Community

16 or more in primary stat, and wielding a weapon with proficiency is the baseline. This can contribute against at-level monsters for sure. Every chance (except, optionally, the level 21 ED bonus) you should put one of your +1s in your primary stat, and you should get some form of Expertise (I usually pick it up at level 8, but you can do so earlier or later. It's hard to ignore in paragon when it's +2). Keep your weapon or implement enhancement bonus level appropriate.
That's what you need as bare minimum to be effective. 
You can beat that by about another +5 at level 1, plus CA or other temporary bonuses/penalty. Basically every +1 means you can be effective against monsters one level higher. So if the DM likes to throw level + 3 monsters all the time, you will struggle a bit if you aren't sporting an extra +3 to hit from somewhere, and even then you may struggle on the defensive side.
Really though, the bulk of optimization is choosing good powers, creating synergies, and stacking bonuses. Having an 18 or 20 in your attack stat is handy, but a good charopper can easily make a character with no stat above 16 that can put a plain-vanilla 20 str/16 dex slayer to shame. Some will do so by finding a pile of +1s to attack and damage and combine that with multiattack or something. Others will go off and make some terrifyingly effective controller that simply shuts down encounters. I have Sin the Librarian, who is simply a black hole into which enemy damage disappears, who has created far more frustration in DMs facing against him than any striker from what I've seen.

The +2 to hit and damage from a 20 instead of a 16 is handy, but it can definitely be significantly exceeded by other means, both directly (you can have a 16 primary character with better accuracy and damage than a less optimized 20 primary character) and by simply optimizing for a different goal.   

Sep 5, 2012 -- 9:07PM, Janx_14 wrote:

I dont think the +1 vs +2 really fixes anything "pigeonholely"-wise.  Classes in DDN give +1 to their main abilities dont they? so picking an optimal class/race combo still puts a you Modifier point head of other races.

A half-orc fighter in 4e has say 18 strength (16 +2 from race), while an elf has 16 strength

A half-orc fighter in DDn has 18 strenth (16 + 1 from race +1 from class), while an elf has 17 strength.

       
Now, the less optimal races will likely get that catch up to the optimal race quicker, but only until the next boost comes along.  


I'm not sure when or how you get ability score boosts, but assuming 4e progression, the two characters would have a +4/3 mod at level 1, a +4/+4 mod at level 4, a +5/4 mod at 8, etc.


So for alittle way your on par, and for alittle while you're behind.  

... but in DDN the standard starting scores are (currently) 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8.  That means that the half-orc fighter would have a 17 strength (15 + 1 from race +1 from class), while the elf has 16 strength.

... and even if WOTC modifies the stat cap rule to allow variation between races, the proposed method would result in the half-orc fighter with a 21 strenth (20 cap + 1 from race), while the elf has a strength capped at 20.

Optimized on paper and optimized in play are two different things.  

I mean you can hand someone a CharOp's wetdream, but if they use powers at terrible times, get stuck next to monsters without any escape route and play like Mr. Bean they're going to be terrible at the table.  

I think what often happens is that CharOp players ALSO learn good tactics and, since 4E is a very tactical game, this has an exponential effect on the strength of their character. 

Sep 6, 2012 -- 1:10PM, Noctaem wrote:

But to get back to DnD, GreyICE is correct in his statement.  You can give a player any build from the hundreds that are considered top notch in CharOP, that does not mean the player will perform anywhere near what's expected.  In fact the player might not understand the build he is trying to use at all leading to choices during play that don't actually make sense with the options that are actually available.

A player who knows what he/she is doing, vs a player who doesn't, has an invaluable advantage. 

This is absolutely true in general.
However, many of the top-notch charop monstrocities are designed to do unreasonable damage, with all else being secondary. If you understand that portion (which may involve some wierd shinanegans, but is often fairly straight forward and explained in the post about the build), then you can just apply that and win. The less strikery char-op builds do definitely need more understanding, but the damage spammers just need to know how their conditional damage works.
In a sense, they're a lot easier to play at the table than an unoptimized build.

As a general rule though it's true: char-op skill and tactical skill tends to run in the same players. Perhaps in part because of the level of understanding needed for char-op helps understand tactical situations, and perhaps part just that the same intellectual qualities apply to some degree to both. (that's not to say they're the same thing and you can't be good at one but bad at the other or anything.) Also, in 4e especially, tactical skill is a team thing. You need to work together to get the most out of your abilities. Maybe one tactician can guide a party, but only if they want to listen and really.. who wants to be the tactician's puppet? Or, for that matter, to boss all your friends around? It's much better (and more fun) if everyone has a handle on tactics and can follow their own ideas to great effect.