To be fair vampire isn't that bad in heroic. Almost all classes can do ok in heroic and at least the vampire has some dailies like domineering gaze, Its once you get to paragon or so when it starts falling behind.
And monk isn't a weak class its just not really a full striker. AS a DM I would probably rather face an optimized thief or slayer over an optimized monk since about all the slayer/thief is going to do most of the time is high single target damage, while the monk is going to be doing decent damage along with a bunch of forced movement and status effects to multiple targets.
Blackguard and assassin or maybe a bladesinger are good choices in that situation. For defender ensnaring swordmage or cavalier. For leader sentinel. For controller bladesinger, binder or maybe seeker, but even seekers can be fairly good now.
Personally I am to the point where I intentionally make interesting choices rather than what necessarily the best charop choices for the PCs I play and its rare that I play single target strikers.
Vampire is so weak that the message thread that is pretty much the index to CharOp, "the complete collection of character build links", doesn't include it in the index posts (as of a few days ago).
That's because there isn't a serious handbook on them.
As much as i liked the pictures + slogans + mustache. They don't help build a vampier.
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way. Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken. Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken. King Fisher Does an excellent job at keeping an enemy disabled in a few ways. Strong. Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading. Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered. Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square. Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong. Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked. Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic. Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation. Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses. Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat. Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent. Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof. Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it. Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways. Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful. The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken. Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken Unnamed Avenger|Runepriest/Hammer of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered. Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5. Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong. Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight, only far more broken. Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken. Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.
Vampire is so weak that the message thread that is pretty much the index to CharOp, "the complete collection of character build links", doesn't include it in the index posts (as of a few days ago).
That's because there isn't a serious handbook on them.
As much as i liked the pictures + slogans + mustache. They don't help build a vampier.
Not that there's alot you can do to one...
No, there is a serious handbook on them. That's the problem. The entire set of Vampire optimization is contained in it.
Got to say, I have enjoyed this thread. It has given me some new perspective on character creation. I tend to be a min/maxer just by nature - that is to say I focus on a few things and naturally try to get those as high as possible while taking calculated risks on what can be discarded.
But I don't really need to do that with 4e. I can really go much more balanced and start with a concept then build the structure around it rather than the other way around which - building the number then fleshing out a concept to match.
When I get down to it and think about the math, I don't need to optimize at all. I need to have a character that is real and fun to RP, that does things that I want him or her to do, regarless of being the best at it or hyper successful.
Sometimes I like to just mess around in the character builder and see what I can make, see what I like and what I think would be fun to play, and this thread has opened up lots of options toward stuff that would be fun that I would have discarded previously because I couldn't make the number work in a min/max way.
So thanks to the OP and all the other posters. It been great.
Personally I am to the point where I intentionally make interesting choices rather than what necessarily the best charop choices for the PCs I play and its rare that I play single target strikers.
That's my stance, more so than ever before.
Let me tell you a story: I have known two intense munchkins, both of whom adored the Warden class to an almost disturbing degree. One couldn't go two days without rambling on about how "omg teh awsum hamerz!" (I'm exaggerating, but that's what it felt like they were saying after two weeks of not shutting up.) It always hammer feats, how powerful hammers are, how the warden is just so EASY to break...
The other, I played alongside in a campaign under a DM that I liked, though I felt he really played favorites... See, the player in question was allowed to roll his stats, while everyone else was required to use point buy. This made him ridiculously strong compared to everyone else. His character was also allowed to have some sort of artifact axe that was also ridiculously overpowered. How overpowered was his character? Well, let's see, he was virtually unkillable, could effectively fight large groups of enemies, consistantly dealt more damage than any of the party strikers and could solo entire encounters.
On one occasion, half the party was missing but the DM went ahead with the encounter anyway. It was just Warden McCheese, the sorcerer and my character who I will describe in a moment. The sorcerer nearly died, my character was only capable of holding down the enemy's leader and meanwhile... McCheese killed everything else. This was a full sized encounter for six or seven people.
Now, after having my first character prove useless (Though she was my first character in 4e, so I kind of expected that to happen), plus my second character simply unable to measure up him, I knew I'd never be able to match the Warden's tier. Really, I just wanted to compare to him, to be within the same basic power range so the DM didn't have to babysit my character while the warden did all the work. But I knew that would be impossible, because you just can't match a guy that essentially broke the rules to make his character.
So my response? I made a gimmick character. I figured, if I can't be equals, I may as well have fun. So I built a brawler fighter, the character I mentioned above, with three tenants in mind: 1. She was going to be the ultimate ignorant country bumkin, 2. She was only going to fight with Unarmed weapons and 3. She was going to fortitude so high she could stand on a pile of corpses, in the rain, for two weeks straight and not even sneeze.
And I did it. I beat the munchkin's higher-ability-scores-than-god character's fortitude... by one point. He was offended by this. I mean that he pretty much forced a session to a grinding halt to express his displeasure, as though my character being better than his in any conceivable way was against some natural law of the universe.
Pissing off the munchkin felt so darn good. Now, I didn't set out to piss him off. I just couldn't help but smile, knowing that he really, truly, did not understand the point of roleplaying games. You are not in a competition with the other players, you're here to have fun. Now, I mentioned that I 'beat' his character in Fortitude, but I feel I should explain that I really did not set out to 'beat' him, only to be the best at what I did, even though what I did was inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. My entire thought process was "I don't want to hold the party back, so I should build a character about as strong as they are! ...Okay, doing that is impossible. Well, I want to have fun anyway, so if I can't be that great, I may as well make something cool that's good at what it's meant to do."
I came to the realization that I never made a character that was detrimental to the party. I just made characters that weren't terribly good, but they weren't bad... I was just comparing them to the wrong PC.
When I get down to it and think about the math, I don't need to optimize at all. I need to have a character that is real and fun to RP, that does things that I want him or her to do, regarless of being the best at it or hyper successful.
If you have 16 in your primary stat, you won't be in any way detrimental to your party. You may not be great, but you'll do your job in combat. And since that means you don't have to worry about your effectiveness in combat, you're free to make your character how you want, how you will enjoy to play them.
That, right there, is why 4e has become my favorite system. Some people complain about how there's no 'freedom' in it anymore, but I disagree. I've never felt more free. In 2e, one bad roll of the dice could gimp your character. In 3e, I would agonize over feat selection, because the wrong feat would mean I'd fall behind the party and be little more than a spare meatshield. 4e? There's far less reason to worry about the mechanics, which means you're free to use your imagination without fear of being useless to the party.
Gunmage, a homebrew arcane striker. (Heroic Tier playtest ready.) GDocs link. (More up to date.)
Breaking the rules isn't optimizing. It's just being a jerk.
"I'm gonna have a 20 in every stat! And I'm gonna weild a superweapon that never misses and does 400d6 damage! And I'm gonna make it a throwing weapon that returns to my hand! And I'm gonna have a pony. A MAGICAL pony."
Wardens, btw, are... good defenders. But they're not super broken. Broken with hammers is definitely a level 13+ Brutal Barrage Battlemind.
It's the job of the DM to step in and stop the cheater. Cheating is cheating.
P.S. Rolled stats shouldn't beat point bought stats, I think you average like a 12.5 on rolls if you use 4d6d1 so I bet he cheated on his rolls too.
Breaking the rules isn't optimizing. It's just being a jerk.
"I'm gonna have a 20 in every stat! And I'm gonna weild a superweapon that never misses and does 400d6 damage! And I'm gonna make it a throwing weapon that returns to my hand! And I'm gonna have a pony. A MAGICAL pony."
Wardens, btw, are... good defenders. But they're not super broken. Broken with hammers is definitely a level 13+ Brutal Barrage Battlemind.
It's the job of the DM to step in and stop the cheater. Cheating is cheating.
P.S. Rolled stats shouldn't beat point bought stats, I think you average like a 12.5 on rolls if you use 4d6d1 so I bet he cheated on his rolls too.
Nah, he probably rolled those stats.
On the 19th try.
"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.
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.
There's a modicum of common sense that it is assumed that plays are gifted with such that they don't make 12 STR fighters and such. Note that the PHB1 has builds and it specifically points out in each one what your prime requisite is, what your secondary stat is, and pretty much tells you those need to be your highest stats.
4e is however not THAT stat dependent. If you have a 16 post-racial you're doing OK. You can of course from there still make a terrible build, like say ending up with a 16 STR, a +2 accuracy weapon, and never taking any feat that helps your accuracy (so you are at +5 +1/2 level forever). Assuming said character doesn't pick useful powers that synergize with his equipment and/or feats then yes, that character will slowly smell worse and worse, but only compared to with less suboptimal PCs. A whole party of such fellows will be fine.
I'd also note that there ARE builds (though not incredibly obvious ones) that don't require attack rolls at all, and thus do not care about ability scores much. The 'lazy' warlord is one. A pacifist super healing cleric is essentially another one. You can come close with some bard builds too. However, if you're going to try to play a sub-optimal striker, you're probably going to find combat not too interesting.
All quite interesting, potentially helpful, and great comments/suggestions… but like I’d said, I wasn’t necessarily looking for advice on how to “make ‘sub-optimal’ work” in 4E.
The reason why I am asking is, as follows:
I like the way that the DDN developers are doing the racial stat bonuses.
To me, adding just +1 to a “racial” stat is a great way to highlight a race’s strengths without predetermining its class options.
I was informed, however, that having a +2 racial stat boost doesn’t predetermine race/class combinations… and that any race, can be any class with equal effectiveness.
What I have experienced is; giving a particular race a “racial” stat bonus, that is high enough to create a mechanical advantage, in turn, discourages players from not taking full advantage of the race/class synergy that said bonus provides.
Whenever a player makes the decision to break from racial stereotypes, their “creativity” is rewarded with reduced effectiveness.
I’m not trying to fix a “problem” with my game, or even with 4E, in general. I was trying to see if there is a pitfall, that needs to be avoided… so that we don’t find ourselves fixing these issues (if they even are issues) in the future of DDN.
I am pretty confident that I’m not the only one who’s seen the “sameness” that building a significant race/class synergy into the system creates. For example, I will never forget the RPGA D&D 3.5 event that I went to in San Diego, where my Warforged Druid had the opportunity to adventure with three differently-named, yet otherwise completely identical Half-Orc Fighter/Barbarian/Rogue/Rangers. Then there’s my current 4E group, where the hyper-optimized Goliath Barbarian’s secondary character is… drum roll, please… an identical Goliath Barbarian.
“Some people just enjoy the challenge of CharOp”, you might say… or “That’s just what’s fun to them, there’s no wrong way to have fun”… but these games aren’t supposed to be about ONE person having THEIR fun, it’s about having fun as a group.
I would like to see a D&D where “rewards” for an option aren’t high enough to be mechanically relevant when viewed alone… it wouldn’t be until after you’d made several choices that your character’s strengths and weakness would be fully realized. It would be a system where it would take more than a simple "race x + class y + tactic (or feat z) = battlefield dominance" equation to CharOp your character... and then CharOpers and RPers could contribute equally to the collective narative of the game.
One man's punishment is another man's reinforcement of class flavor. DDN is full of it. Mike seems to think he loves it. 4e was fairly mild, I mean previous editions just outright banned stuff. Yes, playing a pixie barbarian is somewhat suboptimal. Playing a half-orc barbarian is quite optimal. Contrariwise the pixie will make an optimal bard and the half-orc won't. Neither of them will be terrible or astounding in either direction. Beyond that you can always make some rather non-standard builds to take advantage of the unusual stats. You can often create quite interesting character variations. For instance an Eladrin fighter who studied ritual magic and has a high INT is perfectly interesting and could be both decently effective in his combat role, but also bring an added dimension to a party.
And I did it. I beat the munchkin's higher-ability-scores-than-god character's fortitude... by one point. He was offended by this. I mean that he pretty much forced a session to a grinding halt to express his displeasure, as though my character being better than his in any conceivable way was against some natural law of the universe.
I once had a warlord who had a better History skill than the wizard... because the warlord was int-secondary and trained in History, while the wizard was int-primary but untrained.... and the wizard-player took offense. But only mild offense.
CharOp is best at optimizing things that can be quantified (so one can determine what's best). Unfortunately some things can't be easily quantified, at least not in a way that can be compared against other things. An encounter-power stun is equivalent to how many extra squares of motion in an ordinary move action is equivalent to how many extra points of damage (average) with an at-will standard action is equivalent to how many extra points of damage with a daily standard action? How many targets should we assume a burst X or a blast X hits, so we can compare its total damage to that of a single-target attack? How do you factor in diminishing returns - such as the benefit of doing more damage per hit when one hit kills most at-level monsters? That's the sort of thing CharOp struggles with, and the better people on that board remember this. Also some of their builds are not really intended to be combat-worthy - such as a "competition" they had to find the maximum number of squares of movement for one character in, if I remember correctly, 3 rounds.
Yes, a non-optimized character is going to look weak compared to an optimized character - but he will be adequate to what the game math expects. The game math works for a party with mixed levels of optimization, if the DM adjusts encounters as the guidelines suggest, and the non-optimized characters will still be effective and useful. (Twinked out characters, optimized well beyond what point-buy allows and with well-above-level-expectations gear, are a different subject entirely.) A party with all-optimized characters, and a party with all-non-optimized characters, both also work. For that matter, so would a party with all-twinked-out characters but it would probably take the DM a few tries to determine the appropriate adjustment to encounter difficulty.
"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
