EDIT: . . . Also, well optimized characters can be interesting and dynamic. Believing otherwise is a logical fallacy. ;)
Not really. More often than not, Smart Player trumps Optimized PC.
Smart Player with Optimized PC usually trumps both.
Clever decisions are preferable to more number crunching and static stats.
Man cannot live on bread alone.
Obviously the character optimizers are going to say that certain races should flat out not be certain classes because their bonuses go to dump stats for those classes.
What I tend to notice is that anything that is more than slightly sub-optimal is called "horrible." "Dragonborn make horrible wizards." I also notice that for a DM to design encounters and adventures in such a way to help these "horrible" characters shine is "pandering."
I've come to understand that most of what goes on on the optimization boards, of which there are far too many, is just a formal exercise. It's a metagame that has its own rules. Designs that are a point or two behind in attacks or defenses or damage "lose." I understand now that this doesn't mean that such a character can't be played in the actual game, just that it loses the "game" of optimization. I also understand that they can't have much of a game without firm rules, one of which is that the DM is not going to help the players and will pit them against by-the-book encounters. It's the only way they can form meaningful arguments. I get it.
Sadly, this way of thinking has leaked out into the world. Some people have taken the Optimization Boards' usage of "horrible" and their dismissal of "pandering" and assumed that this is how the game is actually played, even though there's nothing in the rules to really suggest this.
It makes sense from a numbers stand point but what about interesting and dynamic characters? What have you seen done in games to try and keep the old any race any class concept alive?
From what I've seen, nothing needs to be done. Partly this is because people who are in the game for the actual game (and not the Optimization Game) make their characters interesting and "dynamic" (not quite sure what you mean by this) whether or not they are "optimal." Partly it's because the "non-optimal" characters just don't seem that much worse at the game than the optimal ones. Granted, I don't have a ton of experience with this edition, or really any edition, and what I do have is at the Heroic tier, but I haven't seen groups that divide on a line of optimized and non-optimized. Maybe they're all equally optimized, or something, but on the whole, just about any concept I've seen seems to work. Now, if the game with my warforged shaman can keep from collapsing, maybe I'll be shown the error of my ways, but we'll see....
As others have said, having a 16 in your primary stat is plenty to still be effective, and allows for every race/class combo to be completely playable and fun. For example, my wife's favorite character of all time is a half-elf ranger.
I don't know, missing sucks pretty bad in fact so bad my players after seven sessions said they'd never go in with out at least an 18 in their main attack. (Many of them won't go with out a 19 out the gate)
I too thought it was pretty boring to see a lot of Elven Bow Rangers but never once see say a Tiefling fighter. (Straight gimped)
My players eventually were so adamant about it I implemented this house rule to allow more customization for the old "any race any class".
So long as your character contributes meaningfully to the success of the adventure, and you contribute meaningfully to the fun of the group, you and your character are fine.
I also think that interesting and dynamic should COMPLEMENT effective, and not be used in substitution of them. It may be interesting to have a STR10 barbarian gnome, but the character is unlikely to be effective. There are certainly more interesting builds than effective builds, but given that there are SO many effective builds, I think you do a game of Heroic fantasy a disservice unless your interesting character is also effective.
Now, on the other hand, in some game systems (and, honestly, in some D&D campaigns), all statistical mechanics are minimized and roleplaying interaction is maximized. In such a game, roleplaying (without Skill Challenges and the like) and problem solving (without character mechanics) are used foremost. In such a game, where statistical measurements have nothing to do with "effectiveness", ignore my opinion.
My experience is that what may appear to work well (or simply look cool) on paper does not necessarily work well on the battlegrid. There are many things that can happen when playing, most notably the lack of ideal circumstances. If you have a DM who is also good at optimisation, your character's performance may also suffer if he decides to "challenge" your build.
Whether or not (and how much) you optimise just depends on what you (and your group) wants to get out of playing D&D. If you care more about how you fight, then you probably optimise more. If you care more about why you may or may not fight, then optimising is a lower priority than other aspects of your character (like personality, backstory, etc.).
So there's plenty of room for customization, and you only really need a little (16+ in the attack stat) optimization.
*from a char-op stand point
They can be, but they aren't always. I have seen a lot of uninspired characters...
Unoptimized characters can also be uninspired...
My personal experience has shown that the best optimizers tend to also be the best roleplayers.
Note that there is a difference between being a munchkin and being an optimizer... practical optimizers have full regard and respect for the system; munchkins are just cheaters.
If you play an optimized, inspired character, welcome to my game.
In 4e, the concepts considered the most "overpowered" would be merely mildly overpowered in 3.5, and laughable in 3.0. (You with your orb, can lock most enemies down for an encounter? -Disintegrate.- Or at least Shapechange.) I never tried to optimize 2e, although I played it, so I can't really say there.
However, even as the systems get more balanced, the capacity of the playerbase for discussion and criticism grows greater and greater. I'd wager significantly more people are talking about optimizing characters now than were a year or two into 3.0's release. That's not 4e's fault, it's just that it's easier to find a bunch of people who want to listen to what you have to say. The interconnectivity we have now was barely forming when 3.0 came out, and the internet itself was all-but-absent when 2.0 was released. A few people had 1400 baud modems, maybe. I'm kinda hazy on the techno-timeline back that far. It's much much easier to toss around ideas for optimization and bounce them off each other now.
This doesn't mean that treating optimization as an intellectual exercise or as a warning for others is bad, just someone went a bit too far when applying it to the actual game. Consider how far the optimization went, and how much more powerful the PC is.
Also consider how the PC is played. If the power difference is minimal, but the player is using team work the other players might not mind so much. It can be very situational.
However, I must ask, are humans and half elves really that underpowered?
I have heard people say that the extra at will for humans is useless by high levels, but I really like it. The game I am running is only at level 8, so I don't really have a perspective at paragon and epic.
I really like this house rule and may implement it in my games. I have always thought the racial bonuses were ... odd. Take Teifling for example. One would think that they had (in terms of the fantasy lore) wizards and warlocks and fighters and clerics in their armies. But, as a race, they are not optimized for Clerics and Fighters.
It's not necessary to assume that the tiefling race in the PHB represents anything other than "adventurer" tieflings, and NPCs certainly don't have to adhere to the point buy system. Furthermore, tieflings in a military unit might have capabilities that individuals in an adventuring party might not have. If their officers had the ability to let their troops treat all of their enemies as bloodied and use infernal wrath every round (not that the combat rules apply to warfare) that would make them pretty capable.
Or, if you prefer to keep all tieflings the same, then change your concept of their forces. They might not utilize Clerics and Fighters, but would have good Tactical Warlords, Bards, and Swordmages.
The tieflings fought a protracted war against the dragonborn. However you want to imagine it, their armies must have been very effective.
Also, I hate houserules, especially if they're implemented in order to make something "make sense."
But...If I am not mistaken, the old Tiefling Empire probably had devil dealings. This means they wouldn't have many clerics in the first place. And it would make sense that they would utilize their infernal heritage to its best advantage, and having their strongest forces be ones that work with their in born abilities.
Now, I will ponder this houserule, but I also don't think that every class needs to be present amongst the NPCs, either. Someone in this game needs to be normal, and it sure as heck won't be the PCs!
I have noticed that there are alot of class optimization and racial optimization threads out there .... However with the particular way 4e emphasizes key class attributes it appears that you can be really penalized for trying to play a character who is more concept driven than power playing.
The optimization exercise can be undertaken with any set of parameters. If you want an Elf Warlord or Halfing Fighter or Dragonborn Wizard or whatever, you can have an optimized one - it won't be an optimal warlord, fighter or wizard, but it will be the best it's oddball race/class combo allows.
what about interesting and dynamic characters? What have you seen done in games to try and keep the old any race any class concept alive?
There's nothing innately /that/ interesting about an oddball combo. Yeah, it might be 'different,' but it's still just a class/race combo. You'd have to flesh out the character to /really/ make it interesting in it's own right. A counter-intuitive combo can be intriuging - but it can also be a cheap substitute for creativity.
For any class/race, there's almost /always/ something you can eeke out of it. An Elf Resourceful Warlord may have bonuses to what amount to dump stats, but, he'll probably be able to manage some Heavy Blade feats most other, more optimal, Resourceful Warlords wouldn't - and the mobility and re-roll won't hurt, either.
And, as has been pointed out, a 16 in your attack stat - which any race can manage for any stat - is enough that you won't substantially underperform vs apropriate challenges.
I would rather have a house rule then NPCs more powerful then PCs. Just smacks of making the PCs less important to the story, and why focus on Bob, the weakling tiefling when the NPCs could be saving the world?
Those crack tiefling fighting units? There's any number of reasons that they can't do what the PCs do. First of all, they don't exist anymore. Second of all, they only have their flashy powers against other humanoid NPCs in a well-defined military setting. Outside of that, they're just rabble. Why? Who knows? It's just that the setting isn't derived from the rules. The setting informs the rules, but the rules only represent a small part of the setting.
And it would make sense that they would utilize their infernal heritage to its best advantage, and having their strongest forces be ones that work with their in born abilities.
However you want to think about it.
Now, I will ponder this houserule, but I also don't think that every class needs to be present amongst the NPCs, either.
Absolutely. I was thinking about this even in 3.5. The king doesn't need to be an Aristocrat 10, and his guards don't need to be Warrior 3s. He's the king, and his guards are his guards and they can all do what they need to do to make sense in their roles, without conforming to the character building rules - because they're not characters. I'm glad 4th Edition separated monster/NPC design from character design. Makes it a bit harder to make new monsters, but I still prefer it.
There's nothing innately /that/ interesting about an oddball combo. Yeah, it might be 'different,' but it's still just a class/race combo. You'd have to flesh out the character to /really/ make it interesting in it's own right. A counter-intuitive combo can be intriuging - but it can also be a cheap substitute for creativity.
I hear what your saying, but my problem sometimes has been that I want to be an elf/warlord because I want to be an elf and a warlord, not because I want to have an oddball race/class combo.
WOTC put in the class restrictions but I find them to be arbitrary and unnecessary. I don't mind houserules so much. Sometimes a rule just doesn't mesh with my group's playstyle and a quick an unbalancing house rule might make things more fun. Especially when it's something as seemingly cosmetic as race.
Nothing prevents you from playing an effective elf warlord however, and if you doubt that one can be made optimal, then see what the charop forum can do with it - just make clear that you specifically do want an elf for roleplaying reasons when you post.
I hear what your saying, but my problem sometimes has been that I want to be an elf/warlord because I want to be an elf and a warlord, not because I want to have an oddball race/class combo.
WOTC put in the class restrictions but I find them to be arbitrary and unnecessary. I don't mind houserules so much. Sometimes a rule just doesn't mesh with my group's playstyle and a quick an unbalancing house rule might make things more fun. Especially when it's something as seemingly cosmetic as race.
Well here's what really made me create the rule. After seven sessions my players rerolled their characters the very next game three out of five were playing Dragonborn. I said to them "Hey you guys got some sort of cool backstory or some thing as a Dragonborn team?" Nope- instead they lamented the fact that they felt they had little other option than to play the race with the best stats to reflect the martial character builds they wanted to play (all requiring high strength and many requiring charisma). The team opted out of a controller so they felt the power of three AoEs an encounter should suffice.
I said "So you really don't like Dragonborn it's just the other races won't work?" And that's how they felt. I made many arguments about them playing other races but instead they sloughed on even though one of them didn't evne like the RP aspect of his character at all.
However, I will say that the Dragonborn with 8 Wisdom is quite hilarious.
Having tried very hard to build a Warden with a decent INT...Yeah. I can see how people might not want to have to keep tanking certain stats just to make a class/race concept viable.
"Decent." "Viable." These words get decoupled from the opinions they represent and spread throughout the community so that certain races and classes are just deemed "bad" without much further exploration. How much of a secondary ability does a character need to have to be "decent"? How much in the secondary abilities could balance out a slightly off primary ability (say, Con and Wis for a Dwarf Fighter) and result in a "viable" character? "Non-viable" implies that a character simply can't survive, and that's almost always going to be overstating it. "Effective" or "non-effective" (in the rare cases that applies) is generally going to be a more accurate term when "optimized" doesn't apply.
And these players who "need" to play dragonborn (or whatever race) in order to hit: I don't think we have enough facts here. Do the players use teamwork and conditions to grant combat advantage? Have they considered powers that perhaps do a bit less damage, but have a bonus to hit? Do they work to determine a target's best defense and use powers (carefully chosen with this in mind) that target other defenses? Are they regularly trying to face encounters well above their level? Do they have a leader for more attacks and more bonuses to hit? I don't mean to imply that they're "Doing it Wrong," or that they're not smart players, but it's indicated that they're not having fun with the dragonborn. It's very hard for me to believe that the race was their only choice.
"Decent." "Viable." These words get decoupled from the opinions they represent and spread throughout the community so that certain races and classes are just deemed "bad" without much further exploration. How much of a secondary ability does a character need to have to be "decent"? How much in the secondary abilities could balance out a slightly off primary ability (say, Con and Wis for a Dwarf Fighter) and result in a "viable" character? "Non-viable" implies that a character simply can't survive, and that's almost always going to be overstating it. "Effective" or "non-effective" (in the rare cases that applies) is generally going to be a more accurate term when "optimized" doesn't apply.
And these players who "need" to play dragonborn (or whatever race) in order to hit: I don't think we have enough facts here. Do the players use teamwork and conditions to grant combat advantage? Have they considered powers that perhaps do a bit less damage, but have a bonus to hit? Do they work to determine a target's best defense and use powers (carefully chosen with this in mind) that target other defenses? Are they regularly trying to face encounters well above their level? Do they have a leader for more attacks and more bonuses to hit? I don't mean to imply that they're "Doing it Wrong," or that they're not smart players, but it's indicated that they're not having fun with the dragonborn. It's very hard for me to believe that the race was their only choice.
It's certainly not their only choice. Consider my ex-dragonborn fighter. He could have gotten the +2 strength from Human. Or now that PHB2 is out he could have also enjoyed Half-Orcs, Shifters, or Goliaths. (Back then we didn't have said book because it wasn't out)
Their argument back when there was PHB1 was this "Why should I have to play some thing inferior to have the race class combination I'd enjoy most?" I think this is the real heart of the argument for all those folk who want to play Tiefling fighters.
Their argument back when there was PHB1 was this "Why should I have to play some thing inferior to have the race class combination I'd enjoy most?" I think this is the real heart of the argument for all those folk who want to play Tiefling fighters.
You say you made many arguments to them, so I doubt I'll come up with any you didn't make. I'm assuming they tried the combination they liked for those seven sessions and found they weren't hitting as much as they wanted, or doing as much damage, or something. Have they played as many sessions with their dragonborn characters and found that the increased ability scores (and other features) make enough of a difference for them to want to stick with their new choice? You state "one of them didn't evne like the RP aspect of his character at all."
Is it just the hitting with powers 5% less that makes them want the "superior" character? I've noticed with some people that the effectiveness of a character is tied closely to the perceived intelligence of the player of that character. So, even if they preferred a tiefling fighter to a dragonborn fighter, their use of the former might, they fear, give the impression that they don't know what they're doing - even if the character turns out to be perfectly suited to that party and that campaign and perfectly effective in play. Is there any of that going on, do you think?