I play by the same advice I've been giving new players since even before I started running Encounters last year: make sure you've got at least a 16 in your class' attack stat and put the rest where they best fit with your character concept. If needed, I'll give some specific advice about the particular class (for example, melee characters generally want at least 12 CON, especially defenders).
It has never failed us. One of my most frequently played characters is a human knight with 16 STR and CON, and 14 CHA (because he's a ladies' man). He's been the star of more combats than I can remember and has never failed to perform. Once a friend showed me the eladrin knight article, knowin how much I love teleportation and elves, I rebuilt the character a bit. She retained the 16 STR and CON, but some of the CHA moved to INT (she has recieved training in both martial and arcane arts). In both cases the extra HP and surges helped immensely since the objective is to get enemies to hit me. Since then I've stuck with the eladrin instead of the human simply because teleporting all over the battlefield is so much fun. 8o)
I played a warpriest long enough to discover I don't care for the class (really irritates me that the other melee classes have built-in Melee Training or a basic attack at-will power; the other Encounters GMs and I wish we could houserule them to use WIS for basic attacks so they can actually hit things with opportunity attacks and charges). He had 16s in CON, DEX, and WIS. The DEX was because he was an elf (because he's an elf in my book) and to get his AC up to 18 so he could actually stand up in melee. The CON also helps with survivability and is a power rider.
We've actually been discussing this lately in Encounters since a couple of the guys are a bit munchkiny and another doesn't always even make effective characters (my wife and I generally help him with his character at the start of each season since he never fails to take a useless feat (like expertise for a weapon he doesn't use) or in some other way hinder his enjoyment of the character in play). I definitely fall in the middle of the two extremes. In the past I've actually been known to put an 18 into a secondary stat and a 16 into the primary.
During the Heroes of Elemental Chaos season I played a fire sorceress with a 16 CHA and 18 CON. I did her stats like that for several reasons. One is that her race added to CON but not CHA so it was easy. Another is that both stats added to my damage, but CON was used for my AC and power riders. So gaining another +5% to-hit with no change in damage just didn't seem worth giving up 1 AC, 1 surge, lots of HP (if you include the extra surge), and power riders. When I minmaxed her to level 9 for Lair Assault she ended up with 20 CON and 18 CHA for the same reasons.
I did the same thing with every feylock I've played at Encounters since CHA and DEX both add to damage, but DEX also gives me extra initiative and AC, and determines how far I teleport with my pact boon. My sentinel druids get the same treatment since CON adds to AC and is a power rider, and both stats add to the bear's damage. (The only time the druid ever attacks is if someone needs the temp HP from his attack or I use Combined Attack, so the bear's attack is really the only important one.)
There are players who don't like optimization and wish for the rules to change so that this behavior disappears. Changing the rules won't stop optimization. It'll just change the choices of optimizers. The only way to get rid of optimization is to eradicate stats, class, themes, backgrounds, powers, and feats. Now, every character is the same, because there is no variation, and thus customization is not possible. Might as well play Monopoly instead.
Yes... and some people like breakfast sandwiches on a Bagel, and some like them on English Muffins... so we could:
... make all breakfast sandwiches on Plain White Bread. ... make them all on Croissants. ... only offer Bagel Sandwiches. ... only offer English Muffin Sandwiches. ... offer high-quality Bagels and burnt English Muffins. ... offer fresh, home-made English Muffins and freezer-burned Bagels. ... find a way to offer variety of quality bread options. ... stop serving breakfast sandwiches. ... just open a different business, so we don't have to bother with sandwiches of any kind.
I thought I was trying to see how a balance could be reached between opposite playstyles... but by all means, assume that I'm recommending an end to WOTC in favor of "Monopoly".
True optimization also depends largely on the type of adventures your DM is running you through.
Just about every single quest is going to involve combat at some point, some quests more than others. Indeed, some DM's run almost nothing but combat encounters. Wise players recognize this and build accordingly.
However, there are so many non-combat skills, it's difficult to optimize a character for all non-combat. If diplomacy is needed, diplo skills are helpful. Stealth skills for stealth, etc. So it really is easier to optimize for combat, because you're pretty much guaranteed that those efforts will pay off at some point every night you play. Where if you build for something specific outside of combat, it will pay off less often.
So limiting the over-usefulness of maximizing for combat can be said to be largely a DM issue and not a rules issue. The DM needs to design adventures that make combat optimizaton no more advantageous than anything else.
Over on the Char Op boards, there are a lot of classes dismissed as sub-optimal and "worthless" or "sucky." But experience has taught me that they deal in game theory, not the reality of game play. The great thing about 4E is that every character can contribute during a combat, and can contribute during non-combat situations (not equally, mind you), even if it means taking actions that aid someone else.
That's just ignorant of the intended game design, and of the point of views prevalent in CharOp. Sub-Optimal doesn't immediately equate to "worthless", sub-optimal is things like Lifeblood Wardens, Pacifist Clerics, and Seekers, they do things that are decent enough that they will pull their weight through a fight and can reach optimization levels with significant work. Sub-Op is really just an unnecessary term for Baseline
"Worthless" is classes like the Vampire, Cavalier, Binder, and Sentinel, they do not fill a character concept that doesn't already exist elsewhere in the grand scheme, nor do they offer interesting enough options in the smaller scale to offset the fact that they are significantly worse than other options which match their concept. They were published for the sake of being published to sate some fanboy who couldn't understand concept like "The 3.x Druid that heals and has an animal companion is now called Shaman" and outside of Hybrd/Multiclass options, have contributed nothing positive to the game. To make matters worse, encounters are, in fact, based on the number of PCs; so while you may consider "aid another" all combat as contributing, the truth is that by being there, that character has increased the difficulty of the encounter (and not just combat, having 1 fewer competent character also hurts many skill challenges), which makes its presence actively harmful to the party. So, yeah, "Worthless" fits.
"Invokers are probably better round after round but Wizard dailies are devastating. Actually, devastating is too light a word. Wizard daily powers are soul crushing, encounter ending, havoc causing pieces of awesome." -AirPower25 Sear the Flesh, Purify the Soul; Harden the Heart, and Improve the Mind; Born of Blood, but Forged by Fire; The MECH warrior reaches perfection.
"Worthless" is classes like the Vampire, Cavalier, Binder, and Sentinel, they do not fill a character concept that doesn't already exist elsewhere in the grand scheme, nor do they offer interesting enough options in the smaller scale to offset the fact that they are significantly worse than other options which match their concept. They were published for the sake of being published to sate some fanboy who couldn't understand concept like "The 3.x Druid that heals and has an animal companion is now called Shaman" and outside of Hybrd/Multiclass options, have contributed nothing positive to the game. To make matters worse, encounters are, in fact, based on the number of PCs; so while you may consider "aid another" all combat as contributing, the truth is that by being there, that character has increased the difficulty of the encounter (and not just combat, having 1 fewer competent character also hurts many skill challenges), which makes its presence actively harmful to the party. So, yeah, "Worthless" fits.
You forgot Ossassin. And all of these classes can be played and contribute to the party, but only really in a low-Op Heoic game, which is most games anyways. It's just that there's always an option with the same flavor you're looking for and strictly better mechanics, as you said.
Plus, CharOp is quite willing to assist in optimizing anything anyone wants to optimize.
So if you come in there saying "My character concept is a Vampire - and I mean the class - who is a leader, help me optimize this" they'll say "what a strange concept... but if that is what you want, I think XXX and YYY will help." And eventually the forum will put together something that is about as good a leader as a Vampire-class character is capable of being.
(Yes, you'll also get an idjit who says "Have the character jump off a cliff so you can create a better character". But he'll be soundly remonstrated by competent experienced optimizers who respect character concepts.)
There have also been a number of theoretical optimizations, some of them rather silly, such as "let's get the maximum possible movement over N turns".
(By the way... here's my stab at a Vampire leader. I also deliberately picked what appeared to be the worst race for the class+role, and thentried to optimize. Spoiler:Show
====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&D Character Builder ====== Best of the Worst, level 14 Genasi, Vampire, Scarred Healer Elemental Manifestation Option: Earthsoul Earthshock Option: Earthshock Dexterity Born Under a Bad Sign (Born Under a Bad Sign Benefit) Theme: Knight Hospitaler
FINAL ABILITY SCORES STR 14, CON 11, DEX 22, INT 11, WIS 18, CHA 11
STARTING ABILITY SCORES STR 11, CON 10, DEX 18, INT 8, WIS 14, CHA 10
ITEMS Parchment Githweave Armor +3 x1 Adventurer's Kit Symbol of Perserverance +3 x1 Bracers of Respite (heroic tier) x1 Healer's Brooch +3 x1 ====== End ======
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
OAssassins have a striker mechanic, and feat support, that are both unique and interesting. While the class is far from being a powerhouse, it isn't just blatantly trying to do the exact same thing as another class but worse.
And, I'm actually going to disagree with warrl about that aspect of CharOp, if someone comes to us and says that, the majority will completely ignore the thread, a dozen of us will actively attempt to dissuade the OP from making a mechanical mistake for character concept reasons, 3 will tell those dozen that they are being rude, unconstructive, and painting a bad view of CharOp and that we should always indulge peoples requests (the dozen of us never will, because we have respect for RPGs, and anti-optimization is actively harmful to the genre), 3 or 4 will actively attempt to help the OP within his mechanical guidelines, and mellored will link you to a revenant build.
"Invokers are probably better round after round but Wizard dailies are devastating. Actually, devastating is too light a word. Wizard daily powers are soul crushing, encounter ending, havoc causing pieces of awesome." -AirPower25 Sear the Flesh, Purify the Soul; Harden the Heart, and Improve the Mind; Born of Blood, but Forged by Fire; The MECH warrior reaches perfection.
@Zathris: Dismissing my opinion as "ignorant" only shows why I consider the advice in the CharOp boards worth the paper it's printed on. Have any of the regular dozen you mention there actually played any the classes in question? Because I can tell you, having seen a Sentinel and a Vampire in action in my campaigns long-term, they are definitely not "worthless." I guess that their players are going to continue having badwrongfun. I think they will be okay with that.
...the dozen of us never will, because we have respect for RPGs, and anti-optimization is actively harmful to thegenre... Which just shows that "dozen" are ignorant of the whole point of RPGs: having fun. That's really all I have to say on the subject.
