4th Ed Character Optimization

[Person_Man]

OK, so we've all seen this (http://www.ucalgary.ca/~amwhit/PHB_4E_Lite_v1_2.pdf), the fan compiled 4th ed rules that we know about so far. There's some discussion going on about it here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76051). So its time that we got to the important task of ruining balance by optimizing.

This is a thread to discuss why X is more powerful then Y, and to post any potential builds or combos. Allow me to start:

Race:

Human: Bonus feat, bonus ability, flexible ability scores.

Half Elf: Bonus ability from ANY class. Great for cherry picking.


Class Abilities:

Cleric: Cause Fear: Causes enemy to run away, provoking AoO.

Fighter: Meh.

Paladin (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20071128): Meh.

Ranger:

Hunter's Quarry: Enemy takes d6 damage every round until defeated, although you can only target one such enemy at a time. No Save.

Fox's Cunning: Shift one square and make an attack as an Immediate Action when an enemy attacks you. Evasive Reflexes + Robilar's Gambit?

Rogue (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dramp/20080222a):

Sneak Attack: Scaled damage. Not clear whether this is based on Rogue level or character level. Either way, its extra scaled damage that's easy to qualify for.

Tumble: Now a once per encounter class ability instead of a Skill, though far less useful then it was in 3.5.

Crimson Edge: Per Day Power: 2[W]+ Dex + 5 ongoing damage + Combat Advantage (Save Ends).

Warlock: Eyebite: 1d6 + Cha damage and you're invisible against that enemy for 1 round. Great against boss monsters, or when you need to retreat without provoking AoO.

Warlord: Pin the Foe: Prevents enemy from Sliding.

Wizard: Cantrips: Fun At Will abilities with plenty of out of combat roleplaying potential. The Wizard also seems to have the only real area of effect attacks, though considering how often everyone can shift and move, they may have limited use.


Skills:

Nice to see them consolidated. We can't really tell which are must haves at this point, but I'm guessing Arcana, Heal, and Perception will be key.


Feats:

Meh: Nothing interesting.

Magic Items:
Dwarvern Plate: Use Healing Surge for free as a free action.

Frost Warhammer: Extra damage and Slow once per encounter.

Staff of the Warmage: Increases Burst radius by 1 space. Hmm, I wonder if I can use this with non-Wizard powers?

Overall, I'm very disappointed. A ton of minor static bonuses with no cool effects. 1st level games look like they'll be pretty boring, though that's pretty much the case now in 3.5. And really, its too early to judge until we've seen the full PHB.

Discuss.

UPDATED: I'll add links and additional info as people post them. Thanks.

[JBento]

NOOOOOOOOOOooooooooo.... Too Soooooooon...... Lemme live in the illusion that 4E will be balanced for a few more months, pleeeeeeeeeasdeeeeeeee:smalleek:

[Mr. Friendly]

I don't really see that anything at this point is any better than anything else. Everything seems pretty well balanced.

[Swordguy]

4th seems to be a paradigm shift back to earlier editions where each class has a singular role, and is pidgeonholed into that role. Wizards, for example, seems to be being build solely as blasters, which is more in line with how WotC has always thought of them. Batman seems to have finally been defeated. The Media Discussions board will be thrilled.

In any case, it looks like there's less optimizing available because in forcing the pidgeonholing into a combat role, each class is largely the same. Again, remember 2e where one fighter was generally the same as any other fighter? Looks to be heading for the same thing here. I don't consider that bad, because it forces class diversity within the gaming group. People don't want to play the same thing as the guy next to them, so they'll (hopefully) choose another class with a similar role (oh look, Bob's already got a Fighter, but I really want a tank. What's next closest? Ah, a pally...). With fewer options (fewer feats, more stuff being build into the classes at the basic level), there's by definition less optimization potential.

WotC seems to REALLY dislike excessive optimization (ie: CharOp board and here) from responses by the Sage and TPTB, as well as asking them at GenCons. This follows that trend - they may not be able to stop optimization completely (and in fact agree that some is necessary), but they think they're able to slow it heavily by making the simple act of choosing a class optimizing in and of itself.

[Artanis]

1st level games look like they'll be pretty boring
The reports coming out of DnDXP sounded pretty exciting to me.

[Keld Denar]

Person_Man, I went to DDXP (the RPGA's big con just outside of Wash, DC) and I played 4th edition with the 1st level characters they provided for us. I must say, it was SOOOO much more fun to play at 1st level than 3.X ever dreamed of being.

Also, I know you have a HUGE problem with "static" increases, but from the way it sounds, almost EVERYTHING in 4th ed is static increases. Gone I believe, are the days of Power Attack and all its sick stacking multipliers. Scaling is easier because things increase geometrically instead of exponentially. I believe this will make it easier to write and run adventures with flavorful combats. I know the dozen or so different combats I took part in with my 1st level halfling paladin WERE very fun, even the dragon with ~300 hp that got an autosuprise breathweapon on us was a fun and challenging encounter.

Search for my 4th edition thread for a detailed account of my play experience with 4.0 (thread called something like: Report from DDXP (http://http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74068&highlight=DDXP)).

[Swordguy]

1st level games look like they'll be pretty boring, ...

Would you have been happier if there had been glaring balance errors that people could exploit for in-game bonuses?

[Lord Tataraus]

I think swordguy is right on this one. Personally, I don't really care for the "pigeonholing" thing, I prefer my classes very open. However, the way they are constructed seems to make it easier to homebrew, so it might not be that bad.

[RTGoodman]

Well, you've left out the entire Warlord class and several of its abilities. Like the White Raven school from ToB on which some of its abilities are based, it looks like there could be potential for brokenness here.

Here's the preview (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20080314&authentic=true&pf=true) with some Warlord and Fighter powers listed.

(Sorry if you're behind a firewall and can't see it - there was a thread several weeks ago where I posted the whole thing)


My bet? There'll be some sort of way to get extra attacks any time you move while adjacent to an enemy, and that combined with White Raven Assault will give an infinite loop of someone being "slid" a square, attacking, sliding himself a square over (since I assume you'll count as your own ally, though that could change), getting a free attack, sliding himself because he just made an attack, making an attack because he just moved, and so on. Just make sure the Warlord is within 10 squares to keep the "dance o' death" going and you're set.


This relies, of course, on someone at WotC not realizing the potential of an ability to attack when you move, but there have been worse things that made it to print.

[Reel On, Love]

In any case, it looks like there's less optimizing available because in forcing the pidgeonholing into a combat role, each class is largely the same. Again, remember 2e where one fighter was generally the same as any other fighter? Looks to be heading for the same thing here. I don't consider that bad, because it forces class diversity within the gaming group. People don't want to play the same thing as the guy next to them, so they'll (hopefully) choose another class with a similar role (oh look, Bob's already got a Fighter, but I really want a tank. What's next closest? Ah, a pally...). With fewer options (fewer feats, more stuff being build into the classes at the basic level), there's by definition less optimization potential.
There aren't fewer options, I think--not compared to the 3.5 PHB. Of course there's fewer options than all of 3.5. But still, we know characters are going to get to pick their powers; how is one fighter the same as any other when one has an extra-attack sword-flurry power and the other has an armor-piercing spear-charge power, and the first has high Wisdom and an Iron Will type feat while the second has high Dexterity and a Weapon Focus type feat?

WotC seems to REALLY dislike excessive optimization (ie: CharOp board and here) from responses by the Sage and TPTB, as well as asking them at GenCons. This follows that trend - they may not be able to stop optimization completely (and in fact agree that some is necessary), but they think they're able to slow it heavily by making the simple act of choosing a class optimizing in and of itself.[/QUOTE]

[Person_Man]

Would you have been happier if there had been glaring balance errors that people could exploit for in-game bonuses?

No, I'd prefer abilities that are interesting. Things that push, pull, trip, stun, blind, blow up, change the battlefield, etc. These things exist in 4th ed, and that's great. But they're surrounded by tons of static effect garbage.

I hate static bonuses because they don't make the game more interesting or fun. They just add a layer of additional book keeping, especially when they only last for 1 round and/or work in a small area of effect.

Also, it seems clear that scaled effects will exist. For example, Sneak Attack, and anything that grants additional attacks (which can be improved by abilities, magic items, Sneak Attack, or feats). Although they might be rare, they still exist. And thus static effects will still be inherently weaker then scaled effects or special abilities. More importantly, static low level abilities will essentially become useless at high levels, whereas scaled and certain special effect abilities will still be useful no matter what level you are.

lussmanj, your experience is very heartening. Again, I'm not passing final judgment. I love SWSE, much of which is cast in the same pattern. These are just my initial impressions, from a purely mechanical point of view.

[Swordguy]

There aren't fewer options, I think--not compared to the 3.5 PHB. Of course there's fewer options than all of 3.5. But still, we know characters are going to get to pick their powers; how is one fighter the same as any other when one has an extra-attack sword-flurry power and the other has an armor-piercing spear-charge power, and the first has high Wisdom and an Iron Will type feat while the second has high Dexterity and a Weapon Focus type feat?


I apologize. I wasn't clear.

There seems to be less variance between characters because many things you previously needed a feat (or skill, or spell) for now seem to be core, built-in elements of the class. EVERY wizard will have mage hand, and light. EVERY Paladin has Divine Challenge. Those core abilities somewhat pidgeonhole the classes into certain roles. There's obviously SOME variance (weapon selection, as you correctly point out), and I think it'll be more that 2e from the simple fact that there's feats still, which you can choose. But there's undeniably less than there was, at least in what we've seen.

EDIT:

No, I'd prefer abilities that are interesting. Things that push, pull, trip, stun, blind, blow up, change the battlefield, etc. These things exist in 4th ed, and that's great. But they're surrounded by tons of static effect garbage.

I hate static bonuses because they don't make the game more interesting or fun. They just add a layer of additional book keeping, especially when they only last for 1 round and/or work in a small area of effect.


Ok. I just wanted to be clear. I think the problem with some of those is that they want to discourage "sunder-monkeys" and similar concepts that take one special and debilitating attack and do nothing but that. Static bonii are, to be fair, easier to adjucate, balance, and can be less annoying than alternative techniques.

[Reel On, Love]

I apologize. I wasn't clear.

There seems to be less variance between characters because many things you previously needed a feat (or skill, or spell) for now seem to be core, built-in elements of the class. EVERY wizard will have mage hand, and light. EVERY Paladin has Divine Challenge. Those core abilities somewhat pidgeonhole the classes into certain roles. There's obviously SOME variance (weapon selection, as you correctly point out), and I think it'll be more that 2e from the simple fact that there's feats still, which you can choose. But there's undeniably less than there was, at least in what we've seen.

It's not just weapons, it's different powers and combinations of powers (and feats).

What, 3.5 didn't pidgeonhole classes into roles?

There isn't undeniably less than there was, you're just ignoring the built-in elements of 3E classes. Seriously, EVERY paladin has Divine Challenge, oh noes! Why would they give classes class abilities?!
Y'know, every 3.5 Paladin had Detect Evil, Smite Evil, and a Celestial Mount. That pigeonholes the paladin pretty strongly. Every wizard had Scribe Scroll and a familiar. The Arcanist was the only role the wizard could fill, and Scribe Scroll helped with that.

I don't get it. You're saying there's less variance because they're giving wizards a handful of cantrips they can use at will? How about the fact that two first-level wizards can have different at-will powers, different encounter powers, and different daily spells?

[Larrin]

Hunter's Quarry: Enemy takes d6 damage every round until defeated, although you can only target one such enemy at a time. No Save.

not really, the text reads, once per round do +1d8 damage. sounds more like its bonus damage that requires a hit (just like sneak attack), no damage from nowhere with no save, that hardly makes sense.

optimization at this point is fairly unimpressive. at best you're doing a few points more damage or have more options of equal strength to do on your turn. meh. Its fun to play around with the 7 races 7 classes and handful of powers and items, but you're not going to outperform the pregens by much even with your best build.

[Artanis]

I get the feeling that in the end, the amount of variance between 4e characters (compared to the amount of variance between 3e characters) will come down to class and definition of "variance".

Class:

There may well be some classes with less variance between characters, but there are liable to be some classes with more variance.

Warlocks, for example, tended to just Eldritch Blast...and Blast...and Blast...and Blast...and Blast. If 4e Warlocks are able to mix things up, that'll be a step up in variance. Likewise 3e Fighters that focused on hitting things just said "I attack" every turn, with not a whole lot of variance available, much less used. A 4e Fighter that focuses on hitting things will supposedly have a myriad of drastically different styles of inflicting pain on the enemy, with different weapons having actual differences that go beyond a half-point of average damage output.

Wizards, on the other hand, seem the most likely to have the variance reduced. Mind you, I cannot agree with the assertion that they will, only that they might. But a 3e Wizard can totally screw an enemy in so many ways that it's mind-boggling, and I doubt that kind of versatility will be translated.


Definition:

Variance seems to be reduced within a certain build, yes. A 3e Fighter that hits things can be fairly different from another 3e Fighter that hits things. HOWEVER, variance seems to be increased between builds. A 4e Fighter focused on damage and using a Spear supposedly will be drastically different than a 4e Fighter focused on damage and using an Axe...a bigger difference than two 3e Fighters with a similar focus could be.

[Indon]

There aren't fewer options, I think--not compared to the 3.5 PHB.

I'd say there's way less options than the 3.5 PHB. But considering that what we have about 4'th edition is far from a complete game, this isn't at all surprising.

I would expect the 4'th edition books to have about as many character build options that 3.x did. I just don't expect those character build options to have the same degree of impact.

Edit: As for trying to optimize, I don't think there's remotely enough to work with.

[Reel On, Love]

I'd say there's way less options than the 3.5 PHB. But considering that what we have about 4'th edition is far from a complete game, this isn't at all surprising.
I meant in the completed book, not in the scraps we've seen.


I would expect the 4'th edition books to have about as many character build options that 3.x did. I just don't expect those character build options to have the same degree of impact.
If it's harder to make yourself useless or overpowered, that's a good thing.

[Indon]

If it's harder to make yourself useless or overpowered, that's a good thing.

Well, that can be a good thing about the change. But that doesn't mean there aren't downsides, or that everyone would even like that specific change (for example, now it might be harder to have significant higher or lower-power games without heavily tweaking the level system, as the level system is designed so that characters increase quickly in power all along the same track).

And actually, nix my earlier comment about optimization. Am I wrong, or is the Spiked Chain now a 2d4 reach weapon which is not two-handed?

[Morty]

And actually, nix my earlier comment about optimization. Am I wrong, or is the Spiked Chain now a 2d4 reach weapon which is not two-handed?

Looks like that, but since reach is now far less impressive, I guess it's balanced.

[Swordguy]

And actually, nix my earlier comment about optimization. Am I wrong, or is the Spiked Chain now a 2d4 reach weapon which is not two-handed?

Looks that way. It's an incomplete table, though. Look at the proficiency type. EVERY weapon should have one, and most don't.



If it's harder to make yourself useless or overpowered, that's a good thing.

Generally agreed.

[Indon]

Also, this might be just a simplification for D&D XP, but it looks like Lava kills instantly.

This probably isn't very exploitable at level 1, but still. There's something in the universe which kills with neither an attack roll, nor a save (Unless that's, y'know, a "You fall in Lava. You die." joke).

[kc0bbq]

My bet? There'll be some sort of way to get extra attacks any time you move while adjacent to an enemy, and that combined with White Raven Assault will give an infinite loop of someone being "slid" a square, attacking, sliding himself a square over (since I assume you'll count as your own ally, though that could change), getting a free attack, sliding himself because he just made an attack, making an attack because he just moved, and so on. Just make sure the Warlord is within 10 squares to keep the "dance o' death" going and you're set.Even if you could trigger opportunity actions via shifting you can only take simple attacks. Slides specifically do not trigger effects movement does, though.

EDIT: Looks like from the Skeletal Tomb Guardian that there are attacks triggered by shifting, but since it's only an immediate action and you can only use one per round and none on your own turn, that's not a path to infinite attacks.

Still don't see any way to start never-ending loops.

[Kioran]

Definition:

Variance seems to be reduced within a certain build, yes. A 3e Fighter that hits things can be fairly different from another 3e Fighter that hits things. HOWEVER, variance seems to be increased between builds. A 4e Fighter focused on damage and using a Spear supposedly will be drastically different than a 4e Fighter focused on damage and using an Axe...a bigger difference than two 3e Fighters with a similar focus could be.

You´re getting this all backwards: In 3rd Edition, a Summoner Druid will be vastly different from a melee druid, or a trip-monkey Fighter will be very much different than a red-cloud-charger. So there´s a distinct difference between the builds.
In 4th, they´ll still have some basic powers in common, despite their builds. A Sword Fighter and a Spear Fighter might both still use "tide of Iron/Brutal strike", despite their different builds. So theres less difference between builds - but more of a difference within the same/similiar build. Choose one different high-lvl power, and since you´ll use these high-lvl powers most often, you´ll act a lot different. That´s more of a difference than the one between a 3rd Ed Red-clouder choosing "Steadfast Determination" instead of, say, "Improved Toughness".

[AKA_Bait]

You´re getting this all backwards: In 3rd Edition, a Summoner Druid will be vastly different from a melee druid, or a trip-monkey Fighter will be very much different than a red-cloud-charger. So there´s a distinct difference between the builds.
In 4th, they´ll still have some basic powers in common, despite their builds. A Sword Fighter and a Spear Fighter might both still use "tide of Iron/Brutal strike", despite their different builds. So theres less difference between builds - but more of a difference within the same/similiar build. Choose one different high-lvl power, and since you´ll use these high-lvl powers most often, you´ll act a lot different. That´s more of a difference than the one between a 3rd Ed Red-clouder choosing "Steadfast Determination" instead of, say, "Improved Toughness".

Am I the only one this strikes as something of a meaningless distinction?

[Rockphed]

Wizards, on the other hand, seem the most likely to have the variance reduced. Mind you, I cannot agree with the assertion that they will, only that they might. But a 3e Wizard can totally screw an enemy in so many ways that it's mind-boggling, and I doubt that kind of versatility will be translated.

How is this a problem? People tout a wizard's ability to meet any situation with the exact response necessary to destroy it as why wizards are the most powerful class. Isn't reducing a wizard's ability to break the game more balanced?



Definition:

Variance seems to be reduced within a certain build, yes. A 3e Fighter that hits things can be fairly different from another 3e Fighter that hits things. HOWEVER, variance seems to be increased between builds. A 4e Fighter focused on damage and using a Spear supposedly will be drastically different than a 4e Fighter focused on damage and using an Axe...a bigger difference than two 3e Fighters with a similar focus could be.

No, variance seems to be Increased within builds. No more will a one trick pony be the "best" way to make a fighter.

[Artanis]

How is this a problem? People tout a wizard's ability to meet any situation with the exact response necessary to destroy it as why wizards are the most powerful class. Isn't reducing a wizard's ability to break the game more balanced?
Well of course it's more balanced. It's also less variation, which is what I was replying to.

Me, I see it as a positive change.


No, variance seems to be Increased within builds. No more will a one trick pony be the "best" way to make a fighter.
Ok, ok, I got it backwards. The intent still stands :smallwink:

[Indon]

Am I the only one this strikes as something of a meaningless distinction?

I don't. I think the difference between long-term character options (or build options) and short-term character options (or tactical options) is extremely important.

Edit: Somewhat irrelevant rant incoming. (I've since reposted it in a more relevant thread anyway)

The presence of short-term character options help to make a game interesting, but must be carefully managed - too few and you have characters who are bored because they can only do one thing in most situations, while too many and you have characters who are bored because they always have the right option available to solve a problem decisively.

However, the presence of long-term character options help to develop a character's sense of identity and can provide an easy starting point for role-playing.

They really are quite different in terms of impact on the game.

[Person_Man]

In SWSE, each class or PrC has 1-4ish very useful class abilities, 1-4ish situationally good class abilities, and the rest tend to be static bonus abilities. Just speaking from my personal experience, I've noticed that this has lead to plenty of multi-classing. A level of Scout for Evasion and Fringe Savant, Scoundrel for Fool's Luck, Jedi for Block and Deflect, Jedi Master for Serenity, etc. Certainly people combine them in different ways so that they can fulfill different roles. But pretty much everyone cherry picks something, because the modular class abilities lend themselves to that sort of optimization.

Certainly this was also the case in 3.5 in many respects. But now that the class abilities have become even more self contained, its highly likely that we'll see a lot more multi-classing, which will further break down the connections between class and fluff.

Also, I know that there's a certain retching sound for some people every time someone mentions optimization. We destroy the game, ruin balance, make everyone's life miserable, etc. But if WotC really hated optimization, they could just eliminate multi-classing. Base classes would be 10 levels long. From there you could enter any Paragon class for 10 levels. And from there you could enter any Heroic class for 10 levels. Each class could be assigned one new ability (or a choice of abilities) each level. And the abilities could very easily be balanced against each other, because each ability would only be available at a very specific character level. And every time someone wanted to create a new combination (A sneaky caster, a divine controller, a savage bard, etc) you could just write a new and equally balanced class for it. Feats could likewise have a character level requirement.

But they didn't do that. They didn't do that because some large sub-set of D&D gamers enjoy optimizing. We enjoy putting together new a different combinations. We enjoy trying to make the most powerful character, even though we fully realize that its negated by the DM putting out more powerful encounters. It's fun. So really, I see nothing wrong with arguing about optimizing 4th ed, and the relative merits of Power A over Power B.

[Indon]

But they didn't do that. They didn't do that because some large sub-set of D&D gamers enjoy optimizing.
Is that optimization, or customization that also allows for optimization?

Some people like to mechanically distinguish their characters. Some people like to optimize. Giving more versatility for character choices appeases both those groups, methinks.

Still, I ultimately agree. I like optimization sometimes too.

[wodan46]

I think we need to see the actual density of At-Will/Per Encounter/Daily abilities available at a given level, and how many you can have at a given level typically, before we can make a judgement in how optimized you can make a character.