Community

The biggest issue is that everyone at the table needs to be on the same page.  If one or two platers are playing a high op build and everyone else is just picking powers with cool sounding fluff the DM will have a hard time building encounters that challenge the high op PCs without making the other players feel useless.

Most classes and builds work fine in real games without optimization.  There are a few good builds that will have serious trouble if you don't build them right, usually concerning AC issues (starlocks, con shamans, barbarians, swarm druids for instance) but you can usually fix those problems with very little effort. 

Almost all builds work ok at low levels, but some of these struggle to contribute at higher levels without optimization, such as most beast master rangers, the older versions of strength clerics and most seekers until a few weeks ago when they finally got some good support.  A few builds have real troubles if you don't really work to build them right like correllon and death warpriests and classes like cavaliers and vampires will struggle in a high op game at higher levels.

If you do something really off the wall like build that starts with a 14 primary stat or not picking equipment that normally works for the class without a really good reason you are going to have troubles.  There was one game I played in where someone built a ranger using a halberd who charged a lot.  It did not really contribute that much, but when he rebuilt that PC as a slayer it worked fine.  Nothing was wrong with his build goal, but he picked a class and tried to cram the concept onto it.

I appreciate the feedback.  It has been helpful, but I may need to have clearer goals and definitions.  

When I say “Sub-Optimized”, I mean without a race/class synergy resulting in a starting primary stat bonus of less than “+4”, in order to better guarantee combat effectiveness.  In this case, I define combat effectiveness as being able to hit the broad side of a barn with your powers…

I’m not asking for a lecture on how to role-play “properly”.   I know that there are loop holes and workarounds, and I know that there is more to the game than combat…

…but if, when the fighting DOES inevitably start, your job is to stand off to the side providing buffs, zones and other types of “auto-success” support while the rest of the race/class synergized characters deal all of the damage, it means that you can’t afford to waste your actions missing on your to-hit rolls, and you are (by this definition) not combat effective. 

I also know that some people enjoy providing that sort of combat support, and I’m saying that it is not important.  Yes, you are still a part of the team, but no matter how essential making sandwiches for the party may be, it still isn’t putting warheads on foreheads… which is what combat boils down to.  There is a distinction between the people who participate in combat, and those who provide help & support from the sidelines.

I started this thread, because I want to know if what I’ve seen is the norm… like my Eladrin Warlord that never managed to hit anything with his Tratnyr… or my friend’s Minotaur Wizard that had to be rebuilt with an "18" in Intelligence so that his spells would actually work… and my new party’s Dragonborn Monk who only ever lands about 1-in-5 punches. 

That’s three specific examples that come immediately to mind, and they are leading me to suspect that there is a CharOp requirement built into 4E.  I know that “CharOp” is a dirty word in many circles, but I am NOT trying to imply that all 4E players are Munchkins.  I’m also not asking for solutions that can be achieved through house rules or DM fiat.  What I’m trying to determine is if you can make a “combat-effective” character, using the 4E game mechanics as given, without having an “18” in your primary stat and/or maximizing your feat selection?

It seems to me, that if you can’t do that without making DIY home repairs to the game mechanics, then it means that CharOp is a requirement for characters to achieve combat effectiveness.

Eladrins get at least a darkblue rating in the warlord charop handbooks for what its worth.  They bring a lot to the table and were designed to be good warlords even without a strength boost and I believe that rating is assuming they only have a starting 16 strength.

In general in 4E it really helps to have a starting 18 in your attack stat.  And you need to take an expertise feat at some point in heroic unless your DM gives you the bonus for free.  And your DM needs to either give you inherent bonuses or make sure you have level appropriate items.  And its really helpful to find a way to get consistent CA if possible.  If you are not doing some or all of that level of charop you won't hit much if your DM is using above level enemies and smart tactics.

The same this applies to defenses and PCs struggle with at least one defense falling behind at higher levels unless you optimize a little for it.

The other thing is that a lot of the published material for 4E isn't that good.  A ton of feats are repetetive, outdated, or highly situational so they go to waste.  A lot of powers don't work that well or are poorly desinged.  So its easy for even people making an effort to come up with stuff that looks good at first glance, but is not that effective.

And to top it off the advice on how to build PCs that comes from Wotc in publications is often not very good and the online/offline character builders often give nonsensical or terrible recomendations.  Sometimes the advice Wotc gives out goes so far as to directly contradict what people in the Charop forums who know the class very well recommend.

Sep 4, 2012 -- 11:05AM, GelatinousOctahedron wrote:

Eladrins get at least a darkblue rating in the warlord charop handbooks for what its worth.  They bring a lot to the table and were designed to be good warlords even without a strength boost and I believe that rating is assuming they only have a starting 16 strength.

Which is why I was surprised when he performed so poorly.

Sep 4, 2012 -- 7:24AM, Ogiwan wrote:

... of course, why you would want to dump your PRIMARY stat is beyond me.

Not so much dumping the stat, as not selecting the ideal race/class combination... like a Dwarf Rogue, for example.