type)
Optimized = to make as perfect as possible.
Perfect = conforming absolutely to an ideal type
Cookie-Cutter = marked by sameness and lack of originality (such as when conforming absolutely to an ideal type)
Spoken like someone who knows nothing about charop, or high level play.
Just making charcters that conform with 4e's scaling system of combat math is a form of optimization. Yes, it takes some work and you won't just be able to ride the scaling math wave unless you put at least a minimal effort into it.
Building a character with high skills (or one high skill) at the expense of everything else is still a form of optimization (since you are optimizing skills).
Seriously, if you want to make a character that seems clumsy and misses all the time, you'ld actually do better to build a character that is super accurate but hits for really low damage. That way you can describe every 'miss' as a 'glancing blow'. The comedy of this character being able to trip (prone) and slow the enemy through his antics would be legendary.
And yet, he'd be fully optimized. For both attack rolls, and your rp enjoyment.
Aaaaand the point is missed again. Very rarely are broken concepts tied together with Rp reasons. What does happen is people refuse to build a functional character (usually for no good reason) and it causes people at the table to not have fun. You never have the right to ruin someone else's fun on a regular basis because you refuse to make a functional character.
Actually, it sounds like you are ruining people's fun by attempting to force your cookie cutter idea of characters on them. You never have the right to do that. I suspect that they actually have a reason. You may not think it's a good one, but it probably has something to do with role-playing the type of character they want to play. You don't really have the right to tell them they can't play the type of character they want to play.
I know plenty of people who like to play non-optimized characters and have fun with it without ruining anybody else's fun. Some are new players who didn't realize what their prime ability should be for maximum optimization cookie-cutter awesome. Some intentionally want to play a character against type.
My experience has been that they tend to be not only better role-players but actually end up being a crutch for the optimizers, who by nature tend be single-minded, we'll say, for lack of a better and more politically correct term for it. Optimizers are the type who tend to fall for Head of Vecna gambits as the players of the non-optimized characters shake their own, laughing.
If they're playing non-optimized characters and you think they're doing it because it bothers you... repeat this mantra in the mirror until it sinks in "IT'S NOT ALWAYS ABOUT YOU."
The answer is, he's not at all out of place out of combat. RP is an excuse people used far to often to justify a truly useless character.
Phb1 Expertise is a math fix on attack rolls. Nothing more, nothing less. The ones from the essentials books have a bit extra built in so they at least have a minor benefit (Like +2 on your AC against OA's - Heavy Blade Expertise)
I'm well aware of that, and of the fact that Expertise did not first appear in PHB1.
The scaling math has nothing to do with how hard monsters are hard. They should be harder because they have higher damage and better mechanics, not because the system math has broken down to the point where players have a 20% lower chance of hitting a same level mob than they did at first level...
How about both?
I don't see a 20% lower chance of hitting as a "breakdown," especially since from what it sounds like Epic characters are having such an easy time of it. I don't know what they're hitting on, but it sounds like it's better than what they were at low levels. If that's not the case, then effectively it is, because combat is notably easier, in enough cases that I've heard about it repeatedly in different places.
If you still dont get it, look at a very simple example.
Open your MM1 and look at the Elder White Dragon (lvl17, solo brute) and compare him to the one in the MV (or online compendium) Elder White Dragon (lvl17 solo brute).
The difference between those two dragons is night and day - and this example isn't even at Epic Tier.
Yes, they're different, and cooler, and get around some of the abusive strategies players won't give up even to challenge themselves. Neat. Honestly, I'm glad for the update is available. I have no plans to use it until I personally see problems with actual play, rather than just math, that I as a DM can't adjust for.
I'm still not quite seeing it. Here's the timeline, as I see it:
- Epic tier was easy, if cumbersome with powers. This wasn't widely realized, at first.
- People looked at the math (and at the gameplay, I hope) and saw they were hitting less often at higher levels. Epic tier was still easy, perhaps because of party synergy, perhaps because of general option synergy. Action denial was very powerful.
- Expertise was introduced in, I believe, PHB 2. It became a "no-brainer" feat, even at first level, because even though it wasn't necessary then, it's "stupid" not to hit more when there's no clear downside. "Easiness" not being considered a downside.
- Monsters were panned as too easy. They didn't do enough damage (they don't have to if you put it in the right place, or compensate in other ways), and tended to get locked-down (more of a problem, but handleable).
- New monster math was rolled out, along with new designs that in addition to making them more interesting made them resistant to the common emergent tactics. I've heard this called a "Decipher fix" after the tendency of the company Decipher to release cards in their Star Wars card game that were a direct counter to strategies that had emerged from the last set. It's inelegant, but gets the job done. Like a hammer.
- We continue to see posts about how epic level is too easy, even with the updated monsters.
So, why was Expertise provided in the first place? The math called for it, but actual high-level play doesn't seem to have called for it. Monsters needed spicing up, and there was no way to put back the genie of action-denial, but Expertise must have exacerbated the problem making it easier to use action-denial that needed an attack roll.
I'm not a proponent of saying "It /can/ work" and blaming malfunction on bad DMs. Spellcasters in 3.5 were a problem. Boring skill challenges are a problem. Combat length in 4e is a problem. The later two don't happen to be a problem for me, but I understand the wider backlash. I get that people want to be able to run bog-standard encounters and just have them work and be fun. I guess I feel like at some point any math is going to break down, and what was needed here was more guidance on making cool encounters, rather than a supposed math "fix." But, I don't need to use the fix if I don't want to. And I don't. And the game still works fine.
The argument that assumed "non-optimal" means "incompetent," and that it's implausible to roleplay someone who adventures with "incompenent" people is shocking in its lack of imagination. It's a petty excuse to ostracize people who prefer to play a certain kind of character. If your character dies, and that's boring for you, it's not their fault. It's not even your fault. It's the game's fault, and it's not a "math" thing.
Optimized = to make as perfect as possible.
Perfect = conforming absolutely to an ideal type
Cookie-Cutter = marked by sameness and lack of originality (such as when conforming absolutely to an ideal type)
Spoken like someone who knows nothing about charop, or high level play.
Just making charcters that conform with 4e's scaling system of combat math is a form of optimization. Yes, it takes some work and you won't just be able to ride the scaling math wave unless you put at least a minimal effort into it.
Building a character with high skills (or one high skill) at the expense of everything else is still a form of optimization (since you are optimizing skills).
Seriously, if you want to make a character that seems clumsy and misses all the time, you'ld actually do better to build a character that is super accurate but hits for really low damage. That way you can describe every 'miss' as a 'glancing blow'. The comedy of this character being able to trip (prone) and slow the enemy through his antics would be legendary.
And yet, he'd be fully optimized. For both attack rolls, and your rp enjoyment.
I love how people who prefer 4e so openly invite people to ridicule its flaws, but I know a bait when I see it. Won't go there.
Instead I'll point out two things.
1 - I know plenty about high level play. It's hard to play for (let's just say that avocado was the preferred color for houseware at the time and shag carpet was the supreme decor) years and never play a high level campaign at least once, even if it's just a quick foray into the Tomb of Acererak. I also had a 38th level rogue who was 7 levels behind the rest of the party, granted, but he managed to single-handedly killed all 7 of the 7 Swordsmen (bottom line - level 40 and up optimized epic fighters with all the bells and whistles), outwitted two god-wizards complete with cubes of time (locking them into an eternal struggle gods are so famous for) and then surviving the Jumprope of Campaign-Ending (I'll leave that to the imagination) which earned him the coveted Discarded Divinity of Dead Gods for Divinity in the Next World to Worship in All His Glory in the Next Campaign. This was a campaign finalé intentionally designed to culminate in a Player-vs-Player free-for-all.
I like the fact that the character was more interested in finding a way of bringing aquatic creatures to his manor house in the hills. His efforts to acquire a salt-water moat of the proper proportions will be fondly remembered. Even though it didn't give him a single attack bonus. I added that element, of course to really mess with the minds of optimizers everywhere, not because he began his career as a pirate and missed home. And happily found a way to defeat same optimizers, who are still trying to figure out how I did it.
Them: How did you beat me, I get 12 attacks a round, all at plus 150 or better. I do a minimum of 250 a hit. Something don't add up.
Me: Cunning. He was cunning. There's no number for it. No chart. You'll never figure it out. Give up. Here. Look at my character. Yes. No way I could defeat you.
DM: Well, on paper I figured you were toast.
I doubt the diligence he gained while painstakingly piecing together the scrolls of the shaman Nillsa would have made him significantly better were he to face off with a battle-fluffer streaker-controller-dancer-cocoa-puffer-of-doom beast.
2 - I'm actually in a conversation in which I'm showing a major flaw in the whole concept of character optimization as a be-all-end-all and (with your help) proving how players who focus on it are missing the point entirely.
And please note: I say competent, not optimized. You don't have to hit on a 1 and one shot solos to be competent. Mathematically, the system expects you to hit a same level creature on about a 10. If you require more then that, your character is not competent. That's not cookie cutter, nor is it optimized. That's reaching the minimum expectation.
I wrote my post before I read this note. I see what you're saying. I'm trying to point out that combat boosts aren't the only way to make a character competent. If 3 out of 5 players are actually optimized, I think 2 players who are more interested in making role-play type characters should be sufficient... especially since encounters are typically designed for about 4 players.
This party should be cake-walking. If they're not, 'forcing' optimization isn't the answer.
And I am also suggesting that even if it were... since these 3 'optimizers' are having trouble staying alive, they might not be the very best optimizers and are using the other players as scapegoats for their own flaws.
All this assuming a fair-minded DM.
1 - I know plenty about high level play. It's hard to play for (let's just say that avocado was the preferred color for houseware at the time and shag carpet was the supreme decor) years and never play a high level campaign at least once, even if it's just a quick foray into the Tomb of Acererak. I also had a 38th level rogue who was 7 levels behind the rest of the party, granted, but he managed to single-handedly killed all 7 of the 7 Swordsmen (bottom line - level 40 and up optimized epic fighters with all the bells and whistles), outwitted two god-wizards complete with cubes of time (locking them into an eternal struggle gods are so famous for) and then surviving the Jumprope of Campaign-Ending (I'll leave that to the imagination) which earned him the coveted Discarded Divinity of Dead Gods for Divinity in the Next World to Worship in All His Glory in the Next Campaign. This was a campaign finalé intentionally designed to culminate in a Player-vs-Player free-for-all.
I'm sorry, i meant high-level 4e play, Which is completely different from high level 2e or 3e play.
System math didn't scale nearly as much in those 2 editions and it was entirely possible to reach a certain point of bab/defenses and just stop worrying about them after that.
Such is not the case of 4e.
Yes it's a flaw in the system, but one that is easily overcome (as the system itself provides the method to do it). But my prior statement stands.
Yes, they're different, and cooler, and get around some of the abusive strategies players won't give up even to challenge themselves. Neat. Honestly, I'm glad for the update is available. I have no plans to use it until I personally see problems with actual play, rather than just math, that I as a DM can't adjust for.
I'm still not quite seeing it. Here's the timeline, as I see it:
- Epic tier was easy, if cumbersome with powers. This wasn't widely realized, at first.
- People looked at the math (and at the gameplay, I hope) and saw they were hitting less often at higher levels. Epic tier was still easy, perhaps because of party synergy, perhaps because of general option synergy. Action denial was very powerful.
- Expertise was introduced in, I believe, PHB 2. It became a "no-brainer" feat, even at first level, because even though it wasn't necessary then, it's "stupid" not to hit more when there's no clear downside. "Easiness" not being considered a downside.
- Monsters were panned as too easy. They didn't do enough damage (they don't have to if you put it in the right place, or compensate in other ways), and tended to get locked-down (more of a problem, but handleable).
- New monster math was rolled out, along with new designs that in addition to making them more interesting made them resistant to the common emergent tactics. I've heard this called a "Decipher fix" after the tendency of the company Decipher to release cards in their Star Wars card game that were a direct counter to strategies that had emerged from the last set. It's inelegant, but gets the job done. Like a hammer.
- We continue to see posts about how epic level is too easy, even with the updated monsters.So, why was Expertise provided in the first place? The math called for it, but actual high-level play doesn't seem to have called for it. Monsters needed spicing up, and there was no way to put back the genie of action-denial, but Expertise must have exacerbated the problem making it easier to use action-denial that needed an attack roll.
I'm not a proponent of saying "It /can/ work" and blaming malfunction on bad DMs. Spellcasters in 3.5 were a problem. Boring skill challenges are a problem. Combat length in 4e is a problem. The later two don't happen to be a problem for me, but I understand the wider backlash. I get that people want to be able to run bog-standard encounters and just have them work and be fun. I guess I feel like at some point any math is going to break down, and what was needed here was more guidance on making cool encounters, rather than a supposed math "fix." But, I don't need to use the fix if I don't want to. And I don't. And the game still works fine.
The argument that assumed "non-optimal" means "incompetent," and that it's implausible to roleplay someone who adventures with "incompenent" people is shocking in its lack of imagination. It's a petty excuse to ostracize people who prefer to play a certain kind of character. If your character dies, and that's boring for you, it's not their fault. It's not even your fault. It's the game's fault, and it's not a "math" thing.
Again, part of the reason that epic teir fights seem easy is because the mobs don't do enough damage. See, your run of the mill level 21 defender has about 140-150 hp.
And your pre-errata epic tier monster, say the tarrasque, Level 30 solo brute does d12+16 (ongoing 15 save ends). Thats not very exciting, at all. Someone in the party grants the defender a save before his turn, and he instead takes roughly 22 damage.
Meanwhile, it's not uncommon to see something like d10+4 damage in heroic tier. So, in 24 levels, the pc's gain ~125 hp's, but the mob only does an extra 13 or so damage? This is the effing tarrasque, and he does roughly double the damage of a level 1 goblin, and a halfling fighter can knock him prone every single round with an at-will.
That sir, is a problem (especially in the flavor of how the tarrasque is suposed to be huge and unstoppable....)
One of the early complaints was that high level play dragged. Mobs had lots of hps, and it took forever for combats to slog through. It wasn't fun or exciting. Meanwhile (as you mentioned) they could "effect-locked" as you called it.
Errata brought monster hp's down, and their damage up. This makes the fights quicker and more exciting (dice wise). And it gave them better resistances to certain effects.
Expertise isn't the problem, it never was. Epic was easy because of all the aforementioned reasons, but despite the fact that it was easy, it took forever because people missed often. So they made a feat so people who wanted to hit more often could. But the fights didn't get any more exciting, only faster. So the following year, they fixed the math. Suddenly fights were faster and a hit from a high level mob FELT like a hit from a high level mob. Things are better now, but still not perfect. The rest is up to the dm to add terrain, traps, minions, alternate wins, skill challenges, etc...
Keep in mind that most of the 'broken' stuff in epic tier is because several low-powered feats and powers start interacting in a way that is better than the sum of its parts (no single feat is to blame).
So you still see complaints because frankly, people don't know what they are looking at or how to make the adjustments that experienced dms do without thinking. To be blunt: if a group of mid-op pc's walk into a bare room with a perfect xp budget of pre-errata monsters, its going to be bloodbath. At any level.
It takes the dm and players to agree to a level of Op the dm will be comfortable dming with. Then the dm still has to go the extra steps to make sure combats are dynamic and fun, and (hopefully) in the end every dm/group is going to find the right balance they enjoy.
But the big issue is when something like in teh original post happens:
You have different levels of optimization in the party.
The DM scales the encounters towards the optimized players.
The unoptimized players can't keep up and ultimately the party suffers in one way or another.
Suddenly everyone is placing 'blame' on someone. The combat optimized players that got into an arms race with the dm? The dm who couldn't keep things 'in the middle' or offer alternate goals? The unoptimized players who don't know the basics of system math and refuse to conform to an edition complately based around scaling math and statistics?
To repeat myself...
It takes the dm and players to agree to a level of Op the dm will be comfortable dming with. Then the dm still has to go the extra steps to make sure combats are dynamic and fun, and (hopefully) in the end every dm/group is going to find the right balance they enjoy.
Expertise is NOT a requirement (none of the games I've been in ever use it, and it works just fine--even at epic).
Functionality IS a requirement.
The question, really, is "Why does the player causing the trouble want to play a non-functional character?". That this non-functional character is causing other players (who seem to care about their characters) to get killed is a problem. It is ruining game play.
Ofcourse he can never run a challenging high level game...long boring HP hacking combat It turns out to be. In 25 years of gaming can you imagine he hardly ever ran any "epic" type adventure? Poor sad me I never got to play either cause he refuse to run them! I usually run higher lvl games.
Always thought he was a good dm, until I joined forum. Now I realize he is a sub-par DM who only shines with low level chars lvl 1-5 & can't handle high level ones. So limited in adeptability & creativity.
Players who don't try to make the most functional charactor either don't know how, or have this wierd perception that more effective PC = adversely effects RP, and seriously...this ruins the game. Player should attempt to make the best functional PC and not go out of way to make a retarded one, as if that makes him a good roleplayer. Truly never understood that and never will...unless you are RPing a retard.
And please note: I say competent, not optimized. You don't have to hit on a 1 and one shot solos to be competent. Mathematically, the system expects you to hit a same level creature on about a 10. If you require more then that, your character is not competent. That's not cookie cutter, nor is it optimized. That's reaching the minimum expectation.
I wrote my post before I read this note. I see what you're saying. I'm trying to point out that combat boosts aren't the only way to make a character competent. If 3 out of 5 players are actually optimized, I think 2 players who are more interested in making role-play type characters should be sufficient... especially since encounters are typically designed for about 4 players.
This party should be cake-walking. If they're not, 'forcing' optimization isn't the answer.
And I am also suggesting that even if it were... since these 3 'optimizers' are having trouble staying alive, they might not be the very best optimizers and are using the other players as scapegoats for their own flaws.
All this assuming a fair-minded DM.
Why does a character have to do anything to optimize roleplaying? I mean spending your skill points in such a way as to make the math work doesn't require effort. I just don't see why a "role-play character" has to be ineffective at combat or have made poor character building decisions. There are plenty of feat slots to go around to spend on skill trainings and such, while still making the mathematical baselines.
Why does a character have to do anything to optimize roleplaying? I mean spending your skill points in such a way as to make the math work doesn't require effort. I just don't see why a "role-play character" has to be ineffective at combat or have made poor character building decisions. There are plenty of feat slots to go around to spend on skill trainings and such, while still making the mathematical baselines.
You do realize that if you don't put 5 ranks in Profession: Cook, you're not roleplaying, right? You're a filthy optimizer and you can't make an decent omelette.
You must choose roleplaying skills and feats in order to roleplay. (Or so it seems.)
Why does a character have to do anything to optimize roleplaying? I mean spending your skill points in such a way as to make the math work doesn't require effort. I just don't see why a "role-play character" has to be ineffective at combat or have made poor character building decisions. There are plenty of feat slots to go around to spend on skill trainings and such, while still making the mathematical baselines.
You do realize that if you don't put 5 ranks in Profession: Cook, you're not roleplaying, right? You're a filthy optimizer and you can't make an decent omelette.
You must choose roleplaying skills and feats in order to roleplay. (Or so it seems.)
You're right, I'm sorry
I tried to make an omelete. But i broke a few eggs in the process.
So the Yolk's on you?
What, someone had to say it.
I have a friend, long time DnD player & DM, considers himself "expert". He believes earnestly, more weak & broken a charactor, better roleplayer. He often picks the weakest class no one wants when he plays. Almost totally useless in combat.
I have a player who often seems to follow this line of thought as well. I simply don't include him in the encounter budget when designing encounters when he does so.
I tried to make an omelete. But i broke a few eggs in the process.
Did you remember to publically dismember the chickens that laid them as a warning to others?
Free role-play XP to anybody who knows where that's from
Pretty sure it was Elan talking to Tarquin
Tarquin was trying (and failing) to justify mass murderOptimization is NOT a requirement.
Expertise is NOT a requirement (none of the games I've been in ever use it, and it works just fine--even at epic).
Functionality IS a requirement.
Agreed. But it doesn't take much to be functional.
The question, really, is "Why does the player causing the trouble want to play a non-functional character?". That this non-functional character is causing other players (who seem to care about their characters) to get killed is a problem. It is ruining game play.
Well, I blame that entirely on death being the only way to fail, but that's a different discussion. Mostly. Someone who wants their game to emulate an adventure story might not see such a story being generated by a group that has absolutely no problem with encounters and is never in danger of losing. Consider how boring zombie movies would be if everyone did everything right all the time.
No, you don't need a non-optimized character in order to roleplay, but such a character can help a group get into interesting situations, which promotes different roleplaying than constant success. If the game doesn't provide interesting situations, that's a larger problem. The player expecting them should probably find a different game.
Honestly, if the character in question is not pulling his weight and it's because the player behind the character has some twisted concept of 'role-playing' then get on his terms. Have an in character conversation where you tell him to go home and tend his damned garden, because he's clearly not cut out for fighting the armies of the evil bad guy. Call him into the HR department and fire him. When you get back to town, post a 'Help Wanted' ad in the town square with minimum job requirements, "Capable of functioning in high-stress situations, defending your own person and your co-workers from hostile monsters, successfully navigating physical, mental and social obstacles, and generally not being a useless appendage to a functional team."
This, so very much, this !!
Honestly, if the character in question is not pulling his weight and it's because the player behind the character has some twisted concept of 'role-playing' then get on his terms. Have an in character conversation where you tell him to go home and tend his damned garden, because he's clearly not cut out for fighting the armies of the evil bad guy. Call him into the HR department and fire him. When you get back to town, post a 'Help Wanted' ad in the town square with minimum job requirements, "Capable of functioning in high-stress situations, defending your own person and your co-workers from hostile monsters, successfully navigating physical, mental and social obstacles, and generally not being a useless appendage to a functional team."
This, so very much, this !!
I agree, as long as "not maximized" isn't assumed to be the same as "not pulling his weight."
But given the sheer amount of times you've posted in this thread, you'ld think you knew that the entire purpose of the thread was "help dealing with a character that is so ineffective, he not only doesn't pull his own weight, but he actually causes other characters to die".
If you were buffing you allies each turn, and/or using something like staggering note to allow your allies to deal damage, seems you were doing your job. Dealing damage is not a leaders first priority.
You're right that it wouldn't necessarily be the bard's fault, but it's easy to cast the blame at the guy who's supposed to be buffing the party offense if the party offense is lacking.
It's not the first priority, but he did say he had a small party. I can easily see a group with three perfectly acceptable characters ending up unable to succeed, and looking at the lowest damage of the bunch as the issue. If you've got an enchanter or illusionist, sword and board fighter, and lazyish bard, you're going to have some long, slow combats. All characters that work, but rely on a solid striker to come in and finish off the things they've crippled/locked up/debuffed.
You're right that it wouldn't necessarily be the bard's fault, but it's easy to cast the blame at the guy who's supposed to be buffing the party offense if the party offense is lacking.
Pretty sure XLadyFayre is not a guy, or at least is attempting to not be identified as such.
Regarding your explanation though, Wishful, no matter how you cut it, seems to me the DM did not adjust the encounters properly.
You can either work with them to make them a bit better but still allowing their gimped gameply fun, optimize better (Cause 3 people optimizing shouldn't die even if alone and thats assuming low op). Or tone your optimizing down and get the dm to run encounters NOT based around optimization.
If you refuse to do that jump ship start a group of your own and dont invite the non op people. Not everyone plays the same way.
We play a dungeon crawl, 3rd level, 5 players, 3 of them optimize. The other 2 and the DM thinks this is bad roleplaying.
Rereading the OP, I feel it bears saying that it seems the group needs to get its goals straight. 2 players and the DM think the game should have roleplaying in it, but at the same time you're doing a dungeon crawl (not my idea of a great RP-opportunity).
Even if the dungeon is filled with RP possibilities (or you guys create them), it seems you're still saddled with the problem of fights only ending when one side is dead. If that's the case, then it's silly not to optimize a bit.
But if you can also end fights by just being clever (through roleplaying, skill checks or just great use of powers), then there's actually nothing wrong with the players using builds, powers and tactics that are generally thought of as bad. Let them look for that angle where they can roleplay their character (and help them do so), especially when it brings encounters to a swifter end.
It's not the first priority, but he did say he had a small party. I can easily see a group with three perfectly acceptable characters ending up unable to succeed, and looking at the lowest damage of the bunch as the issue. If you've got an enchanter or illusionist, sword and board fighter, and lazyish bard, you're going to have some long, slow combats. All characters that work, but rely on a solid striker to come in and finish off the things they've crippled/locked up/debuffed.
You're right that it wouldn't necessarily be the bard's fault, but it's easy to cast the blame at the guy who's supposed to be buffing the party offense if the party offense is lacking.
Pretty sure XLadyFayre is not a guy, or at least is attempting to not be identified as such.
Regarding your explanation though, Wishful, no matter how you cut it, seems to me the DM did not adjust the encounters properly.
Most of my turns consisted of me doing nothing except upkeeping my buff. I barely rolled anything which was why I felt useless to begin with. It was my first time playing such a class in PF. Now, I excelled at distracting the guards while my team took on other guards so they wouldn't be swamped but not every encounter was set up that way. When it came time to actually do anything I just couldn't. For the first couple of sessions it was fun but then it just wasn't. Its just not that effective in our small group.
Yes, baldhermit I'm not a guy. :D
Rereading the OP, I feel it bears saying that it seems the group needs to get its goals straight. 2 players and the DM think the game should have roleplaying in it, but at the same time you're doing a dungeon crawl (not my idea of a great RP-opportunity).
Combat is roleplaying. I think what you mean is in-character interaction. Dungeons are rife with in-character interaction, if the DM gives enemies motivations, impulses, instincts, and goals other than "kill all PCs" and sticks to them. You should play in one of my dungeons (hint: all of my adventures are dungeons even if doesn't look like a dungeon). It's loaded with in-character interaction both between the PCs and with the NPCs and monsters.
Even if the dungeon is filled with RP possibilities (or you guys create them), it seems you're still saddled with the problem of fights only ending when one side is dead. If that's the case, then it's silly not to optimize a bit.
Yes, CharOp does seem to assume that you're building toward encounters that are based around one side killing the other. So if that's how the group (or more regularly the DM) approachs the game, then some level of optimization is necessary.
But if you can also end fights by just being clever (through roleplaying, skill checks or just great use of powers), then there's actually nothing wrong with the players using builds, powers and tactics that are generally thought of as bad. Let them look for that angle where they can roleplay their character (and help them do so), especially when it brings encounters to a swifter end.
Yes, the beauty of an RPG like D&D in my opinion is that you are not required to solve every problem by smashing it with a hammer. You can, and it sure is fun to do so, but you don't have to. Of course, the DM has to be willing to say "Yes, and..." to reasonable solutions, however, and then call for rolls at the appropriate times and frequency to see if it works. In my experience, many DMs are scared to do this because it might mean short-circuiting whatever hard work and prep they put into setting up the encounter. So instead, they frequently block player ideas, making combat required (and thus optimization is a good idea).
If every scene seems to end in bloodshed, ask yourself and the other players how you might have solved that problem a different way. And if you can think of something cool, ask the DM if it might have worked to see what he or she thinks about that solution. The DM might be eager for you to try other approaches. Or he or she might not be. At least you'll know what to do going forward.
Rereading the OP, I feel it bears saying that it seems the group needs to get its goals straight. 2 players and the DM think the game should have roleplaying in it, but at the same time you're doing a dungeon crawl (not my idea of a great RP-opportunity).
Combat is roleplaying. I think what you mean is in-character interaction. Dungeons are rife with in-character interaction, if the DM gives enemies motivations, impulses, instincts, and goals other than "kill all PCs" and sticks to them. You should play in one of my dungeons (hint: all of my adventures are dungeons even if doesn't look like a dungeon). It's loaded with in-character interaction both between the PCs and with the NPCs and monsters.
Another thing that's been touched on here is that some people prefer to roleplay a party that has ups and downs. They consider it more interesting because it more closely emulates what they see in stories and movies. It's "interesting" for a group to be routed, or even lose a member now and then, but the game doesn't offer good guidance on how to bring that about, especially on the player side. So, players de-optimize slightly to open up the possibility to roleplay in tougher situations.
Roleplaying and optimization are not mutually exclusive, but optimization and interesting failure do tend to be - but interesting failure generally isn't to be had in D&D anyway.
Roleplaying and optimization are not mutually exclusive, but high levels of optimization and interesting frequent failure do tend to be.
Fixed it for you.
Optimization in no way makes failure less interesting. Interesting failure requires a DM (or dm/player collaboration) that is able to create a situation in which failure is interesting, and this is true at all levels of optimization.
If anything high-op parties fail less frequently, so failure becomes MORE interesting since it is more of a rarity.
Roleplaying and optimization are not mutually exclusive, but high levels of optimization and interesting frequent failure do tend to be.
Fixed it for you.
Optimization in no way makes failure less interesting. Interesting failure requires a DM (or dm/player collaboration) that is able to create a situation in which failure is interesting, and this is true at all levels of optimization.
If anything high-op parties fail less frequently, so failure becomes MORE interesting since it is more of a rarity.
Well said.
Well said.
Rarity has nothing to do with making failure interesting. Failure can be frequent and still be interesting. I do collaborate with my high-optimization players to create interesting failure and they fail (in interesting ways) at least partially on a regular basis. If a DM isn't familiar with collaboration, or isn't able or willing to change their approach, a player can do a little to try to force the issue by decreasing their level of optimization, until the game presents the level of challenge they find interesting. Now, a unilateral move like that stands a good chance of annoying the other players, so dialogue and compromise are best, but I could certainly understand if someone wanted to quietly select Hard mode for themselves, along with the attendant risk of failure. I don't know if that's going on in this case.
If a DM isn't familiar with collaboration, or isn't able or willing to change their approach, a player can do a little to try to force the issue by decreasing their level of optimization, until the game presents the level of challenge they find interesting. Now, a unilateral move like that stands a good chance of annoying the other players, so dialogue and compromise are best, but I could certainly understand if someone wanted to quietly select Hard mode for themselves, along with the attendant risk of failure. I don't know if that's going on in this case.
Great point. Selecting "hard mode" on a video game is essentially stating you want an increased challenge, whatever that means in that game. It could mean your pixelated hero does less damage or that there are more enemies who hit harder (or both). The former represents, in a D&D context, that you've stepped down your optimization and freed up those resources for other ends, potentially making combat encounters more difficult. The latter represents, in a D&D context, the DM stepping up the difficulty by changing up the encounter design.
What's easier? Changing yourself or getting someone else to change? Food for thought, certainly.
If a DM isn't familiar with collaboration, or isn't able or willing to change their approach, a player can do a little to try to force the issue by decreasing their level of optimization, until the game presents the level of challenge they find interesting. Now, a unilateral move like that stands a good chance of annoying the other players, so dialogue and compromise are best, but I could certainly understand if someone wanted to quietly select Hard mode for themselves, along with the attendant risk of failure. I don't know if that's going on in this case.
Great point. Selecting "hard mode" on a video game is essentially stating you want an increased challenge, whatever that means in that game. It could mean your pixelated hero does less damage or that there are more enemies who hit harder (or both). The former represents, in a D&D context, that you've stepped down your optimization and freed up those resources for other ends, potentially making combat encounters more difficult. The latter represents, in a D&D context, the DM stepping up the difficulty by changing up the encounter design.
What's easier? Changing yourself or getting someone else to change? Food for thought, certainly.
In Halo 2 multiplayer, one can set a handicap that reduces their own offensive and defensive capabilities. There's no additional credit for doing this, though, so it's an entirely personal preference. And I imagine one's teammates might be displeased with such a player for making such a choice unilaterally, even if the team was already winning trivially.
One real issue here is that the two sides in the original post need to be on the same page, and find reasons they can both agree on for a particular optimization level (maybe tailored to each player) that they can agree on. I think the reasoning would need to be personalized and precise along the lines of "I want my character to be limping away from every fight," and "I want my character not to be more than scratched in each fight." I doubt those two desires are generally going to compatible within the same group, but they're a starting point and they're more compatible than "I want everyone optimized" and "I don't want to optimize." And they're more definable that "I want to roleplay."
So, state what you want for your character, and put it in terms that define the level of difficulty or challenge you want, but not in terms of the group or the other PCs, then find compromise from there.
So, state what you want for your character, and and put it in terms that define the level of difficulty or challenge you want, but not in terms of the group or the other PCs, then find compromise from there.
"Compromise" seems to be a dirty word on these forums. Maybe the optimized characters should just attack the unoptimized characters and let nature takes it course. It sure beats the alternative: Talking to someone. Right?
So, state what you want for your character, and and put it in terms that define the level of difficulty or challenge you want, but not in terms of the group or the other PCs, then find compromise from there.
"Compromise" seems to be a dirty word on these forums. Maybe the optimized characters should just attack the unoptimized characters and let nature takes it course. It sure beats the alternative: Talking to someone. Right?
Apparently.
To be fair, there appears to have been discussion in this case, but the use of the term "force" implies that no one is willing to compromise. That can't happen until everyone expresses compatible preferences.
I do collaborate with my high-optimization players to create interesting failure and they fail (in interesting ways) at least partially on a regular basis.
This is amusing to me.
Just from posts he stated in the last month with half of them in this thread (not knowing basic benchmarks, not knowing how game math works, believing that players don't need Expertise, and thinking mm1 daamge values are fine), i'd be curious to see what he actually considers "High Optimization"
The former represents, in a D&D context, that you've stepped down your optimization and freed up those resources for other ends, potentially making combat encounters more difficult. The latter represents, in a D&D context, the DM stepping up the difficulty by changing up the encounter design.
What's easier? Changing yourself or getting someone else to change? Food for thought, certainly.
It depends on the group. A group of players that understand high op, can easily make weaker characters to compensate for a beginning dm.
Just as a knowledgable dm can scale encounters up or down to match the party's op level.
IME, the biggest problems occur behind the screen, partially because the dm has a big hand in setting the power level since he gives out the gear and creates the encounters. Also:
Most low-op players are agreeable when you sugget a feat or a power that will greatly boost their perfomance.
Most dm's freak out when you say that fights aren't fun because they take 3 hours each and the party is level 16 and still only has +1 gear (true story, i was a player in that game).
To be fair, there appears to have been discussion in this case, but the use of the term "force" implies that no one is willing to compromise. That can't happen until everyone expresses compatible preferences.
Which is why i constantly say most groups (especially newer ones) should stay close to baseline: it provides a middle of the road appraoch where players hit frequently (60% of the time), get hit frequently, and have a reasonably good chance of passing skill challenges.
It also means that players have a few open feat slots to take things that aren't directly combat related.
And, it means the dm can design most encounters following the basic guidlines in the dmg/rc, so it's less work on the dm's part.
Everyone Wins.
1 - I know plenty about high level play. It's hard to play for (let's just say that avocado was the preferred color for houseware at the time and shag carpet was the supreme decor) years and never play a high level campaign at least once, even if it's just a quick foray into the Tomb of Acererak. I also had a 38th level rogue who was 7 levels behind the rest of the party, granted, but he managed to single-handedly killed all 7 of the 7 Swordsmen (bottom line - level 40 and up optimized epic fighters with all the bells and whistles), outwitted two god-wizards complete with cubes of time (locking them into an eternal struggle gods are so famous for) and then surviving the Jumprope of Campaign-Ending (I'll leave that to the imagination) which earned him the coveted Discarded Divinity of Dead Gods for Divinity in the Next World to Worship in All His Glory in the Next Campaign. This was a campaign finalé intentionally designed to culminate in a Player-vs-Player free-for-all.
I'm sorry, i meant high-level 4e play, Which is completely different from high level 2e or 3e play.
System math didn't scale nearly as much in those 2 editions and it was entirely possible to reach a certain point of bab/defenses and just stop worrying about them after that.
Such is not the case of 4e.
Yes it's a flaw in the system, but one that is easily overcome (as the system itself provides the method to do it). But my prior statement stands.
I didn't play 4e long enough to get epic level characters in that edition, but here is something that is true in all editions...
If every character you make is the same as every character everyone else is making (i.e. optimized), then it will get real dull real quick.
Creative players don't have a need to rely on simple mathematics and can afford NOT to optimize. They might not be able to cleave through the ten-thousand orcs coming across the rustic foot-bridge as well as their optimized companions, but they might be able to cut the ropes the bridge is made of.
I still maintain that the optimized characters described here seem to be the ones who aren't pulling their weight, although it seems like the DM has it in for them because he's all about some hack and slash and all his bridges will of course be made of non-flammable rope.
"Yes, and... " might not be in the dm's vocab, to use 4e speak.
So, state what you want for your character, and and put it in terms that define the level of difficulty or challenge you want, but not in terms of the group or the other PCs, then find compromise from there.
"Compromise" seems to be a dirty word on these forums. Maybe the optimized characters should just attack the unoptimized characters and let nature takes it course. It sure beats the alternative: Talking to someone. Right?
Actually, I think the whole argument of this thread is moot.
The optimized players should probably just worry about their own characters unless the player is asking for help. Then, they can contribute some optimizer techniques to their heart's content.
I didn't play 4e long enough to get epic level characters in that edition, but here is something that is true in all editions...
If every character you make is the same as every character everyone else is making (i.e. optimized), then it will get real dull real quick.
Creative players don't have a need to rely on simple mathematics and can afford NOT to optimize.
There are three things wrong with your statement:
1) Optimization in 4e does not require everyone of the same class to use the exact same build. Far from it in fact. With powers and feats being class and often race specific, the sheer number of combinations someone can make is literally in the millions. And most of those can reach a baseline of competency as far as Op goes.
2) The entire 4e system is based off of scaling math and statistics; did you know that wotc actually hired real mathematicians to lay the groundwork for how the game would scale? In a 'default' game where the dm is following all of the guidines in the dmg, there is some degree of necessity for players to ensure their characters are keeping up with the basic math of the system.
However, i will concede that the dm has the power to alter the rules as written to accomodate the party.
3) I will agree that optimization is not required in any edition prior to 4e. However in 4e an absolutely minimal amount of attention must be spent to ensure that you remain close to the default math curve. By 4e lingo, remaining on that curve is a form of optimization.
Therefore optimization is required in this edition.
Besides, if every single fight results in the equivalent of cutting a bridge, then the entire process of char creation isn't required, and that gets pretty boring too.
The optimized players should probably just worry about their own characters unless the player is asking for help. Then, they can contribute some optimizer techniques to their heart's content.
Moreso than any other edition, the focus on 4e is team tactics/mechanics, and working together.
A team is still only as strong as it's weakest link; everyone should have some degree of competancy.
Overall, 4e is different enough from the previous editions that it can't be included in blanket "all edition" statements. For better or worse, it's part of the reason it has created such a rift in the community, and it's why comments from people who don't play the edition are often countered and dismissed.
On that note, this will be the last time i defend my prior statements about 4e's math to you. However, If you would like to learn about it in an open and earnest way (so that you can make educated posts about 4e system/math/op in the future) i'd be happy to assist.
1) Optimization means to make the best. To be best means to exceed all others. There is only one best. Which means to truly be optimized there is actually only one build per class that reaches the pinnacle of said optimization. Unless there is some other factor at play, such as teamwork.
2) Since the players are capable of making 'sub-par' or less than optimal characters, either a) the mathematicians weren't very good. or b) they were good and INTENTIONALLY allowed for variety in character creation.
Also, unless A is true, the DM should be able to alter the encounters within the rules as written to accommodate for the party, if he deems that as a benefit.
3) While I do not concede your point that every encounter does not provide with an alternate solution, let us assume it is a true statement, ignoring the subjective portion regarding its entertainment value.
If this statement is linked with your statement, "Moreso than any other edition, the focus on 4e is team tactics/mechanics, and working together. A team is still only as strong as it's weakest link; everyone should have some degree of competancy," and also assuming truth in the statement about the team being only as strong as the weakest link, then our disagreement is in who the weakest link is.
I don't think there is enough evidence here to conclusively say, but it seems that the weakest link are the so-called optimized players. If the goal of the optimized characters was to support the concept of 'team tactics/mechanics and working together' then their failure to protect their allies is evidence of a flaw in their optimization theory.
Unless the optimized players are intentionally allowing the non-optimized characters die, which would be evidence of bias.
Here are my rebuttals:
1) Optimization means to make the best. To be best means to exceed all others. There is only one best. Which means to truly be optimized there is actually only one build per class that reaches the pinnacle of said optimization. Unless there is some other factor at play, such as teamwork.
By a clinical defination you may be correct.
But there are more than one way to define "the best".
The best at accurately hitting? The best at single target damage? The best at multi target damage? The best at skill use? The best at movement? The best defense? The best damage mitigation?
Every class has dozens of things they can choose to be the 'best' at. There is no single build to rule them all.
And yes, what may be "better" for you may be worse for others. For example the 4e warlord is the best leader at granting melee basic attacks. in a party of all casters, he wil NOT be the best leader.
As i mentioned, the teamwork factor is high, and group dynamics change everything. This is why the CharOp forums exist, and this is why the first thing that gets asked in every post is "What level, and what does the rest of your party look like?"
Optimization in 4e is essentially: making a effective charater, that is above baseline math, and matches the setting/campaign/rule restrictions set by the dm/players.
2) Since the players are capable of making 'sub-par' or less than optimal characters, either a) the mathematicians weren't very good. or b) they were good and INTENTIONALLY allowed for variety in character creation.
Also, unless A is true, the DM should be able to alter the encounters within the rules as written to accommodate for the party, if he deems that as a benefit.
Again, this ties into the last point.
By giving you a variety of ways to be good, they gave you the ability to make versatile characters and not follow the same rigid build.
If a caster wants to specialize in cold, there are good ways to do that. If another wants to specialize in fire, again there are good ways. Making optimal choices to fit one character concept in no way belittles the other options.
However, (for example) a wizard's main stat is Int. Every spell he ever casts uses a formula that includes his int modifier to hit the opponent. A player that has intentionally given himself an 8 int, will miss 25% more often than one that started with an 18, and can eventually get to the point where he only hits same level enemies on a roll of nat 20.
The one that started with an 18 can spend one feat, and will hit at roughly the same rate throughout his career. The second charator is more optimized than the first one. It's as simple as that.
3) While I do not concede your point that every encounter does not provide with an alternate solution, let us assume it is a true statement, ignoring the subjective portion regarding its entertainment value.
If this statement is linked with your statement, "Moreso than any other edition, the focus on 4e is team tactics/mechanics, and working together. A team is still only as strong as it's weakest link; everyone should have some degree of competancy," and also assuming truth in the statement about the team being only as strong as the weakest link, then our disagreement is in who the weakest link is.
I don't think there is enough evidence here to conclusively say, but it seems that the weakest link are the so-called optimized players. If the goal of the optimized characters was to support the concept of 'team tactics/mechanics and working together' then their failure to protect their allies is evidence of a flaw in their optimization theory.
Unless the optimized players are intentionally allowing the non-optimized characters die, which would be evidence of bias.
Again, 4e is very mathemtaical and statisical, and scales in a linear fashion. It is completely possible to design your character so incredibly poorly that a same level enemy can hit you on a roll of a 2, every round. If you have done this to yourself, there is very little your friends can do over the course of a campaign. Sadly, eventually the inevitable will catch up to you.
But i''ll try to address the various other combinations:
If the unop characters are similar to my wizard with an 8 int example it is clearly their fault since he intentionally made his character a detriment to the party.
If everyone makes smart enough choices to ride along (or ahead) of the default math curve of the edition, then the blame could be directed in multiple ways.
In either case it could be the dm's fault since he is designing encounters to match the power level of the optimized pc's, but not the unoptimized ones. This further complicates the math of the edition and makes the un-op players even more statistically useless than they already are.
Overall, it is everyone's fault for not agreeing on an op-level and playstyle to meet everyone's abilities and expectations before the game started.
Here are my rebuttals:
1) Optimization means to make the best. To be best means to exceed all others. There is only one best. Which means to truly be optimized there is actually only one build per class that reaches the pinnacle of said optimization. Unless there is some other factor at play, such as teamwork.
2) Since the players are capable of making 'sub-par' or less than optimal characters, either a) the mathematicians weren't very good. or b) they were good and INTENTIONALLY allowed for variety in character creation.
Also, unless A is true, the DM should be able to alter the encounters within the rules as written to accommodate for the party, if he deems that as a benefit.
3) While I do not concede your point that every encounter does not provide with an alternate solution, let us assume it is a true statement, ignoring the subjective portion regarding its entertainment value.
If this statement is linked with your statement, "Moreso than any other edition, the focus on 4e is team tactics/mechanics, and working together. A team is still only as strong as it's weakest link; everyone should have some degree of competancy," and also assuming truth in the statement about the team being only as strong as the weakest link, then our disagreement is in who the weakest link is.
I don't think there is enough evidence here to conclusively say, but it seems that the weakest link are the so-called optimized players. If the goal of the optimized characters was to support the concept of 'team tactics/mechanics and working together' then their failure to protect their allies is evidence of a flaw in their optimization theory.
Unless the optimized players are intentionally allowing the non-optimized characters die, which would be evidence of bias.
I'd imagine that the OP's definition of optimized and the CharOp forum's definition of optimized are completely different things. I'd guess the three optimizers are somewhere around the minimum baseline, and the rest are completely dysfunctional.
ME: Yep. I think that pretty much sums it up.