Optimizing 4th Edition

[Niko_Kaze]

Is it possible? Can one character be better than another? I'm not talking 3.5 levels of insanity but if I can't make a more effective character than others, or at least one that really different than the norm I'm not sure I'll play. I have always felt that D&D should be able to accept hero PC's that are a cut above the norm. After all if the PC's are all just average examples of the peoples of the world why is it no one else has been able to save the world, or do what the PC's have done?

[TiFFman]

I like to think that my characters start out normal and average, but as time goes by and I play the campaign that my character starts to go above the norm. No longer is he/she th average person but a skilled adventurer. You could argue that there are others that do the same but I think that how you play your character is what sets them apart. By having my characters closer to the norm it shows how well they develop when they accomplish a big feat.

[Niko_Kaze]

Oh I don't mind if they are close to the norm to start with that can make sense but I want to know that as I advance I actually advance, and not simply "move into a new area with bigger badder monsters that are equal to you that for some reason never spread out to take over the world."

[Niko_Kaze]

What about multiclassing? How did they handle that?

[MindForge]

Okay. This game is amped up on the power scale or at least the feel of it. Player characters are a cut above the norm. They are "points of light in a dark world". The characters are supposed to be the center point of world changing events.

The new fighter class is on par with the wizards and the wizards can hold their own in a little melee from the get go - but don't go trying to get into melee with anything tougher than you. A wizard might be able to melee with a goblin but an ogre is probably going to make short work of him.

A 20th level fighter is every bit as epic as a 20th level wizard now capable of incredible martial feats that might be akin to ripping every enemy that comes near with secondary attacks. One of the 23rd level fighter attacks (encounter) lets you deal 4x your normal damage + Con if you are wielding an axe. There are even powers that force opponents to shift towards you and into your melee range - you get to hit them on the same turn too. You might even get secondary attacks unless they focus on you now - you get to nail them if they do anything but pay attention to you.

While at the same time a wizard might be bombing encounter based spells down range and at will spells between. The warlord might be granting everyone extra attacks while cleaving skulls himself.

This game is about optimization. A wizard is a wizard though the real flavor comes in as the levels come and you optimize him. Fighters can start off drastically different from one another, so do rangers... for that matter almost all classes except the wizard seems to be able to really change from one character sheet to the next. The wizard seems like their optimization grows into them more than the other classes as they level. This is just a newbie observation though. I would rather have my hardback books to make these assumptions.

[RafeIxeian]

Oh I don't mind if they are close to the norm to start with that can make sense but I want to know that as I advance I actually advance, and not simply "move into a new area with bigger badder monsters that are equal to you that for some reason never spread out to take over the world."


If you're feeling that, I'm sorry to say that it's probably more an issue with your GM than the rules.

As for optimizing to be better than the norm, the characters will of course be more powerful than NPCs - that's always been the case - but if you're asking for classes and builds that are to some extent broken, I'm personally hoping they don't exist, and that Wizards manages to keep it that way. I like the concept of being able to make two versions of the same character and have one be a bit better than another. It makes you think in terms of strategy. But if it reaches a situation where your character is clearly the most powerful in your group, that subtracts from the fun somewhat.

Finally, 4e from what I've seen focuses a lot more on team dynamics, meaning that if character A uses ability X, then character B gets benefit Y as an add on to whatever X normally does. This means that optimizing a single character is weakened in favour of optimizing the team as a group.

[MindForge]

Finally, 4e from what I've seen focuses a lot more on team dynamics, meaning that if character A uses ability X, then character B gets benefit Y as an add on to whatever X normally does. This means that optimizing a single character is weakened in favour of optimizing the team as a group.

This is really true. The cleric is now a team leader, along with the warlord. Their abilities are almost all team based. Also, you can see in the powers that players are going to find cool combos early on and develop abilities around each other. One reason this is going to happen is because the monsters are like that. The goblins all have powers that work well together and make them feel like goblins. In order to equal their opponent they will come up with awesome team dynamic plays I think.

This has one bad thing. I think players that are quiet at the table or that do not want to work with the group will end up not getting to be a part of it. I have a couple quiet players that just do their own thing and are still fun to play with. I think these people are either going to join in on the fun or get left behind with a character that doesn't fit the team dynamic. That might be cool too... who knows.

[xaotik1]

This could be a real problem for characters that I tend to run. Many are just not team players, and I can see where this is going to be a problem down the road with 4E. I can't really complain though, since a team almost always has the advantage over a single person in most encounters. Those of us who like their outcast characters are just going to have to try that much harder to stay alive. Hopefully the later additions will include a few variants that allow for a more "solo" kind of character for those of us who like our privacy.

[MindForge]

Characters can still be solo in flavor. They might just be taking advantage of their friends attack to stab that other guy in the back.

As the levels get higher, the team aspect is probably going to be live or die in the harder fights against say... a beholder. The entire team has to work together or they might as well not go fight a beholder because they will die.

[RafeIxeian]

But with the beholder, I don't think you'd want to solo one even in 3.5, right?

I think it's a definite plus. It isn't that you have to choose an ability that'll benefit others over yourself. That benefit for others is an added bonus long the lines of:
"Cleric: I'll attack the gnome. Oh, and that means someone can use a healing surge, as a bonus."

The dynamics are automatic, and even if you don't try to use them, or even think about them, they are there. Of course, optimizing will help, but it's really not necessary. You don't have to be a team player to benefit the team, just existing is pretty much enough. So the one or two guys who 'do their own thing' may not really be a big problem. And as the advantage of teamwork starts to show up, I'm thinking it'll just sort of evolve on its own. I'm guessing Wizards was thinking that, too when they designed this.

[MindForge]

Right. I meant by soloing a beholder that all the characters just ran up and swong without teamwork... I didn't mean alone.

The cool thing about a cleric swinging and granting a surge is the fact that someone might have something else that allows them to do something when they surge like allow someone to shift... that is where the cooler stuff starts to happen. Immediate Interrupts and Immediate Actions are really cool.

[Niko_Kaze]

Ok I think I can work with this. I guess my real question would be can you really differeniate between different builds of the same class. In 1st ed, a fighter was pretty much the same mechanically from one to the other (i.e. fighter A is basically the same as fighter b). 3.5 changed this a lot with feats, but the way feats and the system as a whole was designed some choices were just plain better than others. Is that part gone without taking out thedeversity of choices?

[MindForge]

There is more diversity now than ever.. if you read a post earlier by Gorth - you can have a fighter that knows how to cast ritual spells.

[Niko_Kaze]

Ah I misunderstood what he wrote then, makes more sense now.

[MindForge]

It is a lot more than that though. A fighter using a sword will feel drastically different than a fighter with an axe or a hammer. Shields are no longer some static bonus you get to AC - there are actual immediate actions that you can take with shields now that are interrupts.

That is just the fighter.

Warlocks have different flavors too - as do all the classes. Rangers do not cast spells anymore - yup and they are the best skirmisher/archer class now. They still have the hunter flavor don't get me wrong but now they feel a little more like Aragorn or Legolas. They really feel like they can be all over the place really dishing out some pain.

Rogues are just nasty. Lots of different flavor too you can pretty much be as diverse as 3.5 and then some.

Wizards feel the least diverse to me. Probably because their powers are spells and all wizards have spells.

The cleric and the warlord are great additions. I can't wait to see one of my players rolling a warlord.

[Skurvy]

It sounds like life is going to be harder for the DM running the show, if there are lots of actions that immediately cause other actions. Here was me thinking 3e was hard enough to get a grip on :D

Skurvy

[MindForge]

Well, the game states that it is the players responsibility to react with his actions. The cool thing about the monster entries is the fact that they are concise and easy to understand.
I do think it will take a little work to get it all down but once it is understood it will stay. Players need to understand more about the game in this version though. I am going to make some player cheat sheets for combat though.

[xaotik1]

My only concern with the way 4E is set up is the skills. I really liked the fact that I could have a good variety of skills if I wanted, or just be really good at one thing if I chose to do so when playing 3E. Now, the best you can do is get a +5. Frankly, I think that is plain ridiculous. Thats a whole 25% increase in ability. So, by the 4E rules, a non player blacksmith can only increase in skill by 25%, even after 40 years of training and experience. No class levels, so no skill increases. . . That's majorly flawed. I understand the desire to simplify them, but this is plain retarded. At the very least, we should be allowed to spend our skill selection on the same skill more than once if we choose to do so.

[MindForge]

My only concern with the way 4E is set up is the skills. I really liked the fact that I could have a good variety of skills if I wanted, or just be really good at one thing if I chose to do so when playing 3E. Now, the best you can do is get a +5. Frankly, I think that is plain ridiculous. Thats a whole 25% increase in ability. So, by the 4E rules, a non player blacksmith can only increase in skill by 25%, even after 40 years of training and experience. No class levels, so no skill increases. . . That's majorly flawed. I understand the desire to simplify them, but this is plain retarded. At the very least, we should be allowed to spend our skill selection on the same skill more than once if we choose to do so.

First, you gain your ability mod + 1/2 your level to your skills. So they increase in level with you. Your trained skills gain a +5 to them. For instance, the fighter I just made has a +8 to climb, jump and other athletic skills at 1st level.

Now, one thing they are missing are craft skills. I am going to create a new system for secondary skills using intelligence and level. Secondary skills are going to pretty much cover the craft skills, off the wall knowledge skills, skill specializations and more. No game is perfect and I do like the new skill system but I do agree that they streamlined it a little too much.

[xaotik1]

I see that works fine for characters, but what of npcs? A merchant who spends his life haggling over prices will have no better a skill after 40 years than he does as a neophyte. He gains no class levels, so his skills never increase. . .he is stuck with +5 trained and stat mod for his whole life, regardless of the years of practice he gets in it. I guess you could house rule it, but that was something I was REALLY hoping I wouldn't need to do right off the bat.

If there is a way to increase your skills without gaining levels, I'd like to know about it, for I can't find a way in any of the books. I may have missed it somewhere, and I really hope I did, but I doubt it.

[RafeIxeian]

It isn't that NPCs don't gain class levels, it's that when talking about NPCs you may as well pretend they don't have levels, or even classes to have levels in. Assign numbers to whatever suits your need is what the DMG tells you. Who really needs explicit rules for designing a merchant? For the combat classes I can understand wanting some guidelines, but you do get those in the guides.

As for skill increases not tied to Level bonuses...there's feats that allow you to gain a bit? You can also have items. And I think some powers have an effect as well, but I'd have to check to be sure. In short, all of the same ways you would have gained skills in 3.5. There really isn't a change there.

[xaotik1]

There is a change, and it is fairly noticeable after a few levels. A +2 or +3 doesn't add up to the vastly distinct differences in skill levels using 3E. In their effort to balance out everyone, they took away the ability to actually stand out skill wise. This is the only area where balance is a detriment to the character as far as I am concerned. If I spend all my time doing nothing but tracking animals for 3 levels, I should be better at it than someone who trains it at first and never uses it. This isn't the case in 4E. You can train it once. . .then you are just like everyone else who takes the skill. No variation in skill level due to sheer competence and/or practice.

At best, you can take these feats:
Jack of All Trades: (Int 13) +2 to untrained skill checks
Skill Focus: (Training in chosen skill) +3 to checks with chosen skill

Note that even with those feats, the most highly skilled person in a given skill is only 40% better at it than any other person of an equal level. Even if they are untrained. A +8 tops. . .not really what I'd call a groundbreaking difference. Instead of a skilled person steadily gaining greater knowledge than the unpracticed wanderer, they stagnate and stop learning anything of significance fairly early on. Hell, you can potentially reach you maximum skill bonus at first level. . .only to gain greater ability at the same rate as those who never even use/practice the skill in question.

Personally, I think skills were about the only things that were usable from 3E without any serious modifications. With the exception of a few house rules such as spot and listen as class skills for everyone, or removing them and replacing with perception (as in 4E), they worked fine. With very little effort, the skill system could've been used almost as is, and I would be much happier about having a character that can actually excel at a single given skill (even if it is to the detriment of his other skills), than I am here where everyone of the same level pretty much has the same skills in a given class.

I just dislike the one time only skill boost in general. It doesn't represent anything even remotely like real learning of skills. I like balance, don't get me wrong, but some people are just better at doing certain things than others. . .VASTLY better at doing them. Nerfing it to keep everyone at the same level is just not the way to go.

A secondary skill list will help in some cases, I suppose, but it won't get rid of the only real problem I have with the skill system to begin with. There's no way to intentionally focus on a single skill set to increase it. I'd be perfectly happy giving up level bonuses on the skills I don't use to boost those that I do. Of course, that would require a real skill list again, as in 3E, which they seem intent on not doing. I understand trying to streamline, but too far is too far.

[RafeIxeian]

Ok, I get your point....Now to find a few good ways to deal with it. I can't say I have any ideas I like that won't skew things too much at higher levels.

[xaotik1]

Well, sticking to the 4E setup is important, so I don't want to mess with any of the core mechanics if at all possible. If I had to make as small an adjustment as possible, I'd say that by granting a character the ability to take the skill focus feat multiple times on the same skill, it'd stay fairly balanced. It's only a +3 to the skill as opposed to the repeat training of the skill, which would be +5. It'd allow him to focus his skill in a particular area instead of forcing him to spread the points around, while at the same time, not overpowering it drasticly. It's not adding any additional rules to what already exists, it just allows him to pick where those bonuses go. I think it would fairly represent that the character has forgone training in other areas in order to gain a bit of specialization in a skill he already possesses.

As an additional restriction, I could even accept that he may only stack them at the change in status. IE skill focus x1 up to 10, x2 up to 20, and x3 through epic. I would think that should keep it as balanced as it can be without sacrificing the ability to specialize.

[MindForge]

You could even add feats that take the place of craft skills and allow those skills to add non-magical high quality bonuses.

With my gaming group the craft skills were important, so I will create a system to have them again.

[RafeIxeian]

While the simplicity of multiple selection of Focus is nice, I don't like the idea of burning so many feats on skills. Though I guess I can see it being worthwhile in some cases.

[xaotik1]

I would definitely include crafting skills. I have a whole list of things that 4E is going to be short on that I plan on adding, but I don't want to get too used to my rules, because I know that there are definitely going to be add ons in the upcoming months. The less I have to unlearn, the better.

I also agree that burning feats on skills seems a waste, but for some builds, I can see the draw of skills over powers. Even if it is only used infrequently, I like the fact that the option to go with a skill build exists. It just seems more realistic to me that way.

[bandersnatch]

There are a few feats that grant bonuses to specific skills as well, like Sure Climber. And you can have some rogue abilities that influence your success at skill checks. I figure they'll put out more feats and powers like that in sourcebooks, though, at the moment I agree that skill-monkeys and other 'utility' characters are harder to create - at least to the point where they stand out from other PCs. Then again I also think that the PHB as is is also a bit incomplete (can't find charm or transmute X to A spells for example) and I hope they'll touch upon that and other non-combat related stuff in the PHBII.

Anyway, lifting the restriction on skill focus is a neat idea :cool:, I'll incorporate that into my house rules probably.

[Mask]

I have a die-hard min-maxer in my gaming group. He is the man of the obscure PrC, the broken feat, the monster with seven different classes that combine to grant him mind control over every creature on the plane and DR512/God.
He has been working to break a character, any character, since he learned we were converting to 4E.
He has failed.
Utterly.
I'll be honest... it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.