# How Can You Politely Say, "Your Character Sucks?"



## Kinneus (Jan 26, 2010)

I played the first game of a campaign with a new group online today. Some of the people were new to 4e, possibly new to D&D in general. And that's fine, that's cool.
But when the Swordmage told us he had a 14 Intelligence... I got worried. How can you tactfully bring this up? I'd like to offer to help him retool the character. Should I bring this up in a post-game wrap-up? Over email? The fact that we're doing this online complicates things a bit, etiquette-wise. It's hard to convey intent over text sometimes, and I don't want to give him the impression that I'm trying to boss him around or telling him he sucks. Should I leave this up to the DM to take care of? I know how annoying it is to try out a new system, and suddenly get bogged down by tons of 'helpful advice' from your fellow players on how to build your character. But I don't think he wants to play a dumb swordmage for roleplaying reasons. I think he just didn't know how to build the character.
How can I go about this tactfully?


----------



## Piratecat (Jan 26, 2010)

I think I'd email the DM, discuss your concerns, and leave it up to the DM to chat with him. If the player later mentioned being frustrated I'd also bring it up with him as well, offering to help tweak the PC. But you're right - it's touchy.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jan 26, 2010)

You could just not worry about it and let things play out so he can actually LEARN from his supposed "mistake".


----------



## Hussar (Jan 26, 2010)

Honestly, I don't think there's a problem with being upfront about it.  It's an online game, so take it to whispers during a down moment in the game when you guys don't need to be doing something else.  Just ask him why he put a 14 in the stat.  

You don't need to be like, "Dude, you did WHAT?  How stupid are you?"

Just ask directly - "Hey, I saw that you put a 14 in your Int.  I was just wondering why?  Int is your main stat, so, usually people put their highest score there."

I don't think too many people would get fussed about that.


----------



## Dayspire (Jan 26, 2010)

I think the first step if for you to realize that his character doesn't suck.  Nor do his choices in building the character.  You simply have a different idea about optimization than he does.  It's entirely possible he knows what he's doing!  I would offer aid in case he doesn't know what he's doing, but you need to understand that not everyone is interested in having highly efficient and laser-focused characters.

Let's remember that a couple of editions ago, having a 9 in your 'prime stat' was acceptable enough to qualify for a class.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 26, 2010)

Send him an email saying that a 14 in Int is likely not the best way to go. Dont' tell him he must change it, but simply say something along the lines of:

"Int is really important for the class. Just letting you know beforehand, you might find yourself missing a lot."


----------



## Festivus (Jan 26, 2010)

Unsolicited advice about my character is a sure fire way to not only put me on the defensive, but down right piss me off.  I rarely build characters to be any where near optimal, and I don't need advice from anyone who studies the optimal way to build and play class X.  I already know it's sub-optimal... perhaps it's intentional.

If I were to want advice, that is a different story.  If I get frustrated with how the character is in the game, I might reach out.  But 99% of the time, my character choices are reflective of what has happened in the story.

Thankfully, my friends all know that I do this and don't offer unsolicited advice.


----------



## JustKim (Jan 26, 2010)

The PCs in my game started with 16 as their highest score. We used the standard array, and because 4E was brand new, there was little if any number crunching going on. Some folks did not even choose a race that gave a bonus to their prime stat.

At level 11 the PCs have not been defeated, have not needed to rest more often, have not found the opposition too difficult.

My advice is to mention it once, and if he doesn't agree leave well enough alone.


----------



## Chainsaw (Jan 26, 2010)

Rechan said:


> Send him an email saying that a 14 in Int is likely not the best way to go. Dont' tell him he must change it, but simply say something along the lines of:
> 
> "Int is really important for the class. Just letting you know beforehand, you might find yourself missing a lot."




Something along these lines is probably good..

"I'm sure you realize Int is pretty important for this class, and you might have put it low for role playing reasons, but I thought I'd double check just in case you're new to 4E and didn't realize the impact it might have down the road."

My experience is that you have to be like 10x nicer and more tactful in e-mails than in real life or you risk miscommunicating your tone or intent.


----------



## Kzach (Jan 26, 2010)

Dayspire said:


> I think the first step if for you to realize that his character doesn't suck.



Yes, it does.



Dayspire said:


> Nor do his choices in building the character.



Yes, they do.



Dayspire said:


> You simply have a different idea about optimization than he does.



A 14 in a prime stat in 4e is not optimising on any scale known to man or geek.



Dayspire said:


> It's entirely possible he knows what he's doing!



No, he doesn't.



Dayspire said:


> I would offer aid in case he doesn't know what he's doing, but you need to understand that not everyone is interested in having highly efficient and laser-focused characters.



There's nothing 'highly efficient' about putting an 18 in a class primary stat. Highly efficient would be putting a 20 in that stat and getting Weapon/Implement Expertise at 1st-level.

An 18 in a primary stat isn't 'laser-focused', it's simply what the system is balanced around and although there are rare instances where a 16 is used in a prime stat for some hybrid or half-elf or weird charop builds that only start to shine at 20th-level and suck until then, putting a 14 in a prime stat is just daft.



Dayspire said:


> Let's remember that a couple of editions ago, having a 9 in your 'prime stat' was acceptable enough to qualify for a class.




This isn't 2e. Comparing the two is a ridiculous argument.

I'll concede that there are some groups who don't care if they suck. But as we saw in a previous similar thread, most people don't want their characters to die constantly and never succeed in their missions. That requires having a reasonable character, not a deliberately gimped bunch of non-adventurers who fail at everything.

4e is on a bell-curve. 18 seems to be about where it's balanced around a 50/50 chance to hit every time you attack. For every +1 higher or lower, the chance to hit/miss increases exponentially instead of a flat 5% per plus on a d20.

Consider in a 10 round fight that a character with a primary stat of 18 will hit roughly around 5 times out of 10 attacks. Just reducing this to a 17, will change this to about 3 times out of 10 attacks. At 14, he'll hit maybe once a combat*.

So now you have a character that is nothing more than a bag of hit points. He contributes nothing else to the group. Combats will now take 2-4 extra rounds to complete. And as the defender of the group, he doesn't fulfil his role, so someone else has to take up his slack.

And given his low prime stat, I doubt his skills are anything to talk about either, so he's also contributing failure to skill challenges.

Now sure, some people might think that's fun, but I doubt many people see him as anything but a liability that detracts from the overall enjoyment of the game for everyone at the table.



*Yes, I don't know the exact numbers, I'm just parroting what I've read on charop boards. If that is incorrect, sue me.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Jan 26, 2010)

Let him play his character, you play yours. If the game is bogged down or disrupted in some particularly eggregious way because the player is a clueless noob, THEN you might have standing to say something. Otherwise, the character is HIS to screw up in whatever way he can manage. Wait 'till you are _asked_ for advice or assistance before heading down that mine-strewn road. However innocent and generous your intent may be, telling another player how to build and run HIS character is just not tolerable. As a player you wouldn't stand for it from your DM - why should it be any more acceptible coming from another player?

At most you might spam an offer to _everyone_ in the game to grant them free access to your experience and knowledge and see what that gets you. I know you're only trying to be helpful, but I firmly believe that even new players would ultimately rather learn from their OWN mistakes (and SHOULD). Or better yet, that they should be allowed to do their OWN explorations of what THEY do or don't want to do or try within the game.


----------



## Nifft (Jan 26, 2010)

Dayspire said:


> I think the first step if for you to realize that his character doesn't suck.  Nor do his choices in building the character.  You simply have a different idea about optimization than he does.



 If his character concept is "not so good at combat", then he's on the right track.

Of course, if that is his concept, I wonder how he got through the interview process to get into the adventuring party.



Dayspire said:


> Let's remember that a couple of editions ago, having a 9 in your 'prime stat' was acceptable enough to qualify for a class.



 Paladins needed a 17.
I hereby negate your edition war.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Hussar (Jan 26, 2010)

While a 9 might have been enough to qualify for classes in previous edition, I think there's significant enough anecdotal evidence to put to bed the idea that playing a 9 Str fighter was really anything other than an anomoly.  If you put a 9 Str fighter on the table, I'm thinking everyone else at the table would likely have a few words with you.

While it is a very good idea to be polite about it and, as was mentioned 10X nicer than face to face, there is nothing wrong with asking.  If the player has made the choice deliberately, then fine, let it go.  Most people are confident enough in their choices, when done intentionally, that being asked a simple question won't piss them off.

OTOH, he might just not know any better.  And a little advice now might help him in the long run.


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Jan 26, 2010)

This is another case of "You must be optimized or you suck"  I am not sure when this came to be ok to  tell someone else "you suck" based solely on not making a pc the way you would. There is nothing wrong with choosing not to dump your highest stat in your prime ability, he may not want to play a super smart swordsage, I had players that played wizards with a 15 in INT, not your standard wizard but they had a great time with it. The point of the game is to have fun, and if he wants to play his class with an INT of 14 what right do you have to say he is doing it wrong?

Not optimized does not equal sucks.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 26, 2010)

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> /snip
> However innocent and generous your intent may be, telling another player how to build and run HIS character is just not tolerable. As a player you wouldn't stand for it from your DM - why should it be any more acceptible coming from another player?
> /snip




Why not?  If the DM had more experience with a system than I did and he mentioned, not told, not ordered, but mentioned to me something along the lines of "Hey, you know, that fighter you're making, if you put an 18 in his strength, he'd be a lot better in a fight." I cannot imagine being annoyed or bothered by that.

Hell, the PHB actually specifically TELLS you that a given stat is most important for your character.  Perhaps the player couldn't be bothered actually reading his class writeup.  I've met more than a few players like this over the years.

There's a world of difference between jeering at someone's choices and offering a bit of constructive criticism.  I'm thinking most people are not quite so sensitive as to not know the difference.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Jan 26, 2010)

Why don't you complain about how in this other group you play in one of the other players has made a character that is not well optimized.  Based upon how the unoptimized player suggest you handle the problem, you can then proceed using the knowledge you just gained.


----------



## Crothian (Jan 26, 2010)

I wouldn't worry about.  Part of gaming (and living) is learning from people's own mistakes assuming this is a mistake.  If the character dies or he wants a new one at some point then you can politely advise him.


----------



## the Jester (Jan 26, 2010)

Kzach said:


> Dayspire said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...






			
				Dayspire said:
			
		

> Nor do his choices in building the character.






			
				Kzach said:
			
		

> Yes, they do.




No they don't. There are people out there who play rpgs for the roleplaying. Maybe he has put 14s in a ton of different stats. Maybe he wants to be well-rounded. Whatever, it's _his_ character and it's _his_ choice.

That said, if he honestly doesn't realize that a high intelligence will help him out a lot in combat, it's only fair to inform him, but before you guys go tweaking his pc, make sure the dm is okay with that. Some completely reasonable dms might have issues with retroactively rewriting your character without prior dm consultation.


----------



## fba827 (Jan 26, 2010)

"Hey, just curious -- any particular reason you decided to go with a 14 as your PC's Intelligence score? It just took me by surprise when you mentioned it so I thought I'd ask, that's all.   By the way, it was really cool in the game when ...(insert recent game-related scene that focuses on something the group did as a whole, or game related question about 'hey, what do you think we should try and do now that we've seen this fist hint of the bad guy's plan?')"...

*I don't really believe it IS a problem*, but *If I said anything at all*, the above is probably what i'd say.  But beyond that, i (personally) wouldn't offer any advice, or even suggest that he's doing something wrong (pointing out that int is a prime stat for swordmages would be a passive way of saying he is doing something wrong).

He may very well have something else in mind (such as not wanting to sacrifice his scores in other attributes if point-buy) or he just doesn't care.   Given that you don't know the person and that it's difficult to convey intent and tone in written emails, anything else may be misread and just make him annoyed.

Now, if he ASKS after you've posed a nonconfrontational question of curiosity, that's another story.. but still keep it light hearted and not get in to exact numbers (don't say "you should have at least a 18 in this, and a 14 in that' -- it's his PC not yours to build. howver, saying something like "well, i'd just have thought the int should be a little higher since his attacks and defenses and some damage all depend on it" - i.e. keep it as vague suggestions rather than dictating specific numbers)


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 26, 2010)

If I were you, I would wait and see what happens... I mean a sheilding swordmage with a high con and a 14 Int who started with focused expertise would have the same to hit rate as a 16 stat (The base line of the system) and has a way over the top mark effect...and high hp...  or he could be planing on multi classing for a diffrent attack stat for a good portion of his attacks...

On the other hand he could have made a mistake... no way to know till you see it in play.


----------



## aurance (Jan 26, 2010)

There's absolutely nothing wrong with playing a fighter with 8 Str, a swordmage with 8 int, a Sith Lord or a badger or another character's awakened spoon in D&D, but you can't deny that there are certain assumptions in the game to make it function in a way that is typical of a D&D adventure. If a new player isn't aware of those assumptions (and it's higly likely they missed at least a few), I would not hesitate to discuss it with said player and explain my reasoning. If at the end of that they want to keep doing it, then that is certainly their right.

At least for me, I have little enough time available as a group for RPGs to be doing trial and error. I'd rather someone just tell me up front what's good, statistics wise, so that I can make an informed decision (and that includes EITHER making my character statistically stronger, or not going with the recommendation for RP purposes or what have you).

Short answer: Tell the player why you think it sucks. If he wants to keep the 14 after that, back off and let him do it. To not even bring it up because you assume he'll be somehow offended is pretty silly. I'm sure they're adults and they can deal.


----------



## Elric (Jan 26, 2010)

Dayspire said:


> I think the first step if for you to realize that his character doesn't suck.  Nor do his choices in building the character.  You simply have a different idea about optimization than he does.  It's entirely possible he knows what he's doing!  I would offer aid in case he doesn't know what he's doing, but you need to understand that not everyone is interested in having highly efficient and laser-focused characters.




Right!  Some people think that there's an objective standard for character effectiveness, but there isn't one.  The increase in skill bonuses to Diplomacy and Streetwise he gets from having, say, a 14 Charisma may be more important than the benefits from higher Intelligence.  

If the character does become a problem, if the DM is good he can change the way he runs the game somewhat to fix it.


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 26, 2010)

How can you solve a problem that does not yet exist?


----------



## aurance (Jan 26, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> How can you solve a problem that does not yet exist?




At the same time, I'd like to be informed of a potential problem, before I sit through a few hours of playing something that sucks in certain ways 'cause I don't know the game. At least have the explicit option of knowing that it sucks in certain ways.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 26, 2010)

I think therein lies the problem.

None of us know if the player in question made his decision based on knowledge of the system or ignorance.  If the player conciously made the choice to play with lower stats, that's perfectly groovy.  However, if the player did it because he thought that having all stats at 12-14 was mechanically better than having a better prime stat, then a bit of advice is not remiss.  In other words, until you know why he did what he did, you cannot really know if it was a mistake or not.

Which gets back to my original point.  Ask.  Nicely, politely, in a whisper during the game, just ask.  "Why did you put a 14 in your Int?"

Would people honestly get offended by this question?


----------



## comrade raoul (Jan 26, 2010)

This is such a weird discussion! Some people seem to be saying that there are right or wrong ways to build a character that hold absolutely; others that it's all a matter of arbitrary preference, and that you're intruding on someone's magic personal space if you say anything about it. Nobody has said anything about groups, which is surprising. After all, gaming is cooperative; and a well-designed character makes play fun for everyone, not just the player in control of it. If somebody is ruining the game for everyone else because he somehow thinks it would be appropriate, in what is probably just a shallow role-playing sense, that his swordmage should have an Int 14 and suck in combat, better to let him know than expect everyone else to suffer in silence. If everyone is okay with a game where the swordmage sucks in combat--if the game is not combat-intensive, and stats are understood expressively, then obviously nobody has grounds for complaint. But the point is that whether anybody has grounds for complaint depends on the relationship between the player and the group, not the player and the rules or the player and herself.

(That is, different groups have different implicit expectations, based on the kind of game they're playing. The designers of 4e clearly intended for most 4e games to center on combat, and intentionally wrote the rules so that they would be fun and playable for strategically-designed characters (that is, moderately optimized ones). Most players are likely to have less fun if combat goes badly, and combat goes badly without a balanced group that works well together. So there is a clear sense in which the swordmage is a badly designed character, according to the default expectations. Expectations may differ from the default, but they are unlikely to.)


----------



## Festivus (Jan 26, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> How can you solve a problem that does not yet exist?




by playing "Time and Temp"?

Time & Temp « Dig a Thousand Holes Publishing

I agree with you.  There probably isn't going to be a huge variation in the gameplay because of this, and it's the other players character.  I would tread lightly unless asked for assistance.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 26, 2010)

comrade raoul said:


> This is such a weird discussion! Some people seem to be saying that there are right or wrong ways to build a character that hold absolutely; others that it's all a matter of arbitrary preference, and that you're intruding on someone's magic personal space if you say anything about it. Nobody has said anything about groups, which is surprising. After all, gaming is cooperative; and a well-designed character makes play fun for everyone, not just the player in control of it.




the problem is that magic 8 balls aside, no one, not even the OP knows if there will be a problem... SO right way/ wrong way... group dynomic... it is all wait and see. Maybe he will be a fun character, maybe he will be useful... or maybe he will be boreing, or maybe he will be a drag on resources... you have to wait and see...




> If somebody is ruining the game for everyone else because he somehow thinks it would be appropriate, in what is probably just a shallow role-playing sense, that his swordmage should have an Int 14 and suck in combat, better to let him know than expect everyone else to suffer in silence. If everyone is okay with a game where the swordmage sucks in combat--if the game is not combat-intensive, and stats are understood expressively, then obviously nobody has grounds for complaint.




why are we asssumeing in a vacume 1 stat will make him suck? If he had a 16 stat and a +2 prof weapon, or a 14 stat and a +3 prof weapon he has the same attack bonus... 

    (((Inless you are saying following the basics of 16 prime stat +2 prof makes sucky characters when that is the default the game uses...))))



> So there is a clear sense in which the swordmage is a badly designed character, according to the default expectations. Expectations may differ from the default, but they are unlikely to.)




um defualt assumtion is a 16 prime stat and a +2 prof weapon... between feat bonuses and prof bonuses is a grand total -1 really even noticable???


If I made an Elvin swordmage, and I went the sheilding path...and used the defalt array I would be stuck with the following stats:
16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10

Now my 2 stas I care about are CON and INT, but I don't get a bonus to eaither, so I have a 16 and a 14... isn't it at that point really just 'offence/defence' quastions???  a 16 COn means 1 more pt of sheilding, 2 more hp and 1 more surge... 

until we know for sure the reason for the 14 it is all guess work


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Jan 26, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> How can you solve a problem that does not yet exist?



QFT.  Wait a few sessions, see if something develops.  If it's not obvious he has some reason or preference for playing a "sub-optimal" character, or if it looks like the group's fun is threatened as a result, then politely bring it up with the DM.  

But until you're sure he's actually a detriment to the game, don't sweat it.  It's not a problem.


----------



## Pig Champion (Jan 26, 2010)

I hate this type of crap. For years I had to hear it about making CHA 12-14 Half-Orc bards. There's no problem with a player, playing with 14 INT and I kinda think anybody who thinks so would never be welcome at my table.


----------



## Kzach (Jan 26, 2010)

the Jester said:


> No they don't. There are people out there who play rpgs for the roleplaying. Maybe he has put 14s in a ton of different stats. Maybe he wants to be well-rounded. Whatever, it's _his_ character and it's _his_ choice.




It's not his choice at all. It's a group game. Being the lone-wolf chaotic neutral my way or the highway "I'M TEH ROLE PLAYA!!!!!11!" type is disruptive and annoying.

Which as was shown in another thread is fine if that's what the group dynamic is all about, but most people think such people are just selfish dicks.


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Jan 26, 2010)

Kzach said:


> Which as was shown in another thread is fine if that's what the group dynamic is all about, but most people think such people are just selfish dicks.




As are folks who demand you optimize your pc to suit their tastes in how it should be built.


----------



## Pig Champion (Jan 26, 2010)

Kzach said:


> It's not his choice at all. It's a group game. Being the lone-wolf chaotic neutral my way or the highway "I'M TEH ROLE PLAYA!!!!!11!" type is disruptive and annoying.
> 
> Which as was shown in another thread is fine if that's what the group dynamic is all about, but most people think such people are just selfish dicks.




Yeah, it is his choice, if it isn't then why not just have the DM hand out characters. 

But you're right, it is a group game and as apart of the game you work together as a group to solve any and all problems that come your way so a 14 stat makes little difference when you have 3-5 other players backing you up.

I tend to think it's the people whom enforce a style of play on everybody are the ones who are selfish. If you want to mix-max, cool but it somebody doesn't then that should be just as acceptable.


----------



## malraux (Jan 26, 2010)

It is quite reasonable to question someone who is new to the rules about some of their choices if they appear uncertain.  Either the player understands the rules well enough to know that a 14 Int isn't the best choice and did it on purpose or he doesn't grok something about the way the rules work.  If he understands that the stat is suboptimal, then he'll be able to explain why he chose it, but more importantly, he'll understand why someone would question that.  If he doesn't understand the rules, then he gets a chance to fix his character.  Neither of those strike me as inherently offensive.


----------



## Glyfair (Jan 26, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Which gets back to my original point.  Ask.  Nicely, politely, in a whisper during the game, just ask.  "Why did you put a 14 in your Int?"
> 
> Would people honestly get offended by this question?



Some might.

I think the best way to handle it is to turn your question around to have him asking about your character.  I doubt many would be offended by being asked "Why did you put 20 in your Strength?"

On the other hand, suggesting to someone that there character is bad because of this design is something I know some would do.  Turning that around would have someone come up to them and suggesting their character is bad because it is an optimized bunch of numbers instead of a character because of their design.  That would probably offend many, if not most.


----------



## outsider (Jan 26, 2010)

Don't tell him his character sucks.  He'll(quite justifiably) take that personally.  If anything, discuss the build not the character.  That way you are talking about the mechanics, and not his rp, background, etc.  Additionally, don't say it sucks.  Point out the specific problems he'll have, and why a high intelligence would be better.  I'd probably point out that on a swordmage increasing his int will increase the following about his character: attack, damage, ac, and reflex defence.  Attack, damage, and AC just happen to be the most important stats in the game, so boosting int on a swordmage is a VERY good idea.  Heck, I nearly always put a -20- in int or dex when I'm playing a character that uses it for it's attacks, and I think very hard about doing it on con attackers as well.

Here's my guess why he has low int: He's playing an assault swordmage, and didn't notice the Intelligent Blademaster feat, thus he improved his str instead.  It's also possible that he thought it was a waste of a feat.  If so, point out to him that feats are an abundant resource in 4th edition, and attributes most definitely are not an abundant resource.

If he doesn't want to listen, there's not much you can do aside from letting him see it for himself.  You may want to do that before bringing it up anyways.  Alternatively, offer character tweaking advice to the entire group, and see if he asks for your help.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 26, 2010)

Kzach said:


> It's not his choice at all. It's a group game. Being the lone-wolf chaotic neutral my way or the highway "I'M TEH ROLE PLAYA!!!!!11!" type is disruptive and annoying.




what about "My way or the highway you mus be this min/max to play this game" type annoying disruptive players? 

How can anyone without having seen the problem, without even knowing the full sheet make an informed descion??




> Which as was shown in another thread is fine if that's what the group dynamic is all about, but most people think such people are just selfish dicks.




kinda like those selfish people who tell other players there characters aren't built right???



What if he is playing a high con trading defence for offence?
What if he is still effective thfough other means?
Who made you or anyone else incharge of what is a correct build or not?


If I walked in with my half elf swordmage (who started with a 16 INT) walked into your game with a kopesh, and someone else walked in with a 14 INT swordmage with a long sword what would the diffrence be? from what I can tell that would be 2 pts of damage per hit (1 from INt and one from brutal)

Now having played my half elf I know he was damn good, and in LFR I had people asking for me to defend for them...so I know it wasn't holding anyone back. So what is 2 pts of damage worth?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 26, 2010)

maybe you can stealth fix this without ever taalking to the PC, talk to the DM. Ask him to have one of the first items to drop be a +1 luckblade (fill in the blank with his chosen weapon) 

a +1 luckblade Longsword would give a small bonus to accuracy and give a nice d8 cirt (as appose to the generic d6)...


----------



## Kzach (Jan 26, 2010)

GMforPowergamers said:


> kinda like those selfish people who tell other players there characters aren't built right???




Your turning what I said into a badwrongfun statement, which it isn't at all.

I consider creating an effective character a social obligation when you're in a group who all creates effective characters.

If you're in a group who doesn't care about succeeding at their goals and who is happy to have characters die every other session and constantly fail at the challenges presented to them, bully for you.

But in most groups, failing to succeed at the mission or defeat the enemies or being unable to complete the challenges presented to you is the antithesis of fun. So you have one person in a group going against the grain because of... what? Because they want to 'roleplay' a dunce?

Do it in some other group that thinks roleplaying is somehow superior to rolling dice, killing stuff and taking its loot. Where fluffy bunnies are considered dangerous enemies and cats can kill you with one swipe of their vicious claws.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 26, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I think therein lies the problem.
> 
> None of us know if the player in question made his decision based on knowledge of the system or ignorance.  If the player conciously made the choice to play with lower stats, that's perfectly groovy.  However, if the player did it because he thought that having all stats at 12-14 was mechanically better than having a better prime stat, then a bit of advice is not remiss.  In other words, until you know why he did what he did, you cannot really know if it was a mistake or not.
> 
> ...



I have no problem with people asking me why I designed a PC the way I did, as long as the question isn't pointed.

e.g. "Why did you put a 14 in your PC's Int when that means he's going to suck?"

If the followup to my explanation is polite, no harm, no foul.

If, OTOH, I get the stinkeye and unsolicited advice, then I'll be telling you where to go.



Kzach said:


> It's not his choice at all. It's a group game. Being the lone-wolf chaotic neutral my way or the highway "I'M TEH ROLE PLAYA!!!!!11!" type is disruptive and annoying.
> 
> Which as was shown in another thread is fine if that's what the group dynamic is all about, but most people think such people are just selfish dicks.




Its a group game, but people bring their own pieces, as it were.  And unless the *DM* says otherwise, what they bring to the table is none of your business.

For all you know, that seemingly suboptimal PC has a HR boon from the DM that will more than offset the hinderance.

But even if it doesn't...its _still_ none of your business.

If you think it still is, consider what you'd do if you were told by your DM that you were using point buy for stats, but your main class' key stat had to be the class minimum.  Or what it would be like to be the sole powergamer in a group of amateur thespians.

If you don't like someone's playstyle so much because it doesn't mesh with your preferred style- because he's the lone role-player, for instance- then find a group in which everyone plays like you and enjoy.

But don't piss on someone else's enjoyment of the game.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 26, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> If you think it still is, consider what you'd do if you were told by your DM that you were using point buy for stats, but your main class' key stat had to be the class minimum.  Or what it would be like to be the sole powergamer in a group of amateur thespians.




I will tell you this, thespian games are fun, powergamer games are fun, even mix games are fun... you know what sucks having your character being put under a microscope...

I will sleep well tonight imagining the game where 16 was the cap on attributes...


----------



## Kinneus (Jan 26, 2010)

Thanks for all the advice so far. A few things:
1) I examined my motives after I wrote that first post. While I don't think I was consciously jealous, it did occur to me that when I initially joined this group, I wanted to make a swordmage. When I was informed that the group already had a dragonborn swordmage (and another defender on top o that), I thought, "Well, dang, guess I'll make something else."
I'm not into the whole Freudian thing, but I guess it's possible I was subconsciouly over-critical of the swordmage because I wanted to play one myself. I'll err on the side of caution and keep my criticisms to myself, for the time being.

2) The group is running through published modules, like Keep on the Shadowfell, and all that. These are pretty widely known for being a hack-and-slash fest with minimal opportunity for non-combat-oriented RP, so I have to say I don't think it's unreasonable to expect every character to pull their weight. In any other game, though, I'd agree that a +3 to Diplomacy could be more useful than a +1 to hit. But in this game, I honestly thought we had more trouble clearing out kobolds than we should have.

3) I would be... surprised if this guy went with low Int for 'roleplay reasons'. He didn't seem to roleplay much at all, mostly keeping silent unless it was his turn in the iniative order. On his turn, he basically just said, "I use <power> on <target>." He really seemed to be somebody new to 4e, and possibly new to D&D in general. In the first fight, the DM had to explain to him how to add up all his bonuses to make an attack, for instance. A lot of the group seems to be newer players.

4) It is true that there's different ways to building a character. I later discovered that he was using a greatsword, bringing his Warding bonus down to +1... not something I would personally do, but then again, I'm sure there are greatweapon-using swordmages out there. As to his internal logic to creating this character (I deduced that he has an 18 Str, 16 Con, and 14 Int), I think outsider has a pretty good theory:


outsider said:


> Here's my guess why he has low int: He's playing an assault swordmage, and didn't notice the Intelligent Blademaster feat, thus he improved his str instead. It's also possible that he thought it was a waste of a feat.



That's a good point, and it's a mistake I very nearly made with my first swordmage, who was also assault. This guy is, in fact, an assault swordmage. So, that may be it.

Anyway, in the end, I realized that this was only one session. And even though he missed a lot, he did contribute to the group (mostly by having a big ol' bag of hitpoints and healing surges, and by getting some lucky rolls with Flame Cyclone and cutting a swath). If he asks for advice, I'll be more than happy to give it. Otherwise, I'll give it a few more sessions, and then maybe (possibly) email the DM.


----------



## Pig Champion (Jan 26, 2010)

Kzach said:


> Your turning what I said into a badwrongfun statement, which it isn't at all.
> 
> I consider creating an effective character a social obligation when you're in a group who all creates effective characters.
> 
> If you're in a group who doesn't care about succeeding at their goals and who is happy to have characters die every other session and constantly fail at the challenges presented to them, bully for you.




Wow, you have flair for the melodramatic, are you sure you're not a roleplayer? You seem to have some deep seeded issues here, we're talking about a 14, a 14 which is a +2, which by any standard is a pretty neat and tidy bonus.

I doubt a -1 will lead to a string of successive TPK's, failed challenges and the ending of the game for everybody at the table...as...they...know...it...DUN DUN DUN


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jan 26, 2010)

Kzach said:


> Your turning what I said into a badwrongfun statement, which it isn't at all.



Funny thing? I was willing to take your intent at face value, until. . .



> If you're in a group who doesn't care about succeeding at their goals and who is happy to have characters die every other session and constantly fail at the challenges presented to them, bully for you.
> 
> But in most groups, failing to succeed at the mission or defeat the enemies or being unable to complete the challenges presented to you is the antithesis of fun. So you have one person in a group going against the grain because of... what? Because they want to 'roleplay' a dunce?
> 
> Do it in some other group that thinks roleplaying is somehow superior to rolling dice, killing stuff and taking its loot. Where fluffy bunnies are considered dangerous enemies and cats can kill you with one swipe of their vicious claws.



. . . I read all that.

Because uh, if that isn't a whole g'damn walloping pile-O-onetruewayism, I'd be curious horrified to see what is.


----------



## outsider (Jan 26, 2010)

GMforPowergamers said:


> what about "My way or the highway you mus be this min/max to play this game" type annoying disruptive players?




These players are equally problematic.  How problematic each side of the coin is depends on the group in question.  Most groups I've played in have considered the "weak characters are the height of rp" guys to be the problem.  However, that's biased as I don't play in a group for long when they consider optimization to be a sin.  

Basically, when you are the person doing it differently than the rest of the group, you are the problem no matter how noble your motivations may be.  The OP's group has just formed, so it's hard to say if either or both perspectives are going to be problematic.

That being said, the character will still be useful with 14 int.  It will be hitting alot less than it could, but if it's a shielding swordmage it has a really powerful ability that doesn't require a hit roll.  He'd certainly be more useful with more int though.  A 18 con/14 int sheilding swordmage has a 25 damage reduction aegis at level 30.  A 18 int/14 con shielding sword mage will have a 23 damage reduction aegis.  That's only a two point difference.  And what does the high int swordmage get in exchange?  +2 to hit, +2 to damage, +2 to ac, +2 to reflex.  Is reducing an extra 2 damage once per round worth doing 2 damage per round less yourself, in addition to the penalty to hit, ac, and reflex?  At low level, I guess it's debatable.  At high level though, I've gotta say no way.


----------



## Burrito Al Pastor (Jan 26, 2010)

Pig Champion said:


> ...we're talking about a 14, a 14 which is a +2, which by any standard is a pretty neat and tidy bonus.



 Any standard except the conceptual framework of expectations for stats in 4e.



Pig Champion said:


> I doubt a -1 will lead to a string of successive TPK's, failed challenges and the ending of the game for everybody at the table...as...they...know...it...DUN DUN DUN




No, but it will make his character miss in combat. A lot. Which isn't satisfying at all. And he may find the game more frustrating than fun. And that's Bad.

This isn't hypothetical; I've seen it happen. A friend tried to play a two-primary-stat warlock in a 4e game I ran at the dawn of 4e, and he couldn't hit anything, and he didn't have any fun at all.

Don't wait until he's Not Having Fun. He's playing the game to have fun, and if he's not having fun and he's new to D&D, he may conclude that it's simply not for him and leave, when in fact he would have enjoyed it just as much as everybody else if his character hadn't been crippled. Don't be blatant UR DOING IT WRONG, but don't ignore the issue either.

Anybody who says "He chose to put a 14 in int for A Reason, and this is His Decision, and we Must Not Interfere with it, for that would be Wrong" is actively working against the introduction of the joy of RPGs to new people.


----------



## fuzzlewump (Jan 26, 2010)

Pig Champion said:


> Wow, you have flair for the melodramatic, are you sure you're not a roleplayer? You seem to have some deep seeded issues here, we're talking about a 14, a 14 which is a +2, which by any standard is a pretty neat and tidy bonus.
> 
> I doubt a -1 will lead to a string of successive TPK's, failed challenges and the ending of the game for everybody at the table...as...they...know...it...DUN DUN DUN



What if it's every player at the table? What if it's 12 instead of 14? 10 instead of 12? They still have their weapon proficiency, and the die roll itself. If they can scrape by after 15 rounds of combat because of tons of misses, but don't TPK, is it still okay? You seem to be implying that there isn't a line to be drawn. Is there really? If there is, you can complain about drawing the line harshly, but not about drawing a line at all.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jan 26, 2010)

The bottom line is that, as a player, it's none of your business.  

It's the DM's job to be on top of things like this, not fellow players.  If your DM is fine with it, so be it.  I'm assuming he is, otherwise something would have been said to the player.

Now, if you don't like it, that's your prerogative.  You can go DM your own game, or play in another game, or put up with it, or wait and see what happens.  No one is forcing you to play with these people.


----------



## Burrito Al Pastor (Jan 26, 2010)

Aus_Snow said:


> Funny thing? I was willing to take your intent at face value, until. . .
> 
> . . . I read all that.
> 
> Because uh, if that isn't a whole g'damn walloping pile-O-onetruewayism, I'd be curious horrified to see what is.




If the idea that it's important for people who are playing a game to enjoy playing that game is onetruewayism...


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jan 26, 2010)

Burrito Al Pastor said:


> If the idea that it's important for people who are playing a game to enjoy playing that game is onetruewayism...



Hehe, nice one. I actually laughed out loud.

Kudos! 

Also, XP for the humour. It's needed around here.


----------



## Burrito Al Pastor (Jan 26, 2010)

LightPhoenix said:


> The bottom line is that, as a player, it's none of your business.
> 
> It's the DM's job to be on top of things like this, not fellow players.  If your DM is fine with it, so be it.  I'm assuming he is, otherwise something would have been said to the player.
> 
> Now, if you don't like it, that's your prerogative.  You can go DM your own game, or play in another game, or put up with it, or wait and see what happens.  No one is forcing you to play with these people.




This would be a perfectly reasonable reaction if this player decided to put a 14 in intelligence knowing full well what the mechanical implications of that would be.

By all accounts, he does not.

If his playstyle was to play with a 14 int, that's fine, and nobody should have a problem with that. If he's playing with a 14 int because _he doesn't know_ what that entails, it would be a sin of omission to sit by silently as he tries to play his character in a way that you know his stats can't support.


----------



## Krensky (Jan 26, 2010)

Kzach said:


> Your turning what I said into a badwrongfun statement, which it isn't at all.
> 
> I consider creating an effective character a social obligation when you're in a group who all creates effective characters.
> 
> ...




How is this not a badwrongfun statement again?


----------



## Elric (Jan 26, 2010)

Kinneus said:


> 2) The group is running through published modules, like Keep on the Shadowfell, and all that. These are pretty widely known for being a hack-and-slash fest with minimal opportunity for non-combat-oriented RP, so I have to say I don't think it's unreasonable to expect every character to pull their weight. In any other game, though, I'd agree that a +3 to Diplomacy could be more useful than a +1 to hit. But in this game, I honestly thought we had more trouble clearing out kobolds than we should have.




Was this a reference to my post here?  It was satire!

To be clear, ability points are precious.  Lots of things add to Diplomacy (Skill Training for +5, for example; Skill Focus for +3, items can add more).  If you happen to be in a campaign where Diplomacy is so valuable that you want to max it out, the way to go is to play a Cha-primary class, not play an Int-primary class and then take Cha (which as far as I know, has little no use outside of skills/Will save for a Swordmage).

Some characters really are ineffective.  A 14-Int Swordmage designed by a player very new to 4e is going to be one of them.

The "a good DM can" argument is bogus as well: see explanation here.


----------



## Nifft (Jan 26, 2010)

Kinneus said:


> 2) The group is running through published modules, like Keep on the Shadowfell, and all that. These are pretty widely known for being a hack-and-slash fest with minimal opportunity for non-combat-oriented RP, so I have to say I don't think it's unreasonable to expect every character to pull their weight.



 Ah, well, in that module in particular, there will come a point when ... [sblock]... several of you -- if not all of you -- may need to make new characters. So in that regard the "problem" may be self-correcting.[/sblock] The first part is a notorious meat-grinder, but things get more "normal" after a few fights.

Best of luck, -- N


----------



## Wik (Jan 26, 2010)

Burrito Al Pastor said:


> This would be a perfectly reasonable reaction if this player decided to put a 14 in intelligence knowing full well what the mechanical implications of that would be.
> 
> By all accounts, he does not.
> 
> If his playstyle was to play with a 14 int, that's fine, and nobody should have a problem with that. If he's playing with a 14 int because _he doesn't know_ what that entails, it would be a sin of omission to sit by silently as he tries to play his character in a way that you know his stats can't support.




Fully agree.  And there really shouldn't be anything wrong with a PRIVATE message saying "Just curious why your main stat is so low, do you have a build plan?".  Hell, even a "Hey, what's your build plan, so I can sync up with it?" could even work - and if the player doesn't really know, you can start asking other questions.  

and I feel for the GM... I'd hate to be using 4e as a means to introduce new players to the game.  I can't see that being fun at all.


----------



## Pig Champion (Jan 26, 2010)

Burrito Al Pastor said:


> Any standard except the conceptual framework of expectations for stats in 4e.




How so? Other posters have pointed out how a 14 INT can and does work.



> This isn't hypothetical; I've seen it happen.




And so all the people out there who do fine and represent themselves with a 14 INT don't exist? Because you've seen it not work, once, twice, thric? Well I see, that's very convincing.

I've played a lot of "sub-optimal" characters over the years and have never encountered any situation, anywhere near as dire as you seem to want to paint. A +2 is not bad or sucky, no matter what spin you want to put on it.



> If there is, you can complain about drawing the line harshly, but not about drawing a line at all.




To save on further argument, that's what I'm doing.


----------



## Wik (Jan 26, 2010)

Pig Champion said:


> How so? Other posters have pointed out how a 14 INT can and does work.





No doubt.  However...

Imagine you are a new to RPGs guy.  Now, imagine you are told your role is "Defender"... along with another guy.  Now, imagine that other guy is not only being a defender, but hitting more often than you.  Hitting on OA's more often than you.  In short, being a better defender than you.

He might not be a hugely better Defender than you, but if you're missing a lot more and seemingly doing little more than taking damage destined for other PCs, well... it can kind of kill your enjoyment of the game.

I've seen this happen in other editions, for sure.  The guy playing a 2e wizard with a longsword, because he didn't know the rules (and then insisted on using said longsword, instead of casting spells - and then wondered why he was the least effective character in the group).  The 3e "I want to be a sorcerer" guy who constantly fizzled on spells because he had a relatively low charisma (despite warnings this might not be a good idea).  And the 2e Dark Sun elven thief who didn't think dexterity was all that important, and that a 35% Pick Pockets was "good enough" to justify trying to pick a templar's pocket.

The point is, failing as a newbie can be fun.  But building a character that is destined to fail more often than your companions can ruin your perception of the game.  

Two of those three players only played once or twice before leaving the campaign, never to be seen again.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 26, 2010)

As was said in this thread before, its one thing if the suboptimal design is due to inexperience with a system or RPGs in general, and an entirely different thing if the design decisions are done with full cognizance.

In the former case, being a mentor by offering to help tweek a PC isn't out of line.  Heck, it may even be welcome.

In the latter, you're sticking your nose where it doesn't belong.

But in either case, 


Starting the conversation with harsh, judgemental language- e.g. "Your PC sucks!" is simply *RUDE*.
Ditto ending the conversation that way.
Continuing to offer unsolicited build advice after the initial offer has been unequivocallly rejected is rude as well.


----------



## Pig Champion (Jan 26, 2010)

Wik said:


> No doubt.  However...
> 
> Imagine you are a new to RPGs guy.  Now, imagine you are told your role is "Defender"... along with another guy.  Now, imagine that other guy is not only being a defender, but hitting more often than you.  Hitting on OA's more often than you.  In short, being a better defender than you.
> 
> ...




This can easily happen with a fully "optimized" character, I put it to you that I've also had new players leave because of this exact issue and that they had min/max'ed as much as possible. Both were playing fighters and kept missing due to  rolls. 

Does having 14 INT improve the chances of this happening? Sure but it's not the sole purpose or that great of a factor in this type of situation. We're talking about a -1 mod, not a melee mage or undexterous thief. 

But on a side note, I once played a an undexterous thief and it was a great character and more than pulled his weight. CON 16 CHA 12 and he saved the party from TPK more than once.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 26, 2010)

If the game is balanced around an 18 = typical 50% chance to hit, then:

20: Hit on 10+, 11 in 20
18: Hit on 11+, 10 in 20 or 5 in 10
16: Hit on 12+, 9 in 20
14: Hit on 13+, 8 in 20 or 4 in 10

So a 14 would not cripple the character, they miss 1/5 more than an 18.  However if you are dealing with very high-defense foes several levels above the party you can get:

20: Hit on 17+, 4 in 20 or 1 in 5
18: Hit on 18+, 3 in 20
16: Hit on 19+, 2 in 20 = 1 in 10
14: Hit on 20+, 1 in 20

In this case the 20 is 4 times more effective than the 14, the 18 hits 3 times as often as the 14.  Low level 1e often worked like this, IME.


----------



## Tuft (Jan 26, 2010)

Kzach said:


> Your turning what I said into a badwrongfun statement, which it isn't at all.
> 
> I consider creating an effective character a social obligation when you're in a group who all creates effective characters.
> 
> ...




Sorry, sounds _very_ much like a badwrongfun argument to me. 

Hate to break it to you(*), but optimization has not even the proverbial rat's behind to do with group survival, challenge or task fullfillment. Those things are entirely dependent on what the DM's decisions are when he sits down to design the encounters in question. 

The DM can throw a too-tough encounter at a non-optimized party and kill it off. But it is _just as easy_ to do to an optimized one - it's just a few numbers that differ, and those numbers are entirely at the DM's discretion. 

The DM can throw a too-easy encounter at an optimized party and bore everyone terribly. And he can just as easily do that an non-optimized one. 

And he can find an encounter that is "just right" for the party - and that is just as easy for a non-optimized party as it is for the optimized one.

It does not matter how many powers and feats you stack in your quest for optimization - the DM can always add a few numbers to the monster stats and simply kill... you... off! 

If there is a "social obligation", then it is for the DM to create the _right_ level encounter, no matter how "optimized" or "non-optimized" the party is. 



(*) No, not really


----------



## Tallifer (Jan 26, 2010)

If a player's character truly sucks in combat and contributes nothing to the survival or success of the party, then perhaps the party should divide loot based on usefulness. Pirate's booty rules. The law of the wolf pack: the bottom wolf gets the scraps. <laugh>


----------



## delericho (Jan 26, 2010)

If the game is so finely balanced that a character must have an 18 in their prime stat just to be effective, why does it give 4d6-drop-lowest as an acceptable method of ability generation? Why does the standard array not include an 18? Hell, why doesn't the book _say you should have an 18 in your prime stat?_

In fact, if the game is so finely balanced that you must have that 18 to be effective, then why does it even have ability scores in the first place? Surely it would just be better to eliminate them and tie all the character's capabilities directly to race and class? After all, if you _must_ have particular scores to be effective, then what looks like a choice isn't really - or if it is, then it amounts to "oh, and you can choose to suck if you want."

To the OP, I would say this: is the player having fun? If he is (or if he's at least enjoying himself enough to come back to session after session), then leave him be. Maybe next time he creates a character you can offer some hints, but for now, if he's happy then don't create a problem where there otherwise isn't one. If you think the player isn't happy, _then_ you might consider offering some suggestions.


----------



## Mark Chance (Jan 26, 2010)

Denique non omnes eadem mirantur amantque. -- Horace


----------



## roguerouge (Jan 26, 2010)

My advice would be to let his character die. More than that, I would advise that you encourage this character to take foolhardy risks, in the hopes that the player will reboot more quickly. In fact, you should encourage his character to bravely take the lead and enter the hottest parts of combat where possible. Then you bemoan his bad luck and move on. Blame the dice or other players for failing to come to his rescue.

This has been your Neutral Evil advice of the thread.


----------



## Runestar (Jan 26, 2010)

How optimized are the rest of the party compared to this swordsage?

Being too optimized or un-optimized is really only an issue if it causes your power-level to deviate too sharply from the norm, as the DM then cannot effectively challenge you without screwing over the rest of the party.

Though personally, I would rather be stronger than weaker, because in the former, I can always play myself as weaker if the need arises but in the latter, I can't suddenly try to make myself stronger as my stats can't account for it.

While each player certainly has the right to build and play his character the way he wants or envisions, I do believe that this ultimately needs to be balanced with the needs of the party. So if you know your DM will be throwing some fairly challenging encounters, you owe it to the rest of the players to optimize your character so he can pull his own weight and contribute meaningfully (again, what passes for meaningful is left to each group to determine). 

I am not sure if there is any polite way to bring this up without sounding like you are trying to meddle in the way he plays, so I think the best solution would be to PM the DM first, and raise your concerns. At the very least, he can adjust his encounters to cater to the swordsage if need be. 

I don't think this is the sort of thing to risk falling out over.


----------



## Squizzle (Jan 26, 2010)

The balance point is 16 (+2) in primary stat for 50% chance (11 or more on d20) to hit skirmisher AC (level + 14) at level 1 with a +2 proficiency weapon, or with an implement vs. NAD (level + 12).

You don't have to optimise, but a character who is deliberately not only suboptimal but sub-balance is adding to the DM's encounter budget without doing a full character's worth of work for that XP, increasing the burden on the other characters. This can be addressed by party tactics or by DM skill, but both of those are placing more work on your peers--especially the DM, who already has the largest workload of anyone in the group. If everyone is fine with that, so be it, but they should know it beforehand; the default assumption is that everyone will be building at least to balance, i.e. "pulling their weight". Moreover, a character like this will be easily outshone by the others, who will be tearing through enemies that this character struggles to hit.

This only addresses the mechanical implications. Roleplay doesn't have a rulebook, so mechanics are all we can address. You're using the mechanics of D&D, which carries certain basic assumptions with it, for instance, that the characters will have a minimum level of competence. If you want to play a game that allows for less skillful characters to still seem badass and achieve equal spotlight time, something like FATE (I recommend it in the form of Spirit of the Century) might be better. Just create an Aspect like "Sorcerer's Apprentice" or "Bumbling Swordsman", or even "Like a Swordmage with 14 Int", and you have effective mechanical backing that lets this character have equal spotlight, equal fun, and even equal effectiveness.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 26, 2010)

Dayspire said:


> I think the first step if for you to realize that his character doesn't suck.  Nor do his choices in building the character.  You simply have a different idea about optimization than he does.  It's entirely possible he knows what he's doing!  I would offer aid in case he doesn't know what he's doing, but you need to understand that not everyone is interested in having highly efficient and laser-focused characters.
> 
> Let's remember that a couple of editions ago, having a 9 in your 'prime stat' was acceptable enough to qualify for a class.




"You have given out too much XP in the last 24 hours.  Please try again."


----------



## MrGrenadine (Jan 26, 2010)

Wow.  If I'd known how dangerous not having a 18 in a prime stat would be....

Of course, if the player made a mistake and/or isn't having fun, the 14 INT is a problem--for the DM.

As to a character not pulling its weight because it hits 4 times out of 10 as opposed to 5?  Hogwash.  Here's the thing:  combat is not the only aspect of the game, its not the most important aspect of the game and sometimes...yes, sometimes...it has nothing to do with the game at all.

Here are some ways a player whose character (gasp) misses often in combat can contribute to the party's success:

1)  The player is a whiz at solving puzzles and cracking codes.
2)  The player has terrific attention to detail, and remembers details from past sessions that positively impact the current session.
3)  The player is a terrific battle tactician, and can clue the party in on how to use the terrain to their advantage during a fight.
4)  The player is funny, and makes even the "up sh*ts creek" moments enjoyable.
5)  The player can think up creative applications for skills that help the party reach its goals or get out of a jam.
6)  etc.

Now, I'm not saying the guy in question has any of these qualities.  But to say missing 1 more time in 10 makes a character dead weight on a party is ludicrous.


----------



## Squizzle (Jan 26, 2010)

MrGrenadine said:


> Here's the thing:  combat is not the only aspect of the game, its not the most important aspect of the game and sometimes...yes, sometimes...it has nothing to do with the game at all.




It's the only aspect bound intimately tightly to his character's Intelligence score, so it's the part we can talk about. Everything else is just angels-on-pinheads what-if.


----------



## Tuft (Jan 26, 2010)

Squizzle said:


> This can be addressed by party tactics or by DM skill, but both of those are placing more work on your peers--especially the DM, who already has the largest workload of anyone in the group.




It is that straining on the GM to design a +2 encounter instead of a +3 one? *boggle*


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jan 26, 2010)

I've got a player that acts this rudely towards others' choices. Telling someone that their character sucks is no way to behave. Constructive criticism or pointing out areas you might encounter trouble in a more tactful manner is much more acceptable.

Our raging little buddy even criticizes class choices. I'm getting a chance to play 4E again and my choice of a beastmaster ranger* got him all riled up again. My choice tied into the WotBS campaign well and I'm trying to balance holding up my end of things with the roleplaying aspects. I've learned to look past his rudeness and overbearing opinions to find the good advice for potential pitfalls, but only because we are good friends.

My advice then is to only broach the subject if you can find a way to do it politely and constructively. Until you learn more about the player's choices you don't know if he understands the choice he made.



*Anyone who is interested please refer to the "Adrana's Diary" link in my sig.


----------



## Lord Xtheth (Jan 26, 2010)

Does this character actually suck though? All I've seen to warrant any "sucking" is a semi-high stat as a prime instead of an optimized stat in a prime.
What hasn't been addressed is the players abilities. A 14 isn't that big of a downfall at all. In fact, the stat array of 14,14,13,13,12,12 offers a wide variety of skill bonuses and a bonus in everything! As mostly a DM, I see this as a positive thing, not negative.
So what he doesn't do 2 points better in combat? He does have a total of 6 points of better than you at other things... like skill challenges (based on my stat array above).

If a person's character was meant to be played a spacific way, and no other way otherwise it would "suck" we wouldn't have options at all. 

I like seeing characters that aren't always "the absolute best in the world" at one thing, and mediocre at best at everything else.


----------



## Janx (Jan 26, 2010)

I see a lot of different takes on this.  I don't play 4e, couldn't say in an edition-specific sense if 14 INT and swordmage is a problem.

I do know, that we don't have enough information about the PC and there's a lot of assumptions being made.

Was 14 the best he rolled?  If he didn't have high numbers to work with...

Why do some assume that he can just FIX his PC.  In my land, what's done is done, and barring some specific RAW rules for changing the PC, you don't get to re-roll or shuffle stats.

Did the player have a specific concept or plan, that isn't obvious. Swordmage implies a fighter-wizard multi-class.  Maybe since he planned on fighting, he put his good scores in STR, CON and DEX?  Not saying that was a good idea per 4e rules, but you never know.

Why is it the OP's business?  there are some people who can give advice well, and some people who don't take it well.  If he don't know the other player well enough, it's best he leave it well enough alone.  Let Darwin decide if the build was good.

The real key to judging a sucky character is in play.  If you didn't know the stats, and the game was played, was the PC useful?  Or was it pretty sucky?  That's what matters, and that's what your PC is supposed to be operating on as character knowledge.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 26, 2010)

S'mon said:


> If the game is balanced around an 18 = typical 50% chance to hit, then:



 can someone please tell me where this idea that an 18=typical comes from? It isn't in any book, and it isn't what I have seen in LFR, heck bith lable 16 as avrage and typical...



Squizzle said:


> The balance point is 16 (+2) in primary stat for 50% chance (11 or more on d20) to hit skirmisher AC (level + 14) at level 1 with a +2 proficiency weapon, or with an implement vs. NAD (level + 12).






just becuse I now feel I must I will break down the combat math...

1st level
16 attack stat and a +2 prof weapon Vs AC, or a IMp Vs Nads
Monster AC 15 or Nads 13... both need 10's to hit
Solder (AKA really tough sob) monster 17AC or 13 Nads... the weapon weilder now needs a 12...

5th level
increase attack stat at 4th level and have a +2 weapon or implment (still +2 prof)
attack bonus +9 Vs AC (19-21) or +7 Vs Nads (17)

11th level
Increase attack stat at 8th and 11th now you have a 19, have a +3 item
attack bonus +14Vs AC (25-27) or +12 Vs NADs (23)

[sblock=your swordmage]1st level
14 attack stat and a +3 prof weapon(longsword) Vs AC, or a IMp Vs Nads
Monster AC 15 or Nads 13... AC need 10's to hit, Nads 11
Solder (AKA really tough sob) monster 17AC or 13 Nads... the AC now needs a 12...

5th level
increase attack stat at 4th level and have a +2 weapon or implment (still Longsword)
attack bonus +9 Vs AC (19-21) or +7 Vs Nads (17)

11th level
Increase attack stat at 8th and 11th now you have a 17, have a +3 item
attack bonus +14Vs AC (25-27) or +12 Vs NADs (23)[/sblock]





> You don't have to optimise, but a character who is deliberately not only suboptimal but sub-balance is adding to the DM's encounter budget without doing a full character's worth of work for that XP,




look at my sblock... he is pulling his own wait... still having BETTER then 50/50 at 1st level...



> the default assumption is that everyone will be building at least to balance, i.e. "pulling their weight". Moreover, a character like this will be easily outshone by the others, who will be tearing through enemies that this character struggles to hit.



not by my math... unless of cource there is some error I made... please if you do say I did show your work...



> You're using the mechanics of D&D, which carries certain basic assumptions with it, for instance, that the characters will have a minimum level of competence.



 witch my math shows he is at the minimum level (maybe even above it I still have not seen the full character)


by the way here is another suggestion to go with my luck blade idea from above....


			
				Arcane power said:
			
		

> DRACONIC SPELLCASTER
> Prerequisite: Dragonborn, any arcane class
> Benefit: You gain a +1 feat bonus to attack rolls when you use an arcane power that deals the same damage type as your breath weapon. The bonus
> increases to +2 at 15th level and to +3 at 25th level.




a Dragonborn with a fire breathweapon and alot of fire attacks with a 14 main stat can be ABOVE average on his hit rate... heck it stacks with expertise (an un named bonus) allowing it to be even MORE accurate...


----------



## Mark Chance (Jan 26, 2010)

GMforPowergamers said:


> 16 attack stat and a +2 prof weapon Vs AC, or a IMp Vs Nads
> Monster AC 15 or Nads 13... both need 10's to hit
> Solder (AKA really tough sob) monster 17AC or 13 Nads... the weapon weilder now needs a 12...




If 4E involves attacking nads, maybe it is a game system I'd enjoy.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 26, 2010)

Mark Chance said:


> If 4E involves attacking nads, maybe it is a game system I'd enjoy.




Non Ac Defences or NADs for short... just remeber fighters are honnrable and almost never hit you in your NADs, rouges can be sneakey and try to stab you in your NADs, BUT wizards always go fro the NADs


----------



## Squizzle (Jan 26, 2010)

Thanks to GMforPowergamers for rightfully pointing out my error. 16 is a +3, not a +2, and so it would require a 10 to hit.


----------



## TerraDave (Jan 26, 2010)

_If you posted this in the rules forum...you be getting either "tell him" or "tell him NOW"._

DMing new and casual gamers over the years, I have seen this fairly often: player makes a weak charecter, sometimes for a "good reason", finds he likes the charecter less and less--or worse feels that the game is somehow unfair--but doesn't really know why. This may or may not lead to a change in charecter (which may also be weak) or even some sort of mini-crisis. 

In this case, if the charecter has int based powers, he will hit with and use them less, and it will be a little less fun to play. I find it extremely unlikely that this was part of some clever plan to enhance role-playing. There is a whole group of laid-back gamers out there who are not like ENWorld posters. They don't really think about the game that much, but they still like it. And if he is new, he have made a mistake, it does happen.  

The DM probably should have stepped in at chargen and said something. As noted above, you might want to go back to the DM and mention the issue.


----------



## Janx (Jan 26, 2010)

Kzach said:


> It's not his choice at all. It's a group game. Being the lone-wolf chaotic neutral my way or the highway "I'M TEH ROLE PLAYA!!!!!11!" type is disruptive and annoying.
> 
> Which as was shown in another thread is fine if that's what the group dynamic is all about, but most people think such people are just selfish dicks.




What you just said here sounds very extremist and unreasonable to me.

Certainly, it is a group game, and players should work together and make PCs that work together.  Nor should a player build a wizard that can't cast spells or other silliness.

That's a far cry from implying the player has no right to decide on the kind of character he wants to build, or the design choices to make.

Putting a 14 in a prime stat is NOT that extreme.  We don't know what stats he had to work with, or what he did put his best stat in and all the other things he did to maximize THAT investment.  Nor do you, I suspect.

I don't do point buy, and I wouldn't in 4e either.  4d6 keep the best 3 yields 12.5 on average.  It is mighty presumtious to assume that a PC must have an 18 stat when that is a reasonably uncommon result to roll.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 26, 2010)

TerraDave said:


> In this case, if the charecter has int based powers, he will hit with and use them less, and it will be a little less fun to play.





wait needing a 10 against an equal level monster at level 1 is less fun then... what again...

     did you even read that with a longsword he is still on par to hit. 





> The DM probably should have stepped in at chargen and said something. As noted above, you might want to go back to the DM and mention the issue.



 Inless the DM unlike anyone here (myself, and the op included) knows more about what is going on...

      again a swordmage with a 14 Int and a longsword has a +5 to hit Vs AC... (the pregen fighter that comes with it has a +6 to hit with fighter weapon talent added in...so it can't be that bad right?)

lets look through keep on the shadowfell (I both played in and ran in it so I know it well)

encounter 1 8 kobolds... 2 with 18 ACs (he needs 13s to hit) 5 with 15 ACs (he needs 10's to hit) and 3 with 13 ACs (he needs 8's to hit)

encounter 2 5 kobolds 4 with 18 ACs (13;s again) 1 with a 17 AC (he needs a 12), and 1 with a 15 (10)

lets do some quick avrages... that is 6 18's, 1 17, 6 15's, and 3 13's...

for an avrage AC of 15.8... we will round that up to 16, or needing an 11 aka 50/50 shot of hitting on avrage...
I will sblock the next 2 encounters in the book incase you don't want to be spoiled....
[sblock=on the off chance you don't know what is comeing]
outside the kobold layer are 13 kobolds... 11 with 15 AC, 1 with an 18, 1 with a 13 AC...

Inside we have 2 waves of monsters
          wave 1  13 AC 15 Kobolds...

Wave 2 3 18;s (One is the BBEG called Irontooth) and 1 17 AC...
[/sblock]

what does that bring us too... well  30 AC 15's, 10 AC 18's, 4 AC 13's, and 2 AC 17's
what does that do to our average it lowers it slightly, but not enough to really matter... 15.56... so still round up to 16, witch means hit on 11, witch is roughly 50/50

But there is still the other road...

[sblock=what my PCs did (realspoilers you have been wanred)]
My PCs hit the buaral ground before the kobolds... so lets look at that (I am useing the orginal I belive there is a modfied one)

8 monsters... 4 with AC 14, 3 with AC 15, 1 with AC 16
[/sblock]

counting all of that as level 1 with no magic item drops at all it comes out to 
*4*  AC 13
*4*  AC 14
*33* AC 15
*1*  AC 16
*2*  AC 17
*10* AC 18

54 monsters with an average AC of 15.666 or round up to 16. He has a +5 attack bonus with a 14 Int and a non magic longsword... witch hits roughly 50% of the time...

so is anyone going to try to argue when I show my math...


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 26, 2010)

I forgot one other thing...

[sblock=story spoiler] there is even a named magic item in the mod... and it is a longsword that your swordmage could pick up at 2nd level easy...and nothing has higher then the 18 AC before there infact alot more lower AC zombies show up.

I now want to play a 14 INt Swordmage up to the SIr Kegan encounter just to see what it would be like...[/sblock]


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jan 26, 2010)

GMforPowergamers said:


> counting all of that as level 1 with no magic item drops at all it comes out to
> *4*  AC 13
> *4*  AC 14
> *33* AC 15
> ...




I'm not going to argue, just run the average total hits:

Pregen Fighter with +6 atk bonus = 31.25 average hits
Example Swordmage with +5 atk bonus = 28.55 average hits

Edit: Sorry, that number is based on # of monsters times the hit % (or number of average hit if each PC swung at each creature once).


----------



## Janx (Jan 26, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I'm not going to argue, just run the average total hits:
> 
> Pregen Fighter with +6 atk bonus = 31.25 average hits
> Example Swordmage with +5 atk bonus = 28.55 average hits
> ...




for a guy who's basically a multi-class fighter-mage, that looks reasonable.

Folks are quibbling over a 5% (+1) difference between PC builds.  Seriously!  You should have more variance than that between EACH fighter type in the party.  Otherwise, they should have all just made copies of the same character sheet.


----------



## ShadowDenizen (Jan 26, 2010)

> I think the first step if for you to realize that his character doesn't suck. Nor do his choices in building the character. You simply have a different idea about optimization than he does. It's entirely possible he knows what he's doing! I would offer aid in case he doesn't know what he's doing, but you need to understand that not everyone is interested in having highly efficient and laser-focused characters.




This.



> Those things are entirely dependent on what the DM's decisions are when he sits down to design the encounters in question.




And this.

Not only that, but IME, People oftentimes tend to get REALLY uptite when confronted with issues about their character, no matter HOW tactfully you phrase things.  This can even happen with friends, let alone with people you play online with!

Not intending to be rude here to the OP who brought up an interesting topic, but, IMO, I don't see any reason for another player to be saying anything regarding stat/feat/skill assignments. Everyone has different ideas of what constitutes a "Good" and "Fun" character. 

Rather, IF it becomes an issue in-game, then the DM should either take steps to mitigate that failing by adjusting encoutners so everyone has fun, or, if needed, talk to the player, and see what conclusion the two can reach together to ensure a good outcome.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 26, 2010)

GMforPowergamers said:


> can someone please tell me where this idea that an 18=typical comes from? It isn't in any book, and it isn't what I have seen in LFR, heck bith lable 16 as avrage and typical...




4e Default Array highest stat is 16, +2 for racial mod = 18.

BTW when I use the charbuilder and click 'auto build' it usually gives me a 20 in my highest stat.  Which I find works out very nicely in play.  For most classes in 4e, spreading the points around is not worth it IME.

I no longer think of the stats as describing my PC, 1e-3e style.  They're just there to modify die rolls.  So a female Fighter can be STR 20 and still look like Angelina Jolie, the 20 just means she's very good at strength-related tasks like hacking people into small pieces.


----------



## Kzach (Jan 26, 2010)

S'mon said:


> I no longer think of the stats as describing my PC, 1e-3e style.  They're just there to modify die rolls.  So a female Fighter can be STR 20 and still look like Angelina Jolie, the 20 just means she's very good at strength-related tasks like hacking people into small pieces.




This, times infinity plus one, no returns.


----------



## Hellzon (Jan 26, 2010)

Janx said:


> Seriously!  You should have more variance than that between EACH fighter type in the party.




Why?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 26, 2010)

S'mon said:


> 4e Default Array highest stat is 16, +2 for racial mod = 18.




so an elvin swordmage has a 16 int at best
a dwarven fighter has a 16 str at best
a hafling wizard has a 16 Int at best
a half elf rouge has a 16 Dex at best

how do any of them get 18's... inless you are saying that each race can ONLY be less then 1/3 of the classes????

HECK eladrin warlord doesn't get a +2 str but they are great...


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 26, 2010)

S'mon said:


> I no longer think of the stats as describing my PC, 1e-3e style.  They're just there to modify die rolls.  So a female Fighter can be STR 20 and still look like Angelina Jolie, the 20 just means she's very good at strength-related tasks like hacking people into small pieces.






Kzach said:


> This, times infinity plus one, no returns.



by the way I felt this way back in 2e...all the way up. My str 9 half orc was built like lue ferigno... my str 17 elf was built like a speed skater... my femal bladesinger (and one of my all time fav characters) was a half elf fighter/wizard and she had 17 str, (can't remember dex) and a 17 Con to go with her 14 cha... and she was only 5'5 145lbs if I remember





Hellzon said:


> Why?




becuse if all fighters have X Y and Z then how many fighters can you play before they all look alike? I like that I have played 4 or 5 warlords and none of them share weapons, or feats really... and they all kicked butt.


----------



## Hellzon (Jan 26, 2010)

GMforPowergamers said:


> becuse if all fighters have X Y and Z then how many fighters can you play before they all look alike? I like that I have played 4 or 5 warlords and none of them share weapons, or feats really... and they all kicked butt.




My point exactly. Your warlords had different weapons, feats, probably powers, even different personalities. Who cares if they had a similar attack bonus (which they probably did, since prime stat, weapon and possibly X Expertise are the only things that change it between equal-leveled characters of the same class)?


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 26, 2010)

Kzach said:


> Your turning what I said into a badwrongfun statement, which it isn't at all.
> 
> I consider creating an effective character a social obligation when you're in a group who all creates effective characters.




Feel free to bring this point up again when we are discussing an Int 10 swordmage. At 14 versus 18, I don't even consider this a relevant consideration.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 26, 2010)

Hellzon said:


> My point exactly. Your warlords had different weapons, feats, probably powers, even different personalities. Who cares if they had a similar attack bonus (which they probably did, since prime stat, weapon and possibly X Expertise are the only things that change it between equal-leveled characters of the same class)?




they were all in the same ball park...(say + or - 2 at any given moment for a 5 pt spread) but they were far from the same...


let me take an example from play... level 3 PCs

Golath Fighter with weapon talent and an 18 str +1 Greatsword
Shifter Paliden (Cleric) with 16 Str, Wis, and Cha War Axe

Elvin Avenger with 20 wis and expertise +2 Full Blade
Reverant rouge with 16 dex +1 Dagger

Dwarf wizard with 16 INt +1 staff (melee training)

lets look at there attacks here 
Fighter great word + 10 Vs AC
Paliden war axe +6 Vs Ac
Avenger +12 (2d20 roll) Vs AC
Rogue +9 Vs AC or NADs
Wizard +5 Vs NADs or +7 Vs AC

they run the gambit from +12 to +6 on there attacks Vs AC... heck the dwarf wizard has +1 over the paliden to hit (Not for long though, the current dungeon has an artafact waraxe we are looking for) by the way I am the wizard...


----------



## Starfox (Jan 27, 2010)

I am in the 14 is to low camp. Not only is this Swordmage not good at hitting and inflicting damage, but he also has a poor AC, which makes him a worse defender overall. A fighter can get away with a 14 Strength; a 14 Int Swordmage is gimped.  Having higher secondary stats does not make up for it; even with a 14 Charisma, the Swordmage is unlikely to have Charisma skills high enough to be useful. It might even be a trap, making him THINK he can contribute to a social skill challenge where his efforts can actually make the task much more likely to fail. A bad rule and another reason to over-specialize.

My advice to the OP is to point out the harsh realities of the game, then wait to be asked for build advice.  

I don't really see this as a flaw with the player, but with the system. People have been asking where it says you should start with an 18 in a prime ability. Well, it doesn't, but it really should. Because that really is how the game is designed. There is way too much emphasis on the prime ability scores in 4E.



S'mon said:


> I no longer think of the stats as describing my PC, 1e-3e style.  They're just there to modify die rolls.  So a female Fighter can be STR 20 and still look like Angelina Jolie, the 20 just means she's very good at strength-related tasks like hacking people into small pieces.




Sad but true. This is starting to turn me off from 4E. 



Tuft said:


> ...optimization has not even the proverbial rat's behind to do with group survival, challenge or task fullfillment. Those things are entirely dependent on what the DM's decisions are when he sits down to design the encounters in question.




While this is true, a wide variation in PC abilities makes the DM's task of balancing that much harder. A trial fun for an optimized character is not fun for a suboptimal one and vice versa. This is why a game should not offer as much power variance as 4E does, and why it is a good idea to offer advice that makes all characters approximately as able to contribute.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 27, 2010)

Kzach said:


> There's nothing 'highly efficient' about putting an 18 in a class primary stat. Highly efficient would be putting a 20 in that stat and getting Weapon/Implement Expertise at 1st-level.
> 
> An 18 in a primary stat isn't 'laser-focused', it's simply what the system is balanced around and although there are rare instances where a 16 is used in a prime stat for some hybrid or half-elf or weird charop builds that only start to shine at 20th-level and suck until then, putting a 14 in a prime stat is just daft.
> 
> I'll concede that there are some groups who don't care if they suck. But as we saw in a previous similar thread, most people don't want their characters to die constantly and never succeed in their missions. That requires having a reasonable character, not a deliberately gimped bunch of non-adventurers who fail at everything.





I have seen this attitude before. We were discussing talent points in Goldshire.....................



Kzach said:


> 4e is on a bell-curve. 18 seems to be about where it's balanced around a 50/50 chance to hit every time you attack. For every +1 higher or lower, the chance to hit/miss increases exponentially instead of a flat 5% per plus on a d20.
> 
> Consider in a 10 round fight that a character with a primary stat of 18 will hit roughly around 5 times out of 10 attacks. Just reducing this to a 17, will change this to about 3 times out of 10 attacks. At 14, he'll hit maybe once a combat*.




This is why 4E needed so much modification to be enjoyable. Screw being on a damn treadmill where your choices are dictated to you if you want to keep up with or exceed your meager 50% hit rate. By 10th level or so if I am still only succeeding 50% of the time how in the hell can I claim that I have gained ANY experience whatsoever since level 1. 



Kzach said:


> So now you have a character that is nothing more than a bag of hit points. He contributes nothing else to the group. Combats will now take 2-4 extra rounds to complete. And as the defender of the group, he doesn't fulfil his role, so someone else has to take up his slack.




More drivel. Lrn 2 tank n00b, etc. Yawn.



Kzach said:


> And given his low prime stat, I doubt his skills are anything to talk about either, so he's also contributing failure to skill challenges.




Oh my he forgot to bring the biggest hammer to the whack a mole skill slap fight. Perhaps he was too busy actually playing his character and thinking of solutions to problems that DIDN'T involve finding a way use his two biggest numbers regardless or how little sense it would make.




Kzach said:


> Now sure, some people might think that's fun, but I doubt many people see him as anything but a liability that detracts from the overall enjoyment of the game for everyone at the table.




So I guess you would just boot him and start scanning the LFM channel?


----------



## Janx (Jan 27, 2010)

Hellzon said:


> Why?




because not everybody gets to roll an 18, and not every puts the 18 in the same stat, even on the same class.

if 4e encourages the kind of play where everybody has the same numbers to work with, that's not the way I roll.  pun intended.


----------



## rjdafoe (Jan 27, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> So I guess you would just boot him and start scanning the LFM channel?




That is great.  The funny thing about all the comments is that IMO these all came from the MMO crowd.  It may be only me and the people I hung around, but no one talked like that before EQ.

It is the worst thing to bleed over into RPGs in general, IMO.


----------



## Corinth (Jan 27, 2010)

You should tell the guy that he's doing it wrong and insist upon making it right.  Your guy is putting his life in this other guy's hands, and that imposes the obligation to do all that he can to make his guy the best possible at his job.  The team trumps the individuals that comprise it, as it does in any other team sport or similar group-focused pursuit, and if that guy won't pull his weight either bench his guy or use him as cannon fodder until that guy gets it.


----------



## Gimby (Jan 27, 2010)

Well, I'll agree that 14 is a little low, but its hardly game breaking.  Given that they seem to have a respectable melee basic attack and the swordmage mark isn't dependant on a hit to apply, they will be perfectly capable of performing the job of a defender.  Now, clearly they could probably be doing it *better*, but the encounter design guidelines don't seem to be demanding a perfectly optimised party.  The player's own tactical ability will play more into it than an extra +1 to hit, particularly if they are using the Swordmage's wide range of bursts and blasts or +3 prof weapons.

The real question is whether or not the player is enjoying the game.  If they are finding themselves frustrated with missing a lot (and honestly, they might not have noticed it) then offer to help them out.  If they are happy with how things are going, then no problem.  As already seen, if the player has enough tactical awareness then they'll be able to fufill the design goal of the class fine.  

If anything, I think your goal should be to pull them more into the game as it sounds like they aren't really engaged.  Being open and engaging them in play may help more than worrying about their build, and may help you finding out whether or not they are enjoying the game.


----------



## Vartan (Jan 27, 2010)

Not to be rude, but why don't you just ask the dude about his character? His build might take multiple levels to develop, he might have tricks up his sleeve, he might have really wanted to test a Dragonborn Swordmage and made choices to compensate for their lack of an INT bonus. Maybe he has a story-oriented concept for his Dragonborn Swordmage, or just thought it would be cool to play a brick-house STRong dragonman who defends his allies by breathing [element x] and using similar class powers. Instead of telling him that his character sucks (or asking him why he made a sucky character) ask him what he's thinking. You might learn something from him, and if nothing else you'll make a friend at the table. "So what's your approach to this guy? I've spiked INT on all of my Swordmage builds, but that would be hard with a Dragonborn."

The game is about more than creating the most uniformly efficient 4 - 6 man killing team. Yes, D&D is a group game, but that doesn't mean everyone who bellies up to the table is obligated to submit their character generation choices to the scrutiny of the other players. *Each player has one character whom they design and control, and that's it*: how would you like it if another player confronted you or complained to the DM because you chose one feat over another, or because you didn't have the "right" at-will? Even "optimal" characters are the result of choices, and different players make different choices (as they should).

This is a teachable moment: being part of an RPG group can help you develop people skills that will serve you well in all walks of life. Not to name names but some of the posters in this thread come off as being ugly and inflammatory. That isn't something one usually sees at ENWorld (I'm surprised that one of the mods hasn't lit this thread up) and it isn't an approach I would endorse for offline discussion.


----------



## Vartan (Jan 27, 2010)

Corinth said:


> You should tell the guy that he's doing it wrong and insist upon making it right.  Your guy is putting his life in this other guy's hands, and that imposes the obligation to do all that he can to make his guy the best possible at his job.  The team trumps the individuals that comprise it, as it does in any other team sport or similar group-focused pursuit, and if that guy won't pull his weight either bench his guy or use him as cannon fodder until that guy gets it.




1. Every good Defender longs to be known as cannon-fodder. There are intricacies to the role, but I've never met a good Defender whose layer wouldn't jump at the chance to be the target of every enemy resource for the duration of combat.

2. IMO the interests of the D&D team don't trump the individuals who comprise it. If a player character is disruptive to the game (as opposed to merely lacking in some areas of refinement) then they are denying the other players the opportunity to have fun, and should be dealt with; if a PC just doesn't fit the idea of what other players think is optimal then they should be left to their own devices. 

I could wax poli-sci on this topic, but my final thought is that the D&D table is large enough for multiple types of fun and multiple character choices. This isn't a team sport where there is one clear objective (to outscore another team) or a real-life military situation where lives will be lost unless the will of the one is subjugated to the needs of the many. If this were like a real-life sport then the DM would automatically be cast as "the opposing team." This has been recognized as bad form since at least 1990 and it sells short the aspects of tabletop RPGs which set them apart from their digital descendants.


----------



## outsider (Jan 27, 2010)

The disconnect some people are having about why a 16 is typically considered good but this 14 int is considered to be pretty bad by optimizers is because of the nature of the Int attribute(as well as the Dex attribute) in 4e.  Int(and Dex) is so good that if you attack with it, you should probably consider putting a 20 in it.

Most powergamers will turn a blind eye to a -1 difference, and will bite their tongue about a -2 difference.  A -3 difference though is pretty substantial, and when you're talking about Int, that's -3  to hit, -3 to damage, -3 to AC, and -3 to reflex compared to an optimized character.  Since we are talking about an Assault Swordmage here, odds are all he's getting in return for that is +3 to his fort defence and a free feat(as he wouldn't pick up Intelligent Blademaster).  The trade is terrible, and the character is far weaker than it should be.

As for those insinuating that this is a MMO mindset, the first time I was in a group that got rid of a character because it was weak/useless was 14 years ago, 5 years before the release of Everquest, the first serious raiding mmo.  Powergamers have always existed, it's just considered to be less of a sin these days.


----------



## Gimby (Jan 27, 2010)

outsider said:


> As for those insinuating that this is a MMO mindset, the first time I was in a group that got rid of a character because it was weak/useless was 14 years ago, 5 years before the release of Everquest, the first serious raiding mmo.  Powergamers have always existed, it's just considered to be less of a sin these days.




Also this.  I've seen this kind of thing for about as long as I've been online.  

Even then, the character isn't (or shouldn't be) that ineffective.  We're not talking a Bard1/Monk1/Rogue1/Hexblade1/Soulknife1/Truenamer1 in a party of proto-CoDzillas here.


----------



## Kinneus (Jan 27, 2010)

To provide more information: we used the standard point buy, as per the Character Builder, so 'bad rolls' can't be blamed for his stats. Also, the reason I see the issue as pressing is because stats are the one thing you can't 'fix' in 4e along the way. I fear that the longer it goes unsaid, the less likely the DM will be willing to permit changes, when and if the player decides he wants to shift things around. Since the player of the swordmage is obviously new, I'm hoping he'll be lenient. He seems like a reasonable DM.

I've decided on a course of action. When we played the other night, a couple of the players didn't have macros set up for their characters, the swordmage included. I think I'll send out a mass email to all the players, offering to make macros for any player who needs help. This will give me a pretext to view the swordmage's character sheet, and a reason to engage him in polite, non-judgemental conversation about his build.

Please see my previous post in this thread for more information; people are re-hashing some points I've already clarified. Although, I recognize that this thread has grown beyond me and my group, here. I seem to have hit on a nerve, which I fully understand. As I said before, I've been chased away from games due to other players "helpful hints," so I'm looking to be as tactful as possible.

With that said, I think I'll just back away from this thread slowly.


----------



## outsider (Jan 27, 2010)

Kinneus said:


> As I said before, I've been chased away from games due to other players "helpful hints," so I'm looking to be as tactful as possible.




Yeah, it can be a touchy subject.  Sometimes powergamers can be rude and/or pushy when bringing it up.  On the other hand, some players tend to put "mechanics" and "role playing" on opposite ends of an axis, and unjustifiably flip out and start screaming "ROLLPLAY!" if you suggest a way for their character to become a bit more powerful.  The best ways to approach it is to make a blanket offer to the group for tips and hope the player in question takes you up on it, or discuss character building techniques with one of the other powergamers in the group and try to bring the player into the conversation somehow.  Just don't make them feel targetted, or they'll get defensive.


----------



## FireLance (Jan 27, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> This is why 4E needed so much modification to be enjoyable. Screw being on a damn treadmill where your choices are dictated to you if you want to keep up with or exceed your meager 50% hit rate. By 10th level or so if I am still only succeeding 50% of the time how in the hell can I claim that I have gained ANY experience whatsoever since level 1.



Um, because you're dealing with tougher challenges now? I mean, if you're playing in a sandbox game, or if you can get your DM to agree, you can always go look for level 1 monsters to fight when you're 10th level and be guaranteed to hit with almost every attack. But is that how you really want to spend your game time?


----------



## Gimby (Jan 27, 2010)

Kinneus said:


> To provide more information: we used the standard point buy, as per the Character Builder, so 'bad rolls' can't be blamed for his stats. Also, the reason I see the issue as pressing is because stats are the one thing you can't 'fix' in 4e along the way. I fear that the longer it goes unsaid, the less likely the DM will be willing to permit changes, when and if the player decides he wants to shift things around. Since the player of the swordmage is obviously new, I'm hoping he'll be lenient. He seems like a reasonable DM.
> 
> I've decided on a course of action. When we played the other night, a couple of the players didn't have macros set up for their characters, the swordmage included. I think I'll send out a mass email to all the players, offering to make macros for any player who needs help. This will give me a pretext to view the swordmage's character sheet, and a reason to engage him in polite, non-judgemental conversation about his build.
> 
> ...




Righto, sounds like you've got a good handle on how to deal with it, good luck!


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 27, 2010)

FireLance said:


> Um, because you're dealing with tougher challenges now? I mean, if you're playing in a sandbox game, or if you can get your DM to agree, you can always go look for level 1 monsters to fight when you're 10th level and be guaranteed to hit with almost every attack. But is that how you really want to spend your game time?




my middle ground is having more and more of the same monsters show up at diffrent points in the same campaign...

example... trolls are level 9 brutes... throw one at a party of 4th or 5th level PCs, then throw 3-4 against a level 7-8 party... then around level 11 throw like 10 or 11 at the party...

a much better example is mymain NPC/BBEG that is like a level 9 elite controler (leader) who shows up alone at level 4-5, but who flees when he hits bloodied... then he show up again with a few monsters but runs again... when the PCs fight him at level 9 his 'minons' (not mechanic but in game) are higher level then him...


----------



## Mr. Wilson (Jan 27, 2010)

outsider said:


> A -3 difference though is pretty substantial, and when you're talking about Int, that's -3 to hit, -3 to damage, -3 to AC, and -3 to reflex compared to an optimized character. Since we are talking about an Assault Swordmage here, odds are all he's getting in return for that is +3 to his fort defence and a free feat(as he wouldn't pick up Intelligent Blademaster). The trade is terrible, and the character is far weaker than it should be.




This.

I have starter classes* that I start people new to 4E off with, where they can make mistakes and be ok as they learn the system.  Assault Swordmages are about as far away from a starter class as I can imagine.  By placing a 14 in his Int, the character is much weaker in multiple areas important to a defender, especially one already focused more towards the offensive side of the defender role.  

As the player is new, I would talk to him and explain why a 14 is bad for this class.

(Strikers are my favorite starter roles, especially artful dodger rogues who can spam Sly Flourish, rangers from the first PHB, and non-chaos sorcs.)


----------



## N0Man (Jan 27, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> I have seen this attitude before. We were discussing talent points in Goldshire.....................






rjdafoe said:


> That is great. The funny thing about all the comments is that IMO these all came from the MMO crowd. It may be only me and the people I hung around, but no one talked like that before EQ.
> 
> It is the worst thing to bleed over into RPGs in general, IMO.




Honestly guys, is there any reason to start bashing other forms of gamers?  I played AD&D, 2E, 3E, 3.5, 4E, the old silver and gold boxed TSR D&D PC games, UO, EQ, WoW, and tons of other games (RPGs, CRPGs, CCGs, MMOs, board games, etc etc).

In my opinion, taking shots at other editions and games stoops to a similar level of elitism as someone telling another their character sucks and should be optimized more.

For the record, as someone with an active WoW account, I completely think he's fine with a 14.  He might struggle more with ultra-high AC enemies, but luckily there are other people in the party that would likely would have to be relied on to hit it anyway, even if he had another +1 or +2 to hit.

Besides a feat, or a magic item, or good use of tactics and gaining combat advantage often, team synergies, and many other things can easily offset the small difference anyway.

There's no way to win D&D aside from having fun and enjoying the journey.  That can be done with an optimized or unoptimized character.


----------



## blargney the second (Jan 27, 2010)

Wik said:


> Hell, even a "Hey, what's your build plan, so I can sync up with it?" could even work - and if the player doesn't really know, you can start asking other questions.



This is a _fantastic _idea, in my opinion.  It presupposes that he knows what he's doing, and gives him an easy out to admit if he doesn't know a thing.  Win-win!
-blarg

ps - It doesn't seem to be the case here, but bear in mind that there is a certain type of gamer that actually wants their character to suck.  I've run into outliers like that before, and I've concluded that you really just have to let them do their thing.


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl (Jan 27, 2010)

Kzach said:


> It's not his choice at all. It's a group game. Being the lone-wolf chaotic neutral my way or the highway "I'M TEH ROLE PLAYA!!!!!11!" type is disruptive and annoying.
> 
> Which as was shown in another thread is fine if that's what the group dynamic is all about, but most people think such people are just selfish dicks.




It is his choice to make the character as he see's fit, not yours nor anybody elses... its his choice.  You have zero right to tell him that his choice sucks.  Now, after a session or two, and he's not finding his nitch, or he's not doing that well, then the only person you can tell is the DM, and the DM can tell the other player about it and give that player some advice on his character.

You as another player, though, you have no right to blatantly think that about his character.  You play yours, he plays his.  Period, end of discussion.

God its thinking like this and the arrogance that comes along with it with some people that ruin games for others.  

Now if said player comes to you and asks you for advice, you can give him advice and possible suggestions, and then its up to him to take it or not.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 27, 2010)

N0Man said:


> Honestly guys, is there any reason to start bashing other forms of gamers? I played AD&D, 2E, 3E, 3.5, 4E, the old silver and gold boxed TSR D&D PC games, UO, EQ, WoW, and tons of other games (RPGs, CRPGs, CCGs, MMOs, board games, etc etc).
> 
> In my opinion, taking shots at other editions and games stoops to a similar level of elitism as someone telling another their character sucks and should be optimized more.
> 
> For the record, as someone with an active WoW account, I completely think he's fine with a 14. He might struggle more with ultra-high AC enemies, but luckily there are other people in the party that would likely would have to be relied on to hit it anyway, even if he had another +1 or +2 to hit.




I'm not bashing other forms of games. I also play WOW (and really enjoy it) which is why I'm so familiar with this type of thing. I'm bashing the kind of attitude that would give someone the nerve to try and dictate how someone else would create and run thier characters in any game.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 27, 2010)

GMforPowergamers said:


> so an elvin swordmage has a 16 int at best
> a dwarven fighter has a 16 str at best
> a hafling wizard has a 16 Int at best
> a half elf rouge has a 16 Dex at best
> ...




They use the standard point buy system, or the auto-assign-stats feature of the character builder software.  Both can/will give them an 18.  Not as good as the human Fighter's STR 20, but ok.


----------



## Goonalan (Jan 27, 2010)

Every time I read threads like this I start to feel like I'm an idiot and don't know anything about the game, or else I just don't care enough...

I'm a DM, I was a player for five or so years- didn't much care for it, DMing now over 20 years.

I play via Maptools and Skype, see sig for game.

Some of my players have less than optimised characters, we've played through all the H series and are approaching P1. 

I've never really looked at my players character sheets (more or less ever- in 20 years), I play with grown ups- that's their job. 

I've never sat down and worked out how to optimise anything, I've never thought to do so, don't know if my players have...

Have I been doing it wrong all along, allowing my players to under-perform, is there some to be adhered to group instruction I've failed to heed- should I cull the weak in the group.

Pull their weight, a team game- well yes, at times, but try telling Lucan our Rogue who phased into the treasure chamber during the big boss fight and emptied all (and I mean all) of the money into his Bag of Holding, while the remaining five players battled for their lives against hordes of villains and the big bad. The striker spent the remainder of the bloody fracas dozing till it was over.

And yes their were repercussions, but that was roleplay, and some raised voices, but... He was roleplaying, it's a roleplaying game and he was playing entirely within character. Obviously he's only tried it once or twice- in a year and a half of play, for obvious reasons.

I don't want optimised, I want characters that are unforgetable-

The Dwarven Priest of Moradin using a live crocodile as a sort of floating battering ram (after burying his Chainsaw of Moradin in the creatures brain).

The Dwarven Fighter (Int ? Wis ? Ch ? All below 12) Bluffing his way in to see the Duergar Chieftain with tales of the Grimmerzhul sleeping with his sister.

And on it goes.

Some people may have to roll dice and that to get their kicks, and don't get me wrong, it's fun for a while, but you're making a narrative- and the rules are... well, there are no rules (I know about the books I just've not got round to reading them much).

The story is everything, and that's what I do, with a lot of help from my players.

Optimise, you're worrying about nothing- size doesn't matter, it's what you do with it.

To address the OPs point.

Tell the DM if you want, otherwise just get on with it and have fun, you sound like you've got a touch of swordmage-envy; what is a sword-mage anyway? Sorry, as I say, only been playing the game 25+ years.

One of my players didn't like his character- I let him rebuild him (he was a 9th level Rogue, he's now a 9th level Monk) I fixed the narrative of course, just like I did when one of the players discovered he was in fact a killer-robot-dwarf, basically anything goes... It's just a game etc. 

Cheers Paul


----------



## kenmarable (Jan 27, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Feel free to bring this point up again when we are discussing an Int 10 swordmage. At 14 versus 18, I don't even consider this a relevant consideration.



Not to mention it's kinda irrelevant given the fact that the OP originally asked for advice on how to talk to a fellow player but the thread fell into this same rules/game style preference discussion that's been regurgitated probably over a dozen times since 4e was released (and who knows how many times it came up in 3.x days as well).

We really need to sticky an index to these debates that keep reappearing every month or two and save EN World some bandwidth and server space.


----------



## Blackbrrd (Jan 27, 2010)

Let's make some examples of how long a average fight takes with different stats.

AC 16 was calculated as the average AC of mobs in keep on the shadowfell.
I am assuming 25 hp pr monster
I am assuming that one PC has one monster to kill every level N combat.
I am assuming no feats that increase damage/to-hit for any of the characters

14 stat longsword = +5 to hit or 50% hit chance, 1d8+2 damage or 6.5 avg, avg damage per attack = 3.25, average rounds = 25/3.25 = 7.7 rounds

16 stat longsword = +6 to hit or 55% hit chance, 1d8+3 damage or 7.5 avg, avg damage per attack = 4.1, average rounds = 25/4.1 = 6.1 rounds

18 stat longsword = +7 to hit or 60% hit chance, 1d8+4 damage or 8.5 avg, avg damage per attack = 5.1, average rounds = 25/5.1 = 4.9 rounds

20 stat longsword = +8 to hit or 65% hit chance, 1d8+5 damage or 9.5 avg, avg damage per attack = 5.1, average rounds = 25/6.1 = 4.1 rounds

A fight with a 14 stat character lasts more than 50% as long as a fight with a 18 stat character and nearly 100% longer than a fight with a 20 stat character.


----------



## Goonalan (Jan 27, 2010)

Blackbrrd said:


> Let's make some examples of how long a average fight takes with different stats.
> 
> AC 16 was calculated as the average AC of mobs in keep on the shadowfell.
> I am assuming 25 hp pr monster
> ...




Apologies in advance but if anyone tried to show me the above before I had started playing D&D I would have run a mile. I understand that to play the game you need to kill some bad guys but it's a roleplaying game first and foremost, regardless of edition. 

Are you saying that a 14 for prime stat is a bad thing- shouldn't be done, or are you saying... look at the consequences, the fights (subject to the law of averages) are going to take longer, if so- who really cares as long as people are having fun.

I don't want to sound too caustic (if at all), I love the maths but I just don't understand what the problem is.

Is a score of 14 for Int on one PC preventing people from playing a game and having a laugh doing so...

Sorry again, but all this just reads like madness, I don't recognise the game described in some of the posts above, or else barely.

PS My most memorable character (when I was a player) AD&D I think was generated with roll 4d6 take best three and his highest stat was a 15, multi-classed Cleric/Wizard/Rogue- I think. He memorised no offensive spells (ever) and would generally get through things by being much smarter than the average goblin/kobold/bugbear/mind flayer; or else by having a no-necked brainless lug do all his fighting for him. When the no-necks needed someone to charm the pants off the Jarl then I was the go-to guy, same with healing- the price for which was keeping me safe, same for finding the traps etc...

My brother played Boron the Illusionist in the same party- we still laugh and tell tales about him to this day (over twenty years later- we don't remember any of the 'optimised' characters with their 18 Str & 18 Con). Other than a high Int his stats were all below 10 (that's how it was back then with us), and we rolled our HP and 1's counted. Boron was utterly crap, and yet made something like 8th level before the joke wore thin. He famously hid under a cart full of the parties treasure (that's also how we were back then) while a Red Dragon attacked him, just him- the rest of the party were battling the Red Dragons twin elsewhere. Boron saved every time- got out from the incinerated cart, robes on fire- Dragon swoops around for next pass, and flings his dagger- natural 20- roll crit to confirm, natural 20 again- roll on DMs own designed crit table 00- instant death.

Illusionist Level 8, wearing purple robes, loon pants, gold curly-up slippers and armed with a +1 Dagger flings said dagger and slays Red Dragon...

You figure the odds.

That's why I play- not for the one in a million chance but because it's a fantasy game, and your characters can do/try anything. 

My point, and apologies if I'm picking on you- I'm not, the game gets played a thousand different ways by a thousand different people, the result- killing the monsters, solving the puzzle, getting the girl whatever is important, but the journey, the journey is everything.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 27, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I've got a player that acts this rudely towards others' choices. Telling someone that their character sucks is no way to behave.



Ensure that the player makes an informed decision, but don't add a value judgement to it. It's in his interest to make an informed decision. It's fair and correct to offer it to him. Insulting him is not in his interest and not fair. 

Of course, if a problem player stays a problem player - in however we define problem players for our personal games - you can still give him the boot.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jan 27, 2010)

I remember my brothers halfling fighter with 2 daggers doing all the rogue work until he decided to multiclass...

i remember the optimized boe ranger finding an intelligent longsword and going rampage in melee

I remember the cleric writing a prayer to receive spells earlier

I remember my pyromantic tinker gnome going descending into drow filled darkness with a song on his lips

I remember the party fighting a lich and the barbarian drinking his potion of haste, going into rampage and then RUN

I remember the mage doing the killing blow against the evil priest with a crit from his thrown lamp, because he didn´t know what else to do

And I have yet to see a character advancing into his "chosen" prestige class... because a played character evolves so differently than how its planned, that you will most certainly never reach that class...

I believe a 14 in int for a swordmage is no brlliant idea in 4th edtion in general... especially when the DM likes to fight against the players and all other characters are one sided... It is just, that the Int attribute is doing so much for a swordmage
(like int was important for a ADnD wizard)

In a game, where the DM plays with the players, and every player is an individual instead of part of a group, 14 in main stat won´t break the game... really...

You should however consider making his stats fit better by multiclassing into a strength based class


----------



## rjdafoe (Jan 27, 2010)

outsider said:


> As for those insinuating that this is a MMO mindset, the first time I was in a group that got rid of a character because it was weak/useless was 14 years ago, 5 years before the release of Everquest, the first serious raiding mmo. Powergamers have always existed, it's just considered to be less of a sin these days.




I am not ininuating anything. I clearly said IMO.

I also never said Powergamers did not exist. I said that since EQ, it has run rampant through RPGs, and was considerably less so to non-existant for some of us.

Of course there were "better" characters than others.  that has always existed.  But the mindset of the OP was never considered in any of our RPGs ever before that.

Of course, all IME.


----------



## Blackbrrd (Jan 27, 2010)

Goonalan said:


> Apologies in advance but if anyone tried to show me the above before I had started playing D&D I would have run a mile. I understand that to play the game you need to kill some bad guys but it's a roleplaying game first and foremost, regardless of edition.
> 
> Are you saying that a 14 for prime stat is a bad thing- shouldn't be done, or are you saying... look at the consequences, the fights (subject to the law of averages) are going to take longer, if so- who really cares as long as people are having fun.
> 
> ...




No offence taken, I found your post to be most polite. I do think you should take a step back and look at my previous post. I haven't posted a single opinion. I posted information that can be used when comparing characters stat-wise. The reason was to be informative of what the consequences of main stat choices in combat would be.

Personally I feel that you can play whatever character you like. My last 4e character didn't have a stat over 14. (Actually most of my stats where 14.). He was a charismatic knight-priest who was excellent at making others see his side of the story. In other words he had a lot of ranks in diplomacy. If I had a low charisma and no ranks in diplomacy, it would be really hard for me to portray him as a charismatic character, wouldn't it? 

The stats are there to use for adjudicating the game regarding how diplomatic my character actually was. It would be a real bummer to have the DM say: "Nah, the guard isn't swayed by your words and calls for his buddies" all the time because of my low diplomacy-score. Therefore I optimized my diplomacy score to a certain degree.

In the same sense - the Sword mage in question isn't exactly going to be stellar in combat, so if the player thinks he is one and portrays him as a great fighter - well, it won't match the game-reality. The character can be fun to play, but he won't be particularly good at combat. 

One thing you said I don't know where you were going with:


> ...and your characters can do/try anything...



Sure your character can try anything, but actually managing to do it is a completely different matter. If you want your character to be likely at succeed at doing a particular action you should build your character for it. If not you aren't going to accomplish the things you want with your character, or your DM is babying you and making everything easy for you. 



> highest stat was a 15, multi-classed Cleric/Wizard/Rogue



This is what is called a triple-treat character on the char-op boards with nearly max level in both arcane and divine magic. You have so much utility you probably have a solution to ANY problem except if you want to play "fair". Something I don't see a Rogue doing.  . In addition spellcasting isn't tied very hard to your stats and neither is your skills. This combo is probably THE strongest one you can get in AD&D. In my opinion Multi-classing in AD&D was ridiculously powerful and easy to do!


----------



## rjdafoe (Jan 27, 2010)

N0Man said:


> In my opinion, taking shots at other editions and games stoops to a similar level of elitism as someone telling another their character sucks and should be optimized more.




No, I am not bashing anything other than the idea that someone should be telling someone else how to play or make their character, or telling them how to play the game.  The title of the thread bothers me as well.

All I did was compare what has happened with people that I know and how the attitudes changed after getting into MMOs.  For the record, I have played almost every MMO also.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 27, 2010)

RE: MMOs started it.

Actually, I've seen this attitude dating back before there were even computer games.

I've been playing D&D since '77, and even though I love spellcasters, at no point in my gaming history would anyone accuse me of having played an optimized arcanist.

All those *must-have* spells?  You know- like Sleep, Magic Missile, etc.?  I've never played a PC that even has those 2 I just named, and many of the rest of them are absent as well.  

Most people don't notice until they ask me, "Why don't you cast Spell X?" in a given situation.  When I respond that my PC doesn't have it, I get the bulging-eye stare and "Why the hell not?"

The response to _that_ question depends on the PC, but its usually something on the order of "Its not a spell he would learn- it doesn't fit his demeanor."

Usually, that's the end of the discussion.  On occasion, its caused me to have a rift with another gamer serious enough for me not to associated with that person anymore.


----------



## Goonalan (Jan 27, 2010)

Re-read your post, okay- I agree you're not one side of the argument or the other, sorry- probably reacting to previous posts.

Still I think I have a point- I've had Fighters that are not that great at fighting, although in-game they were legends in their own mind, the fact that the other players had to rescue them time and time again is obviously glossed over.

My brother's in a campaign at the moment (based on D&D- the DM re-wrote the 2nd Edition rules) which has been ongoing for, I think, 23 years- one year (one session/month), there was no combat, and the stories he tells- the quick-witted Rapier wielding Fighter breaking into a Nunnery (no quest- just a drunken bet that went wrong and took three months to play out- with much hilarity), the Arch Mage Wizard who counsels Demons etc.

You mentioned your Paladin having high Diplomacy- well, that'd be nice; but without the high Diplomacy would that mean you wouldn't try to talk down the angry guardsman. I mentioned the Dwarven Fighter who talked his way into the Grimmerzhul Fortress on the back of a Diplomacy check (and other skills)- his Diplomacy bonus is probably the lowest in the group. The player however is as sharp as a pin and bright with it- now the Dwarf does some very dumb things (not wise)- flinging himself off a cliff to grab hold of a Gargoyle in an attempt to wrestle the thing to the ground springs to mind. But the player is a mature adult, aware of the consequences of his action- fall to possible death; the Gargoyle had however said something about his mother...

When I said anything goes I mean that any player can try to use any skill, or at least announce- I leap from the cart, onto the roof of the house, then launch myself down into the middle of the Huge Gelatinous Cube... Which has happened, the knowledge that there exists a chance, and that the friendly DM (me) is here to make things work (where possible), makes for a game in which anyone can try anything.

The Rogue is caught in the oubliette (no way out) with a Trog who could kill him easy, he ellects to attempt a slight-of-hand impromptu Magic show in order to distract the Trog until his friends figure out how to get him out.

Our Eladrin Wizard is carrying his dead mothers severed head (inside a water filled crystal ball naturally) at the moment- mid combat he's often to be found blasting away with his spells and locked in "please mother not now" argument about the 'nice Mr Lucan (our bastard Thief) always makes an effort to look smart, and why doesn't he get a proper job."

I didn't start with this style of play, one of my previous story hours, The Lost Boys in the Sunless Citadel, http://www.enworld.org/forum/story-hour/161872-story-hours-index-authors-add-your-own-5.html involved 4 players aged 9-12. Believe me that was enlightening, they'd never played D&D or any RPG game before. Their were no rules, or at least limitations for them, and until the players fell out (over something other than D&D) they tried everything.

The Paladin went scouting, or tried checking for traps. The Cleric picking locks- and failing, and never tiring of trying. The Wizard wanting more than anything to own a Skeleton and make it his friend, and on... Read the story hour if you like- they were great roleplayers.

The liberating thing is if you think of it, and it's not impossible, merely improbable, then why not try. If my players just did what they're good at every week then I'd have two Fighters, a Cleric, a Wizard etc. Instead I am blessed with an angry Dwarf cursed by Moradin (he never turns undead, or succeeds at a Religion check- and of course they're his prime stats with bonuses) so instead curses his God back and does it the hard, or sometimes (although not often), the clever way. 

Another Dwarf that may of may not be a Dwarforged (a type of Dwarf-Robot cyborg- think of the Cylons) that is constantly talking himself into nasty situations that either work out wonderfully or else result in mayhem (volume 11)- who wants, get this- more than anything, to open a pub and a Post Office- he's already converted several Bloodreaver Hobgoblins to being Post Men (they held out for caps with badges on them- some tough negotiating), has employed a Shadar-kai Witch to make cookies and is most proud of his Ever-Full Boot of Stout. I could go on...

So sorry again, but my point was this, the Int 14 Sword-Mage may decide that he wants to change, and maybe have a chat with his friendly DM, that's his play. And the OP can say something if he wants to, once again, his play. But nothing 'sucks' here, nothing is broken- the other players, unless they're really not happy, should do their best to get on board with the Int 14 guy- his way of playing the game may be at least as much fun. If the game is all fighting then maybe in the long run he'll suffer, but that's the learning curve, and for many people failing only ensures that the next time they do it right. Otherwise he could have other strengths that are just as valuable to the party.

In the examples above I talked about our Dwarven Priest of Moradin- Farkill, in one and a half years of gaming I have to say he is perhaps the most unlucky die-roller I have ever seen. Worse still he often starts each Religion check, Holy/Undead style attack with "I call upon Moradin to...", and when he does he misses, and fails, and fumbles, and misses, and misses, and misses some more- some sessions it's embarrassing. Four hours and still counting since Farkill hit something, or indeed succeeded at an important check... He's not optimised- none of the characters are.

What would you do?

The PCs were on a fortress situated in the underdark on a plateau, actually the sheered off stump of a stalagmite, straight down a thousand feet from the fortress- one bridge in, one bridge out.

Being chased by 30 (yep) Gnolls, a Large Shadow Dragon and later a bunch of Demons- effectively five or so encounters in a row with no (or perhaps one) short rest allowed in the series of encounters.

Farkill smashes his hammer into the floor of the fortress, screams and curses at Moradin (blue air) in an attempt to start a crack that will prevent the multitude of bad guys getting at them; and because for all the killing the PCs are not getting away and even more Gnolls are turning up.

Then the natural 20.

BOOM

Moradin speaks, just short of one-half of the fortress slowly unpeels, the stalagmite is split cleanly in two, millions of tons of rock just slips down into the inky blackness, along with 50 or so Gnolls still aboard.

It took a good five minutes for the players to stop screaming and hollering on Skype, 'yeah baby' in a Serbian accent at volume 11 is something I'm going to remember for the rest of my days.

Impossible is not trying. 

When you're sick of failing your religion check instead announce you are going to attempt to open up a twenty foot crevasse with your hammer- that'll make Moradin sit up and take notice, a little ambition.

Perhaps I'm just playing an out there version of the game that's less reliant on the rules, and more reliant on a shared narrative that makes everyone happy (and pay attention). Players get to make Death Saves, I don't hold back when it goes wrong- but they stick together like glue, and find a way by hook or by crook.

It's a great game D&D, the stats (and your PCs skills etc.) are just a small part of it, particularly when you're all in it together and nobody wants you to fail, just to have fun.

Oh and Farkill believes himself to be Blessed by Moradin these days, he still misses or fails quite a bit, but not as often as some of the other PCs, and not nearly as much as he did previously- funny that. He keeps yelling for Moradin before he announces his latest attempt to... whatever it is, however.

And that makes Moradin happy.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jan 27, 2010)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Vyvyan Basterd said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me in your first paragraph. I've learned to deal with his rudeness over the years. I try to make sure he is as informed as I can witout ruining the game (full disclosure if player to player talk, more limited if DM to player talk). I also inform him when he is becoming overly rude. Most insults hurled at him are the jabs that two long-time friends take at each other meant in the spirit of fun or moments of weakness when his rudeness has hit a peak.

There have been times when I wonder why I put up with him at my table. But friendship goes deeper than any ridiculous argument over what ultimately amounts to a silly game. The game is more important to us as a vehicle that allows us to hang out more often.


----------



## Nifft (Jan 27, 2010)

Goonalan said:


> Perhaps I'm just playing an out there version of the game that's less reliant on the rules, and more reliant on a shared narrative that makes everyone happy (and pay attention). Players get to make Death Saves, I don't hold back when it goes wrong- but they stick together like glue, and find a way by hook or by crook.
> 
> It's a great game D&D, the stats (and your PCs skills etc.) are just a small part of it, particularly when you're all in it together and nobody wants you to fail, just to have fun.



 You seem to focus on the free-form roleplaying aspect of D&D -- the part where stats are irrelevant.

That's fine, but it's not the opposite of having a mechanically effective character.

You could suck at both, or you could be good at both.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 27, 2010)

How do you politely say, "You're not having fun?"


----------



## Janx (Jan 27, 2010)

It sounds like 4e has succombed to inflation.  18 minimum stat, to be cool.  Since 18 is the highest a PC can start with (20 with stat bonus), that means every PC is supposed to be swinging an 18"

In all the D&D I ever played, 18 was a somewhat rare phenomnenon.  Not every PC in the party had one.

Thus, when people talk about the 14 stat taking longer, I think they are missing the point.  The 14 was how long it is SUPPOSED to take.  Having an 18 means yer super awesome and thus everything gets done faster.

14 isn't slow and weak.  18 is stupendously fast and strong.

The attituded expressed that all PCs must have their prime stat at the maximum possible for a PC or they suck does not sell the game to me.  I can appreciate that as players, we all want our stats to be high, but that's because we don't actually get to do so, and the game wasn't designed to expect our stats to be at maximum.

If having prime stat be at maximum was a requirement, than they should not only say that in the rulebook, they should hand out the stats they want us to run for each class.  Otherwise, what was the point of rolling, or doing point buy, if you MUST have an 18 in your prime stat.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jan 27, 2010)

I've learned from this thread.

We have a player in our 3.5 Forgotten Realms game that really _wants_ to be an optimizer, but he's so horrible at it that his attempts have the opposite effect.  As of right now, he's ECL 14: avariel (lessened to +1 LA) sorcerer 4 / favored soul 4 / mystic theurge 4 with a celestial bloodline.

Oh my _God_, is his character weak.  And I've made fun of him for it every single session.  Mostly because every single session he finds a new way to suck.

"Hey, Jeff, do you have any advice on what 4th-level spell I should take?"

"I'd suggest that, as a spontaneous caster, you take a spell that fills in a gap in your abilities, that you'll use at least once or twice in every fight, or that you'll use several times a day out of combat."

"Cool, I'll take _divination_.  Never mind that you're a cleric and can get _divination_ whenever you want."

"Okay, Josh, enjoy."

Anyway, I like the player, and my PC gruffly considers his PC to be like a son.  Now I know how it sounds when I criticize his choices for his PC -- though if he's going to ignore me, I do need him to stop asking for advice -- and I'm going to stop doing it.


----------



## malraux (Jan 27, 2010)

I suspect the issue isn't specifically having an 18 in your prime stat, but having your key stat not having your highest value.

That said, yes, there has been stat inflation since the 3d6 days.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 27, 2010)

Janx said:


> 14 isn't slow and weak.  18 is stupendously fast and strong.




Yeah, but look at the low grade human(oid) monsters in the MM:

random page - Hobgoblins:  
Grunt (minion 3) STR 18
Warrior (minion 8) STR 19
Archer (Artillery 3) DEX 19
Soldier (Soldier 3) STR 19

Or the humans:
Rabble (minion 2) STR 14
Lackey (minion 7) STR 16
Bandit (Skirmisher 2) DEX 17
Guard (Soldier 3) STR 16 CON 15
Berserker (Brute 4) STR 17 CON 16
Mage (Artillery 4) INT 18 WIS 17

In 4e STR 14 is the typical STR of human rabble.  If your Fighter has STR 14, that is *not* impressive.  Hobgoblin Grunts are one of the weakest foes in the game, yet they have STR 18, and so on.  The stat inflation is for everyone, not just PCs.

In fact, I think what WoTC has done is assume a very high baseline so that their number crunching can't be thrown off by outrageous stats.  If they assume you have an 18 Prime, then you having the maximum of 20 won't make a huge difference.


----------



## Janx (Jan 27, 2010)

S'mon said:


> Yeah, but look at the low grade human(oid) monsters in the MM:
> 
> random page - Hobgoblins:
> Grunt (minion 3) STR 18
> ...




well, in that case, 14 sucks


----------



## Nifft (Jan 27, 2010)

Janx said:


> It sounds like 4e has succombed to inflation.  18 minimum stat, to be cool.



 18 isn't the minimum, it's more the *expected*. It's your default setting. If you *don't* want to optimize your character, just put an 18 (post-racial) in your primary attack stat, and the rest is gravy.

If you *do* want to optimize -- and that includes putting a 16 (post-racial) in your primary attack stat, in order to boost some other stat -- then you can go right ahead. Putting a 20 (post-racial) in your primary attack stat is another route, but that's often sub-optimal too, because most PCs need a secondary stat or two.



Janx said:


> The attituded expressed that all PCs must have their prime stat at the maximum possible for a PC or they suck does not sell the game to me.



 4e may not be for you. That's okay. Playing other games remains legal.

4e is a much "tighter" game. The designers assume you'll do the obvious optimization, and in return they have eliminated the less obvious optimizations which broke the game in previous editions. For example, it's no longer possible for a Cleric to be a strictly better Fighter than the Fighter.

It's a trade-off, restricting some choices in favor of balancing all classes against each other. They succeeded admirably, by the way. Fighters and Barbarians and melee-based Clerics are all fun, and nobody gets overshadowed at high level.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 27, 2010)

Nifft said:


> It's a trade-off, restricting some choices in favor of balancing all classes against each other. They succeeded admirably, by the way. Fighters and Barbarians and melee-based Clerics are all fun, and nobody gets overshadowed at high level.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




Unless someone does something completely *insane* like having only a +2 bonus to an attack stat. At that point you not only get overshadowed, but belittled and told that you suck. 

The best part is that you don't have to wait for high levels. You can get heaps of abuse from level one. More fun than one could hope for I suppose.


----------



## Blackbrrd (Jan 27, 2010)

Goonalan said:


> The liberating thing is if you think of it, and it's not impossible, merely improbable, then why not try. If my players just did what they're good at every week then I'd have two Fighters, a Cleric, a Wizard etc. Instead I am blessed with an angry Dwarf cursed by Moradin (he never turns undead, or succeeds at a Religion check- and of course they're his prime stats with bonuses) so instead curses his God back and does it the hard, or sometimes (although not often), the clever way.



Personally I don't quite like it when the options I have left is hoping for a lenient DM. I feel much more in control and in character if I know I can rely on my characters abilities.

That said, I really love it when I have an idea that might be a bit improbably and certainly not what the DM planned, and the DM goes along, sets a reasonable difficulty and we get going*. It's the core of ROLEplaying as opposed to ROLLplaying or computer RPG's.

*I want a real chance of failure - and success. If I am playing to my characters strength I want a higher chance of success.


----------



## Vartan (Jan 27, 2010)

Blackbrrd said:


> Personally I don't quite like it when the options I have left is hoping for a lenient DM. I feel much more in control and in character if I know I can rely on my characters abilities.
> 
> That said, I really love it when I have an idea that might be a bit improbably and certainly not what the DM planned, and the DM goes along, sets a reasonable difficulty and we get going*. It's the core of ROLEplaying as opposed to ROLLplaying or computer RPG's.
> 
> *I want a real chance of failure - and success. If I am playing to my characters strength I want a higher chance of success.




I agree, and that's why I "min/max" when I play and encourage my players to do so when I DM, but I think some of the previous arguments in this thread assume that min/max-ing is an "all or nothing" exercise. 

There is a spectrum of min/max-ing that ranges from "I want my character to be good at what he most often does" to "I want my character to be as good as he can possibly be at what he most often does." If you want to go far along that spectrum then the Character Optimization forums and wiki at WotC's website can obviate the need for most chargen choices: some 4E classes have been "solved," their options have been so thoroughly vetted by the community that you can make a maximally effective (from a mechanical standpoint) character of any level without making too many choices. I prefer to use these resources as "cheat sheets," but I'll put my own spin on the character (even if that involves taking a few "black" powers or feats).

There is also a spectrum of "non-min/max-ing" that ranges from "I don't know how to make my character effective at what he most often does" to "I don't care if my character is especially effective at what he most often does." Everybody will make their share of regrettable choices during chargen, and can learn from them. On the far end of the spectrum, I have a lot of respect for someone who wants to take a crack at playing a fighter with average strength or a wizard with average intelligence: it isn't my cup of tea, but the challenge of role-playing a character who isn't perfect (and has to compensate in other areas to stay alive) has a lot of fun potential for someone who wants to try it. I've DM-ed for a few players like this: they never ruined anyone's fun and their exploits were often memorable because of their statistical "handicap." I don't have the patience for this play style but that doesn't mean it's Badwrongfun.

Lastly, to repeat the refrain of previous posters (including myself), unless you're playing in a way that is disruptive to the game the choices you make for your PC are your's and your's alone. If the game truly hinges on something like minimum attributes then the DM and group should bake that in to their group's "contract" before the first die is even rolled.


----------



## Starfox (Jan 27, 2010)

The problem is that ability scores have very little meaning or relation to anything in 4E. They are functions of class/role and tell you nothing about the character.

I used a Water Archon Waveshaper in my game today. This is a level 16 Controller, an elemental. Archons are the footsoldiers of the primordials in their war against the gods; they have very rudimentary personalities. Guess what; it has excellent mental attributes:

Wis 25 (+15)
Int 15 (+10)
Cha 17 (+11)

As a comparison, the party's lvl 20 rogue has an Int of 9.


----------



## Mika (Jan 27, 2010)

I see a couple of possibilities here.

The obvious one is that this player is coming from 3.5, where a +2 bonus to your primary attack stat is considered just fine -- especially since class choice generally overwhelms stat differences in the long run.  This possibility can be taken care of by ensuring that the player understands just how important the attack bonus stat is in 4E.  If that is the case, it should be dealt with quickly -- ability scores assignment is one of the few initial decisions that cannot be fixed by retraining.

On the other hand, I could see a player who knows exactly what he is doing giving an assault swordmage from a race that has a bonus to strength but none to intelligence a 14 intelligence and a higher strength.  Suppose he is aware of the Intelligent Blademaster feat but has other ideas for his initial feat -- say, multiclassing into a strength based melee class.  His basic function of teleporting to make a basic attack against his marked foe would work just fine, and he can pick some class powers that are still reasonably effective when they miss -- so it is possible (albeit very difficult) to make a combat effective swordmage with that low of an intelligence.  Still, I would not go that way -- my preference in this case has always been to have both strength and intelligence at 16+, with intelligence a point or 2 higher.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jan 28, 2010)

"Your character's ability to <insert good thing here> is great. He'd be even better if his powers worked more often, which you could achieve by moving a couple more points into intelligence."

And leave it at that. Avoid negative language (ie - don't prefix the second sentence with "but", or phrase it as "he'll miss too much unless he does it").

In play, I really doubt you'll notice. 4e has made tactics far more important than stat mods.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 28, 2010)

Janx said:


> If having prime stat be at maximum was a requirement, than they should not only say that in the rulebook, they should hand out the stats they want us to run for each class.  Otherwise, what was the point of rolling, or doing point buy, if you MUST have an 18 in your prime stat.




Middle Earth Role Playing did something along these lines. The stats were sort of-d100 based and you got to take the prime stat for your chosen class and put a 90 in it. So the rules actually recommended you put your *worst* roll in the prime stat knowing it would be replaced by the 90.


----------



## N0Man (Jan 28, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> I'm not bashing other forms of games. I also play WOW (and really enjoy it) which is why I'm so familiar with this type of thing. I'm bashing the kind of attitude that would give someone the nerve to try and dictate how someone else would create and run thier characters in any game.




Ok, fair enough.  Sorry I misinterpreted you there.  It's become so common for some folks to bash MMO players and Wow, and for comparisons to be meant as criticism, that I jumped to the wrong conclusion.

I remember back when 3.0 was new, unfavorable comparisons to Diablo were made, and I even recall a T-Shirt, "Save Gaming, kill a Magic player".

But your point is valid... Though not everyone, there certainly are many WoW players that are pompous jerks who belittle others based on their spec, even over some pretty minor things.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Jan 28, 2010)

After reading this thread, I'm becoming more and more inclined to the idea that 5E should follow M&M 2E and HERO 6E's lead in removing stat modifiers from attack rolls and defenses.


----------



## Starfox (Jan 28, 2010)

Matthew L. Martin said:


> After reading this thread, I'm becoming more and more inclined to the idea that 5E should follow M&M 2E and HERO 6E's lead in removing stat modifiers from attack rolls and defenses.




I agree. Just too much rides on those primary stats.


----------



## Runestar (Jan 28, 2010)

Starfox said:


> I agree. Just too much rides on those primary stats.




What's wrong with that? 4e classes tend to focus on requiring 2 good stats, and you won't get very much out of the other 4 stats either. For most part, you can't really go wrong going 18 in your 2 key stats, then placing all future stat boosts in them.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jan 28, 2010)

When primary stats do everything for you... you really can stop giving bonuses for having them high... You can just put class requirements there and give an appropriate amount of bonus depending on the class...

oh I know, this was ADnD  although i must admit: our fighters always had 18 strength.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 28, 2010)

Matthew L. Martin said:


> After reading this thread, I'm becoming more and more inclined to the idea that 5E should follow M&M 2E and HERO 6E's lead in removing stat modifiers from attack rolls and defenses.



But of course the question might arise - what's the point of having all these stats then, if they never affect anything?

And if they keep affecting things, what happens now? 

Maybe one way to "balance" stats better would be a mix of point buy system and attack/defense system that rewards all combinations of stats, but in different ways.

For example, at the moment, the cost for raising a 16 to an 18 is 7 points. 7 Points could get a 14 and 13 in some other stat. What does this give you? Probably about a +2 to +1 spread over two defenses. Compared to a +1 to attack and defense. 
How do we value attacks vs defenses? I'd say we value it higher than a bonus to a defense. The +1 to attack helps you against _every_ monster you encounter, the +1 or +2 to a defense against _some_ monsters you encounter. So, let's set the multiplier at x3. A +1 bonus to attack is as much worth as a +1 bonus distributed over 3 defenses. So, the 18 is effectively worth as much as a +1 bonus to 4 defenses (since it also imrpoves one defense, not just attack)

So maybe at the moment, the price is simply too low? 
Maybe the sensible cut-off point should be 16?

Of course, it doesn't really change things. Now someone might ask a newbie: "What, your Wizard has a INT of 20? That's wasteful! You'll be hit all the time! What good is your attack bonus if your stunned or dead?"


----------



## avin (Jan 28, 2010)

Tallifer said:


> If a player's character truly sucks in combat and contributes nothing to the survival or success of the party, then perhaps the party should divide loot based on usefulness. Pirate's booty rules. The law of the wolf pack: the bottom wolf gets the scraps. <laugh>




Best roleplaying solution in this thread.

Being him new to D&D I would politely suggest to DM talk to him because, maybe, he's making a character he would hate in a couple of sessions.

Being him a D&D veteran I would wait and see how it unfolds. 14 is perfectly reasonable, while not optimal on 4E.

As for "_min/max or die_" arguments... we often run one shots with players deliberately not taking atributes over 16 or limiting max skills on GURPS for making things funnier or harder.


----------



## avin (Jan 28, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> I have seen this attitude before. We were discussing talent points in Goldshire.....................




_Die Alliance scum!_


----------



## kenmarable (Jan 28, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> oh I know, this was ADnD  although i must admit: our fighters always had 18 strength.



Man, your fighters sucked. 18/00 all the way!


----------



## billd91 (Jan 28, 2010)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> But of course the question might arise - what's the point of having all these stats then, if they never affect anything?
> 
> And if they keep affecting things, what happens now?
> 
> Maybe one way to "balance" stats better would be a mix of point buy system and attack/defense system that rewards all combinations of stats, but in different ways.




This is one area where I think 4e tried to do well but ultimately falls down. Spreading around the offensive stats based on powers (including offensive damage bonuses) is a good idea and making stats interchangeable for defense has some attraction. But by still having other non-skill factors like number of healing surges and initiative be modified by a single, non-interchangeable stat undermines the system. It means that some classes have an easier time dumping 3 stats while others have only 1 or 2.

Ideally, all 6 stats should have significance in the system. Three offensive stats and three defensive might work. 3e's break between Strength and Con seems the best example of this - Physical attacks and Fort defense. Moving all Wisdom based offenses to Charisma would achieve a similar result - Charisma attacks (cleric/druid spells, etc) and Will defense. It's harder to match up Dex and Intelligence in a satisfactory manner, though.

With 3 solid defensive stats that don't double with offense, and one primary offensive stat and a secondary offensive stat, then there's a real trade off that must be made in allocating abilities.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 28, 2010)

avin said:


> _Die Alliance scum!_




Loktar! KEK.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jan 28, 2010)

billd91 said:


> This is one area where I think 4e tried to do well but ultimately falls down. Spreading around the offensive stats based on powers (including offensive damage bonuses) is a good idea and making stats interchangeable for defense has some attraction.



The easier solution is to just remove the stats. It simplifies all the power right-ups. Give classes inherent attack and def bonuses at first level and then create many varied "classes" (or expand the number of subbuilds within each class) that share maybe 30-50% of their powers with a limited number of other classes. 

Then you make a few feats that allow your character to be "Really Strong" or "Really Smart".

According to this thread the skirmish part of 4e would be not be overly affected by such a simplification from the point of view of the optimizers. If everyone should have an 18 or 20, just assume they do. Why clutter the character sheet with the actual numbers?

And for the role-play part? You would no longer have to play up to a high Int or play down to a low Wis. You could just play your character any way your wanted. As long as you were consistent, no one would care what the numbers were.

This iI have to admit. That was the last thing I thought would go wrong when the story described him adding a self-replicating piece of code to the system.

Admittedly, this is not a new idea. There are plenty of existing "binary attribute" RPGs in existence (You have a power or you don't = binary). No reason why D&D can't be one of them someday.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jan 28, 2010)

Back on topic, having seen how this thread has gone I'd like to rephrase my first post into a question:


jmucchiello said:


> You could just not worry about it and let things play out so he can actually LEARN from his supposed "mistake".



Shouldn't the player with the somewhat lacking build learn from his mistake? If you just tell him "You gotta have an 18" what does he learn from that?


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jan 28, 2010)

kenmarable said:


> Man, your fighters sucked. 18/00 all the way!



oh, forgot the zeros ^^


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jan 28, 2010)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> But of course the question might arise - what's the point of having all these stats then, if they never affect anything?
> 
> And if they keep affecting things, what happens now?
> 
> ...



An 18 may not be so costly that its not worth taking...at the moment is is just right...


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jan 28, 2010)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> So maybe at the moment, the price is simply too low?
> Maybe the sensible cut-off point should be 16?
> 
> Of course, it doesn't really change things. Now someone might ask a newbie: "What, your Wizard has a INT of 20? That's wasteful! You'll be hit all the time! What good is your attack bonus if your stunned or dead?"




An 18 may not be so costly that its not worth taking...at the moment is is just right...

the 18/13/13 array is sensible for a race that gets +2 to both 13s if they add to 3 different defenses and the secondary doesn´t play a too high role in the class...


----------



## Janx (Jan 28, 2010)

jmucchiello said:


> Back on topic, having seen how this thread has gone I'd like to rephrase my first post into a question:
> 
> Shouldn't the player with the somewhat lacking build learn from his mistake? If you just tell him "You gotta have an 18" what does he learn from that?




amen.

Some people have done some math, and there is a statistical difference in damage dealt per round and "length" of combat.

But is it noticeable in play?

a PC generally sucks, because when they try to do their "main job" they fail most of the time.  Worse, another PC does their job MUCH better.  Still worse, another PC whose focus isn't the same does that job MUCH better.

I see making a PC as a private matter.  Sure, I might ask for suggestions on "what's better to take"?  But just being told what to do, not the right way to broach the subject.

If nothing else, let the PC do his thing, and when the PLAYER notices that you kick more butt, he'll ask questions about your PC, and notice the differences in choices.


----------



## malraux (Jan 28, 2010)

Janx said:


> amen.
> 
> Some people have done some math, and there is a statistical difference in damage dealt per round and "length" of combat.
> 
> ...




I disagree.  If this were an experienced player trying out a different sort of build, that's one thing.  Someone new to the game is going to have a much harder time groking how the builds affects the character.  I don't see instructions on how to create a character as significantly different than instructions on how to do actions in combat.  If the player were only ever taking a single action on each combat turn, rather than a move, a minor and a standard, would you say that no one should ever explain that you can take all three every turn?  Is that power gaming to take every action on every turn?  I don't see much of a difference between the two.


----------



## Nifft (Jan 28, 2010)

Matthew L. Martin said:


> After reading this thread, I'm becoming more and more inclined to the idea that 5E should follow M&M 2E and HERO 6E's lead in removing stat modifiers from attack rolls and defenses.



 Stats have always been a blunt instrument. 4e did a lot to functionally remove them -- since the viable choices are so limited, and since characters depend on their powers & class features for their distinctiveness rather than their stats -- but I guess it's a bit too much of a sacred cow to kill them explicitly.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Oryan77 (Jan 28, 2010)

> How Can You Politely Say, "Your Character Sucks?"



Hmm, maybe like, "Pardon me good sir, but with all due respect, I do believe that your character does indeed suck. Perhaps a bit of tweaking is in order? Have a jolly fine day my good man. Peace & love, peace & love." 

I'd say that sounds very polite.


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 28, 2010)

Matthew L. Martin said:


> After reading this thread, I'm becoming more and more inclined to the idea that 5E should follow M&M 2E and HERO 6E's lead in removing stat modifiers from attack rolls and defenses.




New for 2014: _Dungeons & Dragons Hero_


----------



## M.L. Martin (Jan 28, 2010)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> But of course the question might arise - what's the point of having all these stats then, if they never affect anything?
> 
> And if they keep affecting things, what happens now?




  The idea wasn't to have them affect _nothing_--there's still damage, healing, skill checks, Initiative (for Dex), hit points (for Con) and other factors. You could even leave them in for defenses if you adjust the math. 

  The problem is rooted, IMO, in the fact that the center of 4E mechanics is the attack roll. It's the roll you make the most, it's a binary roll (with the exception of critical hits) and it's the roll where the player has the most choice of how to do it. That means that anything that affects the attack roll becomes, IMO, disproportionately important to the character, especially if it's not situational, and this emphasis can squeeze out alternatives that may suit a character better. Cf. the Expertise feats.


----------



## Herschel (Jan 28, 2010)

Kinneus said:


> But when the Swordmage told us he had a 14 Intelligence... I got worried. How can you tactfully bring this up? I'd like to offer to help him retool the character.




What flavor is he? If he's Shielding and max boosted Con that makes his mark stronger and he doesn't need to hit to do well, just mark and stay away to make baddies take opportunity attacks and suffer from his mark. Definitely NOT my choice of a fun character, but if you face a lot of solos, etc. then maybe it can work okay.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jan 29, 2010)

malraux said:


> I disagree.  If this were an experienced player trying out a different sort of build, that's one thing.  Someone new to the game is going to have a much harder time groking how the builds affects the character.  I don't see instructions on how to create a character as significantly different than instructions on how to do actions in combat.



I still want to know why he isn't allowed to learn what he has done wrong IN PLAY? Did you come to 4e fully aware of all the proper ways to make a character? Didn't you enjoy learning how to better optimize your character? Why are you denying him the chance to learn too? If he never is shown how a 14 in a prime stat is "too low" how can judge why 18 is correct?

This is not the same as a player who fails to use all his actions in combat. He used all his point buy. You are just saying he used them improperly. If he decides to charge willy-nilly all around combat when playing a build designed to stand still are you allowed to tell him to knock it off?

It is not badwrongfun to play a suboptimal character whether by ignorance or on purpose. If at some point he is dissatified with his character then you can help figure out what went wrong. But if you just tell him up front "you really should do X" you are giving him a fish and not a fishing pole. 

Human beings learn best from their mistakes. It's a racial advantage.


----------



## Kinneus (Jan 29, 2010)

Herschel said:


> What flavor is he? If he's Shielding and max boosted Con that makes his mark stronger and he doesn't need to hit to do well, just mark and stay away to make baddies take opportunity attacks and suffer from his mark. Definitely NOT my choice of a fun character, but if you face a lot of solos, etc. then maybe it can work okay.



He's an assault swordmage, as I've said a few times in this thread before. 18 Str, 16 Con, 14 Int.

It's all a moot point, however. The DM just emailed us all, informing us there would be no more games because his schedule changed unexpectedly. I'll probably never play with these people again.

Not that that'll stop this thread from continuing for several more pages, of course...


----------



## malraux (Jan 29, 2010)

jmucchiello said:


> I still want to know why he isn't allowed to learn what he has done wrong IN PLAY? Did you come to 4e fully aware of all the proper ways to make a character? Didn't you enjoy learning how to better optimize your character? Why are you denying him the chance to learn too? If he never is shown how a 14 in a prime stat is "too low" how can judge why 18 is correct?
> 
> This is not the same as a player who fails to use all his actions in combat. He used all his point buy. You are just saying he used them improperly. If he decides to charge willy-nilly all around combat when playing a build designed to stand still are you allowed to tell him to knock it off?
> 
> ...




I again disagree.  It is badwrongfun to play a suboptimal character by ignorance (on purpose is perfectly fine).  Teaching or explaining how to build a better character is the essence of teaching how to fish.  I'l agree that just handing him a character from the char-op boards is a bad idea, but I don't see anyone proposing that strawman.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jan 29, 2010)

malraux said:


> I again disagree.  It is badwrongfun to play a suboptimal character by ignorance (on purpose is perfectly fine).  Teaching or explaining how to build a better character is the essence of teaching how to fish.  I'l agree that just handing him a character from the char-op boards is a bad idea, but I don't see anyone proposing that strawman.




I didn't say anything about a char-op build. My basic question is still unanswered: Didn't you have to learn what builds are better than others? How did you learn that 14 is too low for a primary stat? I'm betting you learned it organically, through trial and error. Why shouldn't he (our now theoretical player given the lasted update by the OP) get the chance to experiment? To try? To fail? And to later succeed? Doesn't success after failure make you feel even better than just success alone?

Let me approach this yet another way: the very process we are talking about is optimizing. Optimizing is taking something that works and making it better. By its very definition it is not a task done by a novice. When you are teaching something to someone you don't start with an advanced topic first. You start with the basics and work your way up to the advanced topics at the student's pace of progress.

You are starting with an advanced topic. He has no frame of reference with which to compare optimized versus non-optimized. You might hand wave the optimizations but once you do that you are not instructing, you are dictating.

I suspect we will hit the agree to disagree wall shortly.


----------



## fuzzlewump (Jan 29, 2010)

jmucchiello said:


> I didn't say anything about a char-op build. My basic question is still unanswered: Didn't you have to learn what builds are better than others? How did you learn that 14 is too low for a primary stat? I'm betting you learned it organically, through trial and error. Why shouldn't he (our now theoretical player given the lasted update by the OP) get the chance to experiment? To try? To fail? And to later succeed? Doesn't success after failure make you feel even better than just success alone?



Your principles aren't faulty, but your application is. You're not teaching a man to fish, you're giving a man a fishing rod and saying "have fun." This man has only a vague idea of the goals of fishing, let alone the mechanics of the rod itself. Basically, learning through trial and error is definitely a good thing. But blind application of that principle would also say that teaching, in general, is wrong; that everyone should learn everything through trial and error. So, the line must be drawn somewhere.

I say that the line be drawn AFTER teaching someone about the fundamental importance of stats. Then, allow them to experiment with adjusting the stats to get a better balance of defenses or skills or whatever. I think the PHB agrees with me, because of the existence of listing "Primary" stats in the class descriptions. That's not the say it's the best way, but it does show that there is indeed official support for teaching the importance of stats. I would, however, say that allowing them to experiment with stats such as giving themselves a very low main-stat with the stipulation that they can change at ANY time. Right when they realize their mistake, they can fix it, rather than having to reroll, wait for a rest, wait for the session to end, whatever. That would be my compromise, but I see no good reason to do that.

Having a 14 as a main stat would likely mean the player is ignoring the "Primary Stat" listing, because he or she would either have pretty much all 14's or have a non-primary stat higher. So, I think that is clearly a mistake, statistically, and from the suggestions of the PHB.

A more grey-area example is a 16.


----------



## malraux (Jan 29, 2010)

jmucchiello said:


> I didn't say anything about a char-op build. My basic question is still unanswered: Didn't you have to learn what builds are better than others? How did you learn that 14 is too low for a primary stat? I'm betting you learned it organically, through trial and error. Why shouldn't he (our now theoretical player given the lasted update by the OP) get the chance to experiment? To try? To fail? And to later succeed? Doesn't success after failure make you feel even better than just success alone?
> 
> Let me approach this yet another way: the very process we are talking about is optimizing. Optimizing is taking something that works and making it better. By its very definition it is not a task done by a novice. When you are teaching something to someone you don't start with an advanced topic first. You start with the basics and work your way up to the advanced topics at the student's pace of progress.
> 
> ...




All the more reason to give help him create a decent build first.  Figuring out why his character doesn't work well might not be obvious.  I would think that he would learn better with someone to explain what works and what doesn't.  Playing a suboptimal character to my mind is an advanced topic.  The basic lessons would be how to play a decent character well.  If the character isn't great, then its much harder to see if the problem is the build, his tactic, the DM screwing him over, or 4e just being a sucky game.

In learning, there is a concept called scaffolding.  A common example is the keyhole essay, taught at around the junior high level.  Keyhole essays are not a great format, but they are an adequate format.  Before you can learn to do more complicated writing styles, you need to learn how to do the simpler styles to see how they work.

Help building a decent character in 4e, to my mind, would be a great way to learn the system.  There's a lot to figure out in 4e, especially for any class that marks.  But with a suboptimal character, what you learn from play won't necessarily self-teach you how to either to build a great character or how combat works.  There are too many variables.

Essentially what I see you arguing is that having a teacher is necessarily worse than learning on your own.  That doesn't strike me as a particularly true statement.

As to how I learned stat allocation in 4e, well, to me it was mostly obvious.  At least the basic distribution was reasonably obvious (put your highest number in your key stat, second highest in your secondary stat, etc).  What is absolutely best, I have no idea.

Now, you seem to be saying that I don't want an inexperienced player to be able to experiment or make mistakes.  I don't see anything like that in my statements.  I clearly think that just handing him a character sheet and then telling him what to do on every turn would be a bad idea.  Yes, he should be able to experiment.  What I am saying that a guiding light showing what most other people have found to be a pretty good idea is more valuable than just tossing the player to the dark to let him discover every single trap for himself.


----------



## Runestar (Jan 29, 2010)

> Didn't you have to learn what builds are better than others? How did you learn that 14 is too low for a primary stat? I'm betting you learned it organically, through trial and error.




Yes and no.

Some concepts I did discover for myself. Others, I read about them on the net. However, I didn't blindly follow them (regardless of whether they resembled or differed from my own gaming experiences). I then engaged in constructive debate with many other posters no less learned than myself, and in the process, learnt much more about said aspect of the game than if I had played it myself.

I would then proceed to implement the new knowledge I had picked up in my subsequent games. If they worked, I could then use that as a springboard to test out other concepts based of it and in turn learn newer concepts. Concepts I would likely never have a chance to actually try out if I was still stuck figuring out basic concepts such as how best to allocate my stats or what race complemented which class. 

If the idea turned out to be a dud, I would then report my findings to the forum, igniting another wave of discussion. That idea could then be refined or rejected. 

Either way, knowledge of the game is advanced. The process repeats.



> Why shouldn't he (our now theoretical player given the lasted update by the OP) get the chance to experiment? To try? To fail? And to later succeed? Doesn't success after failure make you feel even better than just success alone?




Do you think a computer company today figures out how to build a PC from scratch with no prior knowledge and completely shut off from the world? No, they take the best in the market, reverse-engineer it, improve upon it and come up with their own model.

It is just plain more efficient, and leaves the player with more time and resources to try out more meaningful and advanced experimentation with his character. The player doesn't learn anything meaningful from discovering that a 14stat is too low for 4e. 

Why do you think dnd knowledge has progressed so quickly? People were able to quickly latch on to key fundamental ideas proposed by others, and either build upon them or reject them using contradicting findings (which in turn lets them branch off to newer findings). Thus, they were able to do a "rise above", to use knowledge building terminology.

Through such knowledge building, people are able to discover newer findings much more rapidly than if they each had started off from scratch. 

The information you need is already there. Right in front of you, a mere mouse-click away. There is no reason to take the longer route and find it out the hard way.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 29, 2010)

Matthew L. Martin said:


> The idea wasn't to have them affect _nothing_--there's still damage, healing, skill checks, Initiative (for Dex), hit points (for Con) and other factors. You could even leave them in for defenses if you adjust the math.
> 
> The problem is rooted, IMO, in the fact that the center of 4E mechanics is the attack roll. It's the roll you make the most, it's a binary roll (with the exception of critical hits) and it's the roll where the player has the most choice of how to do it. That means that anything that affects the attack roll becomes, IMO, disproportionately important to the character, especially if it's not situational, and this emphasis can squeeze out alternatives that may suit a character better. Cf. the Expertise feats.



As long as stats make an effect on the game, there will probably remain bad and good distributions. The INT 14 Swordmage would still be "suboptimal" if his stats wouldn't affect his attacks and merely his damage. 

"You deal 10 % less on average per round! Are you sure that's a good move?!"


----------



## jmucchiello (Jan 29, 2010)

fuzzlewump said:


> But blind application of that principle would also say that teaching, in general, is wrong; that everyone should learn everything through trial and error. So, the line must be drawn somewhere.



And we disagree on the location of the line. I never said just hand him a book and disappear. You never said you give him a character sheet written in pen and refuse to answer questions. Let's not put words in each others' mouths.


> I say that the line be drawn AFTER teaching someone about the fundamental importance of stats.



This is in my opinion an advanced topic. We aren't just talking about chargen. We are talking about teaching the whole game. The more you attempt to explain the WHY of it the more confused the player will be. So I'm trying to save as much brain space as possible so the player can also make attacks, maybe role-play an encounter in a tavern, etc., before dealing with the details of high CON versus high INT for a particular class.

My problem continuing this is we are completely in the realm of theory right now. I'm guessing neither of us would allow a completely new player to build a character by themselves. So the whole argument has no foundation in reality. We don't know how the OP's teammate made his character nor who was there to hold his hand.

So, on topic, I would assume that if the player in question showed up to the game with a character sheet that looks properly built, he must have some idea what he's doing. Additionally I can't imagine someone new to D&D stumbling on ENWorld and joining a random MapTools based game without some knowledge of how to build a character. And from that perspective I would not question why he put a 14 in a prime stat. Let him learn why 14 is too low a value for his prime stat for himself. Or let him teach me why 14 isn't so bad.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 29, 2010)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> As long as stats make an effect on the game, there will probably remain bad and good distributions. The INT 14 Swordmage would still be "suboptimal" if his stats wouldn't affect his attacks and merely his damage.
> 
> "You deal 10 % less on average per round! Are you sure that's a good move?!"



This isn't meant to be a direct reply to MR.

But there are different ideas of what constitutes "optimal".  Clearly, maxed out expected damage dealing is a fair form of assessing optimization.

But what if your play experience goal is to create the feeling of a relatively normal characters thrust into the role of heroes?  It seems obvious, to me, that changing the character to squeeze out that extra 10% damage would be distinctly less optimal.  To the contrary, full on max/min would destroy the sense of the underdog overcoming obstacles.  

I don't at all claim that the later option is in any way a more virtuous option.  My games tend to be more the high power end of things.  But, both options are equally valid.

So, I'd think that the polite way to say "your character sucks" would be something like "Hey man, our game plays with a bit different assumptions than your characters."


----------



## fuzzlewump (Jan 29, 2010)

jmucchiello said:


> So I'm trying to save as much brain space as possible so the player can also make attacks, maybe role-play an encounter in a tavern, etc., before dealing with the details of high CON versus high INT for a particular class.



Explaining why a swordmage wants high intelligence is fundamentally important. Explaining why a rogue wants a higher con than intelligence is not. You can't blanket it either way, and in the context of the OP, the 14 intelligence swordmage, explaining the folly is fundamentally important.



> So, on topic, I would assume that if the player in question showed up to the game with a character sheet that looks properly built, he must have some idea what he's doing.



If someone shows up to your class with your textbook and has his nose in it every day, turns in a wonderfully written paper, and his paper is absolutely wrong but well written, you would correct him. Shutting down communication is how bad customs get started. In my research class we learned that back in the 80's it was just accepted in American hospitals (or, at least at the hospital my professor worked at, and according to her it was widespread) to lay infants on their stomachs when they sleep, and no one, or not enough people, questioned it. It was later revealed through research to be safer to have infants sleep on their backs; allowing play on their stomachs.

Obviously, it's not nearly as vital or dramatic, but the principle is the same. Communicate with the 14 intelligence character to see why he is doing what he is doing, to make sure he has a good idea of the importance of it, no matter how confident he looks.


----------



## Herschel (Jan 29, 2010)

Kinneus said:


> He's an assault swordmage, as I've said a few times in this thread before. 18 Str, 16 Con, 14 Int.
> ...
> Not that that'll stop this thread from continuing for several more pages, of course...





Yeah, I skipped about 6 pages of "stuff". It's an interesting build. It would appear he's gambling on making a lot of melee basic attacks.  Con is all but useless to the character, but if he's played fighter types in previous editions that's a hard one to overlook.

Then again, if one wanted a "simple" character that played like an earlier edition fighter that might not be a bad way to go (except for the suckitudinal part).


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 29, 2010)

The idea that 4e impels you to play an 18 in in your primary state is, IMO, one of it's turn-offs. "I would like to play a swordmage who is more brawn than brain" is a workable concept. The problem is not, however, the system, which appears to be rather forgiving of a vast range of attack bonuses. The problem lies in the presentation of the game, in which little incentive is ever given to look at your ability scores beyond their primary uses, and the community surrounding it, which has rallied to the build-oriented play style as much as they have to streamlined resolution systems. 

In short, if I were ever tempted to play in a 4e game, perhaps out of friendship or lack of any better options, I would probably be annoyed if someone took one of my least favorite aspects of 4e and insisted I embrace it. Imagine a 4e player reluctantly dragged into a 3e game... will you win her interest by insisting she drop a "suboptimal" greatsword-wielding fighter in favor of a fighter/swashbuckler/warblade multiclass monstrosity using a spiked chain? If someone prefers fantasy to supers, will you win their loyalty in a Mutants & Masterminds game by suggesting they replace their "suboptimal" fencer with a cheeseball Superman knockoff?


----------



## Gimby (Jan 30, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> The idea that 4e impels you to play an 18 in in your primary state is, IMO, one of it's turn-offs. "I would like to play a swordmage who is more brawn than brain" is a workable concept.




It certainly is workable concept, and indeed does work fine.  The question is more whether or not the player *had* that concept, or was building their character at random. If they were building to concept, then fine, no problems.  If they had no idea what they were doing, then offering help is simply polite.



pawsplay said:


> <snip>If someone prefers fantasy to supers, will you win their loyalty in a Mutants & Masterminds game by suggesting they replace their "suboptimal" fencer with a cheeseball Superman knockoff?




No, but if the player is new to M&M, its not unreasonable to help them make the best fencer that they can.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jan 30, 2010)

Wasn't 4E supposed to be the D&D where you _couldn't_ accidentally gimp your character?  Where you couldn't make a choice so weak it would throw the game off?

Seriously, if 4E's balance is so tenuous that a player has to know that _only an 18_ can make an optimal character, how in the world do 4E proponents criticize 3E's system mastery aspect (with a straight face)?

For what it's worth, my 4E character was an archer ranger, and he didn't have max Dexterity.  (He did have an 18, because he was a shifter.  But he wasn't maxed out.)


----------



## Gimby (Jan 30, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Wasn't 4E supposed to be the D&D where you _couldn't_ accidentally gimp your character?  Where you couldn't make a choice so weak it would throw the game off?
> 
> Seriously, if 4E's balance is so tenuous that a player has to know that _only an 18_ can make an optimal character, how in the world do 4E proponents criticize 3E's system mastery aspect (with a straight face)?
> 
> For what it's worth, my 4E character was an archer ranger, and he didn't have max Dexterity.  (He did have an 18, because he was a shifter.  But he wasn't maxed out.)




Because the difference between an optimal character and a non-optimal one is relatively low.  A 20 is probably too expensive to be worth it, a 16 is perfectly reasonable, a 14 certainly can work but an 18 is often best.  The difference between the 20 and the 14 though is only 3 points of hit and damage, which between feats, targeting different defenses and weapon proficiencies is not a huge difference.

The character with a 14 here is certainly functional and can fufill his role fine.  He's not helplessly gimped to the extent of throwing off the game assumptions.  While its probable that it could be built to fufill that role *better* the improvement is of the order of 10% or so.  

That there are optimal choices is tautological in a game as complex as D&D.  What's important, and what 4e achieves in my experience, is that the differences between an optimal character and a non-optimal one are relatively small.  The systems mastery aspect gets critisised as it was possible to make some characters several times more powerful than others (depending on your DM, edging out to tens or hundreds of times more powerful in extreme cases), whereas now the difference between the very best and very worst characters is of the order of  +50-100%.


----------



## malraux (Jan 30, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Wasn't 4E supposed to be the D&D where you _couldn't_ accidentally gimp your character?  Where you couldn't make a choice so weak it would throw the game off?
> 
> Seriously, if 4E's balance is so tenuous that a player has to know that _only an 18_ can make an optimal character, how in the world do 4E proponents criticize 3E's system mastery aspect (with a straight face)?
> 
> For what it's worth, my 4E character was an archer ranger, and he didn't have max Dexterity.  (He did have an 18, because he was a shifter.  But he wasn't maxed out.)




Clearly one can make continually weak choices in 4e.  Not using armor, picking mostly ranged powers for a mostly melee character, etc.  Its just harder/less likely to happen.  For example, the PHB is pretty clear that whatever is the key stat for your class should receive your highest stat allocation.  An 18 isn't necessarily the best, especially if your secondary stats affect cool things.

With the point buy that's at the key to this, I would want to be sure the player didn't have a hangup about how things worked in 3e.  IE, to be sure that he understood that now most of his attacks were Int vs AC, not Str, or that he knew that he could use a feat to use Int for basic melee attacks, both things that someone who hadn't read much of the rules might have missed.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jan 30, 2010)

Gimby said:


> Because the difference between an optimal character and a non-optimal one is relatively low. [...] The systems mastery aspect gets critisised as it was possible to make some characters several times more powerful than others (depending on your DM, edging out to tens or hundreds of times more powerful in extreme cases), whereas now the difference between the very best and very worst characters is of the order of  +50-100%.



Okay, I'll buy that.  In that case, then ... _nine pages_?  Really?  When the PC in question is perfectly playable?


----------



## Gimby (Jan 30, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Okay, I'll buy that.  In that case, then ... _nine pages_?  Really?  When the PC in question is perfectly playable?




People like to argue about things on the internet.  Film, as they say, at 11


----------



## fuzzlewump (Jan 30, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Okay, I'll buy that.  In that case, then ... _nine pages_?  Really?  When the PC in question is perfectly playable?



I'm not sure everyone agrees on that, otherwise it would have ended 9 pages ago. What seems obvious to you seems to be obviously the other way for me. There's obviously, to me, no reason to play a character with a 14 in your primary stat. None at all.

A character with a 10 in a primary stat, or even an 8, is indeed perfectly playable. But, you wouldn't do that, would you? It's only +2/+3 hit away from what you consider perfectly playable (which I assume means effective) so is it really that much worse?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 30, 2010)

fuzzlewump said:


> A character with a 10 in a primary stat, or even an 8, is indeed perfectly playable. But, you wouldn't do that, would you? It's only +2/+3 hit away from what you consider perfectly playable (which I assume means effective) so is it really that much worse?




Not only would I play a PC with a 10 in the primary stat, I have done so.


----------



## Runestar (Jan 30, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Not only would I play a PC with a 10 in the primary stat, I have done so.



And the end result?


----------



## jmucchiello (Jan 30, 2010)

Runestar said:


> And the end result?




Most likely he and his friends had a good time playing D&D.


----------



## Runestar (Jan 30, 2010)

jmucchiello said:


> Most likely he and his friends had a good time playing D&D.



Because he had a 10 in a key stat, or in spite of it?


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jan 30, 2010)

Does it matter?


----------



## Nifft (Jan 30, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Does it matter?



 "I saw a guy score with a supermodel *in spite of* having no feet!" -- he has my admiration.

"I saw a guy score with a supermodel *because* he had no feet!" -- where's my hacksaw?

Cheers, -- N


----------



## MrGrenadine (Jan 30, 2010)

Despite the focus on combat built into 4e by WotC, and despite the focus on combat by some people playing 4e, some people do not play in campaigns where the focus is on combat.  This is truth.

Now, perhaps--in the opinion of some people--some other version of D&D, or some other RPG entirely, would be a better vehicle for a campaign not focused on combat.  This, however, is beside the point.  People will play the version they want, and they will play the way they want.

And one of those ways to play is a puzzle/mystery/political intrigue focused campaign, wherein combat happens rarely, and even then, almost never ends in the death of an NPC or a character.

Its true--I've seen it happen.

I'm not saying this was the case in this particular (now moot) situation--but it amazes me that after 30 years of people house-ruling and bending D&D to their own visions and desires, all of a sudden we're all supposed to say "Well, the game is built to put a your highest ability score in the slot that the PHB says is the prime ability for that class, so thats what we have to do now.  Period."

D&D has been, is now, and should forever be a system of rules robust enough to include all sorts of play styles and interests.


----------



## Nifft (Jan 30, 2010)

MrGrenadine said:


> And one of those ways to play is a puzzle/mystery/political intrigue focused campaign, wherein combat happens rarely, and even then, almost never ends in the death of an NPC or a character.



 If you don't use the rules, you don't need to worry about the implications of those rules. That is 100% true.

... but given that, why NOT make a combat-effective character? It's not like putting an 18 in your primary attack stat is going to HINDER your ability (as a player) to solve puzzles, or to handle political intrigue. It just means you retain the option of using the 4e combat rules as written.



MrGrenadine said:


> D&D has been, is now, and should forever be a system of rules robust enough to include all sorts of play styles and interests.



 "Should"? Really?

There are lots of games out there. 4e D&D is one game I enjoy, but it isn't the be-all and end-all.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## outsider (Jan 30, 2010)

MrGrenadine said:


> And one of those ways to play is a puzzle/mystery/political intrigue focused campaign, wherein combat happens rarely, and even then, almost never ends in the death of an NPC or a character.
> 
> Its true--I've seen it happen.




I've seen it happen too.  It's just typically more fun when it happens in a more appropriate game than D&D.  If you are not looting dungeons and fighting dragons, D&D isn't the game that best serves your needs.  Never has been, and never will be.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 30, 2010)

Runestar said:


> And the end result?




My PC did just fine.  He was a Fighter who relied more upon intellect & wit and his accuracy with a bow than wading into battle.  He held his own.

After several months of play, the campaign imploded due to an in game (role-play) disagreement between the DM and one of the players whose character was considerably more optimized.


----------



## fuzzlewump (Jan 30, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Not only would I play a PC with a 10 in the primary stat, I have done so.




1. Was it a tactical warlord? and

2. Why you do this?

Did everyone have similarly combat-bad characters? This goes back to that idea in the 'other' thread where combat-effectiveness matters to an extent, unless the entire group is doing it in which case the DM can just use appropriately bad encounters. But against normal challenges, L+0,1,2,3 I think the primary stat 10 would be a significant disadvantage with not much real advantage.

So, why do it? Why would anyone do it? Do you believe you're a better roleplayer if you do that? Do you believe statistics must match character concepts in order to be playable? Or, are you just doing some kind of reverse min-maxing where actually the character is more effective maxing out secondary stats or whatever?

Look forward to hearing back, thanks.

EDIT: Just saw your post, think I got my answer.


----------



## Nifft (Jan 30, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> My PC did just fine.  He was a Fighter who relied more upon intellect & wit and his accuracy with a bow than wading into battle.






fuzzlewump said:


> Did everyone have similarly combat-bad characters?



 It looks like he wasn't actually "combat-bad" -- he was an archer, built using the Fighter class, so his Dexterity was high but his Strength was 10.

He's playing silly buggers with the language, since the primary attack stat of *any* 3.x archer would be Dexterity*, not Strength.

So yeah, you can play a great low-Strength Fighter and do just fine... if you are an archer, or if you use Weapon Finesse + some kind of precision damage.

Cheers, -- N


*) ... unless you're using something like Zen Archery.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 30, 2010)

tonight my normal Dm has plans (damn real lif things) so we are trying this out for real...

   we are running the orginal H1 keep adventure with 2 "bad" characters 1 "normal" character...and our resdent powergamer who will not under any sircumstance NOT have expertise by 2nd level...

So far I am a swordmage, we have a Bard, Ranger, and Hybrid Invoker/Wizard... 

     the ranger will be optimized to the max... the bard will be about normal... and I will post my character in a few mins when I finish...


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 30, 2010)

====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&D Character Builder ======
Suckszor the unwise, level 1
Revenant, Swordmage
Build: Assault Swordmage
Swordmage Aegis: Aegis of Assault
Choose your Race in Life: Half-Elf

FINAL ABILITY SCORES
Str 14, Con 14, Dex 14, Int 14, Wis 14, Cha 11.

STARTING ABILITY SCORES
Str 14, Con 12, Dex 12, Int 14, Wis 14, Cha 11.


AC: 15 Fort: 12 Reflex: 12 Will: 14
HP: 29 Surges: 10 Surge Value: 7

TRAINED SKILLS
Arcana +7, Endurance +9, Intimidate +7, Athletics +7

UNTRAINED SKILLS
Acrobatics +2, Bluff, Diplomacy, Dungeoneering +2, Heal +2, History +2, Insight +2, Nature +2, Perception +2, Religion +2, Stealth +2, Streetwise, Thievery +2

FEATS
Level 1: Half-Elf Soul

POWERS
Dilettante: Whirling Rend
Swordmage at-will 1: Greenflame Blade
Swordmage at-will 1: Booming Blade
Swordmage encounter 1: Foesnare
Swordmage daily 1: Whirling Blade

ITEMS
Short sword (2), Leather Armor, Adventurer's Kit, Dagger
====== Copy to Clipboard and Press the Import Button on the Summary Tab ======


duilweilding swrodmage who doesn't have twin strike...could I have botten any worse??


----------



## MrGrenadine (Jan 30, 2010)

Nifft said:


> "Should"? Really?
> 
> There are lots of games out there. 4e D&D is one game I enjoy, but it isn't the be-all and end-all.




Should D&D be a game that appeals to all sorts of different players and campaigns?  Yes.  A million times, yes.

And I'm NOT stating its the only game.  I'm saying it shouldn't pinhole itself as a combat-only tactical battle-mat and minis game.

And yeah, I said "shouldn't".


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 30, 2010)

fuzzlewump said:


> I'm not sure everyone agrees on that, otherwise it would have ended 9 pages ago. What seems obvious to you seems to be obviously the other way for me. There's obviously, to me, no reason to play a character with a 14 in your primary stat. None at all.




At least you understand your limitations.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 30, 2010)

ok, so more info on our 'how bad is unplayble' test game... 

our invoker/wizard is going to be eaither a dragon born or a half orc and weild a big hammer and think he is the son of Kord and play him like THOR fromt eh ultimate marvel line.... the Bard is a female in a chainmail bikini, and also has the 5 14;s 1 11 stat line, and then we have an archer ranger elf who has a hawk companion so he can quarry from afar (the least optimized character he could bring himself to play)  I should have all of there stats by 6:30...

[sblock=the ranger]====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&D Character Builder ======
Galafre the wanderer, level 1
Elf, Ranger
Build: Archer Ranger
Fighting Style: Beast Mastery
Beast Companion Type: Raptor

FINAL ABILITY SCORES
Str 11, Con 13, Dex 18, Int 10, Wis 18, Cha 8.

STARTING ABILITY SCORES
Str 11, Con 13, Dex 16, Int 10, Wis 16, Cha 8.


AC: 17 Fort: 12 Reflex: 15 Will: 14
HP: 25 Surges: 7 Surge Value: 6

TRAINED SKILLS
Dungeoneering +9, Stealth +8, Acrobatics +8, Nature +11, Perception +11

UNTRAINED SKILLS
Arcana, Bluff -1, Diplomacy -1, Endurance, Heal +4, History, Insight +4, Intimidate -1, Religion, Streetwise -1, Thievery +3, Athletics -1

FEATS
Level 1: Weapon Proficiency (Greatbow)

POWERS
Ranger at-will 1: Twin Strike
Ranger at-will 1: Predator Strike
Ranger encounter 1: Two-Fanged Strike
Ranger daily 1: Split the Tree

ITEMS
Greatbow, Hide Armor, Adventurer's Kit, Camouflaged Clothing, Sunrod (6)
RITUALS
Raise Beast Companion
====== Copy to Clipboard and Press the Import Button on the Summary Tab ======
[/sblock]


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 30, 2010)

we are just waiting on the guy playing the ranger to get back with the pizza, and we will start...

[sblock=COntroler]====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&D Character Builder ======
Kor son of  Kord, level 1
Half-Orc, Invoker|Wizard
Covenant Manifestation: Manifestation of Preservation
Hybrid Invoker: Hybrid Invoker Reflex

FINAL ABILITY SCORES
Str 17, Con 11, Dex 12, Int 15, Wis 15, Cha 8.

STARTING ABILITY SCORES
Str 15, Con 11, Dex 10, Int 15, Wis 15, Cha 8.


AC: 12 Fort: 13 Reflex: 13 Will: 13
HP: 21 Surges: 7 Surge Value: 5

TRAINED SKILLS
Arcana +7, Religion +7, Nature +7

UNTRAINED SKILLS
Acrobatics +1, Bluff -1, Diplomacy -1, Dungeoneering +2, Endurance +2, Heal +2, History +2, Insight +2, Intimidate +1, Perception +2, Stealth +1, Streetwise -1, Thievery +1, Athletics +3

FEATS
Level 1: Thirst for Battle

POWERS
Hybrid Invoker at-will 1: Astral Wind
Hybrid Wizard at-will 1: Storm Pillar
Hybrid encounter 1: Thunder of Judgment
Hybrid daily 1: Rolling Thunder

ITEMS
Mace
====== Copy to Clipboard and Press the Import Button on the Summary Tab ======
[/sblock]

[sblock=Leader]====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&D Character Builder ======
Slutara the less then pure, level 1
Eladrin, Bard
Bardic Virtue: Virtue of Cunning

FINAL ABILITY SCORES
Str 11, Con 14, Dex 14, Int 14, Wis 14, Cha 14.

STARTING ABILITY SCORES
Str 11, Con 14, Dex 12, Int 12, Wis 14, Cha 14.


AC: 16 Fort: 12 Reflex: 13 Will: 14
HP: 26 Surges: 9 Surge Value: 6

TRAINED SKILLS
Thievery +6, Arcana +9, History +9, Diplomacy +7, Bluff +7, Acrobatics +6

UNTRAINED SKILLS
Dungeoneering +5, Endurance +4, Heal +5, Insight +5, Intimidate +5, Nature +5, Perception +5, Religion +5, Stealth +4, Streetwise +5, Athletics +2

FEATS
Bard: Ritual Caster
Level 1: Jack of All Trades

POWERS
Bard at-will 1: Jinx Shot
Bard at-will 1: Vicious Mockery
Bard encounter 1: Prophesied Strike
Bard daily 1: Arrow of Warning

ITEMS
Ritual Book, Hand Crossbow, Chainmail, Bottle of Wine, Lute
====== Copy to Clipboard and Press the Import Button on the Summary Tab ======
[/sblock]

there are the last two characters...


----------



## fuzzlewump (Jan 31, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> At least you understand your limitations.



Care to elaborate?

I'm not closed to other ideas, if there is a reason to play a character with a low primary stat, as in, whatever your character's goal is, you have a low stat in that, then I would like to hear it. For instance, having a 10 strength fighter who only uses a longbow would certainly not count. Having a 10 dexterity fighter who only uses a longbow would definitely count. Why would you do this?

To roleplay a character who is bad at what he or she does, or in the case of a caster, a character who _can not_ do (in 3rd edition) what their class is meant to do to at all?


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jan 31, 2010)

I like the invoker wizard... sounds like a real fun build! And he is quite competent with the hammer for the first levels... his AC is poor however and i have a little pity for him when he actually tries to go into melee... but he will make the bard and the swordmage occupied


----------



## SkidAce (Jan 31, 2010)

outsider said:


> I've seen it happen too.  It's just typically more fun when it happens in a more appropriate game than D&D.  If you are not looting dungeons and fighting dragons, D&D isn't the game that best serves your needs.  Never has been, and never will be.




While I know everybody's experience is relative...

I understood your point until you threw the never and never in there.

Might I state, it has been and can be again.

.../grin  I mean when I had the choice between Rolemaster and DnD, DnD was certainly more fun (IMHO) and combat was less of the focus than in Rolemaster...I mean..do you remember those RM charts?  Wow.

So I don't think we can say never.


----------



## SkidAce (Jan 31, 2010)

outsider said:


> I've seen it happen too.  It's just typically more fun when it happens in a more appropriate game than D&D.  If you are not looting dungeons and fighting dragons, D&D isn't the game that best serves your needs.  Never has been, and never will be.




sorry...meant to ask...back in the 80s, what would have been a better game if roleplaying was more of the focus, in your opinion?


----------



## Hussar (Jan 31, 2010)

SkidAce said:


> sorry...meant to ask...back in the 80s, what would have been a better game if roleplaying was more of the focus, in your opinion?




Heh, that's a bit of a misleading question isn't it?

After all, no one in the 80's roleplayed.

((In case it wasn't obvious, this was meant as a joke.  ))

But, just to take a more serious note.  By the 80's you had quite a few games out there.  Top Secret for example.  GURPS was out in 86.  007 and Star Frontiers.  Traveler.  Just to name a few off the top of my head.  FASA Star Trek was heavily rp based.  The old Doctor Who game ((FASA as well IIRC)).  Gangbusters was a personal favorite.

While there weren't the hordes of indie games and whatnot we have now, it's not like the 80's were all that limited for choice.  By the time D&D peaked in about 82, you had lots and lots of companies jumping up at the chance to do an RPG and try for a bit of the pie.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 31, 2010)

ok, only 4pcs, very little rp at all...orginal KotS.

   we had 1 death...and it was our Ranger who got slamed by a wyrmpriest and irontooth at the same time...

     we started in the 2nd encounter having already been in winterhaven (save time) and more or less did 3 encounters in 1 day. the Kobold ambush, the outside of the kobold lair, and then the iron tooth fight.

       We started the first encounter with only the ranger making the perception check to not be suprised...it was pretty quick thought, our ranger went first, and he went into what was to be expected...move action spend the hawk to a dragonshield...minor quarry, standard twin strike...one of witch was our first of 3 crits of the night... witch killed him.

     the second and third crit of the night were both in the iron tooth fight...one by our wizard/Invoker with a basic attack, and one by irontooth vs our ranger... for the record at 1st level 2 attacks, one crit that does 22, the other does 1d10+1d8+4 is evil... 

end result we all had a blast, it was not to hard. I will admit that the swordmage was not the most fun I have had, but... our half orc hybrid now wants to really play a half orc invoker and see if this could be a series character...
     Of cource our resdent power gamer (the ranger) said his death proves we failed, but most of us think other wise...


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 31, 2010)

fuzzlewump said:


> Care to elaborate?
> 
> I'm not closed to other ideas, if there is a reason to play a character with a low primary stat, as in, whatever your character's goal is, you have a low stat in that, then I would like to hear it. For instance, having a 10 strength fighter who only uses a longbow would certainly not count. Having a 10 dexterity fighter who only uses a longbow would definitely count. Why would you do this?
> 
> To roleplay a character who is bad at what he or she does, or in the case of a caster, a character who _can not_ do (in 3rd edition) what their class is meant to do to at all?




You cannot understand why someone would do such a thing.


----------



## Nifft (Jan 31, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> You cannot understand why someone would do such a thing.



 His sanity is a heavy fetter indeed.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 31, 2010)

fuzzlewump said:


> 1. Was it a tactical warlord? and



As you stated, you got your answer.


> 2. Why you do this?
> 
> Did everyone have similarly combat-bad characters?




Nope.

I did it because the stats reflected the PC concept.


> So, why do it? Why would anyone do it? Do you believe you're a better roleplayer if you do that? Do you believe statistics must match character concepts in order to be playable?




The quality of my roleplay varies from hour to hour, and while I think I do a decent job, I'm not objective.

I *DO* believe that stats should match character concepts, and I base how I roleplay the PC based on that.  Despite my IQ, I play my Int6 PCs like the dullards they are.  When I play a PC with a stellar Wis, I don't act on my first impulse when the path of action is unclear, but rather put it to the table (DM included) "Does this sound like something 'PC X' would do?"

IMHO, if I didn't match stats to PC concept, I'd be cheating.

I mean, while you may certain expectations about what it takes for someone to do something, it isn't necessarily so.

Lets just look at physical size.

While you'd like your NFL QBs and Wide Receivers to be 6'+, Doug Flutie, Wayne Chrebet and "The Smurfs" receiving core of the Washington Redskins (none more than 5'10") did just fine.  At a _fudged_ 6'1" 203lbs, Bill Bates, Cowboys legend, was too small and too slow to play his position...but did so for more than a decade, winning Superbowls and Pro Bowl nominations while doing so.

At 5'7", Spud Webb played in the NBA...and won Slam Dunk contests.  Muggsy Bogues, at 5'3" was a vital part of the teams he played for.

So, just like being taller than average isn't a requirement to succeed in the NFL or NBA, it isn't the case that a PC must always have his best score in his class' key stat to be successful (IOW, making a positive contribution).



Nifft said:


> It looks like he wasn't actually "combat-bad" -- he was an archer, built using the Fighter class, so his Dexterity was high but his Strength was 10.
> 
> He's playing silly buggers with the language, since the primary attack stat of *any* 3.x archer would be Dexterity*, not Strength.




I'm not playing silly buggers.  It was a 2Ed campaign with rolled stats.  9 was the minimum Str for fighters, and my PC had a 10.  While Dex was the primary attack stat, you realize that he was giving up _huge _amounts of damage by not placing Str to at least 2nd rank.

And, point in fact, his stats were Int & Dex (both 17's), Con15, Wis 12, Cha10, Str10.  He was a warrior whose strength was cunning plans and battlefield command, not wading in to battle and swinging an axe.  Small but tough, he had earned his keep as a militia archer before going adventuring.



> So yeah, you can play a great low-Strength Fighter and do just fine... if you are an archer, or if you use Weapon Finesse + some kind of precision damage.


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 31, 2010)

Nifft said:


> His sanity is a heavy fetter indeed.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




I do not define sanity as an inability to understand other intelligible viewpoints. While his own views are, no doubt, perfectly reasonable, imposing the same goals and values on others is not necessarily reasonable or productive. It is worthwhile sometimes to acknowledge you simply do not understand. By recognizing this, you can better check your own frustration or anger.


----------



## fuzzlewump (Jan 31, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> You cannot understand why someone would do such a thing.



Try me. Or not, it doesn't matter. But don't make the assertion that I _cannot_ understand. You, really, don't know.

EDIT:Missed the last post. I'm not sure, but it seems like you think that I encountered "other intelligible viewpoints" but actually, I hadn't. I was waiting for those viewpoints. With Danny's explanation, I feel indeed a better sense of understanding of of our different values.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> So, just like being taller than average isn't a requirement to succeed in the NFL or NBA, it isn't the case that a PC must always have his best score in his class' key stat to be successful (IOW, making a positive contribution).



That's interesting, but I don't know much about NFL. But, I'm going to assume that tall players and short players that do well have similar statistics. Similar completion rates etc.

And you wouldn't say they did well because of luck, right? So if they did similarly well, that means that whatever the primary stat you thought they had isn't the primary stat at all. They both had a stat of "Quarterbacking" that was similarly high. I'm not sure if that would correspond to something, but I imagine it would be dexterity in D&D terms. 

In other words, the qualitative made "a positive contribution" aside, did the shorter players have just as good of game statistics as the tall players? If so, that means in D&D terms that they have the same stat, assuming over years of time luck was not meaningfully involved. Or, to take it as support for stats not having to match a character concept, the players both had the _bonus._ So, the STR 18 player and the DEX 18 player and the INT 18 player all contribute those stats equally to their quarterbacking ability. But, this is so funnily abstract, so I don't intend to argue this, but it's just a thought.

Or, maybe the shorter players would have been worse but they had to work much harder than the tall players in order to compensate? So, the shorter players are higher level but have lower stats?(Oh lord, I've taken this too far, haha.) I really don't know, was that/is that the case?

But, I don't believe that a concept has to match statistics, certainly not in 4E where the design in many ways is very abstract. So, we'll have to agree to disagree there, but thank you for explaining. I'm the kind of guy who doesn't compromise on his in-combat concept or on his out-of-combat concept. If I want a strong, intelligent fighter, I will still dump intelligence unless they make an intelligence build. I have the cake and eat it too, so to speak, but hey, I have fun with it.


----------



## outsider (Jan 31, 2010)

SkidAce said:


> Might I state, it has been and can be again.




I'll give you that before other good rpgs existed, D&D was obviously the best choice for non adventuring games, simply because there weren't any other options.  It's pretty safe to say D&D hasn't been the best choice for at least 15 or 20 years though.

Though I didn't say D&D couldn't be the sort of game you can do any type of game with.  I just said it wouldn't be.  I'll also say that it shouldn't be.  D&D is about pillaging dungeons, fighting dragons, and the like.  Always has been, always will be.  Don't get me wrong, you can tell great stories with D&D.  It's just that those stories should be about pillaging dungeons and fighting dragons.  If you want to tell stories that aren't at all like that, you probably should be playing a different game, and it's unreasonable to expect D&D to sacrifice it's clearly indicated specialty in order to serve your niche.


----------



## Runestar (Jan 31, 2010)

Then maybe I should rephrase my question.

Say you were building a str-based fighter. Would you knowingly put a 10 in it (I assume you will not be boosting it every 4th lv), despite being well aware it would make your PC much weaker than it ought to be? What would your team-mates have to say about that? How would you even begin to justify your choice?

I admit I didn't see the part about the 10-str fighter archer coming. I honestly thought someone was actually able to create an effective str-based fighter while dumping str by somehow circumventing their drawbacks or through creative application of powers.


----------



## Starfox (Jan 31, 2010)

Nifft said:


> So yeah, you can play a great low-Strength Fighter and do just fine... if you are an archer, or if you use Weapon Finesse + some kind of precision damage.




Just checking f we are talking about the same things here. There is no Weapon Finesse in 4E. Nor are there archer fighters. If you (Nifft) have been talking about experiences from 3E, I'd like to submit that 3E and 4E are quite different beasts in this regard. 4E is much more focused on maxing your prime stats than 3E was, and 3E had a versatility of builds that 4E lacks. 

The 3E experience in regards to stat focusing is very different from the 4E experience. In 3E, you could indeed build a Fighter focusing in Dexterity (for ranged/finesse weapons) or Intelligence (for skills). These options don't really exist in 4E. While the fighter is unusual in 4E because there is some incentive for them to increase Str, Dex, Con, and Wis, they remain a Strength-based class and all their attacks key of Strength. They can only make clearly sub-par ranged basic attacks using Dex.

I don't like this faced of 4E, but it is a fact of life in the game.


----------



## Herobizkit (Jan 31, 2010)

I'm in DannyAlcatraz's camp on this one.  Stats do not make your character; YOU do.

I believe this is where the comparison of 4e to MMORPG's comes into play.  In such games, you cannot reliably contribute to a team of min/max characters (gear, skills, etc) if you do not also have a min/maxed character.  You also cannot reliably defeat the team challenges (ex instances, raids) in said games if no team member is mix/maxed.

This mentality somehow found its way into 4e, mostly due to the focus on combat.  If the game conceit spells it out for you, that This Game Is About Killing Things and Taking Their Stuff, players will want to do that as best they can.  And if the role-players decide to put a 10 on their Fighter's STR because they want to use the 14's array and have a well-rounded character, well... that makes the specialists angry.

That said, for 3e, I also play mostly DEX-based Warriors either focusing on TWF and Weapon Finesse, or Throwing Stuff.


----------



## Runestar (Jan 31, 2010)

> That said, for 3e, I also play mostly DEX-based Warriors either focusing on TWF and Weapon Finesse, or Throwing Stuff.




Which sorta proves my point. Even when pumping dex in favour of str, you have to take a feat to mitigate this shortcoming.

I am also curious as to how one can manage a well-rounded character, especially when dumping their key stats. The very stats which are supposed to be the defining aspect of your class. MAD is all but gone in 4e, a fighter won't really get anything out of pumping his mental stats, for instance. 

It is like saying I could play a 3e wizard with 10int and uses nothing but cantrips. Yes I can, but what am I really trying to prove here?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 31, 2010)

ok, so just so we all are on the same page here... we all agree that each character needs to contribute to the group (I mean why would you travel with them otherwise), and that each player gets to make up there own mind in _HOW_ they build there character to do so...

  the only real point of conflict is 'how bad is too bad' from what I can see. Now me personaly I only started with a 20 once, and that was a wizard with INT, more often then not I start with a 16 (yes after race), but I could see myself starting as low as 14.

     Now if a player sat down to play with a 20 str mintour wand wizard with an 8 dex and a 10 Int I might look at him like he grew a second head... but I would atleast give him a chance. (I think we can all agree that is like the woest you could do).  And I will give anyone a chance becuse of Bane and Deflour... two of the worst characters ever made...and both kicked but in game.
        bane was 3.5 ranger/barbarian with a 7 Int 11 Wis, and 6 cha (we rolled) who fought with 2 short swords, and weapon finess for his 15 dex...
         Defour was a 2e human (rp wise we caled him a half orc) with a 8 str 8 dex 17 Con, 9 Int, 6 wis 17 cha (we rolled in order and he only had the stats for 1 class) wizard...

        both characters had lousy builds, and bad stats and are still two of our fav characters to talk about.

      Infact we had a player who for years was a cheating powergaming jerk (yes all three) and most of his character came off that way until he failed 1 saveing throw...
          His 3.5 druid/sorcerer was struck blind... and he went 5 levels with his animal compainon wolf becomeing a seeing eye dog... he wne out of his way to find ways to compansate, until he finaly got his sight back. Those 5 levels had some of the best stories though...(Sure I'll take a watch... I _guess_ no one is comeing...)


now after sleeping on it, I will admit a full game of these characters would not last long, but 1 out of 5... especialy if you have optimizers anyway picking upt the slack.... who cares...


----------



## Gimby (Jan 31, 2010)

Herobizkit said:


> I'm in DannyAlcatraz's camp on this one.  Stats do not make your character; YOU do.
> 
> I believe this is where the comparison of 4e to MMORPG's comes into play.  In such games, you cannot reliably contribute to a team of min/max characters (gear, skills, etc) if you do not also have a min/maxed character.  You also cannot reliably defeat the team challenges (ex instances, raids) in said games if no team member is mix/maxed.
> 
> ...




Its also why some people (me included) don't really think that the MMO comparison has any weight in this case.  I've been seeing this kind of behaviour in D&D players for about 15 years and theres advice in the 1e books that you should have 2 15s at least (quote is somewhere upthread, I think).  The idea that this is derived from MMOs rather than the nature and history of a somewhat cruncy/weighty system where stats/build are important is, to me, somewhat laughable.  

Specifically, if you go hunt the What's a DM/Player to do archives on the Wizard's forums then you'll see this exact issue cropping up since the earliest days of 3e at least.  I'd lay good odds there are threads on this very sub-forum asking how to deal with characters with a wide range of cababilities dating to the early 2000s.

edit- I'm not denying that this can be an issue and isn't the way that everyone plays, or that 4e has this problem.  Simply that the idea that it was somehow "brought in" by 4e and not endemic to most D&D editions is not well supported by history.

edit edit - Not the precise thing I was looking for, but 2 minutes of googling popped up this thread about a player worrying that their character needs to be better optimised to match the rest of the party.  Dated 2003.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/45862-how-do-youre-monks-contribute-party.html


----------



## SkidAce (Jan 31, 2010)

outsider said:


> I'll give you that before other good rpgs existed, D&D was obviously the best choice for non adventuring games, simply because there weren't any other options.  It's pretty safe to say D&D hasn't been the best choice for at least 15 or 20 years though.
> 
> Though I didn't say D&D couldn't be the sort of game you can do any type of game with.  I just said it wouldn't be.  I'll also say that it shouldn't be.  D&D is about pillaging dungeons, fighting dragons, and the like.  Always has been, always will be.  Don't get me wrong, you can tell great stories with D&D.  It's just that those stories should be about pillaging dungeons and fighting dragons.  If you want to tell stories that aren't at all like that, you probably should be playing a different game, and it's unreasonable to expect D&D to sacrifice it's clearly indicated specialty in order to serve your niche.




Fair enough.  There may be better games out there that would serve the RP better.   But we have played DnD for ages, and we had RP when we started, and still do.  And it is true, while we do have spy adventures and merchant adventures, we do also continue to pillage dungeons and kill dragons.

Reckon we will stick with it.


----------



## Blackbrrd (Jan 31, 2010)

GMforPowergamers said:


> Of cource our resdent power gamer (the ranger) said his death proves we failed, but most of us think other wise...



Your characters would feel it as a failure. Losing a good friend to an ugly goblin. Unless your characters really doesn't care if they loose friends. I would find that very strange. 

An un-optimized party will have more deaths than an optimized party in the same encounters with the same players. Of course, your powergaming friend should* have played the meta-game an seen that he needed a character that stays out of problems to keep alive. In other words a bow-ranger or a dwarf battle vigor fighter or something.

*as a power gamer at least.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 31, 2010)

Blackbrrd said:


> Of course, your powergaming friend should* have played the meta-game an seen that he needed a character that stays out of problems to keep alive. In other words a bow-ranger or a dwarf battle vigor fighter or something.
> 
> *as a power gamer at least.




he did... he was an archer ranger (since he knew it was a one shot he took beast master for the hawk to quarry farther away targets) he did a great job, until he forgot (and trust me the look on his face was memorable) and tried  to swing around out of the line of fire of the minons and ran smack into 3 kobolds...one the wyrnpriest... then he got herded right back to were he didn't want to be... front and center with iron tooth... 

I don't know if you know the fight at all (I am getting to be an expert myself having played and run it multi times now) there is a small area that is just off the minon room that has 3 dragonsheilds and a wyrmpriest... that is where his problem started....


----------



## TarionzCousin (Jan 31, 2010)

Simply ask "Is this a character that Doug Douglason, elite Game Master, would allow?"[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Mp7Ikko8SI]YouTube - Fear of Girls© 1[/ame]


----------



## Blackbrrd (Jan 31, 2010)

GMforPowergamers said:


> he did... he was an archer ranger (since he knew it was a one shot he took beast master for the hawk to quarry farther away targets) he did a great job, until he forgot (and trust me the look on his face was memorable) and tried  to swing around out of the line of fire of the minons and ran smack into 3 kobolds...one the wyrnpriest... then he got herded right back to were he didn't want to be... front and center with iron tooth...
> 
> I don't know if you know the fight at all (I am getting to be an expert myself having played and run it multi times now) there is a small area that is just off the minon room that has 3 dragonsheilds and a wyrmpriest... that is where his problem started....




Hah! A un-tactical powergamer. I bet the DM had fun. I haven't been able to corner our bow-ranger yet. I am looking forward to it.

I do know the fight as I DM-ed it. My party just rolled right over the whole encounter. 

Oh, and regarding your in-house powergamer, he lost out on the Toughness feat from taking the two-weapon fighting route. It would probably have saved his bacon in this instance. (5 more hp, 2 or 3 higher bloodied value, 1 or 2 higher healing surge value)


----------



## rjdafoe (Jan 31, 2010)

Gimby said:


> Its also why some people (me included) don't really think that the MMO comparison has any weight in this case. I've been seeing this kind of behaviour in D&D players for about 15 years and theres advice in the 1e books that you should have 2 15s at least (quote is somewhere upthread, I think). The idea that this is derived from MMOs rather than the nature and history of a somewhat cruncy/weighty system where stats/build are important is, to me, somewhat laughable.
> 
> Specifically, if you go hunt the What's a DM/Player to do archives on the Wizard's forums then you'll see this exact issue cropping up since the earliest days of 3e at least. I'd lay good odds there are threads on this very sub-forum asking how to deal with characters with a wide range of cababilities dating to the early 2000s.
> 
> ...




I am going to chime in here and say, IME, that is not correct.  There has always been different levels of character building - but the attitude that everything else sucks compared to the optimised way or the attutude that you are playing the game wrong has increased dramatically since MMOs.  IME, it is a direct relation to MMO raids where everyone has to be optimized a certain way, or you can't play.  This very thread is filled with people saying how wrong it is to play that character.  IME, that did not exist before - especially when the default assumptions was that you ROLLED your stats.  IMO, the stat arrays and point buys have contributed somewhat to these attitudes.


----------



## outsider (Jan 31, 2010)

SkidAce said:


> And it is true, while we do have spy adventures and merchant adventures, we do also continue to pillage dungeons and kill dragons.
> 
> Reckon we will stick with it.




Right, as long as the default playstyle of D&D is a major part of your game, you should probably continue using it.  No other game does it better.  The people that view combat and dungeon delving as something to be avoided though, should probably be playing something else.  And it's pretty unreasonable of them to expect a game called Dungeons and Dragons to focus less on dungeons and dragons, and more on whatever niche they are trying to play.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 31, 2010)

Blackbrrd said:


> Hah! A un-tactical powergamer. I bet the DM had fun.



I'm sorry I guess I didn't really describe the player well...He isn't a good powergamer... all he cares about is bonus to hit and damage... he even played a 20 something wis all the bells and whistles... and he often found himself complaining no one was helping him get CA... even when his to hit was higher then the monsters AC...




> I haven't been able to corner our bow-ranger yet. I am looking forward to it.



I have seen it done a few times...



> I do know the fight as I DM-ed it. My party just rolled right over the whole encounter.



 this was the worst I have been involved in, we lost a PC, but it has been a tough fight each time... although the TPK stories I hear tell me it is a swingey deal...



> Oh, and regarding your in-house powergamer, he lost out on the Toughness feat from taking the two-weapon fighting route. It would probably have saved his bacon in this instance. (5 more hp, 2 or 3 higher bloodied value, 1 or 2 higher healing surge value)




ha...

  now I need to fight the urge to tell him that...


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 31, 2010)

rjdafoe said:


> I am going to chime in here and say, IME, that is not correct.  There has always been different levels of character building - but the attitude that everything else sucks compared to the optimised way or the attutude that you are playing the game wrong has increased dramatically since MMOs.  IME, it is a direct relation to MMO raids where everyone has to be optimized a certain way, or you can't play.  This very thread is filled with people saying how wrong it is to play that character.  IME, that did not exist before - especially when the default assumptions was that you ROLLED your stats.  IMO, the stat arrays and point buys have contributed somewhat to these attitudes.




I think you are on the right track, but your blame is slightly off...

    back in the 80's and 90's there were jerks who said things like "That isn't good enough," or "Why are you playing a suboptimal character on MY team"

    BUT they were exceptions... meanwhile everyone considered them jerks and just kept going, even people who agreed with it but would not say it. Now que the interwebs (and yes the MMOs) where you are not friends with everyone, there is a much less social contract...and you can say what ever you want.

    MMOs and 4e are just showing that people are less considerat of others...just look at the thread title, it isn't "How do I politely say I think you need help" It says "Your character sucks"



I will say this, I do not build characters by math alone, I do not use spreadsheets to increase my characters, and I don't go out of my way to build the best X in the game... I design a character and build it as I go. I follow themes, and personality... and sometimes that means I am less then the optimal build... but I always bring something to the table...


----------



## outsider (Jan 31, 2010)

rjdafoe said:


> IME, that did not exist before - especially when the default assumptions was that you ROLLED your stats.




IME, even back in the roll for attributes days, it was expected your highest score would be in the attribute most important to your class.

Nobody in this thread is saying that every character should have an 18.  Frankly, for some builds it's not even optimal.  What they are saying is that your attack stat should be higher than a 14, which is perfectly reasonable.  If it was a 16 instead of a 14, I doubt this thread would have existed, and 16 int most definitely isn't optimal for a Swordmage.  Nobody is trying to push anybody into playing the one true uber build(if they were, they'd be saying anything other than 20 int sucks for a swordmage, and they are NOT saying that).


----------



## outsider (Jan 31, 2010)

GMforPowergamers said:


> back in the 80's and 90's there were jerks who said things like "That isn't good enough," or "Why are you playing a suboptimal character on MY team"




Funny.  Pretty much every group I've ever played in would have said "Why are you playing a deliberately gimp character in OUR group?".  Who's the jerk there?

I remember my second D&D group.  Every player but one wanted to play what amounted to professional dungeon looting butt-kickers.  That one player insisted on playing absolutely wussy and weak characters, and threw up the typical arguments "It's my character, I can make him how I want", and "Roleplaying is more important to me than combat"(never mind there were at least 2 people in the group that were clearly better rpers than he was).  If you ask me, there was only 1 jerk in that group, not 5.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 31, 2010)

outsider said:


> Funny.  Pretty much every group I've ever played in would have said "Why are you playing a deliberately gimp character in OUR group?".  Who's the jerk there?



 who ever said it was the jerk in my mind...



> I remember my second D&D group.  *Every player* but one wanted to play what amounted to professional dungeon looting butt-kickers.



  I highlighted the intresting part... becuse if everyone agrees no fight... but you go on to say...



> That one player insisted on playing absolutely wussy and weak characters,



ok, so not everyone agreed... but one group (weather bigger or smaller, majority or minority) tried to bully the other into doing it there way...



> and threw up the typical arguments "It's my character, I can make him how I want", and "Roleplaying is more important to me than combat"(never mind there were at least 2 people in the group that were clearly better rpers than he was).



 so just to recap... he made a character you didn't like, so you wanted him to change it, he did not want to change it, BUT some how when you could not compramise it was his fault...




> If you ask me, there was only 1 jerk in that group, not 5.



From the sound of it you were all being jerks... he could be the weak younger brother you guys are always looking aout for. He could still be his character, but you guys just have a soft spot for saving his bacon...

      guess what happens then, (I assume the 5-1 thing means 5 pcs 1 DM) you have 4 above average characters, and one below average character that still makes your team way above average, but you alll got to play what you wanted.


tell me again how does me being below average effect you if you are above average? at best we work out to be average by my math...if more people are above or below (Or like your example 4-1) then it bearly matters...


----------



## jinnetics (Jan 31, 2010)

You don't. Not your place. Just have fun


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 31, 2010)

notice how with a slight change


outsider said:


> I remember my second D&D group.  Every player but one wanted to play _*rangers*_.  That one player insisted on playing _*a cleric*_, and threw up the typical arguments *It's how I will have fun, I don't want to have fun your way right now. *If you ask me, there was only 1 jerk in that group, not 5.




the whole thing becomes a joke... let him play what he wants... it is just a game...


----------



## outsider (Jan 31, 2010)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I highlighted the intresting part...




Actually, you didn't.  You highlighted "Every player", when what I actually said was "Every player but one".  Pretty poor form there.

And, yes.  When 1 player goes against the desires of the group on a consistent basis, he is the problem, not the group.  Doesn't matter if the 1 guy is "weakness is the height of rp!" guy or "I want to play Punpun!" guy.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 31, 2010)

outsider said:


> Actually, you didn't.  You highlighted "Every player", when what I actually said was "Every player but one".  Pretty poor form there.




ok, what is poor form... I was poiinting out that if you all agreed there would be no fight, but becuse one person wanted to go a diffrent rout you thought you could bully him with some sorta peer presure to do things your way...



> And, yes.  When 1 player goes against the desires of the group on a consistent basis, he is the problem, not the group.  Doesn't matter if the 1 guy is "weakness is the height of rp!" guy or "I want to play Punpun!" guy.




  Um... no not even close.  If person A makes a character that contributes to the game, but is not as powerful as others in the game in a group full of pver powers that is not a problem...

      a guy who wants to be more powerful then other players IS a problem...

it doesn;t matter who is the majority and who is the minority PUN PUN is _always_ the wrong answer in a real game.

tell me again why your butt kickers would not be able to have a less powerful memeber? tell me again why everyone MUST be optimized... I am yet to hear you say even once what you lose from this... as long as everyone contributes to fun at the table what diff does anything else make???


----------



## outsider (Jan 31, 2010)

GMforPowergamers said:


> tell me again why your butt kickers would not be able to have a less powerful memeber? tell me again why everyone MUST be optimized... I am yet to hear you say even once what you lose from this... as long as everyone contributes to fun at the table what diff does anything else make???




What we lose:
Resources.  More resources are required to keep the weak character alive.

Success probability.  Clearly a more powerful character is likely to lead to sucess for the group than a weak one.

Rewards.  I contribute more to the success of the group, yet the expectation is that those who contribute less get an equal share of the loot.  I'm not overly anal about this, but there comes a point in power difference where this becomes an unreasonable expectation.

Combat Speed.  With a weaker character, the combats take longer.  Shorter combats allow more time for RP/exploration in between, or alternatively, more combats.

Versimilitude.  The presence of an incompetent in a group of professional butt-kickers makes no RP sense.  Unless of course you come up with an excuse to justify it.  But why is it more acceptable to force 5 players to change their rp to accomodate 1 player than to force 1 player to change their rp to accomodate 5 players?  It defies logic.


----------



## outsider (Jan 31, 2010)

GMforPowergamers said:


> a guy who wants to be more powerful then other players IS a problem...




As is a guy who wants to be weaker than the other players.


----------



## malraux (Jan 31, 2010)

rjdafoe said:


> I am going to chime in here and say, IME, that is not correct.  There has always been different levels of character building - but the attitude that everything else sucks compared to the optimised way or the attutude that you are playing the game wrong has increased dramatically since MMOs.  IME, it is a direct relation to MMO raids where everyone has to be optimized a certain way, or you can't play.  This very thread is filled with people saying how wrong it is to play that character.  IME, that did not exist before - especially when the default assumptions was that you ROLLED your stats.  IMO, the stat arrays and point buys have contributed somewhat to these attitudes.




If I had to theorize, I'd say that the issue came to the forefront because of 3e's move to unify the stat bonus progression.  As near as I can tell, in 1e and 2e, the differences between most stats is almost always a +1, at least till you get to the 18 ability score.  A greater strength would affect skills like bend bars or carrying capacity, but not as much your attacks.  In that case, a STR 10 fighter just isn't a major hinderance.  Whereas, in d20, there is a very quantifiable difference between STR 12 and STR16.  In that kind of rule set, its isn't the MMO influence that will drive powergaming, its the fact that the system itself lends itself to powergaming and optimization.  The basic truth is that stats in d20 are very dissimilar to stats in older edition.  Comparing the two is a dishonest tactic because the differences at just too great.


----------



## fuzzlewump (Jan 31, 2010)

GMforPowergamers said:


> tell me again why your butt kickers would not be able to have a less powerful memeber? tell me again why everyone MUST be optimized... I am yet to hear you say even once what you lose from this... as long as everyone contributes to fun at the table what diff does anything else make???



Not everyone will agree on what constitutes "fun at the table." You're right, that's all that matters. But if the power-gamers want to defeat challenges as a well-oiled and powerful machine (as most of my players do) then having someone who either doesn't do it well or worse for them, someone who is intending not to fit in well, can be a source of un-fun.

For instance, a bloodied melee glass canon is on the cleric, and he needs help. The roleplayer character playing a halfling rogue decides to go check out the treasure and leaves the cleric to die. The player of the halfling might be having a great time, laughing at the role he has chosen. But the rest of the party could be completely frustrated. It may not be the kind of game you are used to, but it's not badwrongfun. Similarly, if that halfling has a 10 in his dexterity, and missed because of the -4 he is suffering from the well built halfling it can also be frustrating, even if the halfling is still having fun despite missing a bit more often.

The way I see it, my players become attached to the roleplaying aspect of their characters and thus do not wish their characters to die, so, they will min/max those characters to a point. If someone came in saying I want to play the intelligent fighter and dumps strength for intelligence, we would either say NO or basically calculate him as a 1/10 character or something for encounters. In our group, at best, he contributes not much nor takes away much, but at worst that character is a detriment to the party's fun as a whole.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jan 31, 2010)

No, combat doesn´t take longer with an unoptimized group... thats a false assumtion:

If you are less powerful, you will just have more encounters until you level up... your DM has the responsibility to make combats fun... if he needs to adept, he has to do so...

a 14 in the main stat in 4th edition is suboptimal, and you can´t make up for it later... the best thing you can do is paragon multiclass or take an off class paragon path at least (but you will swap out as much powers as possible)

edit: i know i am somehow optimizing here, but i guess you always find a nice way to make use of your better stats later on... 
In 3.x it is easy to change your class to a more fitting one (which could tell a very nice character story)

I don´t like single attribute dependence, because not putting anything in your single main stat makes you way underpowered... so its a system feature to put your best score in the main stat.

I believe in 4th edition you should take a class which can make use of the stats you like to fokus in.

However if you want to play an 18 wisdom, 18 con, 11 strength 13 dexterity fighter it could actually work... you just have to switch to warpriest later on and take sure strike at the beginning. your defender capabilities don´t suffer too much...


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 31, 2010)

outsider said:


> And, yes.  When 1 player goes against the desires of the group on a consistent basis, he is the problem, not the group.  Doesn't matter if the 1 guy is "weakness is the height of rp!" guy or "I want to play Punpun!" guy.




I actually agree with this, but I wonder why the DM approved the character if the character goes against the desires of the group.  Perhaps this alone is an indication that the character doesn't go against the desires of at least one member of the group -- the only one AFAICT who has the authority to say what characters are appropriate (or not) for a given milieu.

RC


----------



## outsider (Jan 31, 2010)

fuzzlewump said:


> If someone came in saying I want to play the intelligent fighter and dumps strength for intelligence, we would either say NO or basically calculate him as a 1/10 character or something for encounters.




The truly bizzarre thing is that in 4th edition, they could create this character with 16 str and 16 int, and the character wouldn't be drastically weaker than a more standard fighter.   Or, even better, they could create a tactical warlord.  Yet, for some reason, the players that do this sort of thing would insist on going 10 str and 16 int fighter. For some reason, some players just HAVE to do things the rules say they shouldn't.  On the roleplaying end, you get the low strength fighters, on the powergaming end you get the guys who try to find loopholes and poorly written rules to justify power characters that clearly aren't intended to be in the game.  I really don't get the mindset, but I've seen it as long as I've played D&D.


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 31, 2010)

fuzzlewump said:


> Try me. Or not, it doesn't matter. But don't make the assertion that I _cannot_ understand. You, really, don't know.
> 
> EDIT:Missed the last post. I'm not sure, but it seems like you think that I encountered "other intelligible viewpoints" but actually, I hadn't. I was waiting for those viewpoints. With Danny's explanation, I feel indeed a better sense of understanding of of our different values.




Yeah, conversations get awkward with people posting on top of each other. I was basically just echoing that you didn't get the idea, checking in that it was a values issue, rather than a misunderstanding based on my or someone else's idea of optimization.


----------



## outsider (Jan 31, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I actually agree with this, but I wonder why the DM approved the character if the character goes against the desires of the group.  Perhaps this alone is an indication that the character doesn't go against the desires of at least one member of the group -- the only one AFAICT who has the authority to say what characters are appropriate (or not) for a given milieu.
> 
> RC




I don't follow the "DM decides everything" philosophy.  While the DM has the authority to decide what is appropriate for the setting/theme of the game, the player group has the authority to decide what is appropriate for the pc group(within the campaign limits set out by the DM).  The conflict described above is why I and the people I played regularly with came to this conclusion.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 31, 2010)

Just pointing out that your definition of "everybody" isn't everybody in the group.


----------



## rjdafoe (Jan 31, 2010)

malraux said:


> If I had to theorize, I'd say that the issue came to the forefront because of 3e's move to unify the stat bonus progression. As near as I can tell, in 1e and 2e, the differences between most stats is almost always a +1, at least till you get to the 18 ability score. A greater strength would affect skills like bend bars or carrying capacity, but not as much your attacks. In that case, a STR 10 fighter just isn't a major hinderance. Whereas, in d20, there is a very quantifiable difference between STR 12 and STR16. In that kind of rule set, its isn't the MMO influence that will drive powergaming, its the fact that the system itself lends itself to powergaming and optimization. The basic truth is that stats in d20 are very dissimilar to stats in older edition. Comparing the two is a dishonest tactic because the differences at just too great.





Again, these are my experiences with people who where not like this before they started playing MMOs.  That is how I attribue it.  These people, while they wanted a good character, where not obsessed about it until they encountered it in MMOs.  That is what changed these particular people.

Again, it is the change of attitude, not the act of doing it.  I am sure that there are exceptions, as there always are.  I just don't think it was as widespread.  And even at cons, there where no "your character sucks" attitudes that I encountered.

To me, it is all attitude and expression of that - jsut like this title.  How do I tell someone their character sucks is the attitude.  Now maybe I am putting mroe weith into MMOs than I should, and maybe it is a progression of games or whatever.  I know how 15 people where playing 3E before we got into MMOs and I know how, 1 year later, these same people 3E game changed dramaticly.


----------



## outsider (Jan 31, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Just pointing out that your definition of "everybody" isn't everybody in the group.




Okay, this is starting to get a bit annoying.  I never said "everybody" or even "every player"(as somebody else misquoted me), I said "Every player but one".


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 31, 2010)

My error, then.  I thought "When 1 player goes against the desires of the group on a consistent basis, he is the problem, not the group." meant the group (i.e., everybody but that one player) not part of a group, which is what you apparently meant.

So, when 1 player goes against the desires of some people in the group on a consistent basis, he is the problem, not those people in the group?


RC


----------



## outsider (Jan 31, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> So, when 1 player goes against the desires of some people in the group on a consistent basis, he is the problem, not those people in the group?
> 
> 
> RC




Change "some" to "most", and the answer is yes.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 31, 2010)

Well, at least your opinion is clear.


----------



## outsider (Jan 31, 2010)

It can be applied to many things aside from powergaming/optimisation as well.  Take, for example, a campaign where the DM sets out no alignment guidelines.  4 players decide to play good, and one insists upon playing evil.  By the logic some people have presented in this thread, the 4 players should give up their good characters so the 1 player can play evil.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.  It's unfair to expect a group to conform to you, rather than the other way around.  If you're in a group of heroes, don't try to play a villian.  If you're in a group of powergamers, don't deliberately set out to make a weak character.  If you're in a group of Actors, don't try to turn every situation into a fight.


----------



## ShadowDenizen (Jan 31, 2010)

> I don't follow the "DM decides everything" philosophy. While the DM has the authority to decide what is appropriate for the setting/theme of the game, the player group has the authority to decide what is appropriate for the pc group(within the campaign limits set out by the DM).




I'll chime in to disagree with this.

While I won't say "The DM decides everything"....

I will say that each player, has the ability to decide, _for themselves_, what class, background, array of stats, etc., to choose.  Sure, IME, there's typically some limited cross-talk to determine general party makeup, but no-one [at least in my group] would cast aspersions on someone for (Heaven Forfend!) putting a lowly 14 in their prime requisite, or choosing an "unoptomized" feat.

And the DM has the right to discuss his views on the group and the characters, and/or to tailor the encounters accordingly so everyone has fun.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 31, 2010)

I am of two minds about this.

On one hand, in a game where the players do not all play together (an open sandbox ala the Westmarches), then the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.  Sure.  The players determine who is in what group.

On the other hand, the film that quote comes from was followed by Search for Spock, where the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the few.  If you have one group, playing on only one day, some level of reasonable accomodation is....er....reasonable.


RC


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 31, 2010)

outsider said:


> I don't follow the "DM decides everything" philosophy.  While the DM has the authority to decide what is appropriate for the setting/theme of the game, the player group has the authority to decide what is appropriate for the pc group(within the campaign limits set out by the DM).  The conflict described above is why I and the people I played regularly with came to this conclusion.




What RC was pointing out, as I understand it, is that everyone in the group has to decide to participate, and the GM is the one defines the setting, design challenges, and narrates the game overall. The GM has neither more nor less power than any other player to object to a character, although they may have more influence, but simply by allowing the character, they have warranted that the character is acceptable for the setting, the planned challenges, and the game dynamic. 

The other players may simply refuse to have a certain PC in their group, but as they have only one two options (leave the group, or convince the group to veto the character), I think as a practical matter players should get used to the idea that each player has great lattitude to make the choices they prefer. Unless and until a character becomes a game-stopper, I don't think anyone has a a right to object, although they may state their own opinions and preferences (identifying them as such, and not as a gold standard for optimization, "sanity," fulfilling their responsibilities to the group, and so forth).

Generally combat-optimized characters is *far* from universal as a prerequisite to role-playing, and in fact, many games and campaigns are built around PC incompetence. D&D has only one basic position; PCs should be "adventure-ready" as it is an adventuring game full of physical danger. It is really up to the player how they want to face that premise. Certainly, if I were draggd into a 4e game, I would be far more concerned about stamping a personality on my character than aspiring to a degree of mechanical effectiveness, since my motivation would be almost entirely social and narrative related (hang out with my friends, play a character I find amusing), since the mechanical aspects of 4e are unappealing to me.

Since some players find mechanics in general far less appealing than others do, "sub-optimal" character design is not only a fact of life, but a necessary consequence of player choice. If you want to talk about tactical, winning-oriented play alone, Magic or tournament bridge might be more appropriate venues. D&D, and other RPGs, are about slaying dragons, finding treasure, rescuing ogres, and so forth. There are a number of entirely reasonable approaches to such things that place numerical superiority very low in priority. Some people, for instance, like elves, so they will play them, however high or low in effectiveness they are in the game chosen, and regardless of how well their preferred archetype agrees with the elf as written for that game. Some people will pick characters from other media and adapt them, however much or little they resemble a typical D&D Special Ops Treasure Extraction Team member. If it were not for such facts, hobbits/halflings would never have made it at as a playable race in D&D, as their original presentation was "a fighter, but with limited advancement."


----------



## outsider (Jan 31, 2010)

ShadowDenizen said:


> but no-one [at least in my group] would cast aspersions on someone for (Heaven Forfend!) putting a lowly 14 in their prime requisite, or choosing an "unoptomized" feat.




Most powergamers wouldn't cast aspersions over an unoptimized feat.  A single feat makes very little difference.  A 14 in your attack stat has a far greater effect.  In 4e, at least.  In most previous editions of D&D, at some point you had an attack roll high enough you were guaranteed to hit pretty much everything you encounter.  Or you had stuff that you didn't need to roll attacks for(ie magic).  In 4th edition, you need to roll attack rolls for pretty much everything, and if you're not careful, your chance to hit(and thus your chance to provide on hit effects which can include everything from buffs, debuffs, healing, extra movement, etc) can dip really low.


----------



## Nifft (Jan 31, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I did it because the stats reflected the PC concept.



 Of course! Choosing stats to suit a concept is a time-honored --



Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'm not playing silly buggers.  It was a 2Ed campaign with rolled stats.



 -- but you didn't choose stats, you rolled them. The stats preceded the character concept.

You are playing silly buggers, again.




Dannyalcatraz said:


> 9 was the minimum Str for fighters, and my PC had a 10.  While Dex was the primary attack stat, you realize that he was giving up _huge _amounts of damage by not placing Str to at least 2nd rank.
> 
> And, point in fact, his stats were Int & Dex (both 17's), Con15, Wis 12, Cha10, Str10.  He was a warrior whose strength was cunning plans and battlefield command, not wading in to battle and swinging an axe.



 Right, you were a high-Dexterity archer. That's a fine character.

It's just that it's not really the same as: 







Dannyalcatraz said:


> Not only would I play a PC with a 10 in the primary stat, I have done so.



 ... since your primary attack stat as an archer is Dexterity.

Cheers, -- N

PS: Perhaps you meant "Prime Requisite"? Not the same as primary attack stat, but the root word "prime" does appear in both.


----------



## Kinneus (Jan 31, 2010)

GMforPowergamers said:


> MMOs and 4e are just showing that people are less considerat of others...just look at the thread title, it isn't "How do I politely say I think you need help" It says "Your character sucks"



I can't believe I have to say this, but I feel like it needs to be said. The thread title was a joke, people. I do not believe this person's character sucks (or sucked, as our game has since fallen apart). I don't believe the player sucks, his intelligence sucks, or even that his build sucks. If you hooked me up to a polygraph, you might get me to admit that his build had a higher chance of sucking than most builds. My only issue was 1) he seemed like a new player and 2) he made what I consider to be the questionable decision of putting only a 14 in his Intelligence.

This thread was about how to tactfully ask him why, how to tactfully offer a new player help on building a fun and effective character, _however he personally defined that_. At no point was I going to sit this person down and say, "Your character sucks, and I'm going to fix it for you because you're too much of a newb to do it yourself." I'd never do that, and it's frankly irritating that other people think I would. Reread my first post- I specifically said I was trying to avoid giving him the impression that I thought his character sucked.

The thread title is a joke. I make an effort to be a polite and tactful person, particularly online. I'm not interested in being your 4e scapegoat. And, finally, for the record, I've never played World of Warcraft.


----------



## outsider (Jan 31, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> The other players may simply refuse to have a certain PC in their group, but as they have only one two options (leave the group, or convince the group to veto the character), I think as a practical matter players should get used to the idea that each player has great lattitude to make the choices they prefer.




Right, I agree with this.  However, it's reasonable to expect that every player at least tries to create a character that will fit in.  If they are deliberately trying to not fit in, I think it's reasonable to give them the boot.

I don't mean "well, I just created my guy organically to match my concept, and he came out a little weak".  That happens, is totally innocent, and the player is usually willing to work with the group a bit to fix things up.  I mean "I deliberately created this character to be weak.  Now change your characters' concepts and personalities to justify my character's presence in the group".  That second guy is being a jerk.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 1, 2010)

outsider said:


> Right, I agree with this.  However, it's reasonable to expect that every player at least tries to create a character that will fit in. If they are deliberately trying to not fit in, I think it's reasonable to give them the boot.




I think that begs the question of whether they're not trying to fit in. If you are referring to the character, I'm not sure what "fits in" means besides "adventures with," which does not presume any particular competence in any particular area, except the minimum qualifications to be an adventurer.

If however we turn this around to the _player_ fitting in, you may have a point, but again, that has not been established. Maybe the problem is group plus X player, and _you_ are the one not fitting in. Not everyone agress on combat optimization, but I think it's near-universal that squabbling at the table is suboptimal.



> I don't mean "well, I just created my guy organically to match my concept, and he came out a little weak".  That happens, is totally innocent, and the player is usually willing to work with the group a bit to fix things up.  I mean "I deliberately created this character to be weak.  Now change your characters' concepts and personalities to justify my character's presence in the group".  That second guy is being a jerk.




I'm not sure the second guy exists. I'm not going to criticize or justify that person without context. I do know that in the case of the OP, we were talking about a 14 instead of a 16-20, with the character basically functional if not ideal in some respects, so I am taking that as the benchmark for discussion. Again, nothing you have said dissuades me from the advice I just gave; people design their characters for a variety of reasons. If you cannot accept that, it is likely you who has the attitude problem. 

Every character has to be justified. Why does Magey McMage, the Intelligant Mage of Intelligence get a pass, while someone's plucky farmboy-turned-swordmage is offensive? You are presuming a negative intention. In my experience, almost every character is an attempt to do something the player thinks will be positive, however dysfunctional their approach.


----------



## Nifft (Feb 1, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> I'm not sure the second guy exists.



 I've seen people play steal-from-the-party Rogues. Jerks really do exist. The "intentionally crap" character guy is a step above that, at least.



pawsplay said:


> Every character has to be justified. Why does Magey McMage, the Intelligant Mage of Intelligence get a pass, while someone's plucky farmboy-turned-swordmage is offensive?



 Let me ask this: why must someone's plucky farmboy be dumb? If he's a farmboy who turns into a kickass Jedi (for example), you'd expect him to have rather good stats for the stuff Jedi need.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Runestar (Feb 1, 2010)

And for whatever it is worth, I have never played a single MMO in my life. Yet between being optimized and not optimized, I would still opt for the former. Nor would I say that my perceptions were shaped by the "need to excel" mentality in those games.

My rationale is that as I play more of those games, I become more experienced and familiar with the rules and how they interact. It seems like a natural progression to evolve my character builds in accordance with my mastery of the game mechanics.

It is like playing a spellcaster in 3e. At first, I might play a blaster as that is what the wizard seems built for. But from experiences and discussion on the net, I discover that my damage is not keeping up with the hp scaling of monsters, so I switch over to SoDs. But that did not prove satisfying, as the result is often too binary, and not very efficient vs larger groups of weaker mooks. So after some experimentation and debate on the net, I finally settle on battlefield control, which showcases the true latent capabilities of the wizard.

I had found my true calling.

Maybe it is just me, but looking back, I don't think I can ever stomach playing a blaster or SoD wizard again. Maybe ignorance was a bliss.

Was I really so wrong?


----------



## outsider (Feb 1, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> I'm not sure the second guy exists. I'm not going to criticize or justify that person without context. I do know that in the case of the OP, we were talking about a 14 instead of a 16-20, with the character basically functional if not ideal in some respects, so I am taking that as the benchmark for discussion. Again, nothing you have said dissuades me from the advice I just gave; people design their characters for a variety of reasons. If you cannot accept that, it is likely you who has the attitude problem.




They do exist.  I've played with at least 3 of this type of player.  They are the kind of player that believes that people who play weak characters are better roleplayers than those who play powerful ones.  They are the kind of player that uses the term "rollplaying" as a slur.  They are the type of player that thinks powergaming is inherently wrong.  They are the reason the Stormwind Fallacy exists.

If you've seen anybody that uses terms like munchkin, rollplaying, etc frequently, you may be looking at one of these people.  In a regular, mixed group of players they'll be somewhat functional.  They'll butt heads with any powergamers in the group, but the presence of level headed players in the midground between the extreme playstyles will usually keep it from getting too far.

If one of these guys ends up in a powergamer heavy group though, they can become EXTREMELY petty and disruptive, just as bad as when a powergamer plays in a group that's otherwise into "deep roleplaying, never touch the dice" type of play.

As far as being unable to accept that people create characters for different reasons, and thus maybe it's my fault, I can easily accept that people create characters for different reasons.  However, if your reason is opposed to the reasons of the rest of the players, you are going to be a problem.  If I wind up in a group that doesn't like powergaming, I either leave the group or I create a character that's weaker than I normally would(assuming there's something else compelling enough about he game for me to justify playing in it).  It is unreasonable for one person to try to force his preferences on 4 people, even when I'm that one person.


----------



## MrGrenadine (Feb 1, 2010)

outsider said:


> It defies logic.




Yeah.  No defying logic!  Now, let's get back to pretending to be elves and dragon-people...


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 1, 2010)

Nifft said:


> I've seen people play steal-from-the-party Rogues. Jerks really do exist. The "intentionally crap" character guy is a step above that, at least.




If someone makes an intentional crap character, I think they have an agenda. I don't think  I've ever met a "method actor" who felt his character demanded a life of futility and inconsequence. 



> Let me ask this: why must someone's plucky farmboy be dumb? If he's a farmboy who turns into a kickass Jedi (for example), you'd expect him to have rather good stats for the stuff Jedi need.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




Why would he be smart? Also, how is 14 dumb? Who said anything about dumb? Why does a plucky farm boy have to have the secret potential to be the Greatest Jedi Ever?


----------



## Nifft (Feb 1, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> If someone makes an intentional crap character, I think they have an agenda. I don't think  I've ever met a "method actor" who felt his character demanded a life of futility and inconsequence.



 I tend to agree, just like I think the thief who steals from party members has an agenda.



pawsplay said:


> Why would he be smart?



 Because his player wants to make him a Swordmage.



pawsplay said:


> Also, how is 14 dumb? Who said anything about dumb?



 You did, when you contrasted him against "Magey McMage, the Intelligant Mage of Intelligence".



pawsplay said:


> Why does a plucky farm boy have to have the secret potential to be the Greatest Jedi Ever?



 Because he's a PC.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 1, 2010)

outsider said:


> They do exist.




I don't think we've defined what characteristics "they" have. It's entirely possible you've misinterpreted other people's behavior, that you describe behavior in this way that someone else wouldn't, or that you are mistaking what I and others are trying to say.



> I've played with at least 3 of this type of player.  They are the kind of player that believes that people who play weak characters are better roleplayers than those who play powerful ones.  They are the kind of player that uses the term "rollplaying" as a slur.  They are the type of player that thinks powergaming is inherently wrong.  They are the reason the Stormwind Fallacy exists.
> 
> If you've seen anybody that uses terms like munchkin, rollplaying, etc frequently, you may be looking at one of these people.  In a regular, mixed group of players they'll be somewhat functional.  They'll butt heads with any powergamers in the group, but the presence of level headed players in the midground between the extreme playstyles will usually keep it from getting too far.
> 
> If one of these guys ends up in a powergamer heavy group though, they can become EXTREMELY petty and disruptive, just as bad as when a powergamer plays in a group that's otherwise into "deep roleplaying, never touch the dice" type of play.




I'm going to go with the theory you are misinterpreting behavior, because the motivations of the person you are describing sound incomprehensible to me if you are really giving them the benefit of the doubt. On the other hand, if I assume you are distorting the account because of your own unconscious bias, I find it easy to believe you are simply experiencing a clash of style, values, and goals, combined with some unproductive group dynamics.



> As far as being unable to accept that people create characters for different reasons, and thus maybe it's my fault, I can easily accept that people create characters for different reasons.  However, if your reason is opposed to the reasons of the rest of the players, you are going to be a problem.




Right. Whereas, if your reasons are simply different, that shouldn't be a problem. So if a person wishes to make a certain style of character for roleplaying reasons, different motivations than the rest of the group, and other people are opposed to these reasons... I think that means the problem principally resides in the other players. I can't tell someone their character isn't fun to them, but I can tell someon they are being aggressive and that their attitude is interfering with their ability to relate to others.



> If I wind up in a group that doesn't like powergaming, I either leave the group or I create a character that's weaker than I normally would(assuming there's something else compelling enough about he game for me to justify playing in it).  It is unreasonable for one person to try to force his preferences on 4 people, even when I'm that one person.




It's unreasonable for four people to force their preferences on one. Reason does not submit to a majority vote. According to these rules, an exactly divided group would consist entirely of people who were being "unreasonable." How can that possibly be?

I think you are happy being a powergamer, and that dealing with non-powergamers is uncomfortable to you. When playing with non-powergamers, you do not modify your attitude, you simply dial your attitude down a notch, and when you play with powergamers, you feel justified in inflicting your viewpoint on non-powers in the group. It's pretty clear that you think powergaming is better and non-powergaming is worse. Correct me if I have misunderstood your position in some way.

I can think of no logical reason why a non-powergamer would be destined to butt heads with powergamers.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 1, 2010)

Nifft said:


> Because his player wants to make him a Swordmage.




So? Somewhere out there are all the guys who are not the smartest Swordmage in history. Someone gets to be head of the class, someone always has to be last.



> You did, when you contrasted him against "Magey McMage, the Intelligant Mage of Intelligence".




No, no I didn't. I just said Magey was intelligent, and I implied he was highly specialized in intelligence. I didn't say farmboy was dumb, and strongly implied he had an Int of 14, which is not dumb, but smart.



> Because he's a PC.




How does that follow? Are all PCs destined to be equally the Greatest Jedi Ever? There's no room for characters who become legends because they have pluck/heart/loyalty/some other useful talent?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 1, 2010)

outsider said:


> It can be applied to many things aside from powergaming/optimisation as well.  Take, for example, a campaign where the DM sets out no alignment guidelines.  4 players decide to play good, and one insists upon playing evil.  By the logic some people have presented in this thread, the 4 players should give up their good characters so the 1 player can play evil.




how about in that case we find away to make it work... my go to example (and I have even seen it work) is Tyr from andromina... a NE character on a ship full of G aligned characters (mostly CG with the one or two NGs)... he got the job done, he needed them, they needed him... and at the end of the day "I can always trust Tyr to... well be Tyr" or  Jane of Firefly "Why didn't you turn on me jane?" "Money wasn't good enough" "It will be one day though?" "Yea that will be an intresting day" "Yea  mighty intresting one"

or heck as long as one isn't a paliden... just keep the alignment secret in game (not out of game that might cause problems depending ont he group)





> The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.  It's unfair to expect a group to conform to you, rather than the other way around.



  that is where we compramize so everyone gets to play the character they want without stepping ont to other characters....




> If you're in a group of heroes, don't try to play a villian.



but one anti hero with a villian back story can be fun...



> If you're in a group of powergamers, don't deliberately set out to make a weak character.  If you're in a group of Actors, don't try to turn every situation into a fight.



 but again why can't I be weak and you be strong, I start fights well you mend bridges...



Kinneus said:


> I can't believe I have to say this, but I feel like it needs to be said. The thread title was a joke, people. I do not believe this person's character sucks (or sucked, as our game has since fallen apart).



 good I am glad... but at this point it has moved well beyond any one example and into the whole... and on the whole it is the attitude I keep runnign into... infact I have herd people say "Your character Sucks" at LFR games to new players...



outsider said:


> I don't mean "well, I just created my guy organically to match my concept, and he came out a little weak".  That happens, is totally innocent, and the player is usually willing to work with the group a bit to fix things up.  I mean "I deliberately created this character to be weak.  Now change your characters' concepts and personalities to justify my character's presence in the group".  That second guy is being a jerk.




ok what about I made my str 14 fighter the way I want, can't we just say I am the weakest of us... say the newbie???


and again... gee I am less optimized, infact under par/average... so all it takes is 1 of the other 4 players to see me as there younger brother (or like one) and poof... and the only line needed is "You show potential... one day your gonna be a killer boy..."


----------



## Nifft (Feb 1, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> So? Somewhere out there are all the guys who are not the smartest Swordmage in history. Someone gets to be head of the class, someone always has to be last.



 That's blatantly untrue. Nobody is forced to play a character who sucks, because unlike "history" (by which I assume you mean "reality"), in D&D you get to pick your character's stats.

No PC is ever required to be the last guy in class.

If your group forces you to play a loser, I'd suggest you consider finding another group.



pawsplay said:


> No, no I didn't. I just said Magey was intelligent, and I implied he was highly specialized in intelligence. I didn't say farmboy was dumb, and strongly implied he had an Int of 14, which is not dumb, but smart.



 14 is not very smart in this edition. Other editions may vary. In 1e, it was quite smart: the smartest gods only went up to 25 after all. In 4e, every Int-based character is expected to end up with 26-30 by level 30 -- smarter than the smartest 1e god.

Also, of course, stats don't necessarily represent education -- skills can do that as well. If you wanted to play a Swordmage / country bumpkin, you could easily model that by dumping Knowledge skills in favor of farmboy-type skills:
- Lose Arcana (change to Endurance).
- Lose access to History, gain access to Nature.

There. Now you're not a know-it-all, but you don't suck at your chosen profession either.



pawsplay said:


> How does that follow? Are all PCs destined to be equally the Greatest Jedi Ever? There's no room for characters who become legends because they have pluck/heart/loyalty/some other useful talent?



 All Jedi PCs are destined to be great Jedi PCs... unless you want to deliberately play a loser, or your game never gets past level 4.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 1, 2010)

outsider said:


> If you've seen anybody that uses terms like munchkin, rollplaying, etc frequently, you may be looking at one of these people.  In a regular, mixed group of players they'll be somewhat functional.  They'll butt heads with any powergamers in the group, but the presence of level headed players in the midground between the extreme playstyles will usually keep it from getting too far.




funny... so they are only a problem when they pollut YOUR games....



> If one of these guys ends up in a powergamer heavy group though, they can become EXTREMELY petty and disruptive, just as bad as when a powergamer plays in a group that's otherwise into "deep roleplaying, never touch the dice" type of play.




by the way it can also shake up a group that is use to one or the other to help to make the experence positive... if you let them do there thing and show yours off to them at the same time...



> As far as being unable to accept that people create characters for different reasons, and thus maybe it's my fault, I can easily accept that people create characters for different reasons.  However, if your reason is opposed to the reasons of the rest of the players, you are going to be a problem.




why???  why can't I play my character and you play yours and we find away for BOTH to exsist in the same game????



> If I wind up in a group that doesn't like powergaming, I either leave the group or I create a character that's weaker than I normally would(assuming there's something else compelling enough about he game for me to justify playing in it).  It is unreasonable for one person to try to force his preferences on 4 people, even when I'm that one person.




so if you joined my group, and really wanted to play my game you can't just make your character without any knowladge of the other PCs power levels?!?!?!?!??!


OK so what are you going to say when I tell you my avrage group has 1 powergamer... 3 people that sometimes power game sometimes don't, 1 who can't power game to save his life, and one that is almost brand new to the game.
       of those 6 players 2 always have long winded back stories and want the plot to flow like a story... 2 of them waffel on wheather they just want to roll dice or want to rp, one of them always has vedio game backgrounds that are only cheap ripp offs, and 1 never has a background or personlity inless forced too
       of those 6 players 1 hates skill challenges, 3 love skill challanges, and 2 don't care at all one way or another...

I never know what will be pitched or what combo it will be (Ok I always know matt will powergame attack and damage, and that is a given)


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 1, 2010)

Nifft said:


> All Jedi PCs are destined to be great Jedi PCs... unless you want to deliberately play a loser, or your game never gets past level 4.




um... I played (d6 system years ago) a jedi in the new jedi order (voong books were not out yet so we made it up) era that was raised hearing the stories of the rebelian, and I was the son of a noble, and I had a small amount of force talent (not alot) but my parents pulled strings to get me into the school on yavin 4...

      I had almost no force skills, but I had lots of other skills, and I was always the first one to try things, and I had alot of lore and knowladge... I was the geeky brainiac that tried real hard.  Infact they had a templet called the quicksadic (no idea how to spell it) Jedi...

     Not only was I not destin to be the best jedi, I bearly had the minumum to be one at all... but I brought other things to the game. Another PC was my 'master' we had the same points spent, he was full of force powers and lightsaber combat... me I was good at alot of other things... infact if I remember I only had +1D in light saber combat... witch made me worse then any starting jedi in the book...


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 1, 2010)

Nifft said:


> That's blatantly untrue. Nobody is forced to play a character who sucks, because unlike "history" (by which I assume you mean "reality"), in D&D you get to pick your character's stats.
> 
> No PC is ever required to be the last guy in class.
> 
> If your group forces you to play a loser, I'd suggest you consider finding another group.




I'm not sure what you're saying is untrue. It is true that someone is the smartest Swordmage, and someone else is not. We're not talking about anyone being forced into it. Why can someone not simply choose to play a Swordmage who is not particularly intelligent, for a Swordsmage?



> 14 is not very smart in this edition. Other editions may vary. In 1e, it was quite smart: the smartest gods only went up to 25 after all. In 4e, every Int-based character is expected to end up with 26-30 by level 30 -- smarter than the smartest 1e god.




It's at least four points smarter than a character who is not particular intelligent. If everyone else starts with 18 and ends up at 30, what's wrong with starting at 14 and ending up with 26?



> Also, of course, stats don't necessarily represent education -- skills can do that as well. If you wanted to play a Swordmage / country bumpkin, you could easily model that by dumping Knowledge skills in favor of farmboy-type skills:
> - Lose Arcana (change to Endurance).
> - Lose access to History, gain access to Nature.
> 
> There. Now you're not a know-it-all, but you don't suck at your chosen profession either.




I said he was plucky, not a bumpkin. If he's a swordmage at all, presumably he's had training. Because of his pluck.



> All Jedi PCs are destined to be great Jedi PCs... unless you want to deliberately play a loser, or your game never gets past level 4.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




This is one of the least accurate things I have ever seen on this board.

Maybe this is just my training, from starting with Basic D&D, but I don't think there's anything that weird about someone being in an adventuring profession with only a mildly raised score in their "prime requisite." So there's one mark against your argument.

Second, many characters will not survive past level 4, even if the game does.

Also, there is no guarantee a character will fulfill a conventional rise to fame. For instance, I don't think it would be shocking if a swordmage multiclassed a little as a fighter or something. As an another, entirely different example, maybe the character is sticks doggedly with the whole swordmage thing, but takes a paragon path that suggests something other than extraordinary competence at swordmaging. Any of those paths are possible even for a character with very high Intelligence. Anakin and Luke both excelled as pilots long before they came into their own as Jedi, so even the original analogy falls flat on this point.

Finally, you are conflating legendary achievements with extraordinary innate gifts. Unless you are saying great heroes are born, not made, I think the case can be made for a swordsmage with a merely exceptional level of intelligence one day becoming a great hero through hard work and pluck. 

One of my favorite 3e characters of all time was a bard. This was before 3.5, before they could even cast in armor. I had him wear padded armor and take lance as a proficiency, and he served as the paladin's squire. Despite being suboptimal in many respects, he was a useful healer, had some nifty defensive tricks using his skills, and most of all, was interesting. When the party fought a blue dragon, he was actually the last man standing and dealt the killing blow. The fact that his stats were not exceptional is of less interest to me than the fact that we had some good times together, that bard and I, and I felt that given the constraints I placed on him in the beginning, every victory was worth celebrating.


----------



## Mort (Feb 1, 2010)

GMforPowergamers;5074115U said:
			
		

> how about in that case we find away to make it work... my go to example (and I have even seen it work) is Tyr from andromina... a NE character on a ship full of G aligned characters (mostly CG with the one or two NGs)... he got the job done, he needed them, they needed him... and at the end of the day "I can always trust Tyr to... well be Tyr"




Works for a while, but you do realize that (spoiler just in case I guess) 



Spoiler



Dylan eventually had to kill Tyr to prevent his evil plans, right?



If the group realizes there will likely, eventually, be a breaking point and accepts it, than great everyone will probably have a blast roleplaying to and beyond that point. But eyes have to be open going in, or there will be negative feelings (if the time never comes, ok, but then there wasn't really much of a point of the word "evil" on his character sheet).



GMforPowergamers said:


> or  Jane of Firefly "Why didn't you turn on me jane?" "Money wasn't good enough" "It will be one day though?" "Yea that will be an intresting day" "Yea  mighty intresting one"




I love Jane and that kind of character can be fun, again though - needs the right group, both characters and players.

I think the true advice here is "don't be a jerk" - as long as your gaming/character doesn't derail the campaign, constantly suck the fun out of the room and/or otherwise detract from the play experience (fairly low standards, hopefully your character actually adds something too) then go for it.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 1, 2010)

Mort said:


> Works for a while, but you do realize that (spoiler just in case I guess)
> 
> 
> 
> ...





ok I did not know the spoiler (but no harm I stoped being into the series before tyr left) but I don't see it as having to go that way eaither... again I can see it as going more along the lines of close calls and (out of game) agreements...




> I love Jane and that kind of character can be fun, again though - needs the right group, both characters and players.




again it is one way to compramise so everyone gets to play the character they want...



> I think the true advice here is "don't be a jerk" - as long as your gaming/character doesn't derail the campaign, constantly suck the fun out of the room and/or otherwise detract from the play experience (fairly low standards, hopefully your character actually adds something too) then go for it.



 truer words were never spoken...um well typed... that is what I have been trying to say in like the last 30 posts... you sumed it up in like 4 lines...


----------



## Nifft (Feb 1, 2010)

GMforPowergamers said:


> Not only was I not destin to be the best jedi, I bearly had the minumum to be one at all... but I brought other things to the game. Another PC was my 'master' we had the same points spent, he was full of force powers and lightsaber combat... me I was good at alot of other things... infact if I remember I only had +1D in light saber combat... witch made me worse then any starting jedi in the book...



 So did you get to high level with that PC?



pawsplay said:


> I'm not sure what you're saying is untrue. It is true that someone is the smartest Swordmage, and someone else is not. We're not talking about anyone being forced into it. Why can someone not simply choose to play a Swordmage who is not particularly intelligent, for a Swordsmage?



 No, you're wrong because of *granularity*. In real life it may be possible to measure the difference between every individual, but in D&D they're all going to fall into a bucket from 20 to 16. All the 16s are equally "smart". No one person is last in the class -- a bunch are tied for that position.



pawsplay said:


> It's at least four points smarter than a character who is not particular intelligent. If everyone else starts with 18 and ends up at 30, what's wrong with starting at 14 and ending up with 26?



 The 18 can't end up at 30. He's doomed to 26, or 28 (at most) using an ED like Demigod.



pawsplay said:


> I said he was plucky, not a bumpkin. If he's a swordmage at all, presumably he's had training. Because of his pluck.



 Pluck = training? Okay...



pawsplay said:


> This is one of the least accurate things I have ever seen on this board.
> 
> Maybe this is just my training, from starting with Basic D&D, but I don't think there's anything that weird about someone being in an adventuring profession with only a mildly raised score in their "prime requisite." So there's one mark against your argument.



 Prime Requisite isn't the same as primary attack stat. So, you've missed your mark.

(By the way, Prime Requisite was a bad reward mechanic.)



pawsplay said:


> Second, many characters will not survive past level 4, even if the game does.
> 
> Also, there is no guarantee a character will fulfill a conventional rise to fame.



 "Conventional rise to fame"? What?

Regarding your survival comment, the idea of "loser" characters dying and being replaced by non-"loser" characters isn't exactly an argument in favor of playing a "loser" character.



pawsplay said:


> Anakin and Luke both excelled as pilots long before they came into their own as Jedi, so even the original analogy falls flat on this point.



 You'll have to be more explicit about what analogy you think you're debunking here. It looks to me like both had fine stats for their character's goals, which included piloting and being kickass Jedi.



pawsplay said:


> Finally, you are conflating legendary achievements with extraordinary innate gifts. Unless you are saying great heroes are born, not made, I think the case can be made for a swordsmage with a merely exceptional level of intelligence one day becoming a great hero through hard work and pluck.



 No, I'm just telling you that 4e has tighter design constraints than other editions.

In 1e, a magical weapon could easily make up for a low Strength. In 4e, that got taken away: everyone is expected to have a magical weapon of similar enhancement bonus which increases at the same rate for every PC.

In plain words: *You can't make up for it. Ever.* This is a deliberate design decision in 4e. Know why? Because all those ways people previously had to "make up for" their deficits in 3.x got abused by dirty, rotten optimizers. Basically, anything your 14 Int loser PC could do to overcome his loser-ness, someone else could slap on his 20 Int pimpmobile PC, making it pimp++. That's clearly not in the best interest of the game.



pawsplay said:


> (...) I felt that given the constraints I placed on him in the beginning, every victory was worth celebrating.



 That's the first reason I've heard yet for deliberately gimping your PC. I guess it's like a One City Challenge game in Civilization -- you're bored with the regular game and you want to give yourself a handicap.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## fanboy2000 (Feb 1, 2010)

outsider said:


> If you've seen anybody that uses terms like munchkin, rollplaying, etc frequently, you may be looking at one of these people.



I had to laugh when I read this. I frequently call the little bastards who play in my game munchkins. It's a natural reaction to having my monsters die quickly. Occasionally, I throw a really hard monster at them just to keep them on their toes. 

Yesterday, one of my players was DMing a special session. I killed three monsters on my first turn and he called me a munchkin! I guess it goes both ways.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 1, 2010)

Nifft said:


> No, you're wrong because of *granularity*. In real life it may be possible to measure the difference between every individual, but in D&D they're all going to fall into a bucket from 20 to 16. All the 16s are equally "smart". No one person is last in the class -- a bunch are tied for that position.




Bunk. I'm trained to do administer standardized tests, and I know people within a given field vary widely in their particular talents. There are plenty of people who are fantastic surgeons or car mechanics or whatever who do not have minds that are generally exceptional. If a character has a 14 Int, and most fighters have a 10, and the sharpest minds have 16s to 20s, the character is pretty darn brilliant from the standpoint of the ordinary person. Or from a more abstract rationale outside the game world... it's a few points, so what?



> The 18 can't end up at 30. He's doomed to 26, or 28 (at most) using an ED like Demigod.




Whichever. The point is that if he's 4 points behind at level 1, he's 4 points behind at level 30, or more or less, because there are so many other variables.



> Prime Requisite isn't the same as primary attack stat. So, you've missed your mark.




I don't think so. Both are measures of optimization. Whether in AD&D or 4e, a fighter can use a good Strength.



> (By the way, Prime Requisite was a bad reward mechanic.)




In many respects, yes.



> "Conventional rise to fame"? What?




Simply because someone starts as a wizard's apprentice does not mean they will end up being the Arch Wizard of the High Tower, nor does every plucky squire grow up to the nationa's premier jousting knight. Not every legendary character is going to fit a narrow definition of optimization within the game system. Arthur was not the combat monster in the group; Lancelot was. Paksenarrion, in Elizabeth Moon's stories, does not have exceptional skills as a swordsman, but she gains them, even though she is never as fluid as the best she knows, even at a peak where she can outfight many of them.



> Regarding your survival comment, the idea of "loser" characters dying and being replaced by non-"loser" characters isn't exactly an argument in favor of playing a "loser" character.




That isn't the idea I had in mind. Any character can die.



> You'll have to be more explicit about what analogy you think you're debunking here. It looks to me like both had fine stats for their character's goals, which included piloting and being kickass Jedi.




In the d20 version of the Star Wars game, both took a detour from their primary Jedi skills to take levels in Ace Pilot. It's also not a given that either had truly exceptional ability scores apart from an abnormal Dex and a decent Wis and Int. They simply became very high level characters.



> No, I'm just telling you that 4e has tighter design constraints than other editions.
> 
> In 1e, a magical weapon could easily make up for a low Strength. In 4e, that got taken away: everyone is expected to have a magical weapon of similar enhancement bonus which increases at the same rate for every PC.




Magic weapons didn't really "make up for" low Str in AD&D. They could just as easily enhance an already powerful powerful character. 



> In plain words: *You can't make up for it. Ever.* This is a deliberate design decision in 4e.




Yeah, we already covered that with the example I gave above about the level 1 character versus the level 30 character. Which means the 4 point spread isn't any better at level 30... but it's no worse, either.



> Know why? Because all those ways people previously had to "make up for" their deficits in 3.x got abused by dirty, rotten optimizers. Basically, anything your 14 Int loser PC could do to overcome his loser-ness, someone else could slap on his 20 Int pimpmobile PC, making it pimp++. That's clearly not in the best interest of the game.




No, that's not why. There has never been a "make up for" set of abilities in D&D. It has always been power on top of whatever you had before. There is nothing vile about optimizing, nor is it clear that narrower variation between PCs makes for a better game. In any case, it makes 4e an easier game to mess around with, because the expected variation is so narrow, you almost can't make yourself unable to hit somehting.



> That's the first reason I've heard yet for deliberately gimping your PC. I guess it's like a One City Challenge game in Civilization -- you're bored with the regular game and you want to give yourself a handicap.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




But that's not what I was doing. I just liked the idea of the character. I never felt gimped, useless, or impractical, although I realized other characters might have some advantages in some ways. 

I say, give the character the stat you want for them. If the picture in your mind is of an incompetent character, then the problem is the concept, not a stat. Saying, "Hm, I see him as more of a 14, bright not but brilliant, a plucky, hard-working soul more than a gifted mage," you are still picturing a competent character and it's hard to go wrong in that direction. Even though it might give someone fits who feels every character has to be hot-rodded. Where does this need to be in control come from? It's not like D&D is going to injure you or steal your money if your character is not strong enough.


----------



## fuzzlewump (Feb 1, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> I say, give the character the stat you want for them. If the picture in your mind is of an incompetent character, then the problem is the concept, not a stat. Saying, "Hm, I see him as more of a 14, bright not but brilliant, a plucky, hard-working soul more than a gifted mage," you are still picturing a competent character and it's hard to go wrong in that direction. Even though it might give someone fits who feels every character has to be hot-rodded. Where does this need to be in control come from? It's not like D&D is going to injure you or steal your money if your character is not strong enough.



Has divorcing game mechanics and flavor ever been an option for you? That is, giving the bright, plucky, hardworking swordmage a 20 intelligence and maintain that he is not incredibly brilliant? Or, playing the strong, plate-wearing halfling paladin who actually dumped strength for his charisma based attacks?

Come to think of it, I think this abstraction in 4E is what prompted me to allow the severance of the tie between story and mechanics altogether, because that's certainly not how I played in previous editions.


----------



## Starfox (Feb 1, 2010)

Kinneus said:


> I can't believe I have to say this, but I feel like it needs to be said. The thread title was a joke, people.




Threads often grow beyond the scope originally intended.

<joke>If this was a provocative joke, think you might qualify "troll of the decade".</joke>


----------



## blargney the second (Feb 1, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> I'm not sure the second guy exists.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 1, 2010)

fuzzlewump said:


> Has divorcing game mechanics and flavor ever been an option for you? That is, giving the bright, plucky, hardworking swordmage a 20 intelligence and maintain that he is not incredibly brilliant? Or, playing the strong, plate-wearing halfling paladin who actually dumped strength for his charisma based attacks?




Sure. I always treat attributes as abstractions, even in GURPS. To me, an attribute score is a sort of bid on how often you would like to succeed at certain things. On the other hand, I am alert to the secondary consequences. For instance, most games will give Spider-Man a lower intelligence than Reed Richards. However, Spidey pretty much always outsmarts people, and can build very amazing things in a pinch, despite not being much of a scientist, in theory. On the other hand, Reed is a brilliant scientist, but he is actually sort of dumb in a lot of ways. I would probably give them the same intelligence score; although Reed is "more intelligent," Peter is probably equally likely to succeed at intelligence rolls, so that is what is important, not their in-universe IQ. Reed would just have better skills.

Looking at your example, the paladin's lifting capacity would be unusually low and he would have trouble breaking down doors. That matters to me. Whatever number is used to get the correct result, that does not matter to me.



> Come to think of it, I think this abstraction in 4E is what prompted me to allow the severance of the tie between story and mechanics altogether, because that's certainly not how I played in previous editions.




Certainly, it's one thing that turned me off 4e. I like abstraction... useful abstraction. Characters in D6 Star Wars have high attributes because they're heroic... if you see Dexterity 3D6, it's not because some backwaters governor is secretly a ninja, it's because he's expected to hit more often than not when he shoots a stormtrooper. But the view that you put your 16 or 18 in this stat, you dump that stat because it doesn't matter, etc. to me feels _arbitrary_.

Why have a trait that at all that never comes into play? Why does 4e have ability scores at all... couldn't you just skip right to shuffling points between your basic attack, your special attacks, your defense, etc.?


----------



## Gimby (Feb 1, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Why have a trait that at all that never comes into play? Why does 4e have ability scores at all... couldn't you just skip right to shuffling points between your basic attack, your special attacks, your defense, etc.?




Oh, probably.  M&M or True20 show us what can be done on this basis.  Can you imagine the howling of "Its not D&D!" if they had done that though?


----------



## outsider (Feb 1, 2010)

GMforPowergamers said:


> funny... so they are only a problem when they pollut YOUR games....




For the most part.  Things that one group considers a serious problem will be fine or even encouraged in the next.  There are very few playstyle problems that will be universally considered a problem in every group, which is my point.  Powergaming isn't a problem in every group.  Weak characters are a problem in some groups.



GMforPowergamers said:


> so if you joined my group, and really wanted to play my game you can't just make your character without any knowladge of the other PCs power levels?!?!?!?!??!




Not quite.  In a new group, I'd typically play something that I'd rate about 7 or 8 out of 10 on the powergaming scale.  Powerful enough for me to enjoy myself, but still within the powerscale of most average groups, and able to hang even if the group turns out to be a bunch of uber powergamers.  If I feel like being really safe, I'll play a leader, as people tend to have far less problem with you buffing them into the stratosphere instead of yourself.


----------



## Nifft (Feb 1, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> I'm trained to do administer standardized tests, and I know people within a given field vary widely in their particular talents. There are plenty of people who are fantastic surgeons or car mechanics or whatever who do not have minds that are generally exceptional. If a character has a 14 Int, and most fighters have a 10, and the sharpest minds have 16s to 20s, the character is pretty darn brilliant from the standpoint of the ordinary person. Or from a more abstract rationale outside the game world... it's a few points, so what?



 Reality ≠ D&D. Your experiences in the former carry no weight in discussing the latter.



pawsplay said:


> Whichever. The point is that if he's 4 points behind at level 1, he's 4 points behind at level 30, or more or less, because there are so many other variables.



 Yes. You can never make up for it. Glad you'll concede at least that.



pawsplay said:


> Simply because someone starts as a wizard's apprentice does not mean they will end up being the Arch Wizard of the High Tower, nor does every plucky squire grow up to the nationa's premier jousting knight. Not every legendary character is going to fit a narrow definition of optimization within the game system. Arthur was not the combat monster in the group; Lancelot was. Paksenarrion, in Elizabeth Moon's stories, does not have exceptional skills as a swordsman, but she gains them, even though she is never as fluid as the best she knows, even at a peak where she can outfight many of them.



 That's true, but now that I know what you mean, I don't see how it is relevant to this discussion (about how 4e deals with ability scores).



pawsplay said:


> In the d20 version of the Star Wars game, both took a detour from their primary Jedi skills to take levels in Ace Pilot. It's also not a given that either had truly exceptional ability scores apart from an abnormal Dex and a decent Wis and Int. They simply became very high level characters.



 In d20 SW, your Jedi wasn't quite a Wizard. He needed skill ranks and BAB rather than spell slots. You can get skill ranks and BAB from many sources, unlike spell slots.



pawsplay said:


> Magic weapons didn't really "make up for" low Str in AD&D. They could just as easily enhance an already powerful powerful character.



 No, really, they could. Only level affected attack rate, but attack bonus and damage were a combination of level, Strength, and magic bonuses. A guy with a THAC0 of 8 didn't care if two points of that came from Str and two came from his sword, or if instead four came from his sword and Str gave him nothing.

Also, in 2e your DM could give the low-Strength dude a Belt of Giant Strength, which granted a fixed Strength rather than a bonus -- the guy with 18/98 would have gotten no use out of it.

In 3e, the belt did stack, but you could build a weapon with a higher Enhancement bonus rather than more special abilities. If you had a very high Strength, you might add on Ghost Touch instead of another +1. If you had a low Strength, you could make up for it with Weapon Finesse + bonus damage (e.g. Holy, Shock, Bane, etc.). Even if it was often optimal to be a two-handed Power Attack monkey, it wasn't required, and against whole classes of foes the bonus damage dude would have been at a significant advantage.

In 4e, you lost both degrees of flexibility. You can't trade out enhancement bonus, and you can't use ability boosters because there are none. 



pawsplay said:


> No, that's not why. There has never been a "make up for" set of abilities in D&D. It has always been power on top of whatever you had before.



 See above.



pawsplay said:


> (...) it makes 4e an easier game to mess around with, because the expected variation is so narrow, you almost can't make yourself unable to hit somehting.



 Agreed. This was one of their goals, and they achieved it.



pawsplay said:


> But that's not what I was doing. I just liked the idea of the character. I never felt gimped, useless, or impractical, although I realized other characters might have some advantages in some ways.



 So when you said this: 







			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> I felt that given the constraints I placed on him in the beginning, every victory was worth celebrating.



 ... you didn't mean that those constraints impaired your PC? If they did impair him, that's the only meaning of "gimped" to which I refer -- you need not sleep in a box, nor wear only paraphernalia, to be "gimped".



blargney the second said:


>



 Sadly he no longer works for WotC.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Feb 1, 2010)

I really believe, in hindsight, that gauntlets of ogre strength as they were in ADnD are way better than they were in 4e and really really better than in 3e.

I could really imagine using gauntlets of ogre power in 4e and begin with something like 18 Strength in heroic, 20 Strength in paragon and 22 Strength in epic or something like that...

ths way, you can give a character a decent strentgh score without gimping a character that began with a 16 or more... (the 16 guy will even be ahead in late epic...)

This way you can give your non strength characters a decent melee attack


----------



## Nifft (Feb 1, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I really believe, in hindsight, that gauntlets of ogre strength as they were in ADnD are way better than they were in 4e and really really better than in 3e.
> 
> I could really imagine using gauntlets of ogre power in 4e and begin with something like 18 Strength in heroic, 20 Strength in paragon and 22 Strength in epic or something like that...
> 
> ...



 Eh, then you'd have the cheese-weasels telling everyone to put an 8 in Strength and make sure those gauntlets were on their Wishlists.

The 4e way is at least pretty blatant: if you want to be a decent Fighter, you put a 16 in Strength. Period. No fancy tricks, no tricky traps.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## billd91 (Feb 1, 2010)

Nifft said:


> Eh, then you'd have the cheese-weasels telling everyone to put an 8 in Strength and make sure those gauntlets were on their Wishlists.




Fortunately, that was never much of a problem because 1e/2e didn't encourage DMs dishing out treasure based on player wish lists. A PC could never count on ever finding them (or making them) and so they could never form a rational strategy around requiring them.

One of the best things about the gauntlets of ogre power (and gloves of dexterity) was that they worked best as compensatory magic items - you got the most benefit out of them by giving them to PCs not already blessed by a high stat. The mentality was significantly different.


----------



## Nifft (Feb 1, 2010)

billd91 said:


> Fortunately, that was never much of a problem because 1e/2e didn't encourage DMs dishing out treasure based on player wish lists. A PC could never count on ever finding them (or making them) and so they could never form a rational strategy around requiring them.
> 
> One of the best things about the gauntlets of ogre power (and gloves of dexterity) was that they worked best as compensatory magic items - you got the most benefit out of them by giving them to PCs not already blessed by a high stat. The mentality was significantly different.



 Well, there were no rules saying yea or nay, so you could count on getting magic items precisely in so far as you could count on using "social engineering" on your DM.

By codifying reward rules, 3e and 4e have limited the potential for "social engineering" to unbalance a game.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Feb 1, 2010)

Nifft said:


> Eh, then you'd have the cheese-weasels telling everyone to put an 8 in Strength and make sure those gauntlets were on their Wishlists.




See, we solve that problem by bringing back the ability minimum for classes.  It would even fit with the 4E philosophy of avoiding newbie traps.  Creating a character with a low score in your class's primary attack stat is one of the few ways left for people to screw up their character, so why not just make a minimum 16 (after racial adjustments) be required and also require that one of your two +1's at the every 4th level stat increase be devoted to it?

It's probably a good idea in general, even without trying to make old school stat items work.


----------



## fuzzlewump (Feb 1, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Certainly, it's one thing that turned me off 4e. I like abstraction... useful abstraction. Characters in D6 Star Wars have high attributes because they're heroic... if you see Dexterity 3D6, it's not because some backwaters governor is secretly a ninja, it's because he's expected to hit more often than not when he shoots a stormtrooper. But the view that you put your 16 or 18 in this stat, you dump that stat because it doesn't matter, etc. to me feels _arbitrary_.
> 
> Why have a trait that at all that never comes into play? Why does 4e have ability scores at all... couldn't you just skip right to shuffling points between your basic attack, your special attacks, your defense, etc.?



So, dumping or putting a 16-18 in a stat is arbitrary? And, it's not in previous editions? Or is this condemning all of D&D?

I agree, why have a trait that doesn't come into play. I can't remember a non-sorceror type caster that I played that had above a 10 in charisma in 3.x. Both games have all the stats being used in skills, as well.

Good call on the Paladin actually being weak as far as lifting and breaking stuff (without weapons), but that kind of stuff pretty much never comes up in my games. I can definitely see where it would matter to you.


----------



## Nifft (Feb 1, 2010)

Wolfwood2 said:


> See, we solve that problem by bringing back the ability minimum for classes.  It would even fit with the 4E philosophy of avoiding newbie traps.  Creating a character with a low score in your class's primary attack stat is one of the few ways left for people to screw up their character, so why not just make a minimum 16 (after racial adjustments) be required and also require that one of your two +1's at the every 4th level stat increase be devoted to it?
> 
> It's probably a good idea in general, even without trying to make old school stat items work.



 This would have zero negative impact on any game I've played, so it sounds good to me.

One area for caution would be the split-stat classes (e.g. Cleric, Ranger, Paladin, and Warlock) -- but those seem to be the exception rather than the rule these days, so maybe they're not worth bending the rules around.



fuzzlewump said:


> Good call on the Paladin actually being weak as far as lifting and breaking stuff (without weapons)



 Perhaps the Paladin is a gentle soul who doesn't really like breaking stuff. He's a civilized tea-drinking gentleman, not a bull in a china shop.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Herschel (Feb 1, 2010)

Blackbrrd said:


> An un-optimized party will have more deaths than an optimized party in the same encounters with the same players. Of course, your powergaming friend should* have played the meta-game an seen that he needed a character that stays out of problems to keep alive. In other words a bow-ranger or a dwarf battle vigor fighter or something.




Although in 4E an unoptimized party using good tactics is often stronger than an optimized party using basic tactics.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 1, 2010)

Gimby said:


> Oh, probably.  M&M or True20 show us what can be done on this basis.  Can you imagine the howling of "Its not D&D!" if they had done that though?




I think we've already heard it. The ability scores in 4e are just a mini-game to arrive at those numbers. I think people understand that. Not everyone likes 4e. done.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 1, 2010)

Nifft said:


> So when you said this:  ... you didn't mean that those constraints impaired your PC? If they did impair him, that's the only meaning of "gimped" to which I refer -- you need not sleep in a box, nor wear only paraphernalia, to be "gimped".




Gimped means "crippled." My character was not crippled; he was quite effective, he simply was not exceptional at (for instance) damage dealing.


----------



## Runestar (Feb 2, 2010)

> Although in 4E an unoptimized party using good tactics is often stronger than an optimized party using basic tactics.




And the optimized party is mysteriously barred from using the very same good tactics because...?

This means nothing, since all other things equal, assuming both parties are using similar tactics, the optimized party should always come out ahead.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 2, 2010)

Nifft said:


> So did you get to high level with that PC?




well there were no levels in that game, it is a point based, but yes I was played for a year and had lots of points...

    I ended up with a little better then starting jedi force powers, less then starting jedi light saber skill, and lots of knowladges, computer skills, and most of the diplomacy type skills... I was totaly not a master jedi...

  infact I just remembered well typeing this, I only built my own light saber in the last game we played... so that was when I was recognized in game as a KNIGHT...


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 2, 2010)

The clear solution here is to let the other players make his character for him.  And, if he uses less than optimal tactics, play the character as well.  The offending player can then be sent out for pizza.


RC


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 2, 2010)

Nifft said:


> Of course! Choosing stats to suit a concept is a time-honored --
> 
> -- but you didn't choose stats, you rolled them. The stats preceded the character concept.
> 
> ...




Not at all.

I had the concept.  Then I rolled stats.  Then I placed the resulting numbers to reflect the concept.  Had my top stat been 12 and my low stat been 6, I'd still have arranged the stats the same way.




> Right, you were a high-Dexterity archer. That's a fine character.
> 
> It's just that it's not really the same as:  ... since your primary attack stat as an archer is Dexterity.




Do you remember 2Ed?  Strength was the single most important stat for ANY warrior because of the way Str damage bonuses increased faster than any to-hit bonuses available.

Had I wished, I could have had the twin 17s in Str & Dex.  That would have pushed his damage bonus per arrow up from zilch and into positive numbers.  As the PC advanced, he could have had his Strength boosted further:  if he had just gotten it up to 18/00, that would have doubled his maximum damage per shot.  If, somehow, he had maxed out his Str to 25, his damage bonus per arrow would have been +14.

Instead of opting to advance his per-shot damage, he improved his accuracy.  To get a +6 to your ranged attacks based on Dex was essentially impossible- the charts stopped at a Dex of 25 with a bonus of +5.

If you do a statistical analysis, you'd see he was giving up a LOT of damage over time.  He simply couldn't make up for the lost damage with increased accuracy.  That 10 Str was definitely sub-optimal.

But if you still don't buy that, I ran a 3Ed Ftr/Th who did have a 15Str, but his Dex was only a 12.  Contrary to my usual builds, I placed his other high score- also a 15- in Con.  The was a thug and an intimidator, not a sneak, but he was smart..  Another, dumber thug Ftr/Th was even higher in Str and lower in Dex...and Int (both 9's).

I've also run Wizards who could barely cast a spell (most multiclassed into something else, but at least one was a mute), relatively unwise Clerics and Monks, and the like.

Why?

Because those were the PCs I wanted to play, and those concepts drove how I arranged their stats.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 2, 2010)

DannyA, there was no strength bonus for ranged weapons in 2e.  You could have had an 18/00 strength and this would make no difference to your damage with a bow.  Even strength bows were not standard equipment in 2e.  I believe they appeared in the Complete Fighter's guide IIRC.  

The only bonus you could get to damage with a bow would be through specialization.  

So, no, dump statting strength in 2e for an archer character does not affect his capabilities one whit.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 2, 2010)

Hussar said:


> DannyA, there was no strength bonus for ranged weapons in 2e.  You could have had an 18/00 strength and this would make no difference to your damage with a bow.  Even strength bows were not standard equipment in 2e.  I believe they appeared in the Complete Fighter's guide IIRC.
> 
> The only bonus you could get to damage with a bow would be through specialization.
> 
> So, no, dump statting strength in 2e for an archer character does not affect his capabilities one whit.




You're mis-remebering-  Strength bows showed up in 2Ed.


> 2EDPHB, 2nd printing, 1995, p96
> 
> _Money and Equipment_
> 
> ...



(Emphasis mine.)
And essentially the same text shows up on p73 of the first printing of the 2Ed PHB.

IOW, strength bows were in 2Ed from the very start, as described in the standard equipment section.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 2, 2010)

Hrm, I wonder if that was in the first printing of the 2e PHB.  I certainly don'T remember seeing that in my PHB.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 2, 2010)

As noted, its in mine at pg. 73.

However, it should also be noted that even within the first printing, there are some variations.  My version, bought when they first hit the stands noted "...a multi-classed bard retains all the abilities of his class" (p45) without listing any multiclassing options for bards.  My buddies who bought their 2Ed PHBs just a few months later had the line about multi-classed bards excised (which is also absent from the 2Ed PHB's second printing).

However, I can't say whether the language about Strength bows was similarly excised from theirs as well.

All I can say is that both my first and second printing 2Ed PHBs include the language about Strength bows.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 2, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> You're mis-remebering-  Strength bows showed up in 2Ed.




They even appear as an option in the 1e DMG.


			
				1e DMG said:
			
		

> Thus, the character will employ a heavier missile or a more powerful bow and heavier arrows or larger sling missiles to gain the advantage of strength. To do so, he must obtain the special weapon or weapons, and this is within the realm of our adjudication as DM as to where and how it will be obtained, and how much cost will be involved.




The 2e PH takes it from there and presents it right out to the players as an option and suggests a price multiplier for it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 2, 2010)

Yep, yep...though the 1Ed DMG's language reads a bit more like an optional rule as opposed to the 2Ed PHB's.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 2, 2010)

The clear solution here is to let Bob play Dipsy the Teletubby if he wants to.  The other players will just have to figure out how Dipsy fits into their serious political game.  Or they can be sent out for pizza.


RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 2, 2010)

billd91 said:


> Fortunately, that was never much of a problem because 1e/2e didn't encourage DMs dishing out treasure based on player wish lists. A PC could never count on ever finding them (or making them) and so they could never form a rational strategy around requiring them.
> 
> One of the best things about the gauntlets of ogre power (and gloves of dexterity) was that they worked best as compensatory magic items - you got the most benefit out of them by giving them to PCs not already blessed by a high stat. The mentality was significantly different.






Nifft said:


> Eh, then you'd have the cheese-weasels telling everyone to put an 8 in Strength and make sure those gauntlets were on their Wishlists.
> 
> The 4e way is at least pretty blatant: if you want to be a decent Fighter, you put a 16 in Strength. Period. No fancy tricks, no tricky traps.
> 
> Cheers, -- N






Wolfwood2 said:


> See, we solve that problem by bringing back the ability minimum for classes.  It would even fit with the 4E philosophy of avoiding newbie traps.  Creating a character with a low score in your class's primary attack stat is one of the few ways left for people to screw up their character, so why not just make a minimum 16 (after racial adjustments) be required and also require that one of your two +1's at the every 4th level stat increase be devoted to it?
> 
> It's probably a good idea in general, even without trying to make old school stat items work.




I like how this idea "evolved". Though I might set the prerequisite at "15", 2 points higher than for most multi-class feats.

I think one of the challenges is creating only two "sensible" choices.
- Max out your stat to get a better benefit than with the item
- Pick the lowest stat to get the most benefit out of the item. 

I guess that's very difficult, if not impossible to achieve.


Example: 
*Gloves of Ogre Strength (Heroic Tier)*
Property: Your strength score sets to 18 if it's lower than 18.

*Gloves of Giant Strength (Paragon Tier)*
Property: Your strength score sets to 21 if it's lower than 21.

*Gloves of Titan Strength (Epic Tier)*
Property: YoursStrength score sets to 24 if it's lower than 24.

Somewith a strength score of 16 could achieve these item's values at 8th, 18th or 28th level. So he'd be happy with an item of his own tier for the longest time. But would he be happy to spend all those points for a 16 in his starting score, and raising it all the time?
Someone with a score of 18 or more would need an item higher than his own tier to be interested. 

So, what level would we set for this item?


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Feb 2, 2010)

Hussar said:


> DannyA, there was no strength bonus for ranged weapons in 2e.  You could have had an 18/00 strength and this would make no difference to your damage with a bow.  Even strength bows were not standard equipment in 2e.  I believe they appeared in the Complete Fighter's guide IIRC.
> 
> The only bonus you could get to damage with a bow would be through specialization.
> 
> So, no, dump statting strength in 2e for an archer character does not affect his capabilities one whit.



Actually IIRC the specialization for a bow gave +2 to hit instead of +1 to hit and +2 damage and a further attack every second turn...

you already had 2 attacks per round with a bow, i think it didn´t increase at all... so specialization was on the weaker side for ranged weapons... (yeah i know, bonuses to to hit are more important than damage in 4e... it wasn´t back in ADnD since average damage was quite low without strength bonuses  (4.5) while you could hit monsters quite good in the beginning (about 40%) and also damage only increased from magic weapons while to hit increased faster than AC at least for fighters)


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Feb 2, 2010)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Example:
> *Gloves of Ogre Strength (Heroic Tier)*
> Property: Your strength score sets to 18 if it's lower than 18.
> 
> ...




I believe 21 Strength is not worth a lot except maybe for a featwith the axe...

I would maybe fill in some gaps:

Level 5: Gauntlets of Bulls strength Str 16
Level 10: Gauntlets of Ogre strength Str 18
Level 15: Belt of Hill Giant strength Str 21 (yes it has 21, but who cares if its 20 or 21^^)
Level 20: Belt of Fire Giant strength Str 23
Level 25: Belt of Frost Giant strength st 25 (marauder!)
Level 26: Belt of Stone Titan strength 26 (still lower than an epic fighter would probably have since you get +8 strength per level and most probably +2 for an epic destiny... this opens up some other destinies)

So you have a smooth increase at reasonable levels, not overpowering and not underpowered... if you somhow feel that 26 is too high, begin with level 6 and leave out the last one, but this would mean 18 Str is already a paragon item...

i believe such items do no har to the system and enforcing warriors to have at least a 15 in their main stat would be reasonable. And I would also add, that the strength gained by such an item doesn´t qualify you for feats.


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Feb 2, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I believe 21 Strength is not worth a lot except maybe for a featwith the axe...




It's worth something if you're a wizard with a strength of 10.  (Starting at 8 with two tier increases.)  Remember the purpose was to make the items useful to everyone except those already playing strength-based classes.


----------



## Herschel (Feb 2, 2010)

Runestar said:


> And the optimized party is mysteriously barred from using the very same good tactics because...?
> 
> This means nothing, since all other things equal, assuming both parties are using similar tactics, the optimized party should always come out ahead.




You might try looking at the post I was responding to, but one thing 4E did was put more emphasis on team tactics rather than individual prowess. Leaders, controllers and defenders add a whole lot to a party when played well  and allow for better rounded characters and "flavor spending". One of my main attractions to 4E was the superior 'team concept' rather than powergaming my character in to godhood without regard for any other character.

I also see many who appear to think optimization IS good tactics, which is kind of silly. The even more dynamic battlefield is a wonderful addition to the game and allows a lot more flexiility in character building.


----------



## Nifft (Feb 2, 2010)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I like how this idea "evolved". Though I might set the prerequisite at "15", 2 points higher than for most multi-class feats.



 Yeah, class minimums wouldn't be a bad idea at all.



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> *Gloves of Ogre Strength (Heroic Tier)*
> Property: Your strength score sets to 18 if it's lower than 18.
> 
> *Gloves of Giant Strength (Paragon Tier)*
> ...



 This, however, is a bad idea. All these do is invalidate the player's choice about stat allocation.

If someone cleverly finds a way to make a "bad" race work, or cleverly finds a better use for those point-buy points than putting an 18 (post-racial) in his primary attack stat, he should be allowed to do so. He should face consequences for doing so, just like the guy who puts a 20 (post-racial) in his primary attack stat faces consequences (usually in the form of two poor FRW defenses, low secondary stats for powers, and not qualifying for a bunch of feats). Items like those remove the consequences from one of these guys, but not the other. That's hardly fair.

Cheers, -- N


----------

