However, I am constantly amazed at how tough the monsters are compared to the PCs. I tried to build my character so that they are effective. But in the last two battles, even though I'm a melee based character, my hit percentage was 25%. I needed a 15 or higher on the die roll to hit.
The monsters of course needed far less, the worst being 10 or higher, but as low as a 4 or better. They also all had better HP than us as well.
Granted, we have healing on our side and typically they don't, but still. One encounter we had to simply flee from because there was no way, zero chance, for us to defeat the opponent. What sense is there for having a foe that has decently high AC (22) vs level 2 characters, and then give them an ability to allow them to stay in total concealment? So my character, could only hit it on a natural 20.
What am I missing here? What is the point in having that kind of creature and then claiming it is fine for a level 2 encounter, when level 2 characters have no chance of beating it?
For a melee character, do I have to pick a race that allows me to have a 20 STR at level 1? Is that the only way for me to have a chance in combat?
Now if this was just a poor decision by my DM in choosing the wrong monster, I could somewhat see that. But it isn't. This is a published adventure by Wizards which has these encounters in them. I would really love to know what party did they have in mind that could defeat a young black dragon at level 2.
I'm just completely disheartened with my character right now. I built what I thought was a decent battle cleric. But in combat, I'm always looking at less than a 50% chance to hit my target. My role as leader requires me to hit to help my party. Otherwise, I turn into a 2 round healer with nothing left to do but absorb damage and try to flank. I wanted to make a well rounded character...but that does not seem to be feasible. Am I wrong?
***** Brother G.
Weapon proficiency: +2 to +3
Level 2 bonus: +1
+6 to +7, vs AC22? That's... harsh.
Of course, you should be in a race that gives +2 to your primary, for an 18, or +4. With a +8, you need a 14 or higher.
Optimized...
An attack optimized 20/16 halfling Artful Dodger has a whopping +10 (1+5[Dex]+1[Talent]+3[Prof]), +11 with Weapon Expertise.
A 20 Str fighter with Weapon Talent has the same.
So at best you could get a 50% hit rate. 60% with Combat Advantage, but then there's concealment...
What module was it exactly.
So far our characters have had no particular trouble hitting things, even the bow Ranger when attacking with his sword where he only started with a +2 stat (though he usually makes the sword attack to deal his sneak attack cross-class damage, so has combat advantage). But, then, the only WotC adventures we've played them in are Kobold Keep and Through the Silver Caves.
Edit: It should be noted however, that a Black Dragon is technically a reasonable thing to throw at a 2nd level party by level, but thanks to its cloud, probably isn't. It should also be noted that perhaps you weren't meant to fight the dragon. But that would require more info than we know about the adventure.
It just seems way out of control for a level 2 adventure. And yes, you aren't forced to fight it and can get away from it. So it does have an out. I just don't see a great use for putting in an encounter that is going to force the PC's to flee. Ah well.
***** Brother G.
I'm sure we might be able to offer some help if we had a better idea of what you guys were using.
Guys like this are one of the reasons that you need for someone to have area attacks. Swarms being another reason.
That said, I'm not sure why Young Black Dragons are so popular as 'boss encounters' at such low levels. Sounds good on paper, but they are just an exercise in frustration at that point in the game, IMO.
But yeah, in general throwing the low level MM dragons at level 1-2 parties is just a TPK waiting to happen. This is a widely observed effect since the early days of the edition, which did little to quell the edition war complaints that 4e PCs are completely impossible to kill.
1. Deal with the drain on healing resources, and slug through it
2. Ask the DM to build encounters tailored better for the group
3. Optimize
And when I say optimize, it doesn't really take much. A human weapon talent fighter with 18 strength and a longsword is optimized enough for all intents and purposes. At level 2, he will have a +8 attack bonus, needing a 14 to hit AC 22. If your party is cooperating just a little bit, combat advantage is not hard to come by, and you're down to needing a 12 to hit. Add on one more bonus from a leader in the group, and you're looking at a 50% or better chance to hit, which is about normal.
And if you're fighting against an AC 22 creature at 2nd level, that's supposed to be a hard fight.
Also keep in mind, strikers have ways of increasing their hit chance by targeting non-AC defenses, multiple attacks, multiple rolls, pact boons, etc. So they can usually do their job and chew through lots of hit points in a hurry.
The party is as follows:
Human Avenger wielding greatblade.
Dwarf Warlord with craghammer.
Eladrin Wizard with wand.
Dwarf battlecleric with mordenkrad.
I think only the wizard has a 20 stat. Most everyone else has 18 in primary except for the cleric which has 16 for both wisdom and str (and has at-wills for both).
due to the dragon fight, my group is currently looking for a 5th player willing to play a defender. Not that I think it will help much, but perhaps some. A paladin would probably do best, though I recently built a fighter that at level 2 was plus 10 to hit. Again though, feels wrong to have to optimize to beat a creature that fits your level.
***** Brother G.
The thing with the Black Dragon is it has a battle plan that it likes to use, which is strong melee heavy tactics, and it gets very annoying to connect with on an attack, unless you force changes in its tactics. You need to force it out of the darkness, which is hard to do without the right powers (Close or area with push pull or slide effects are the best here), and then it gets much more fun.
Here you are also noticing one addition issue (at least as I see it), both leaders are going to have abilities that trigger on hitting, but chose weapons for damage instead of accuracy, IT does not always come up, but that 5% can mean allot over time
To answer the question in the thread title, no. You don't. Not aggressively, at least. A 16 in your primary stat (even after racial mods) is fine, so long as you then optimize tactics to at least some degree and/or the DM is good at feeling out what the players find to be fun encounters. The YBD isn't a very good low-level encounter because the "obvious tactic" (try and kill the thing) doesn't work very well and a low level/new player party lacks both the resources and savvy to cope with it. Let's face it, as smart as we all think we are, few of us are going to see "stand back with readied actions while the Wizard pelts it with Scorching Burst until it comes out or dies" as an appealing strategy as new players. Experienced players who are used to working in a group will probably see it differently, deferring enjoyment to the round of utter pain that will payoff after fast-forwarding a couple rounds of waiting when the YBD pokes it head out and eats a rapid combo of successive readied actions. They also may not try the "stand out of range of its breath and taunt its cowardice while it eats attacks its darkness can't defend against" tactic. Seriously, goad the dragon until the DM takes it personally.
Fighters and rogues have a class feature that gives them an extra +1 with certain weapon groups, everyone can benefit from combat advantage for an extra +2 to hit (though its a little harder for ranged classes without feat support), and then there are always leader bonuses to consider which IMO are too often overlooked when +hit is discussed on these forums.
Its also worth pointing out that some creatures are just really tough... especially soldiers, and even more so if they are elites or solos, and several levels higher than the party.
I do also agree with the comment that the black dragon's aura is just ridiculous... my group faced one recently, where the DM deliberately held back from using that power because it clearly has the effect of making a hard fight just about impossible.
I think a 16 in a primary stat (after modifiers) is just not good enough.
Yes it is. I'm playing one. It's fine, and having the well-rounded stats everywhere else is well worth it in rubber-meets-the-road play.
Even a poor race/class combination is capable of starting with an 18, and if their race/class combination IS optimal, a 20. Characters with a primary of 18 (or lower) should also seriously be considering taking weapon/implement expertise as one of their first feats, unless for whatever reason they dont particularly value hitting.
This is a trap mentality. 18 is hideously expensive, and the losses to the rest of the character's capabilities is significant unless you spend all your time in a cave killing Zubats. Buying an 18 is a terrible idea, especially since you could, with that cost, ensure at least a +2 in every other coupling, have no negative mods, AND have a second +3 or even third +3 after racial mods. 3 +3's > 1 +4. Good play can more than make up for that +1.
Surprisingly the Standard Array is actually a really really good distribution.
Yes it is. I'm playing one. It's fine, and having the well-rounded stats everywhere else is well worth it in rubber-meets-the-road play.
This is a trap mentality. 18 is hideously expensive, and the losses to the rest of the character's capabilities is significant unless you spend all your time in a cave killing Zubats. Buying an 18 is a terrible idea, especially since you could, with that cost, ensure at least a +2 in every other coupling, have no negative mods, AND have a second +3 or even third +3 after racial mods. 3 +3's > 1 +4. Good play can more than make up for that +1.
Surprisingly the Standard Array is actually a really really good distribution.
Oh, I agree that an unmodified 18 means playing a very single-track character, and not a 'well-rounded' one as you put it... but thats a down-side of attempting to play an unoptimal class/race combination as well-rounded, not a down-side of taking an unmodified 18.
There are actually a few classes that do quite well with only two significant stats, that should generally push for an unmodified 18 in their primary stat... the wizard is a prime example of this : he barely needs a secondary stat at all, let alone a tertiary stat, but he has something like 4 secondary stats to choose from for a secondary so there really is no wrong answer to where he chooses to put the rest of his stats as long as he has a nice big INT.
If you ask me, the only 'trap' is believing that you have to waste your stats and feats backing up RP fluff, because that just seems to me like an exercise in futility; going against the system in defiance of all reason rather than working with it to your own benefit.
Don't get too discouraged. The young black dragon is a ridiculously tough opponent, and frankly, is pretty much impossible for a party without a wizard to handle. The problem is the monster, not the system.
Yep, a wizard with the right power selection or a very, very consistently lucky swordmage are more or less necessary to make it through that encounter "reasonably," where "reasonably" means "avoiding something too close to a TPK."
Some other low level monsters that are a bit unfair are the Guard Drake and Needlefang Drake Swarm.
You also mention you don't have a 5th PC? Did your DM scale the encounter for 4?
That's a big difference. An encounter of that difficulty is about the highest that your party stands a chance of beating. And in this case, it happens to punish exactly your weak points - lack of ranged attacks. This is a rock/paper/scissors scenario. You're rock. Dragon's paper.
On the other hand, a group with lots of ranged and burst effects might handle the dragon, but be torn to shreds by a comparable amount of soldier type monsters getting in close and pinning down the ranged characters, while your heavy melee types would laugh and smash them to bits.
And no, you don't need over a 16. At least a 16 is nice though. The difference between a 16 and an 18 only matters 1/20 of the time anyway.
That said, I'm not sure why Young Black Dragons are so popular as 'boss encounters' at such low levels. Sounds good on paper, but they are just an exercise in frustration at that point in the game, IMO.
MY guess is because it is one of the lowest level 'Solo' creatures to be found (with only the young White Dragon being lower level). THough it isn't necessary to have a solo as a 'boss', it is a very popular practise so thus the young Black and young White Dragons get overused.
Personally, I think the game could stand a few more low level solos to use as low level bosses.
Power selection is important, not having redundant at-wills is important and if given the option for an at-will that targets Ref or Will it should be taken. At least one party member should have an at-will burst or blast power to clear minions and not have to worry about situations like blinded. Powers that go against type should only be taken when they are soooo good as to be must haves (Stand the Fallen-Warlord Daily 5 is made for inspiring warlords, but even a Tactical Warlord should take it, it's by far the best choice. Conversely a Inspiring Warlord should not take Lead the Attack as it is terrible for non Taclords.) Some class varients are considerably weaker than other options and that bears mentioning. Str Paladins, Inspiring Warlords, Wand Wizards(not as bad as the others though) of PHB1 being the worst offenders.
Party composition can have an effect too. Are all the roles covered?, perhaps there are too many strikers(a common occurance). A party of four really shines when all the roles are filled in our experience.
Optimization of tactics is essential. Holding actions til after the leader class(es) drops it's buff, getting combat advantage, using aid another, using synergistic power combinations are all basic tactics that are needed to beat higher leveled encounters like this one.
Choosing a race that supplements your class selection is not what I'd consider optimization however, it's basic viability 101. A Dwarf Warlord is shooting yourself in the foot as it boosts none of the essential warlord stats(Str, Int, Cha).
snip
Wow, you make this game sound really hard!
Wow, you make this game sound really hard!
I wouldn't say it is hard just that it makes lots of assumptions. Things like nowiwantmydmg was talking about. I find that the game seems to assume that party composition is something agreed upon by the group. My group has almost had to sit down and say "ok, what is everyone making? no, we don't need two of those, someone should probably play an x,y or z" for survivability reasons.
The fact that it IS "shooting yourself in the foot" to play a non-optimized race/class combo upsets me. While playing a half elf warlock is fun, maybe I have a great idea for a dwarven warlord but the game mechanics won't support him very well. Yes, I can make one but he will be behind the curve his whole career. Too bad really.
Why? Because it's basically like playing a video game. While you -can- create that poor race/class combo, you will only be punished for it in the end. Optimized characters will be rewarded because the encounter is the same, the experience is the same, it's already published and decided. Now, if you are just a glutton for punishment, go ahead and do your thing, just remember that you won't be rewarded for it.
If it were a custom campaign, or a highly skilled DM, he could definitely make life more interesting for people who prefer less combat intensive characters and wanted to Role Play an good conceptual hero. For example, he could reward more experience to the party, include more skill challenges, replace monsters, etc.
A module is just that though. It expects you to level at this point, gain loot at that point, and fight and win against challenges and earn fixed amount of XP. If you've ever played WoW, there's a clear difference in a creative build, and established "Best" builds. Your experience, items, and quests are all the same, why gimp yourself and make things harder?
- Not only is the Cloud of Darkness bad, but the darn dragon went and sat in the middle of a pool of water... the depth of which we had no idea, so, we were all afraid to jump into the pool and even attempt melee with it.
- Not that it would have done much good... with an effective AC of 27 while it is in the cloud, where we can't flank it to get combat advantage.
- I can't remember if the wizard has scorching burst. I think he might have just retrained for it, after we fled the dragon, so we might get to use that in the future if we go back after it. He doesn't have Thunderwave. He also has an 18 Int, but he has a +1 implement, which helps.
- If we had something to push or pull or slide the thing out of it's cloud, that'd be great, but I don't think we do.
- If we had something to daze it, that'd be great, but I don't think we do.
- We do have a warlord that can give us "Lead the Attack" for a +3, so that's awesome, but, might still be not be enough if we can't get it out of the damn cloud.
- The DM is not adjusting encounters to reflect that we only have 4 characters instead of 5.
- In light of that, I've been pushing for the party to add a 5th character, a defender, as an NPC, but I've been getting pushback from other party members. In fact, the DM introduced us to one (unconcsious), but we looted her and drove her off.
- I'm of the opinion that, running away is the intent of this encounter, then have the party come back later after gaining a level (and, in our case, hopefully another party member).
I think we'll be able to take it out with a 5th party member at Level 3, maybe even at Level 2. But, yeah, 4 party members at Level 2 was NOT going to happen.
EDIT: Blast, just realized the Black Dragon has the Aquatic tag.
Maybe that is what we were supposed to do. From everything I can tell, we probably don't have to kill the dragon to accomplish the goals of the adventure. I mean, it was sitting in a dead end cave by itself. So we ran off. Made sense to me.
Did you consider attempting to bluff the dragon into coming out of it's dark cloud to parley? "Oh great dragon, ye of scales as dark as midnight and breath as deadly as the cold chill of death itself, we wish to gaze upon your glory so that we may offer tribute to your majesty." Ready actions...and slam the hell out of it. Just an idea-perhaps the circumstances of the adventure wouldn't have allowed it, but never underestimate the use of a good skill when facing a difficult opponent.
As far as optimization goes, so long as you stick with at least a 16 in your primary stat, you should be golden.
Did you consider attempting to bluff the dragon into coming out of it's dark cloud to parley? "Oh great dragon, ye of scales as dark as midnight and breath as deadly as the cold chill of death itself, we wish to gaze upon your glory so that we may offer tribute to your majesty." Ready actions...and slam the hell out of it. Just an idea-perhaps the circumstances of the adventure wouldn't have allowed it, but never underestimate the use of a good skill when facing a difficult opponent.
Great example. A dragon with the home field advantage is a terribly powerful foe, but so are players with imagination.
Guys like this are one of the reasons that you need for someone to have area attacks. Swarms being another reason.
+1
Optimization is only a bad thing in the hands of bad players. In the hands of any decent players an optimized character lessens the negative influences of the random chance and game's mechanics and allows for more emphasis on story and roleplay.
That being said, different parties are always going to have different weaknesses. In fact, most parties will have some sort of a weakness (the only question is how bad is the weakness). The roc example previously mentioned is a perfect example of this. A party that is entirely (or even primarily) melee based is going to have trouble against a flying opponent, especially when that opponent also has ranged attacks.
The other thing that I have learned about 4th Ed is that it is much more important for the party to work together. While this doesn't exactly mean that you have to optimize and to build your characters together so as to create the best combos, you do need to have a good idea as to what your fellow players are capable of and what they will do.
For example, lets take the level 2 fighter with 18 Str. Now lets give him a longsword and weapon expertise. He now has a +10 to hit AC (+1 level, +1 fighter, +1 feat, +3 prof, +4 stat). Now, lets throw a level 2 bard into the party. The bard, upon seeing a tough fight coming decides to toss out his dailies. So he fires off Slayer's Song which has a nice effect of granting the party combat advantage whenever he hits (until end of his next turn and only against the 1 target). Next he pops Song of Courage which gives allies within 5 squares a +1 to hit. Finally, in subsequent rounds, he goes in with Guiding Strike which upon a hit gives a -2 to any one defense of the target.
So in this situation, the fighter starts off with a +10 to hit. The bard then gives him (after a succesful hit) +5 additional (technically +3 and then a -2 to AC), so now the Fighter has +15 (even the bard can get to +14 without much trouble here). Even against the young black dragon this is now doable as the Fighter is hitting on a 12 or higher -- and that's assuming nobody else is forcing the dragon out of the cloud. If the dragon's AC is dropped back to 22 for being out of the cloud, the fighter is now hitting on a 7 or higher.
Naturally, this is a once a day thing, but then at level 2, the party shouldn't be fighting a creature this tough more than once a day generally. Neither the fighter nor the bard is really overally optimized in this example either. Certainly the three bard abilities work very well together, but they are also all useful in their own right.
The OPs group of course suffers from not having a defender. In my mind, while no one real is truly required per se, I would argue that the defender comes closest simply because you need somebody to soak up the damage. In general strikers and controllers are going to go down pretty quickly if targetted and even leaders are likely to be relatively easy to hit depending on class and build.
In sum though I would say to the OP that first and foremost, you ran up against an incredibly difficult monster for its level. Second, the DM really does need to consider adjusting encounters for the smaller party. Third, this particular monster was not only really difficult for its level, but was also well suited for going up against your party's weaknesses. Finally, while you need not optimize (at least not completely), you do need to make sure that the party is working together.
It just seems way out of control for a level 2 adventure. And yes, you aren't forced to fight it and can get away from it. So it does have an out. I just don't see a great use for putting in an encounter that is going to force the PC's to flee. Ah well.
***** Brother G.
Again though, feels wrong to have to optimize to beat a creature that fits your level.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. There is nothing that says that every encounter that the party comes across should be status quo. It is even recomended (at least in earlier editions) that some encounters be "overwhelming", meaning that the party either flees or dies -- it's called character/story development.
Also, I do believe that arkady has the gist of it:
- In light of that, I've been pushing for the party to add a 5th character, a defender, as an NPC, but I've been getting pushback from other party members. In fact, the DM introduced us to one (unconcsious), but we looted her and drove her off.
Well, there's your problem. If the DM basically gave you a 5th party member, then only the party is to blame -- sounds like you guy unwittingly and inadvertently killed youselves. Now you gotta live with it (or die by it, as the case may be)
- I'm of the opinion that, running away is the intent of this encounter, then have the party come back later after gaining a level (and, in our case, hopefully another party member).
BINGO!
Its not as bad as in 3E where you can make characters of vastly different power levels, but there are some rules you have to follow in 4E.
That especially includes placing a 16 into your primary stat and choose a race with a +primary modifier.
Also, when you select a power don't look at flavour and if it would fit the character, look if it fits with your ability spread and feats.
Remember, don't take powers&feats out of role playing considerations (with a few exceptions), but depending on how powerful they would make you.
You can always reflavour those powers to fit your character after you took them.
Yes, optimizing is a must in 4E.
Its not as bad as in 3E where you can make characters of vastly different power levels, but there are some rules you have to follow in 4E.
That especially includes placing a 16 into your primary stat and choose a race with a +primary modifier.
Also, when you select a power don't look at flavour and if it would fit the character, look if it fits with your ability spread and feats.
Remember, don't take powers&feats out of role playing considerations (with a few exceptions), but depending on how powerful they would make you.
You can always reflavour those powers to fit your character after you took them.
Yes, optimizing is a must in 4E.
Its not as bad as in 3E where you can make characters of vastly different power levels, but there are some rules you have to follow in 4E.
That especially includes placing a 16 into your primary stat and choose a race with a +primary modifier.
Also, when you select a power don't look at flavour and if it would fit the character, look if it fits with your ability spread and feats.
Remember, don't take powers&feats out of role playing considerations (with a few exceptions), but depending on how powerful they would make you.
You can always reflavour those powers to fit your character after you took them.
HOLY META-GAMING, BATMAN!!!
Heavens forbid that someone actually make a role-playing decision in a role-playing game. What the hells would they be thinking?
The art of role-playing is truely being lost.
yea video games
HOLY META-GAMING, BATMAN!!!
Heavens forbid that someone actually make a role-playing decision in a role-playing game. What the hells would they be thinking?
The art of role-playing is truely being lost.
yea video games
It wasn't so much meta-gaming as a thinly disguised "4e is t3h debbil" rant.
It wasn't so much meta-gaming as a thinly disguised "4e is t3h debbil" rant.
Is that directed towards my statement, or the one I was replying to?
Is that directed towards my statement, or the one I was replying to?
The one you were replying to, sorry for any confusion. I was saying that the statement you were replying to wasn't the guy metagaming, it was him ranting about how much he hates 4e.
Also, when you select a power don't look at flavour and if it would fit the character, look if it fits with your ability spread and feats.
Remember, don't take powers&feats out of role playing considerations (with a few exceptions), but depending on how powerful they would make you.
You can always reflavour those powers to fit your character after you took them.
Players who require feats and skills in order to roleplay have deeper problems to contend with than whether or not to optimize their characters.
"My character is a scribe and has made sure to train in most knowledge type skills and several languages. His master was a sage and they were waylaid by enemy soldiers attacking the kingdom. he escaped and now has vowed to use his skills to hinder the enemy..........Oh and he can throw fireballs and magic missiles though he really doesn't want to do that."
I understand that the current edition is about "professional" adventurers but sometimes that isn't my idea of a good character. My friends (and I for the most part) prefer the current edition so playing something else isn't really an option. I just wish it allowed more flexibility in making characters.
Jayne, earlier you asked why would someone not optimize their character and it is a valid question. You probably always want to optimize your character to fit your concept. The problem with 4th edition is that they assume that concept is combat. Gone are the days of the "ordinary man caught in an extraordinary circumstance" characters, unless you really reflavor powers and allow for some high fantasy schtick.
"My character is a scribe and has made sure to train in most knowledge type skills and several languages. His master was a sage and they were waylaid by enemy soldiers attacking the kingdom. he escaped and now has vowed to use his skills to hinder the enemy..........Oh and he can throw fireballs and magic missiles though he really doesn't want to do that."
I understand that the current edition is about "professional" adventurers but sometimes that isn't my idea of a good character. My friends (and I for the most part) prefer the current edition so playing something else isn't really an option. I just wish it allowed more flexibility in making characters.
Or you can just roleplay it, just like we used to do in the old days before we had skills and feats to tell us what are characters are and had to imagine it ourselves.
All that stuff about being a scribe and whatnot is called "backstory". It provides a history and context for the character and does not need to be detailed through rules and mechanics. You don't need to create a mechanically sub-optimal character - an inherently selfish choice which ultimately serves to negatively impact the entire group - to realize a character concept. Sinking 20 points into "Language: South-East Valarian Puck-Elf" doesn't make one a better roleplayer, it just makes them a deficit to the party.
Or you can just roleplay it, just like we used to do in the old days before we had skills and feats to tell us what are characters are and had to imagine it ourselves.
All that stuff about being a scribe and whatnot is called "backstory". It provides a history and context for the character and does not need to be detailed through rules and mechanics. You don't need to create a mechanically sub-optimal character - an inherently selfish choice which ultimately serves to negatively impact the entire group - to realize a character concept. Sinking 20 points into "Language: South-East Valarian Puck-Elf" doesn't make one a better roleplayer, it just makes them a deficit to the party.
ok let's clarify, when you say mechanically sub-optimal, you mean as it realtes to combat correct? I was commenting on the woes of people that don't want to play combat characters. Maybe I want my character to not be a monster in combat. problem is, the game assumes you are. And I was not talking about maxing out obscure skills. The character is useful in every adventure, just not in combat. The current edition doesn't allow for it.
The one you were replying to, sorry for any confusion. I was saying that the statement you were replying to wasn't the guy metagaming, it was him ranting about how much he hates 4e.
ok let's clarify, when you say mechanically sub-optimal, you mean as it realtes to combat correct? I was commenting on the woes of people that don't want to play combat characters. Maybe I want my character to not be a monster in combat. problem is, the game assumes you are. And I was not talking about maxing out obscure skills. The character is useful in every adventure, just not in combat. The current edition doesn't allow for it.
Combat is the only aspect of the game that requires rules. Everything else can be roleplayed.
It wasn't so much meta-gaming as a thinly disguised "4e is t3h debbil" rant.
Swing... and a miss.
The post you are referring to said:
"Yes, optimizing is a must in 4E. Its not as bad as in 3E where you can make characters of vastly different power levels... but there are some rules you have to follow in 4E. That especially includes placing a 16 into your primary stat and choose a race with a +primary modifier."
That sounds more like a criticism of both 4E and 3E. And I wouldn't call it a 'rant'. I think your 4E flag is waving a bit.
I don't particularly agree with the poster's opinion about 3E. I don't see how his criticism relates to the necessity of optimization at all. But I am curious about his 4E comment since I've never played it. Is his second statement about 4E valid - that "...there are some rules you have to follow... That especially includes placing a 16 into your primary stat and choose a race with a +primary modifier"?
I was commenting on the woes of people that don't want to play combat characters
The character is useful in every adventure, just not in combat. The current edition doesn't allow for it.
the current edition? was 3.5 or 3rd so much different? (I haven't played 2nd/ADnD/... so I woudn't know about them...)
- diplomacy is still equally important as it used to be in 3rd edition (although, in 4th they removed the cheesy parts): its a skill amongst others
- bluff? same deal
- "Oh and he can throw fireballs and magic missiles though he really doesn't want to do that." How was that any different in 3.5? wizards also had spells (given, they could stack up on utility spells - but still: most spells are for combat) - the character you described didn't have ANY magical powers. if you're going for a PC class in 3.5 you would have ended up with bard (oh, yeah, and my character can sing and isn't lawfull), or a rogues (oh, yeah, and my character can slid throats). both are the same as your "Oh and he can throw fireballs and magic missiles though he really doesn't want to do that."
DnD has always been about combat. kick some orc/ogre/balor -butt!
Is his second statement about 4E valid - that "...there are some rules you have to follow... That especially includes placing a 16 into your primary stat and choose a race with a +primary modifier"?
no. it will result in +5% to hit, +1 damage.
... unlike 3rd/3.5 where the number of spells also were dependent of the stat (a wizard with 18 int in 4th has +5% to hit, +1 damage over a wizard with 16 int)
stats of 5x10 and one 20, can be uber in 3rd/3.5, but your character will suck in 4rd.
heck, in the campaign I DM, the most powerfull character is an elf wizard (elves get +2 dex, +2wis, while wizard cast on INT): the elf can 1/encounter reroll an attack.
edit: oh,yeah he's a staff-wizard (he gets +1 AC and 1/encounter can add his con mod to his AC ...) (unlike orb- or wand-wizards, who have a ability who uses wis or dex)
The elf opens combat with an split ray attack that immobilized 2 mellee enemies. if he rolls low, he uses his elfen racial power so that he rerolls again. Sure he has -5% attack, -1 damage compared to other wizards, but in round 1 he can keep half the enemies from fighting ... (which practially means that the rest of the party gains up on a other enemy, probably killing 'm)
My Bard misses by 1 point maybe once every couple encounters.
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
DnD has always been about combat. kick some orc/ogre/balor -butt!
Not everyone's game is. I enjoy combat, when I make a characfter that is good at it they do very well. My comment is that I can't make a character that is bad at it in 4th without it being suicidal. Even then he has a plethora of combat powers that I don't want and would like to get other powers, that better fit my concept, to replace them.
Not everyone's game is. I enjoy combat, when I make a characfter that is good at it they do very well. My comment is that I can't make a character that is bad at it in 4th without it being suicidal. Even then he has a plethora of combat powers that I don't want and would like to get other powers, that better fit my concept, to replace them.
I don't quite know what to respond to that...
You're sure you use the right game system? of course there's no correct way to play DnD, but combat seems to me like its a big part of DnD. always has been. no exceptions.
Other then that, every system has it flaws. you say that you got powers that you don't want? Every system where 1 mechanism is used for multiple instances has that problem (dexterity: I want someone with great agility, reflexes, and balance, but with bad hand-eye coordination. ...).
But why you'd want to play an adventurer who's bad in combat is beyond me (and how he reaches level 2 or higher is really beyond me ...).
Heck, if you want flavor: those combat trick your character knows, are things he learned during his travels, from seeing other people do them and insight on his own. nothing's forcing you to actually perform them, you know ...
My comment is that I can't make a character that is bad at it in 4th without it being suicidal.
thats fantastic, isn't it? that means that you don't need to know 5 books of rules to make a good character.
Sometimes people want to play the Sherlock Holmes or the Charlie Chan in 4th we are stuck with the batman for that type of character. My solution has been to find a character that will fit in the system. I have greatly enjoyed playing 4th, I just wish it was more versitile.
I don't quite know what to respond to that...
You're sure you use the right game system? of course there's no correct way to play DnD, but combat seems to me like its a big part of DnD. always has been. no exceptions.
Out of about 20 years of D&D games, I can honestly say at least 70% of the sessions have been 3-6 combats that took a total of up to 2 hours out of every 8 hour session. The rest has been RP, skill use, etc. That's the real meat and potatoes of an RPG, after all. Thus the RP in RPG. The only players I've had who have been all into combat have been, well, the rather stupid or the players who are under the age of 17 and typically like to get aggression out through their game.
But why you'd want to play an adventurer who's bad in combat is beyond me (and how he reaches level 2 or higher is really beyond me ...).
Bad in combat has more to do with player than stats. If you're in a party who has a warlock, and the enemy is using all nonmagical armor or weapons, he gets an ability at level 1 that completely hoses the enemy. Later, he can fly and do it (3.5e). He can have a Con of 5 and survive by using his head.
Heck, if you want flavor: those combat trick your character knows, are things he learned during his travels, from seeing other people do them and insight on his own. nothing's forcing you to actually perform them, you know ...
99% of the time, that's bad RP. There's no "perfect" combo anyway; if your DM is worth his/her salt, then they're ensuring you deal with situations that work AGAINST your abilities almost as often as with them to keep the game from entering the land of thoughtless dicerolls. But even then, if your character knows HOW, then they're going to DO, unless the circumstance is special (for instance, a sorcerer who thinks their powers are evil...but then they're likely to level something that isn't Sorcerer as well).
thats fantastic, isn't it? that means that you don't need to know 5 books of rules to make a good character.
Yay online resources. You get damn near every book that has been released for any edition, or at least the pertinent data, free of charge. Welcome to the information age, where it's not what you know, but what you type.
Most of the time, if something is easy, you're doing it wrong.
One of my fav characters ever was a diviner/thief-acrobat, in combat most of the time he would hide and give minor aid to the party with spells like see invisible or various divinations that expose weaknesses or he would cancel out debuffs. otherwise he was limited to his d6+2 attack with his shortbow. Outside of combat he was the guy that got you where you needed to go. He had loads of knowledge skills and was an anti-trap/lock machine. He also was the failsafe for when the party just shrugged and didn't know what to do next with all his divination magic. Did I ever wish he could blast enemies of drop foes with well placed shots? no. DId I ever once hear my party complain about him? only in character and that was in jest. Can I convert him to 4th? nope.
Sometimes people want to play the Sherlock Holmes or the Charlie Chan in 4th we are stuck with the batman for that type of character. My solution has been to find a character that will fit in the system. I have greatly enjoyed playing 4th, I just wish it was more versitile.
Like it or not, the decision to eliminate the 'run and hide' character archetype from 4E was deliberate... most players who put roleplaying before combat on their list of priorities when building a character werent happy about having to sacrifice 99% of their usefulness in combat to do so, and WotC rightly corrected this.
The fact that you could build a complete wimp of a character in 3E simply by prioritising RP over combat is what is largely responsible for the minority mindset that persists to this day that this is somehow an acceptable trade-off.
For example, a defender having a decent to high con is optimization but it's also following the role concept (in theory at least). If I make a fighter with a really high int and charisma, my next stats going into dexterity and wisdom, then my lowest two in strength and con I can legitimately be said not to be optimizing. However I would also probably be told that I made the character incorrectly.
Optimization on a basic level means making a character good at something, or better at something. If we want to say that optimization is required in a game it seems somewhat akin to saying that drinking requires liquids or that respiration requires breathing, somewhat expected.
One of my fav characters ever was a diviner/thief-acrobat, in combat most of the time he would hide and give minor aid to the party with spells like see invisible or various divinations that expose weaknesses or he would cancel out debuffs. otherwise he was limited to his d6+2 attack with his shortbow. Outside of combat he was the guy that got you where you needed to go. He had loads of knowledge skills and was an anti-trap/lock machine. He also was the failsafe for when the party just shrugged and didn't know what to do next with all his divination magic. Did I ever wish he could blast enemies of drop foes with well placed shots? no. DId I ever once hear my party complain about him? only in character and that was in jest. Can I convert him to 4th? nope.
why not? woudn't wizard MC cleric (divine oracle) with skill training thievery. or a cleric MC rogue ... come pretty close?
edit: question, didn't that character have sneak attack?
Out of about 20 years of D&D games, I can honestly say at least 70% of the sessions have been 3-6 combats that took a total of up to 2 hours out of every 8 hour session. The rest has been RP, skill use, etc.
granted, but compared to other systems, that can be considered much. take systems like Chuthlu or WoD for example: combat is just one or two skills. in DnD its a complete system on equal footing with the skill system.
You say 70% of the sessions 3-6 combats ... that's insane by Chuthlu standards (pun intended) ...
99% of the time, that's bad RP.
why?
Yay online resources. You get damn near every book that has been released for any edition, or at least the pertinent data, free of charge.
free of charge? last time I checked the pdf's weren't free of charge. explain plz ...
and its not owning the books that matter, its knowing them. people who don't have much spare time don't automatically suck in DnD...
To Jayne Cobb: There are non-combat aspects of the game. Skill encounters, social encounters, character in game research. I like being useful in those situations. 4th allows for it but it also makes you combat capable by default. I want a character that can trade out his combat ability for more out-of-combat ability/utility.
I suggested nothing to the contrary. Non-combatant does not necessarily mean non-optimized. Purposely non-optimizing your character would be something like saying you want to be a really good diplomat with strong interpersonal skills and then put your lowest stats in CHA, INT, and WIS.
Optimization means making your PC as good as possible at what he does, not tweaking him solely for combat.
You say 70% of the sessions 3-6 combats ... that's insane by Chuthlu standards (pun intended) ...
No, he said that in 70% of the sessions he has played, 3-6 fights have taken up 25% (2 hours) of the time played (8 hours).
Like it or not, the decision to eliminate the 'run and hide' character archetype from 4E was deliberate... most players who put roleplaying before combat on their list of priorities when building a character werent happy about having to sacrifice 99% of their usefulness in combat to do so, and WotC rightly corrected this.
The fact that you could build a complete wimp of a character in 3E simply by prioritising RP over combat is what is largely responsible for the minority mindset that persists to this day that this is somehow an acceptable trade-off.
And here I thought that D&D wants to be a role playing game and not a tabletop combat game.
And here I thought that D&D wants to be a role playing game and not a tabletop combat game.
That you think it has to be one to the total exclusion of the other is your problem, not a problem of any edition of D&D.
why not? woudn't wizard MC cleric (divine oracle) with skill training thievery. or a cleric MC rogue ... come pretty close?
edit: question, didn't that character have sneak attack?
The problem I have with 4th is that most of your powers are combat powers, so no matter the combo I pick, most of my abilities are for combat. Not really anything I want for a Holmesian type character.
He might have had 1d6 sneak attack but I am pretty sure I traded it out with a character option from a splat book.
The problem I have with 4th is that most of your powers are combat powers, so no matter the combo I pick, most of my abilities are for combat. Not really anything I want for a Holmesian type character.
correction. In 4th, to be a trapsmith/knowledge guy ... that takes you ... about 5 feats? (assuming you can take skill training multiple times): thievery, perception and the knowledge skills that you coudn't take at character creation(which are a lot thanks to that variant rule to give your character a history)).
I think I got a house rule for you:
"from now on, when you get a power, you may opt not to take it".
If I read your post right, that would fix it, no? now you can make a character with little to no combat capabilies, some divinations (his utility powers) and skills (from character creation and feat selection).
Done.
Only make sure you tell your DM about your decision because he'll need to balance all the combat encounters for one less PC.
Jeez, if you want to roleplay a character with no discernible combat talent, make a regular character and don't use any combat powers.
Done.
Only make sure you tell your DM about your decision because he'll need to balance all the combat encounters for one less PC.
If your DM's primary job is building combat encounters, you're not so much playing D&D as you are some sort of "D&D Tactics".
Actually my point was that in 3.5 I could choose to not take combat options and REPLACE them with non-combat ones. There are not enough non-combat encounter powers to do this in 4th. Not by a long shot. I don't want to lose power just refocus it so that it is not combat related.
In 4E you have more non-combat options BY DEFAULT than you had in 3E... this design choice was made specifically so you wouldnt need to sacrifice your combat ability in order to gain more non-combat utility.
Im not sorry that 4E doesnt encourage or require players who enjoy roleplaying more than combat to be USELESS at combat... D&D has always been that game where bands of adventurers go into dungeons, kill monsters and take their stuff... if that isnt how you play D&D, Im not sure why you cant just play with a different system, because there are plenty of them out there where combat is a mere afterthought.
If your DM's primary job is building combat encounters, you're not so much playing D&D as you are some sort of "D&D Tactics".
Its not his ONLY job, or even necessarily his primary one, but it still is his responsibility and 4E makes it easier than ever before to actually construct a BALANCED encounter... in 4E, the numbers actually work; a DM can now use the guidelines in the DMG to construct an encounter that is exactly the right degree of challenging to exactly the right number of players, in difference to previous editions where this involved a lot of blind guesswork and trial-and-error.
Actually my point was that in 3.5 I could choose to not take combat options and REPLACE them with non-combat ones.
I'm agreeing with CyberianHusky here. in 3.5 you had to choose. in 4 you get both.
its kinda like this:
- in 3rd you had to choose between an apple and a lemon
- in 4th you get both an apple and a lemon
- you're now complaining that you don't like lemons. and you're not content with just the apple, no. you want 2 apples
What you want (2 apples instead of an apple and a lemon) is completely against the spirit of 4e where everyone is virtually equal. Everyone should have some stuff to do in combat, everyone should have some stuff to do out combat.
One can shift the balance (take combat feats; take non-combat feats); but one can't become one-trick ponies. one trick ponies are great until the DM stops cuddling you and throws an encounter against you that goes against your one trick ...
Its strange I read this from you ""The character is useful in every adventure, just not in combat. The current edition doesn't allow for it."". you do realise that "choose to not take combat options and REPLACE them with non-combat ones." is shooting yourself in the foot in most adventures right? (or at least the ones WotC publishes ...) the default 4-man team ( big dumb fighter / glass cannon / healbot / wizard ) is missing a role ...
The problem I have with 4th is that most of your powers are combat powers, so no matter the combo I pick, most of my abilities are for combat. Not really anything I want for a Holmesian type character.
Not to get off topic here but your argument using Holmes as an example of a non-combatant (or ineffective combatant at best) is a little off base. For those without much knowledge of the original Private Detective:
Weapons and martial arts
Pistols: On occasion Holmes and Watson carry pistols with them, in the case of Watson often his old service revolver. However, Watson only describes these weapons as being used on seven occasions.[27]
Holmes brandishing a weapon.
Cane: Holmes, as a gentleman, often carries a stick or cane. He is described by Watson as an expert at singlestick and twice uses his cane as a weapon.[28]
Sword: In "A Study in Scarlet" Watson describes Holmes as a expert with a sword - although in none of the stories is Holmes mentioned as using a sword. [29] It is mentioned in "Gloria Scott" that Holmes practiced fencing.
Riding crop: In several stories, Holmes appears equipped with a riding crop. In "The Adventure of the Speckled Band" he uses it to lash out at a venomous snake and in "A Case of Identity", he comes close to thrashing a swindler with it. Using a "hunting crop," Holmes knocks a pistol from John Clay's hand in "The Red-Headed League."
Fist-fighting: Holmes is described as a formidable fist-fighter. In The Sign of the Four, Holmes introduces himself to a prize-fighter as:
“ "The amateur who fought three rounds with you at Alison's rooms on the night of your benefit four years back." McMurdo responds by saying, "Ah, you're one that has wasted your gifts, you have! You might have aimed high, if you had joined the fancy." ”
Holmes engages in hand to hand combat with his adversaries on several occasions throughout the stories, inevitably emerging as the victor.[30] It is also, once again, mentioned in "Gloria Scott" that Holmes trained as a boxer.
Martial arts: "The Adventure of the Empty House", Holmes recounts to Watson how he used martial arts to overcome Professor Moriarty and fling his adversary to his death at the Reichenbach Falls. He states that "I have some knowledge, however, of baritsu, or the Japanese system of wrestling, which has more than once been very useful to me." The name "baritsu" appears to be a reference to the real-life martial art of bartitsu.
[27] In The Sign of Four, they both fire at the Andaman Islander. In The Hound of the Baskervilles, both Holmes and Watson fire. In "The Adventure of the Copper Beeches", Watson fires at and kills the mastiff. In "The Adventure of the Empty House", Watson pistol-whips Colonel Sebastian Moran. In "The Adventure of the Three Garridebs", Holmes pistol-whips Killer Evans after Watson is shot. In "The Musgrave Ritual", it is revealed that Holmes decorated the wall of their flat with a patriotic "V.R." done in bullet marks. In "The Problem of Thor Bridge", Holmes uses Watson's revolver in a reconstruction of the crime.
[28] See "The Red-Headed League" and "The Adventure of the Illustrious Client".
[29] However, in the Granada TV version of "The Adventure of the Naval Treaty" Holmes uses a sword cane to force Joseph Harrison to give up the stolen treaty.
[30] Inter alia "The Adventure of the Solitary Cyclist" and "The Adventure of the Naval Treaty".
What you want (2 apples instead of an apple and a lemon) is completely against the spirit of 4e where everyone is virtually equal.
*twitch...twitch*......equality should never be ingrained, it must be earned. Otherwise you get appalling people and/or characters that take it for granted and whine when they don't get their way. Those people fail often and then blame the system for their own faults.
Everyone should have some stuff to do in combat, everyone should have some stuff to do out combat.
Even a fighter with nothing but feats tied to being a basher in 3.5 could be formidable in other situations as well. A successful D&D character should be 10% character abilities, 90% player ability.
One can shift the balance (take combat feats; take non-combat feats); but one can't become one-trick ponies. one trick ponies are great until the DM stops cuddling you and throws an encounter against you that goes against your one trick ...
If you're a one-trick pony, you suck at playing the character. It has little to do with the character's construction.
the default 4-man team ( big dumb fighter / glass cannon / healbot / wizard ) is missing a role ...
Actually, the old-school default team was 5 people: Fighter, Mage, Cleric, Thief, Ranger. Often, there were 6; the 6th was usually a token multiclasser or a DMPC used to advance the game, such as a noble in need of escort. "4" was a trend that started in the 1980's when computer game designers used a party size of 4 for ease of coding on 8 bit systems and ease of balance versus the capability of the machine to win. Final Fantasy is an example.
I just find that 4th is very limiting in character creation.
And for the people who keep telling me to play another game, again, this is what my group plays so I am stuck with it. For the most part I enjoy it as I make characters that work within the system. I just would like the system to be more verisitile.
Not my taste personally, I like to have a level of cooperation in combat in my games, where the group is all working, if not as a well oiled machine, at least -in some fashion- together.
And Holmes was a scrapper.
Ooh and a junkie.
Ask your DM for permission to swap all your Attack powers for Utilities/skills/feats/rituals.
Not my taste personally, I like to have a level of cooperation in combat in my games, where the group is all working, if not as a well oiled machine, at least -in some fashion- together.
And Holmes was a scrapper.
Ooh and a junkie.
Why ask a DM to make the problem with 4e worse than it already is?
Most intelligent players hate it if you pidgeonhole them into working together. Granted, they shouldn't be rewarded for running off on their own necessarily, but if the party becomes a "broken party", let them be broken until they figure out why they need to work together.
If they don't know after a full session, then your scenario sucks and is too easy.
In 4E you have more non-combat options BY DEFAULT than you had in 3E... this design choice was made specifically so you wouldnt need to sacrifice your combat ability in order to gain more non-combat utility.
Im not sorry that 4E doesnt encourage or require players who enjoy roleplaying more than combat to be USELESS at combat... D&D has always been that game where bands of adventurers go into dungeons, kill monsters and take their stuff... if that isnt how you play D&D, Im not sure why you cant just play with a different system, because there are plenty of them out there where combat is a mere afterthought.
I don't know anyone who isn't bored with "delve, destroy, loot" after a couple of sessions. What about cities? ships? airships? planar travel? Where did the imagination go?
I don't know anyone who isn't bored with "delve, destroy, loot" after a couple of sessions. What about cities? ships? airships? planar travel? Where did the imagination go?
There are other games besides D&D you could be playing, if pseudo-medieval dungeon-delving is not to your liking.
Most intelligent players hate it if you pidgeonhole them into working together.
It sounds like you would be better off playing a single-player or 1v1 game with that attitude.
There are other games besides D&D you could be playing, if pseudo-medieval dungeon-delving is not to your liking.
We haven't heard of Planescape, have we....
Or ever peeked at Stormwrack from 3.5e or anything
And lets not forget Spelljammer from 2.0.
I think you've just established that your credibility is low, because your argument really indicates you have no idea where D&D sprawls.
It sounds like you would be better off playing a single-player or 1v1 game with that attitude.
No. It's just not enjoyable if the whole party is the type to sit around the campfire singing Kum-ba-yah and always looking out for each other, in a single-goal universe that loses its potential when the main quest completes. That's Final Fantasy, and I don't like Square-Enix in my D&D. It makes D&D too same-y.
I'm curious, CyberianHusky; what happens when a player in a campaign with you decides to work in a way that hinders the party toward their own best interests...in character?
We haven't heard of Planescape, have we....
Or ever peeked at Stormwrack from 3.5e or anything
And lets not forget Spelljammer from 2.0.
I think you've just established that your credibility is low, because your argument really indicates you have no idea where D&D sprawls.
The thing is, those other campaign settings are still all about pseudo-medieval dungeon-delving, just '-in the 4th dimension!' or '-on the high seas!' or '-in spaaaace!'.
My point was that there seems to be a certain school of 3E players who never actually played D&D like it was D&D... they dont seem to know what D&D is supposed to be like, where it came from and how 3E or rather 'd20' was a giant leap away from its core concepts... what's the point of trying to cater any edition of 'dungeons and dragons' to these players, if what they want from a RPG has nothing to do with 'dungeons and dragons'.
No. It's just not enjoyable if the whole party is the type to sit around the campfire singing Kum-ba-yah and always looking out for each other, in a single-goal universe that loses its potential when the main quest completes. That's Final Fantasy, and I don't like Square-Enix in my D&D. It makes D&D too same-y.
A good multi-player game (which is what D&D is) does not encourage or reward individuals monopolising the DM's time by always going off and doing their own thing, taking 10x as many actions in combat as other players, or actively working against the other players... I realise that given D&D's origins its always going to attract a certain variety of anti-social player, but the notion that what is by design a cooperative game should be made to cater to this sad minority is a foolish one.
I'm curious, CyberianHusky; what happens when a player in a campaign with you decides to work in a way that hinders the party toward their own best interests...in character?
I would talk to him out of character. 'its what my character would do' is a lame excuse, because the player is the one who decided to make the character that way. Thankfully my RP group are all rational, mature players that would not try to pull this kind of stunt unless the game explicitly encouraged it, the way some others like vampire : dark ages or other 'morally grey *coughEVILcough*' games do.
You...see it as a Good vs. Evil romp...don't you......oh god...my brain....
You don't see D&D as morally grey?
You...see it as a Good vs. Evil romp...don't you......oh god...my brain....
In Dungeons and Dragons, this idea that the players are the heroes, and their foes the villains is the norm; anything else is a deviation from that norm.
Dungeons and Dragons is not 'morally grey' by default.
If you think it is, or ever was, you werent really playing D&D. But thats fine too... there are other RPGs besides D&D that better attempt to cater to your bleak outlook and anti-social tendencies... but I am glad 4E D&D does not.
In Dungeons and Dragons, this idea that the players are the heroes, and their foes the villains is the norm; anything else is a deviation from that norm.
Dungeons and Dragons is not 'morally grey' by default.
If you think it is, or ever was, you werent really playing D&D. But thats fine too... there are other RPGs besides D&D that better attempt to cater to your bleak outlook and anti-social tendencies... but I am glad 4E D&D does not.
Actually...D&D 1st even has lots about how players may be any alignment and their goals are their own, and how moral ambiguity is the way of things.
Now i'm just depressed that people think like you. It explains why I seem to be reposssessing a lot of things lately. Thanks for the insight.
Actually...D&D 1st even has lots about how players may be any alignment and their goals are their own, and how moral ambiguity is the way of things.
Now i'm just depressed that people think like you. It explains why I seem to be reposssessing a lot of things lately. Thanks for the insight.
After re-reading alot of your posts I am amazed at how many personal insults you seem to feel you to need to lash out with to prove your point.
Anyway I have been playing Dungeons and Dragons ever since 1979/80 and in all of those years there has never been a specifically morally ambiguous setting published by TSR/WotC. The only possible exception to that being the Dark Sun setting and even that implied that the characters were heroes.
Anyway in all of the editions of D&D that I have ever played (all of them) there has always been a discussion of playing an evil campaign or some similar setting. These were usually to be found in the DMG. Always it was discouraged as players were supposed to be heroes. D&D in my experience was never meant as a game for morally ambiguous characters. The line between Good and Evil, Light and Dark, has always been very clearly defined in the alignment system. Even with all of the flaws inherent in that system.
With 3E and 3.5E of the game some morally ambiguous settings were published. Settings like Stormbringer (d20) and Conan were both in that category and I am sure that there were many others that I cannot remember right now. But most of the worlds - including those published by WotC and others (Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, even Ravenloft and Midnight) - are heroic settings for heroes.
I am not sure where you get the idea that D&D 1st edition encouraged morally ambiguous gaming. Simply put it did not. However in the end it is your opinion so your entitled to it.
If you are that dissatisfied with the sysem it sounds to me like you need to talk to your DM and group about what really bothers you. whether it is the alignment system or some other part of the game perhaps there is room for change. Perhaps there is room for a second campaign that meets your requirements. Or perhaps it is time for a new group. Believe me I know how hard and disruptive that last option is, from personal experience.
Personally I have played with groups that have had backstabbing, conniving, pick pocket-happy characters in them. They were always the leas fun of any groups I have played with. But I have always preferred playing with a group that cooperates out of friendship rather than out fear or force.
Ah well, just my ten cents worth. :embarrass
In Dungeons and Dragons, this idea that the players are the heroes, and their foes the villains is the norm; anything else is a deviation from that norm.
Dungeons and Dragons is not 'morally grey' by default.
If you think it is, or ever was, you werent really playing D&D. But thats fine too... there are other RPGs besides D&D that better attempt to cater to your bleak outlook and anti-social tendencies... but I am glad 4E D&D does not.
The great thing about D&D is that people can play it however they wish. There is no 'wrong' or 'right' way to play D&D.
The 'traditional'(as you say) everyone in the party working together(which is what I perfer whether my group is playing good or evil characters), good vs evil adventures is only one way of playing the great game that is D&D.
The great thing about D&D is that people can play it however they wish. There is no 'wrong' or 'right' way to play D&D.
That might have been true for earlier editions, but 4E is very specific about how 4E is supposed to be played, and that does not include evil PCs (Book specifically says that this is not supported) or nonevil advesaries ("You don't need monsters you don't fight policy, for example).
That might have been true for earlier editions, but 4E is very specific about how 4E is supposed to be played, and that does not include evil PCs (Book specifically says that this is not supported) or nonevil advesaries ("You don't need monsters you don't fight policy, for example).
Until WotC does the same thing that was done with 3.0 and 3.5....the same thing TSR did with all the prior editions.
"D&D is about your characters being the heroes. Next year, we're releasing a whole mess of books that will teach them how to be villains (BoVD 4e), have sex(BoEF 4e), overpower their classes(Complete Splat 4e), and go shopping for Maces of Awesome +3 and Unbelievium Armor (Arms and Equipment 4e). Why? Because it's damn good marketing, and you people are going to sponge it up. That's why. "
That might have been true for earlier editions, but 4E is very specific about how 4E is supposed to be played, and that does not include evil PCs (Book specifically says that this is not supported) or nonevil advesaries ("You don't need monsters you don't fight policy, for example).
Still does not make it 'wrong,' not being supported by the book simply means that the DM/Players may have to do a bit more work.
As I said before, there's no 'right' or 'wrong' way to play D&D. ;)
That is the great thing about this hobby.
One of my fav characters ever was a diviner/thief-acrobat, in combat most of the time he would hide and give minor aid to the party with spells like see invisible or various divinations that expose weaknesses or he would cancel out debuffs. otherwise he was limited to his d6+2 attack with his shortbow. Outside of combat he was the guy that got you where you needed to go. He had loads of knowledge skills and was an anti-trap/lock machine. He also was the failsafe for when the party just shrugged and didn't know what to do next with all his divination magic. Did I ever wish he could blast enemies of drop foes with well placed shots? no. DId I ever once hear my party complain about him? only in character and that was in jest. Can I convert him to 4th? nope.
If you do not like combat so much, why do you play a game where 80% of all mechanics are there to support just that?
Perhaps they should have gone the whole way and simply optimised everyone from the start and said "play that". Is there really any point choosing stats and abilities at all when more and more there seems to be a "right way" and a "wrong way" to make a decent character that will support your group?
Should non optimization be ruled out totally in this way or is making a less than perfect character a right in some way that we should fight to preserve?
Should non optimization be ruled out totally in this way or is making a less than perfect character a right in some way that we should fight to preserve?
Pro-optimization does not mean you cannot make a less then perfect character. In 4E, you can have an optimized wizard who has 12 strength. He would be more powerful with 8 strength, but it’s not a must. Giving him 16 strength and 14 intelligence however is not optimizing and stupid. I don't care that some people thinks this constitutes proper role playing, they are idiots.
An eldarin barbarian with 16 strength, 12 int, 14 dex and melee related feats? Perfectly fine, and optimized.
An eldarin barbarian with 16 int and 12 strength? Stupid and un-optimized.
Making a less than peerfect character should be preserved. Making stupid characters and thinking that this means your rping should not.
An eldarin barbarian with 16 strength, 12 int, 14 dex and melee related feats? Perfectly fine, and optimized.
An eldarin barbarian with 16 int and 12 strength? Stupid and un-optimized.
Making a less than peerfect character should be preserved. Making stupid characters and thinking that this means your rping should not.
The only thing you're right about is that making a character that is "sub-optimal in terms of combat mechanics" has nothing to do with roleplaying. It does having a lot to do with the freedom to play a non-optomized character concept regardless of it's impact on combat mechanics, and it's not stupid to want to do so.
Roleplaying is the act of putting yourself in the shoes of the character post creation and allowing the "characters motives" to guide your actions during play. Motives have little do with the ability scores used to detail the character.
Maybe it's a hole in the English language that we're fighting against, and therefore not understanding each other. The problem we're having on this thread is that too many people are confusing roleplaying with character concepts that affect ability scores and skill choices.
You can roleplay any character - the question is, must you build a character concept that is optomized for combat. Anyone who says that it's stupid to take a character that is suboptimal in combat, or even bad at combat, has been playing only part of what is D&D. They understand the combat part, but are likely to have missed out on the rest of the game that some of us have been enjoying for 30+ years.
The only thing you're right about is that making a character that is "sub-optimal in terms of combat mechanics" has nothing to do with roleplaying. It does having a lot to do with the freedom to play a non-optomized character concept regardless of it's impact on combat mechanics, and it's not stupid to want to do so.
There is no character concept that I can think of that is inheratantly unoptomized, there are just optimal and sub optimal ways of creating said character concepts.
Roleplaying is the act of putting yourself in the shoes of the character post creation and allowing the "characters motives" to guide your actions during play. Motives have little do with the ability scores used to detail the character.
It does to a certain extent. Rping a master wizard with a 12 in all mental states is bad rping.
Maybe it's a hole in the English language that we're fighting against, and therefore not understanding each other. The problem we're having on this thread is that too many people are confusing roleplaying with character concepts that affect ability scores and skill choices.
I find the problem is the "you cannot rp a powerful character" mind set that too many people seem to believe.
You can roleplay any character - the question is, must you build a character concept that is optomized for combat. Anyone who says that it's stupid to take a character that is suboptimal in combat, or even bad at combat, has been playing only part of what is D&D. They understand the combat part, but are likely to have missed out on the rest of the game that some of us have been enjoying for 30+ years.
D&D is about combat and rping. You can rp with an optomized character and you can perform well in combat with them. You can rp with a sub-optomized character but you cannot perofrm well in combat with them. So, since sub-optomized characters have no advantages, barring specific games, why should you play one?
D&D is about combat and rping. You can rp with an optomized character and you can perform well in combat with them. You can rp with a sub-optomized character but you cannot perofrm well in combat with them. So, since sub-optomized characters have no advantages, barring specific games, why should you play one?
Because it can be fun. Because stories are full of examples of this type of character. Because that's part of what D&D was designed to allow. I'm not saying everyone SHOULD play one; I'm saying that if someone wants to play one it's normal D&D, not wrong nor stupid. And it's always been part of D&D, as it should be.
Because it can be fun. Because stories are full of examples of this type of character. Because that's part of what D&D was designed to allow. I'm not saying everyone SHOULD play one; I'm saying that if someone wants to play one it's normal D&D, not wrong nor stupid. And it's always been part of D&D, as it should be.
Can you post an brief example of those sub-optimal builds, just so I know excatly what you mean? For example, do you think a player should be able to roll a barbarian with more inteligence than strength?
So, optimized characters are required in some DMs game because they throw encounters at the players that only optimized characters can effectively eliminate. So, if the players have decided that a breadth of skills is useful and a less than optimal race is more fitting with the character concept so they are not absolutely min/maxed then the DM should adjust accordingly. There is NOTHING in this game that says that you must do N+4 level encounters always. This game is about having fun the way you want to have fun. I really get annoyed when I see people telling other people that the only way they can play their game is by playing a game they didn't want to play. For some people this game is not about 100% combat. If the players are not optimized for the N+4 or N+5 encounter then perhaps the DM should strike a balance and ease up on the encounter difficulty.
There...problem solved. :D
Your character has to be optimized for combat only or you are a selfish and irresponsible player?? What about skill challenges? You can not roleplay a history check or an arcana check or a nature check or a heal check. You can roleplay a bluff or a diplomacy check if your DM allows it (or get a bonus to the check based on how well you roleplayed it) but that's about it that I can think of. Optimizing your characters are really only important when your goal is 30th level as quickly as possible. End game...do you expect to be raiding by then? I just really don't get it.
This is a game about heroes. Its makes sense to at least optimize. You don't have to power game, but why would you make a heroe who is bad at combat?
So, optimized characters are required in some DMs game because they throw encounters at the players that only optimized characters can effectively eliminate. So, if the players have decided that a breadth of skills is useful and a less than optimal race is more fitting with the character concept so they are not absolutely min/maxed then the DM should adjust accordingly. There is NOTHING in this game that says that you must do N+4 level encounters always. This game is about having fun the way you want to have fun. I really get annoyed when I see people telling other people that the only way they can play their game is by playing a game they didn't want to play. For some people this game is not about 100% combat. If the players are not optimized for the N+4 or N+5 encounter then perhaps the DM should strike a balance and ease up on the encounter difficulty.
There...problem solved. :D
And what happens when 4 PCs optomize and then the 5th decides hes going to rp instead of optomize? What if the DM likes making powerful enemies? He has a right to fun as well.
And what happens when 4 PCs optomize and then the 5th decides hes going to rp instead of optomize? What if the DM likes making powerful enemies? He has a right to fun as well.
Then the 5th needs to find another group as he/she isn't going to have a lot of fun in a group full of optimizers. And if the DM is the only one of the group who wants to force min/maxing so that he can make powerful enemies, then perhaps h/she needs to find another group. What I am saying is that not everyone shares your idea of what makes a game fun. And in my opinion, a standard array with a maximized primary stat and a minimized dump stat does not a hero make. But again, that is my opinion.
Then the 5th needs to find another group as he/she isn't going to have a lot of fun in a group full of optimizers. And if the DM is the only one of the group who wants to force min/maxing so that he can make powerful enemies, then perhaps h/she needs to find another group. What I am saying is that not everyone shares your idea of what makes a game fun.
And how are sub-optimal builds any more fun than optimal builds? What can you do with the former that you can't do with the latter?
And in my opinion, a standard array with a maximized primary stat and a minimized dump stat does not a hero make. But again, that is my opinion.
Thats not optomizing, that mini-maxing, which in most cases leads to a sub-optimal build.
There are some 4e points that may not be immediately obvious when designing your first PCs. For instance, a lot of warlord powers need to hit to have any effect. Dwarven warlords can be tempted to use hammers, but these are +2 proficiency bonus weapons, and dwarves don't get a racial bonus to strength. So either the dwarlord pays excessively for high strength, resulting in a low secondary stat, or has Str 16 and a +2 profi bonus weapon, resulting in a lower hit chance.
As for the non-combat PC offshoot of this thread, it's possible to optimise for non-combat effectiveness, albeit far more for some classes than others. Optimisation isn't just for combat. It remains possible for PCs to have skills and powers that they don't use, in any edition.
The typical D&D game has a significant combat element. Whether non-combatant PCs are acceptable or not depends on the particular campaign and the dm and players involved. Usually, for the average D&D game with significant combat that I'm involved in, non-combatant PCs would be invited to leave the party once their non-combatant status became clear, for not pulling their weight (unless a plot device necessitated their inclusion.)
However, a non-combatant PC could fit fine into a low-combat city-based campaign, or intrigue, diplomacy etc. For these campaigns a combat-optimised uncouth heavily armed and armoured warrior with no social skills would likely not be appropriate.
Creating a PC who is wholly inappropriate for a particular campaign is not good roleplaying. They likely won't be able to engage with the plot hooks of the game, will have skillsets that might encourage them to deal with problems in inappropriate ways, and will constantly be tempted to push the campaign in a direction that suits their PC alone.
Some lucky people are talented enough to play almost any PC concept and get away with it. Most of us can't.
And how are sub-optimal builds any more fun than optimal builds? What can you do with the former that you can't do with the latter?
Nobody said that. He said that players are better off when they find a group whose style agrees with their own. I agree with him. A player who makes a character who sucks at combat is likely to find nothing but frustration if he is playing with a really combat heavy group, likewise the player who likes making combat-gods is going to get bored in a group that only sees a fight every couple of levels or so. It has nothing to do with shich approach is better or more fun, its just a matter of being in the sort of group that will indulge your tastes.
What is the solution? Well different players build their characters with different levels of skills and they play them differently too. Some teams are so good that the monsters don't stand a chance. Other groups building normal characters and playing inexpertly don't stand a chance. Watch what happens to your players and scale the encounters accordingly so that they are not overwhelmed. It sounds like you need to lose a level or two off of the encounters for your group and there is no shame in that. The point is a good challenge. You don't get gold stars in heaven because you're a great min/maxer and your tactical brilliance is unmatched. Good or bad, if the encounter is a challenge, but not overwhelming, you'll have fun.
I started a thread a while back about whether DMs tried to make every encounter a white knuckle affair or mixed the levels. There were a wide range of responses. But personally I try not to make every encounter a near death experience. And I try to avoid inducing despair in the party because they always feel overwhelmed. I don't enjoy that as a player (some probably do). If you're getting gallows humor about when demi-gorgon is showing up you're probably overwhelming the party, so back that challenge down a bit till they are comfortable -- but don't let them get TOO comfortable
I have optimized her to use a garotte to deadly effect, because that was a schtick I thought was pretty cool.
I looked at different options, figured out how to get the most of of that garotte using that character concept. So yes, of course you must optimize to do what it is you want your character to accomplish.
If you do not like combat so much, why do you play a game where 80% of all mechanics are there to support just that?
As I stated in a few of my posts, 4e is what one of my groups of friends play, so I am stuck with it.
I talked about it with them some and this was their consensus. If I made a character that had no combat ability they would be fine with me not doing much in combat. If I make a character and simply choose NOT TO USE my combat powers they would have a problem. If I can and don't is worse for them than if I can't to begin with.
Consequently, I am forced to play characters that know how to fight like an action hero when what I want to play is a character that has the combat skills of Jessica Fletcher. Eh, I will live. I still say it is a flaw of a system labelled as a role playing game.
I still say it is a flaw of a system labelled as a role playing game.
But you can role play in combat. Depending on your character concept you are going to translate the 1(W) damage and push the enemy one square differently. You can smash them with brute force, slash their legs and cause them to stumble back or strike once and then strike again, forcing them to take a step back to aviod your second attack. Each description would reflect a different fighting style and would also be linked to different types of people. 4E is rather good at this since combat mechanics are simple and thus you can spend more time focusing on the flavour of how you execute each power.
It's not a downside for me because I like the mathematical challenge of making a good character, but it's really a third game (D&D, the encounter game, and now the character creation game). I used to be criticised for introducing a tactical wargame into my role playing games on the principle that role players didn't like tactical wargames, they like role playing games, and here WotC just goes and does it one better by making the encounter more of a tactical game than I would have dared to put in. (my tactical game involved a starship fight in a Star Trek RPG that my players were manning at the time).
But you can role play in combat. Depending on your character concept you are going to translate the 1(W) damage and push the enemy one square differently. You can smash them with brute force, slash their legs and cause them to stumble back or strike once and then strike again, forcing them to take a step back to aviod your second attack. Each description would reflect a different fighting style and would also be linked to different types of people. 4E is rather good at this since combat mechanics are simple and thus you can spend more time focusing on the flavour of how you execute each power.
Or I could have powers but never use them since I want a character that is inept in combat and usually just tries to stay out of the way. Oh wait, I just said that would make my party mad. crap, I guess I will have to play a character that can fight. Since I am playing a combat capable character I might as well optimize him. Hey look, now I have a character that is nothing like my original idea. sigh.
Seriously. When I want to make a "typical" 4e character I can and I do enjoy playing him. If I want to make something "beyond the norm" I am hosed by the uniform character creation system. That is my only complaint. I could do that in the previous edition and can't anymore.
Or I could have powers but never use them since I want a character that is inept in combat and usually just tries to stay out of the way. Oh wait, I just said that would make my party mad. crap, I guess I will have to play a character that can fight.
Barring specific campaigns, no character concept should have a drastic element such as "cannot fight" that is vital for the character concept to survive.
Since I am playing a combat capable character I might as well optimize him.
Yes, you should optomize. You don't have to power game, but optomizing is common sense.
Hey look, now I have a character that is nothing like my original idea. sigh.
Lets say I have a character concept with these three basic points:
1. Is shy
2. Likes to aviod bloodshed
3. Cannot fight
I submit the character sheet to the DM says I need to be able top pull my wait, so I change the "cannot" in point 3 to "can" and optimize it a bit. How has that made my character concept completly different?
Seriously. When I want to make a "typical" 4e character I can and I do enjoy playing him. If I want to make something "beyond the norm" I am hosed by the uniform character creation system. That is my only complaint. I could do that in the previous edition and can't anymore.
So make a character that is "beyond the norm", without any mechanics to back it up, just flavour. Its a challange, but a good role player should manage. I've done it myself a couple of times.
Seriously. When I want to make a "typical" 4e character I can and I do enjoy playing him. If I want to make something "beyond the norm" I am hosed by the uniform character creation system. That is my only complaint. I could do that in the previous edition and can't anymore.
Thing is, this isn't primarily a system issue, its a group one. In any version or D&D or any other game a referee and group can both specify the acceptable design parameters of the PCs included. Referees may place limits, restrictions and requirements of PCs. The players as a group can come up with their own limits. Even if the player-suggested limits are not enforced by the referee, many of them can be applied IC within the game.
I can distinctly remember PCs being asked to redesign PCs or IC asked to leave groups in a variety of games I played in, forcing the player to create a new PC , or arrange a plot device to keep him involved, both in older versions of D&D and in other games. This happened for a variety of reasons, including a lack of enough relevant skills, a lack of essential skills, incompatible values, or unacceptable IC behavior. (Such exclusion and limitation isn't a matter of right and wrong, its simply a matter of group preference).
The solution to your problem in the context of 4e is your PC having powers on paper that he doesn't use. IMO your group finding this unacceptable is an issue with the group consensus, not with the particular edition of the game. As I said above I can remember similar issues arising in non-D&D games.
I still say it is a flaw of a system labelled as a role playing game
...
f I want to make something "beyond the norm" I am hosed by the uniform character creation system.
DnD 4e is a system where everyone (role)plays a hero.
Not being able to play a combat-weak character in DnD 4e is like complaining that you can't play a vampire in a Werewolf The Forsaken campaign (which is impossible unless you have a Werewolf/Vampire campaign). or a gunslinger in a Legends of the 5 rings campaign.
That doesn't make those systems any less roleplay systems.
A non-combat character in DnD 4e isn't "beyond the norm" as you call it. Its more like the anti-norm.*
*: edit: as designers specifically designed 4e so everyone would be about equally good in and out combat
DnD 4e is a system where everyone (role)plays a hero.
Not being able to play a combat-weak character in DnD 4e is like complaining that you can't play a vampire in a Werewolf The Forsaken campaign (which is impossible unless you have a Werewolf/Vampire campaign). or a gunslinger in a Legends of the 5 rings campaign.
That doesn't make those systems any less roleplay systems.
A non-combat character in DnD 4e isn't "beyond the norm" as you call it. Its more like the anti-norm.*
*: edit: as designers specifically designed 4e so everyone would be about equally good in and out combat
The point I have been trying to make is that I had that option in the previous edition. 4e seems to only accept one assumed playstyle.
Ok, I will take this to the 4e clinic thread and let you know the results.
The point I have been trying to make is that I had that option in the previous edition. 4e seems to only accept one assumed playstyle.
Ok, I will take this to the 4e clinic thread and let you know the results.
So your complaint in role playing game is that you cannot mechanically represent a "beyond the norms" character, thus having to role play their beyond the norms characteristics? Wereas before, you could just represent it mechanically?
The point I have been trying to make is that I had that option in the previous edition. 4e seems to only accept one assumed playstyle.
and is that why it isn't a role playing game? the inability to create a character that the game specifically was designed for that it doesn't exist?
So your complaint in role playing game is that you cannot mechanically represent a "beyond the norms" character, thus having to role play their beyond the norms characteristics? Wereas before, you could just represent it mechanically?
kind of, my complaint is that 4e's definition of Norm is very limited by my standard. I can only make characters within a preset scope of skills and ability ranges. I want a wider scope.
and is that why it isn't a role playing game? the inability to create a character that the game specifically was designed for that it doesn't exist?
I am not saying it isn't a rpg. I am saying that for an rpg that is an evolution from a previous edition it decided to restrict player options by quite a bit in comaprison. I am not sure why such a gross reduction of choices was necessary.
kind of, my complaint is that 4e's definition of Norm is very limited by my standard. I can only make characters within a preset scope of skills and ability ranges. I want a wider scope.
And widening the scopr with flavour alone isn't enough?
Also, what about the various paragon paths, such as the ones in the manual of the planes? Aren't they "beyond the norm"?
I am not saying it isn't a rpg. I am saying that for an rpg that is an evolution from a previous edition it decided to restrict player options by quite a bit in comaprison. I am not sure why such a gross reduction of choices was necessary.
For a lot of people, it was neccesary. Personally, I find it a very good change. Not everybody will agree.
That's the hard part about new versions; not everyone will enjoy them... however, nobody is forced to play them either.
Find another game, find a new group. Or just adapt to the system. 4e requires you to be combat capable to an extent; don't fight the system, play it. You might learn to enjoy it, or you might have to look for a new game. There's plenty of them.
kind of, my complaint is that 4e's definition of Norm is very limited by my standard. I can only make characters within a preset scope of skills and ability ranges. I want a wider scope.
the scope you're talking about is combat capable. No?
Playing werewolf the forsaken, you simply can't make a character who's bad at combat ... isn't that the same problem you have with 4th?
Find another game, find a new group. Or just adapt to the system. 4e requires you to be combat capable to an extent; don't fight the system, play it. You might learn to enjoy it, or you might have to look for a new game. There's plenty of them.
The group I play with I have been friends with for over 20 years, don't really want a new group and I do have fun playing 4e. We play every Tuesday and it is a blast. My only real complaint is that I can't make characters as varied as I used to. I miss the choices. As it stands now, I have to ignore the fact that my character can auto ride a horse if I don't want him to be able, or that he has mad combat skills even though I want him to be a wallflower in that regards. It is ok. Like I said, I generally make a character that fits in the game, I just would like more variety.
Just because you have the option to ride a horse, doesn't mean you have to follow it. The same thing with Athletics. If you want to be able to climb but not swim, reduce your bonus while swimming. It's that simple. Nothing prevents you from doing this, beyond the nagging 'but I could do this...' of your inner roleplay vs. rollplay struggle.
For a lot of people it just goes against their nature to have something and then give it away, I guess. Because really, that's what this all comes down to.
And the thing with combat is, that they have these Minion rules... and if you really want to be a wallflower in combat, you'll be following those rules. That means no HP for you (HP represents being able to avoid being hit... that's a combat quality), no adding 1/2 level to your defenses (those represent training and experience, you don't have/get any)
It doesn't just make you a 'party member less', it makes you a 'oops, fireball at a nearby ally... better make a new character'.
To simply be in the presence of high level characters and not drop dead, requires your character to be more then just a bit capable in combat. Even a first level character is a hero, a non-combatant is simply a minion and nothing more.
I'd think it bad roleplaying if you want to not be able to do anything in combat, but still be around when it goes down. Either have your character be far away when it happens, or have him fight (he doesn't have to like it, he just has to do it)
Focus on defense and giving bonusses to your allies, if nothing else. But you cannot be a non-combatatant, be in the same room as a host of Demons, and expect to be alive when the dust settles.
At least; that's my opinion on it
Or I could have powers but never use them since I want a character that is inept in combat and usually just tries to stay out of the way. Oh wait, I just said that would make my party mad. crap, I guess I will have to play a character that can fight. Since I am playing a combat capable character I might as well optimize him. Hey look, now I have a character that is nothing like my original idea. sigh.
Seriously. When I want to make a "typical" 4e character I can and I do enjoy playing him. If I want to make something "beyond the norm" I am hosed by the uniform character creation system. That is my only complaint. I could do that in the previous edition and can't anymore.
Why would a character who is inept in combat or doesn't like combat, want to become an adventurer when adventurers usually see and are occasionally involved in combat? In most cases, characters like that would be disinvited from the adventuring party for not pulling their weight.
The group I play with I have been friends with for over 20 years, don't really want a new group and I do have fun playing 4e. We play every Tuesday and it is a blast. My only real complaint is that I can't make characters as varied as I used to. I miss the choices. As it stands now, I have to ignore the fact that my character can auto ride a horse if I don't want him to be able, or that he has mad combat skills even though I want him to be a wallflower in that regards. It is ok. Like I said, I generally make a character that fits in the game, I just would like more variety.
So instead of complaining about it, why not talk/work with your DM to house-rule up some variety and more options?
Nothing prevents you from stating 'My character cannot ride a horse.'
Just because you have the option to ride a horse, doesn't mean you have to follow it. The same thing with Athletics. If you want to be able to climb but not swim, reduce your bonus while swimming. It's that simple. Nothing prevents you from doing this, beyond the nagging 'but I could do this...' of your inner roleplay vs. rollplay struggle.
For a lot of people it just goes against their nature to have something and then give it away, I guess. Because really, that's what this all comes down to.
And the thing with combat is, that they have these Minion rules... and if you really want to be a wallflower in combat, you'll be following those rules. That means no HP for you (HP represents being able to avoid being hit... that's a combat quality), no adding 1/2 level to your defenses (those represent training and experience, you don't have/get any)
It doesn't just make you a 'party member less', it makes you a 'oops, fireball at a nearby ally... better make a new character'.
To simply be in the presence of high level characters and not drop dead, requires your character to be more then just a bit capable in combat. Even a first level character is a hero, a non-combatant is simply a minion and nothing more.
I'd think it bad roleplaying if you want to not be able to do anything in combat, but still be around when it goes down. Either have your character be far away when it happens, or have him fight (he doesn't have to like it, he just has to do it)
Focus on defense and giving bonusses to your allies, if nothing else. But you cannot be a non-combatatant, be in the same room as a host of Demons, and expect to be alive when the dust settles.
At least; that's my opinion on it
Well said.
I have to ignore the fact that my character can auto ride a horse if I don't want him to be able
but wait... in other systems (World of Darkness, Shadowrun, ...) other characters can automatically drive, even if you don't want them to be able to.
How 'bout this: you can choose your stats so that you're good at your skills instead of your attack powers (rangers with high wisdom, ... and not much dex; even though you're a archer).
I mean: its the equivalent thing you did with your 3/3.5 wizard: with that character you choose your
As for the powers, choose many powers with an effect/miss, and take defensive (evasive) powers instead of offensive ones
For example: a knowledgable & Evasive hunter
Deva Ranger (archer fighting style)
switching between bow or crossbow and unarmed strike, if mellee attack is required
Stats: 10 STR 12 CON 10 DEX 18 INT 18 WIS 10 CHA
you won't have a good attack, but have +4 on all wis and int based knowledge skills
Trained Skills:
- Stealth +5,
- Dungeoneering +9,
- Nature +9,
- Arcane +9 (magic scholar background),
- History +11 (magic scholar background),
- Religion +11 (skill training or MC feat) .
Defenses AC 17 (hide armor), Fort 12, Refl 15, Will 14
Powers:
- Hit and run: mellee +0 vs AC, but as effect you don't provoke from that opponent when leaving that square
- Nimble strike: ranged +2 vs AC, but you also may shift 1
- Evasive Strike, mellee +0 or ranged +2 vs AC; but you may shift 5 squares before or after the attack
- Hunter's Bear Trap: mellee +0 or ranged +2 vs AC; always slows, possibility on ongoing damage
I think a 16 in a primary stat (after modifiers) is just not good enough. Even a poor race/class combination is capable of starting with an 18, and if their race/class combination IS optimal, a 20. Characters with a primary of 18 (or lower) should also seriously be considering taking weapon/implement expertise as one of their first feats, unless for whatever reason they dont particularly value hitting.
Fighters and rogues have a class feature that gives them an extra +1 with certain weapon groups, everyone can benefit from combat advantage for an extra +2 to hit (though its a little harder for ranged classes without feat support), and then there are always leader bonuses to consider which IMO are too often overlooked when +hit is discussed on these forums.
Its also worth pointing out that some creatures are just really tough... especially soldiers, and even more so if they are elites or solos, and several levels higher than the party.
I do also agree with the comment that the black dragon's aura is just ridiculous... my group faced one recently, where the DM deliberately held back from using that power because it clearly has the effect of making a hard fight just about impossible.
Weird, as my experience playing 4e with a lot of people has shown me the opposite, that 16 is pretty much always enough. Period. The period is of course part of what my experience has suggested to me, not a statement that I believe that my impression is absolute, since I'm not stupid enough to think that any anecdotal evidence ever leads to absolutely true conclusions, except possibly by wild dumb luck.
meanwhile, I often start with a 17 in my attack stat if I don't have some tertiary stat I want to put up, am not multi-classing into multistat worries, or am playing a race that isn't made to support my class. all those ifs mean that most of the time I have a 16 at level one, and in spite of keeping an eye out for it, I can't tell by comparison of combat effectiveness which of my party members have the same and which ones have an 18 or 20.
I wouldn't say it is hard just that it makes lots of assumptions. Things like nowiwantmydmg was talking about. I find that the game seems to assume that party composition is something agreed upon by the group. My group has almost had to sit down and say "ok, what is everyone making? no, we don't need two of those, someone should probably play an x,y or z" for survivability reasons.
The fact that it IS "shooting yourself in the foot" to play a non-optimized race/class combo upsets me. While playing a half elf warlock is fun, maybe I have a great idea for a dwarven warlord but the game mechanics won't support him very well. Yes, I can make one but he will be behind the curve his whole career. Too bad really.
You can reach 16 primary stat, and 14 or 16(im tired, numbers aren't right in front of me) in secondary, why would he be behind the curve? He may not be uber, but he'll be effective, and you'll be the only one that will ever be able to tell the difference between him and a race/class op combo.
The amount of optimization needed to be effective is being overestimated a bit in this thread.
Power choice is, of course, important. A 16 in your secondary stat if you're 16 in primary is good advice, but in most cases starting with a 14 in secondary will work, particularly if you're gaining something elsewhere from it. hell, you don't even need all the roles represented. For the last few months we've never had as many as 4 players, it's always been 2 or 3, and he haven't even scaled down that much. It's harder, but no one has died, we haven't failed to accomplish our goals.
as for feats, by Bard is pretty much MVP half the time right now, his first few feats were linguist, jack of all trades, prof. parrying dagger, two weapon fighting, two weapon defense and the feat where you can use whatever stat you pick for mellee basic attacks. He heals and fights in the front line. That's not OPFTW, but it works. It works well.
In a low-combat campaign (this can be some combination of less combat encounters and less challenging encounters) combat optimisation isn't needed. In a game where other PCs aren't combat optimised such optimisation may be seen as out of place. (However either of these types of campaign may or may not have some other type of optimisation - skills etc).
Even in a game with significant combat, PCs don't need to optimise - providing you don't get frustrated missing a lot, or hiding from combat, and the other players and/or their PCs don't object.
In most games a 16 in the attack stat should be sufficient for the typical PC to be competent in combat. 14 or lower and the PC will miss a lot.
Why would a character who is inept in combat or doesn't like combat, want to become an adventurer when adventurers usually see and are occasionally involved in combat? In most cases, characters like that would be disinvited from the adventuring party for not pulling their weight.
True. However, if he is the 5th best person qualified to save the "village/nation/world", then maybe he is in by default. Or if they are playing the "escape from" campaign. Or if he is a good friend of the party. Or if they need him for some other reason (because he pays them, because they hired him for his knowledge, because ...)
I really think that the problems with a character who is very valuable outside of combat and a deadweight (though not a liability) in combat is that it annoys the other players. The characters don't know that without Mr. Inept Fighter there would be only four orcs, not the five they ran into. The players do though, and might not appreciate either that, or the fact that Mr. Inept Fighter does so much in the non-combat encounters.
Suppose that I am a player who likes both combat and social encounters. I've built my character for it. With Mr. Inept Fighter, I get a little better screen time in combat (with more risk to my character), but, if he is a diplomancer (which 80% of these Mr. Inept Fighter's are -- the other 20% seem to be knowledge mancers, which steps on the wizard's toes), he has just stepped all over half my character concept. (Especially if I'm not the only character with good social skills. It's usually good to have two such characters so that the party can split up to gather information.)
Ranged Bards in particular are pretty low damage.
in short, i can RP and optimize just fine. thanks
Min-Maxing isn't really optimizing. You're sacrificing a lot of ability for a tiny gain (Like, having an 18 preracial in one stat - it means you are absolutely horrible at every other stats and corresponding abilities). This is endemic in store dungeon delves and living forgotten realms, mostly because its 99% combat, so who cares if your fighter has 20 str? all he does is hit, after all.
Again, it really sounds like you want to play a Bard. They buff/debuff, aren't big damage dealers, are pretty much the best characters for skill checks, and are pretty cool in 4e.
Don't like bard? Just rename all of his attacks. You're allowed to reflavor, after all.
Really though, even if everyone else is min-maxing you can still just accept that you're Aquaman and be a helper in other ways. I'm in a party with a bard that's built to RPGA standards whereas everyone else has guys with high stats (because the DM prefers the heroes to be that way). I maxed out CHA but really the character isn't min-maxed; he's just pretty average at everything else. He still has a defined role in combat; he also is good at bardy things like talking to people (especially lying to them) and, as the jack of all trades, is okay at doing stuff that nobody else can do. Is he sort of the Aquaman of the group? In a way, but it's not pronounced because he's the only Leader.
IMO the issue here isn't whether or not you have to optimize to play 4e, it's what kind of game you're playing. If everyone else around you is min-maxing, yes you do sort of have to optimize because otherwise you're going to be Aquaman. If everybody else is just allocating points to "dump" stats because they like doing so, and are interested in playing non-stereotypical characters, then no, you really don't have to optimize. The party as a whole might be a little less able to take on level + 2 encounters and so on but that's something the DM can adjust for.
Really though, even if everyone else is min-maxing you can still just accept that you're Aquaman and be a helper in other ways. I'm in a party with a bard that's built to RPGA standards whereas everyone else has guys with high stats (because the DM prefers the heroes to be that way). I maxed out CHA but really the character isn't min-maxed; he's just pretty average at everything else. He still has a defined role in combat; he also is good at bardy things like talking to people (especially lying to them) and, as the jack of all trades, is okay at doing stuff that nobody else can do. Is he sort of the Aquaman of the group? In a way, but it's not pronounced because he's the only Leader.
I've got an aquaman bard too, sort of. He's mellee weapon based in most of his attacks, and his feats are split between switching his combat style to sword and parrying dagger and making him the god of social interaction(lots of languages and skills). he's not as powerful in combat as the other characters, but he keeps them healed, and works in a different way from the warlord, so I never really feel useless, or even less useful.
he's definately not optimized.