Community

Rant_Casey wrote:

4e certainly *seems* easier to learn, but the learning curve is just better hidden. At level 1, it may *seem* easy to learn the basics of the game, and easy to build a functional character, but in the course of play, the gap between the optimizers and the casual gamers is actually more profoudnly evident than ever.

Now that is truly hysterical.

…Did I read that right, it's a bit early over here…?

Kaldric wrote:

It's easy enough make a completely useless character at higher levels. The game's math assumes that you will do certain things, if you don't do them, you either won't do well, or you'll just fail to function at all, that is, be able to hit equal-level monsters only on a 20.

It is only somewhat more difficult to make a set of characters that have little difficulty with equal level encounters.

Im wondering what are those assumed things. Will putting 16/18 in primary stat at char creation, getting apropriate level magic weapon at apropriate levels and putting atribute points into primary stat when you get chance to isn't enough to be atleast semi decent at hitting stuff?

For from R_C's post I got the impresion that PC built on purpose to be bad will be separated by huge gap from PC that was optimised. That is right of course but its bieyond scope of discussion. With very few assumed "must do" things and ability to relearn atleast some aspects of your character, "organic" PC can't be at this low end of power scale as some people let it out to be.

AivaRuin wrote:

Im wondering what are those assumed things. Will putting 16/18 in primary stat at char creation, getting apropriate level magic weapon at apropriate levels and putting atribute points into primary stat when you get chance to isn't enough to be atleast semi decent at hitting stuff?

You named about 5 "optimizing behaviors" that you assume are standard. And they are. If you don't do them, you don't get something at least semi-decent, you get something worthless.

Kaldric wrote:

You named about 5 "optimizing behaviors" that you assume are standard. And they are. If you don't do them, you don't get something at least semi-decent, you get something worthless.

Three to be precise:
1. Your primary stat should be highest. It is sayed so in PHB so either you ingore it or you doing it on purpose. If the first one realy need reading comprehension course. If the latter then you are "reverse oprimising" which is miles from "organic"
2. Magic items come and go. But with parcel system fact that you will not get usefull item is case of ass DM not bad luck or lack of optimization. Sure just getting +x pure magic items (I mean not flaming or some property type just with enchantment type Magic) will look like borig game but they are sufficient for you to hit and to mitigate amount of hits you recieve.
3. Boosting primary stat. So if you decide to not put attpoints into your primary stat you can get difference of +3 to hit. Yes it is significant (This is not sarcasm). If we aim for early 20 difference will be +2. What we are getting here though is the PC should NOT pick primary stat ever.

The result. If person doesnt purposefuly misbuild his PC he can get to about 15% less chance to hit than base chance for the level (and itll only happen from 28 to 30). Yes the difference is there but its hardly diferentiation between Loser and God. I give you that PP and destiny choise can be irrepairable mistakes, but again those have to be done on purpose to be completly fatal (multiclassing into pp where attack powers youse your teriary stat and features boost stuff you can't use).

Its simple matter of R_C's statements. "Organic" PC doesn't have that much of spce to screw up and have some additional space to correct mistakes he does with relearning. Of course if one only sees one possibility to biuld PC and sees deviations from him as useless (even going as far as claiming that rogues should not show their face in public unless they spent 1/3 of theyr featslots on AC boosting). The power level deviation will be "evident" for him.

on the side note maybe someone from char ops want to do completly average build for soem PC? Just to get some exersise and to get some norm level to measuer deviations from.

Kaldric wrote:

Decivre, I'm going to humorously re-edit your post to try to illustrate a point. No offense meant.

I chopped out various bits where you say "if you do this" and stuff, and replaced them with capitalized phrases. This is not a true quote.

Actually, I would disagree with the conversion into requirements only because of a caveat I left out: feats can make a big difference, and often are what defines the difference between an un-optimized and optimized character. To that end, much of this can be changed.

With proper feat selection, you can ignore the need for the +2 racial bonus in your primary attribute. Tiefling Infernal Warlocks do just that.

With the right choice in design, you can ignore the need to rely on a single attack attribute. In fact, many multiclass builds do just that.

To that end, the lowest possible starting primary attribute I've seen successfully work at a gametable is 16... which from the standard array is either your highest score (a 16), or your second-highest with your racial attribute bonus (a 14). I have no doubt that a player may find a way to be able to do great with a score as low as 14.

Kaldric wrote:

That's a pretty good list of basic optimization tenets. If you don't follow them, your character is gonna suck. Pretty darn bad. Also, of course, you need to make sure that you spend the majority of your money/focus not on weird little magical things, but on the big three or four items, of the highest appropriate enhancement bonus.

My point is, there are assumed choices. You all assume that any rational person is going to make the appropriate choices. I assume that some people are going to choose, at best, randomly/roleplayingly, or at worst, simply baadly.

It's simple to make an unworkable character. Have the character builder auto-build a level 30 paladin or something. It's a random mess.

Now that I look over this, I see we have different ideas of what "Optimized" means.

I define "Non-Optimized" as "making choices with utter disregard for game mechanics/rules text".

If you choose powers based on the numbers (like, picking str-based powers because you've been jacking up your str this whole time), then you're smart, reasonable, sane, normal, like most people. You're also optimizing.

To an extent, I agree. That said, it still virtually requires intentional work on the part of the player to actually make a very poor character. Even assuming all of the worst possible choices, retraining goes a long way to allowing the repair of what would have been an unfixable build in the prior edition.

Non-optimized, as most people use it on these boards, means "designed in a way which I assume my character would train himself, external to how powerful I wish my character to be". Of course, this is a ludicrous philosophy, considering that according to standard usage of the term "optimize" players always choose the options they feel best for their character ("best" not always equal to "most powerful"), which means that everything they do effectively "optimizes" their character to their desires.