PDA

View Full Version : To Min/Max? or not to Min/Max?



Amujala
2007-05-21, 10:47 PM
I was curious to know if anyone else aside from me is really sick of new abilities using requirements as counter balances. Every time WotC or an independent party comes up with an idea for a new class/feat/ability/spell/etc. they always seem to want to make things more powerful without considering the metagame.

It's classic, and we have all most likely done it at one time or another. You get an idea for a really cool character concept you want to play but the right feats just aren't there or the pre-existing ones don't pull it off as effectively as you should like. So what do you do? Scrap your idea? Heck no, you take pencil to paper and start doing whatever it takes to bring that idea to life. You you have a couple feats or a new class and it's exactly like you had imagined it. The problem however is that you realize that this new sharp looking character of yours is a little broken. You don't want to scrap it but your DM won't let you play it if it's too twinky. What ever will you do?

The solution, lies in requirements. Just tack on a few ability/feat requirements to those feats you made. Add a code of conduct to the class you made. Give that class ability a times/day and call it even. It temporarily solves the problem in that your DM is convinced it's not overpowered and you don't feel like a twink but you didn't really fix anything. All you did was make it so that only select people could gain the benefits (which obviously includes your new character). If the problem lies within the effects of the new rule as opposed to it's user, why does your counter measure only affect who uses it.

Here's a good example of people using requirements to cover up a twinky idea:

Graceful Strike (From Champion of Correllon Larithon)
Prerequisites: Weapon Finesse, Combat Reflexes, Dex 15
Whenever you make an attack with a weapon which you could apply the Weapon Finesse feat to, you may add your dex modifier, if any, to your damage roll, in addition to any strength modifier you add. Regardless of how you hold your weapon (two hands, off-hand etc.), you add your full modifier. This damage is multiplied on a critical. This damage cannot be added against monsters immune to critical hits.

With the prerequisite dexterity the character is adding an extra 2 points of damage on every finessed melee attack. This is effectively better than Wpn Spec as it has no level requirement and can be used by non fighters. So let's say a fighter takes it and has a decent (lets say 16) Dex score coupled with an equally impressive Str score. At level 4 (W/ Wpn Spec) he/she receives a +8 to one handed melee damage with that weapon at the cost of a mere 4 feats. The creator would obviously say that the prerequisite Dex score and feat balance the feats effectiveness. Considering theres no point in taking in the feat unless you have the high Dex to begin with it's a totally redundant requirement.

Another two:

Master Grappler
Prerequisites: BaB +12, DEX 15, STR 15
Benefit: Gain the ability to make a grapple check against a mounted charging foe or against a flying creature swooping at the PC to climb onto the foe. The PC gains a +4 competency bonus for this maneuver.

Superior Grappler
Prerequisites: BaB +12, DEX 15, STR 15
Benefit: The PC has learned complex techniques that allow him to match strengths with or even topple enormous beasts. The PC gains a +8 competency bonus for all grappling maneuvers.

Apparently both of these stack (and stack with improved grapple) to give a +12 to grapple checks in general (+16 vs. mounted/charge/ride-by/fly-by). I love grappling maneuvers and I really like that someone else took the time to appreciate misc combat actions. This also isn't that powerful considering it's only grapples and only at level 12. My question is this: Why, did you try to cover up it being potentially overpowered by adding two ability score prerequisites (one of which has NOTHING to do with grappling)?. There is simply no point in having them there and what's more the grapple/trip/disarm and similar feats could also be used by non-fighters in hopes they can improve their chances of succeeding at such things without a high BAB so why take that away from them. This is another example of a feat that was designed by one kind of person for one kind of character hopelessly trying to be justified by it's exclusiveness to that design.

"Sneak attack isn't overpowered. I mean, the rogue is the only one that gets it."

Person_Man
2007-05-22, 09:43 AM
Every melee feat is generally considered weaker then what full casters can do at the same ECL. Who cares if a good Justicar build can auto-Grapple and tie up everyone he hits with a melee attack? The Wizard can stop everyone on the battlefield with a spell that still works pretty well if you make the Save and kills them if they do not.

Also, "game balance" is a very misunderstood concept. There's no need to balance PC's against some mythical standard of fairness. You can always increase or decrease the difficulty of your encounters, or throw in more Skills, riddles, puzzles, mazes, roleplaying, and other non-combat encounters which can't be defeated by uber feat combos. The only thing you have to worry about as a DM is roughly balancing the PC's against each other, so that everyone has their moment in the spotlight, and no one feels useless.

Charity
2007-05-22, 10:02 AM
The only thing you have to worry about as a DM is roughly balancing the PC's against each other, so that everyone has their moment in the spotlight, and no one feels useless.

PM you hit the nail squarely on the head. It is much more difficult to do this over an extended campaign if you don't know where folk are intending to take their characters.
This is why I prefer players whom actually do plan their characters over a few levels, rather than do the whole 'organic' character growth thing.

OzymandiasVolt
2007-05-22, 10:50 AM
Where are those feats from, by the way?

Closet_Skeleton
2007-05-22, 11:09 AM
Where are those feats from, by the way?

The top one he adapted from a class feature of a Prc.

I'd guess PHB II for the others.

LotharBot
2007-05-22, 03:51 PM
I agree with the original point -- when people try to "balance" overpowered class features, feats, spells, etc. simply by tacking some requirements onto them, all they really end up doing is making an unbalanced ability that's only available to a few people. IMO that makes it more, rather than less, unbalanced... in large part because it means the DM can only use it against you in limited circumstances.

IMO the right thing to do is just not make overpowered class features. Granted, there's not much you can do to melee characters above level 10 or so that'll make them "overpowered" compared to casters, but still... the game is meant to involve challenges. It's the responsibility of everyone involved to make sure it remains challenging, and that might mean restraining yourself from taking certain abilities that someone happened to put in whatever book.

Fourth Tempter
2007-05-22, 04:48 PM
If someone considers Elegant Strike to be "twinky" or "overpowered", much less Grapple-boosting feats, I do not think they really understand the mechanics of Dungeons & Dragons well enough.

Fax Celestis
2007-05-22, 04:53 PM
"Prerequisites" are not put in place to prevent their use: rather, they are put in place to display a character's dedication to a cause.

Closet_Skeleton
2007-05-22, 06:17 PM
Prerequisites are mainly there to stop you getting powerful abilities at low levels and also to give powerful things to work towards.

The other reason for prerequisites (for example combat expertise's 13 Int) is to encourage broader focus to your ability scores and to reward being a little good at things that wouldn't normally help you.

tsuyoshikentsu
2007-05-23, 12:03 PM
To op or not to op, that is the question;
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous to-hits
Or to min/max against a sea of monsters,
And by min/maxing beat them? To op: to suck
No more; and by opping to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
PCs are heir to, 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To op, to op;
To op: perchance to break: ay, there's the rub...

On topic, your understanding of the mechanics of this game is severly limited at best.

Jayabalard
2007-05-23, 12:14 PM
To op or not to op, that is the question;
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous to-hits
Or to min/max against a sea of monsters,
And by min/maxing beat them? To op: to suck
No more; and by opping to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
PCs are heir to, 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To op, to op;
To op: perchance to break: ay, there's the rub...Hmm... so, is the point of this that optimization is the easy way out (killing yourself), where not optimizing is the harder path (dealing with the "slings and arrows" of life)?

....
2007-05-23, 12:20 PM
That Graceful Strike feat would be awesome for my Swashbuckler/Rogue.

I'd get to add INT, STR, and DEX to my damage!

I need that splatbook.

Amujala
2007-05-23, 12:52 PM
This is precisely why I post these things. I think I have a totally new perspective on this. Instead of playing the grumpy old DM and arguing against anything that didn't come out in core I should be embracing new books and the idea therein. If it turns out my players simply build there characters too well that's nothing to be upset about. Just means I have to reward them with a more prestigious adventure.

I can also see how a feat like Elegant Strike encourages the fighter types to use their cranium as opposed to their bicep. Surely I have wanted to play that kind of combatant in the past but lacked the feats to do so and thus ended up relying on my Str score.

But I wonder, any other DMs out there who have at one point experienced a little PC jealousy? I have been DMing and not playing for so long I have almost forgotten what it's like to be a player and thus whenever a player comes to me with a badass character concept I want to crush it with my DMs might.

However I'd like to bring up the matter of PCs making characters out of character, selecting abilities for their character for sheer power as opposed to personality or design. We do a lot of roleplaying in my campaign so I try to encourage my players to really consider more who their character is as opposed what he is capable of and in doing that I always assure my players if they build a character for style as opposed to power I will make sure those choices really matter. So where do we draw the line between a neat character concept and a really twinky design?

timmy_pyromancer
2007-05-23, 01:01 PM
See i don't think that elegant (as opposed to graceful) strike is horribly overpowered because on top of the feats you listed it takes takes three more feats that are unrelated as well as 2 levels in a prestige class as well as a racial requirement and a high bab requirement and skills will most likely be cross class ones as well as i chosen deity and alignment restrictions. So for all that you should get something good and i think it is fair.

Also please state where the other two feats came from because i've never heard of them.

To ". . . ." elegant strike is from champion of Corellon Larethian in races of the wild.

Amujala
2007-05-23, 01:42 PM
I found the other 2 on a few random forums. I believe they were PC created so they simply served as an example, to show how hard it really is to make a good feat. Which is besides the point by now considering I have retracted my previous comment anyway. I apologize if i have offended anyone.

Ulzgoroth
2007-05-23, 01:53 PM
However I'd like to bring up the matter of PCs making characters out of character, selecting abilities for their character for sheer power as opposed to personality or design. We do a lot of roleplaying in my campaign so I try to encourage my players to really consider more who their character is as opposed what he is capable of and in doing that I always assure my players if they build a character for style as opposed to power I will make sure those choices really matter. So where do we draw the line between a neat character concept and a really twinky design?
I would argue that there isn't really a difference. As is often brought up, PCs are in an incredibly deadly profession, know it, and generally want to be able to beat absolutely anything they might meet. You could play a character who chooses what to train in (feats, skills, even classes) by their personal inclinations at the moment. They will almost certainly be somewhat (or even vastly) less powerful than they could be, which may or may not be a problem. But it's in no way unreasonable to play a character who can figure out what they need to train in to be the best they can be, even if they don't like it as much. Lots of real people, with much less serious needs to perform, do...and outside Disney movies they aren't necessarily making a tragic mistake by doing it. I'd actually say that a character who doesn't have skills perfectly corresponding to their personality is likely more interesting than one who does.

The point at which build can damage character quality is when you neglect the character and just play the build. If all someone needs to play the character is the character sheet, it probably isn't a good character no matter the power level.

Then there's the level where you're getting the DM to let you do something that, on sober analysis, they really shouldn't have allowed (by rules adjustment if need be). When that line is crossed is entirely up to the DM to decide (though hopefully in a consistent and fair-minded manner)...which means attempting to cross it may be innocent failure to recognize the invisible line.

Amujala
2007-05-23, 01:56 PM
Ulzgoroth, very well put.

....
2007-05-23, 02:04 PM
Every character I make is always planned out for fluff first and crunch second.

The two characters I'm playing most right now are an Abjurer without evocation or necromancy, and a swashbuckler/rogue.

The Swash has actually started to kick some ass, though, since I took the Daring Outlaw feat, but that works for my character concept of a showy, agile fighter.

Diggorian
2007-05-23, 03:34 PM
But I wonder, any other DMs out there who have at one point experienced a little PC jealousy? I have been DMing and not playing for so long I have almost forgotten what it's like to be a player and thus whenever a player comes to me with a badass character concept I want to crush it with my DMs might.

I never get jealous of players cause I play my NPC's like they do their PCs. Any new splatbook a player brings to my attention for a proposed new badass PC I borrow to review it's fitness for the campaign. I spend one day accessing the ability, usually allowing it, then several days noting any new material my NPCs could use.

I've had a player for going on six years that roleplays well rarely, but is a powergamer savant. Unless we play at level 50, which aint gonna happen, his builds always have a weak area. Prerequistes create balance with opportunity costs, or should. Power attack and it's cheese, dont matter when the enemy is using ranged attacks across a 40ft chasm. It's Archer McRanger's time to shine. As has been said, it's about not letting ability X get out of control.

On your other point, I agree with Ulzgoroth.

Tormsskull
2007-05-23, 03:49 PM
However I'd like to bring up the matter of PCs making characters out of character, selecting abilities for their character for sheer power as opposed to personality or design. We do a lot of roleplaying in my campaign so I try to encourage my players to really consider more who their character is as opposed what he is capable of and in doing that I always assure my players if they build a character for style as opposed to power I will make sure those choices really matter. So where do we draw the line between a neat character concept and a really twinky design?

It really depends on how you view the D&D game, the meta game, the level of RP you are trying to attain, etc. What I consider roleplaying and In-character knowledge is very different from what someone else would consider roleplaying and in-character knowledge.

I think that a class is very defining of a person, a pathway in life. Other people think a class is simply a set of skills. As such, I restrict multiclassing when I DM, other DMs don't restrict and even encourage multiclassing. A lot of DMs I have read about on the forums even do away with the Multiclassing penalty because they say it limits a player's ability to fit their character concept.

To each their own. Sit down with your group and feel them out. Se where they sit on a variety of issues, how in-depth they want the RP to get, etc. Once you have that all hammered out you should be able to determine what is legit and what is going to be considered twinky.

ArmorArmadillo
2007-05-23, 04:24 PM
This is precisely why I post these things. I think I have a totally new perspective on this. Instead of playing the grumpy old DM and arguing against anything that didn't come out in core I should be embracing new books and the idea therein. If it turns out my players simply build there characters too well that's nothing to be upset about. Just means I have to reward them with a more prestigious adventure.

I can also see how a feat like Elegant Strike encourages the fighter types to use their cranium as opposed to their bicep. Surely I have wanted to play that kind of combatant in the past but lacked the feats to do so and thus ended up relying on my Str score.

But I wonder, any other DMs out there who have at one point experienced a little PC jealousy? I have been DMing and not playing for so long I have almost forgotten what it's like to be a player and thus whenever a player comes to me with a badass character concept I want to crush it with my DMs might.

However I'd like to bring up the matter of PCs making characters out of character, selecting abilities for their character for sheer power as opposed to personality or design. We do a lot of roleplaying in my campaign so I try to encourage my players to really consider more who their character is as opposed what he is capable of and in doing that I always assure my players if they build a character for style as opposed to power I will make sure those choices really matter. So where do we draw the line between a neat character concept and a really twinky design?There are many mediocre roleplayers who powergame their characters, there's not much new being said here.

Players either roleplay, or they don't. Really, it doesn't have much to do with their feat/ability choices; you shouldn't need a three page backstory about your history as a backstreets Wrestler to justify taking a grappling feat.

Honestly, such a huge part of a character's life is spent fighting and in danger, why doesn't it already make sense for them to devote training and focus to abilities that could save their life rather than Skill Focus (Profession (Gambler)) just because their character is defined on the surface as a "rogue who loves gambling?"

Tormsskull
2007-05-23, 04:41 PM
Honestly, such a huge part of a character's life is spent fighting and in danger, why doesn't it already make sense for them to devote training and focus to abilities that could save their life rather than Skill Focus (Profession (Gambler)) just because their character is defined on the surface as a "rogue who loves gambling?"

That depends on the campaign and the DM. I'd agree with you on Kick-in-the-door style campaigns, but on heavy roleplaying games I'd disagree. When I DM I try to make skills very important. Certain skills will always be important (search, spot, listen) and for those I don't add anything additional in. But for the other skills (I seem to have a penchant for using the obscure Knowledges) I add parts in the adventures where a character will gain a substansive benefit for making a successful check.

For example, the PCs may run into an NPC who is a huge fan of the lost kingdom of Blah. Most people have never heard of the lost kingdom of Blah, but the character that has Knowledge (History) or Knowledge (Royalty) might have. If he makes a successful knowledge check he will be able to recall certain elements that pertain to the lost kingdom of Blah. That could immediately change an affulent NPCs stance toward a PC from 'Meh' to "Good Friend". This could result in gifts, rewards, etc.

If none of the PCs have taken either of the Knowledges, no big deal. I will try to include skills that are a lot less often used more frequently if I know a player has that skill.

If a PC has Profession (Gambler), he just might be able to get into the Member's Only area of the Castle where gather information checks are made at a +5 since the elite of society hangout there. Might even be able to find otherwise unavailable items due to his contacts.

Characters that are not totally optimized are more realistic to me, because generally speaking no one grows up from a baby to an adult with 1 goal in mind and has the follow through to stick to that same goal. If a player is willing to not be as optimal as he could be by taking a skill/feat/class for flavor, I appreciate that player's attempt to try to encourage roleplaying with the players. And since the goal of D&D (at least my campaigns) is to have really good roleplaying session, I will try to have some kind of appropriate reward for the encouraging for roleplay.

ArmorArmadillo
2007-05-23, 04:58 PM
That depends on the campaign and the DM. I'd agree with you on Kick-in-the-door style campaigns, but on heavy roleplaying games I'd disagree. When I DM I try to make skills very important. Certain skills will always be important (search, spot, listen) and for those I don't add anything additional in. But for the other skills (I seem to have a penchant for using the obscure Knowledges) I add parts in the adventures where a character will gain a substansive benefit for making a successful check.

For example, the PCs may run into an NPC who is a huge fan of the lost kingdom of Blah. Most people have never heard of the lost kingdom of Blah, but the character that has Knowledge (History) or Knowledge (Royalty) might have. If he makes a successful knowledge check he will be able to recall certain elements that pertain to the lost kingdom of Blah. That could immediately change an affulent NPCs stance toward a PC from 'Meh' to "Good Friend". This could result in gifts, rewards, etc.

If none of the PCs have taken either of the Knowledges, no big deal. I will try to include skills that are a lot less often used more frequently if I know a player has that skill.

If a PC has Profession (Gambler), he just might be able to get into the Member's Only area of the Castle where gather information checks are made at a +5 since the elite of society hangout there. Might even be able to find otherwise unavailable items due to his contacts.

Characters that are not totally optimized are more realistic to me, because generally speaking no one grows up from a baby to an adult with 1 goal in mind and has the follow through to stick to that same goal. If a player is willing to not be as optimal as he could be by taking a skill/feat/class for flavor, I appreciate that player's attempt to try to encourage roleplaying with the players. And since the goal of D&D (at least my campaigns) is to have really good roleplaying session, I will try to have some kind of appropriate reward for the encouraging for roleplay.Kick in the Door isn't the only campaign style that has frequent combat, most campaigns do; and more importantly you can die in them, I'd be more worried about that than my ability to maximize my gambling ability.

I play a Fighter with maximized Perform (Dance), I'm no stranger to some sub-optimal building. I just don't define refusing to do so as sub-optimal roleplaying, or min-maxing.

Feats going against a certain concept aren't "out of character", they are your character! They just mean the character is different.
A gambling rogue who takes Improved Critical (Kukhri) instead of Skill Focus (Gambling) isn't taking out of character feats, he's taking in character feats for a gambling rogue who's good with a Kukhri.