Character Optimization Part 1: Unreasonable Expectations

5Oct/100

Character Optimization Part 1: Unreasonable Expectations

Cover via Amazon

I’ll just start out with a caveat; I am capable of making false assumptions about the 4.0 playstyle.

The D&D rules set is modular. Think of it as a bunch of Legos ™; you have Legos of all different shapes and sizes, but each piece has definite ‘rules’ for how it connects to other pieces. Most Legos follow the same basic rules, but there are always exceptions!

So optimization is all about using your Legos to build something. That’s great, but what looks good on paper can fail in practice. For example, let’s look at the Fighting-Man of Chainmail.

The ancestor of today’s Fighter Class, the Fighting-Man wore the heaviest armor around. He was your ‘first-in, first-out’ character. For years, dungeons consisted of 5′ wide corridors. Your Fighter goes in first, he holds the door to a room or the mouth of a tunnel/corridor, and monsters beat him up while the rest of the party supports him.

Pretty simple, really. So as the game progressed, not much changed about the Fighter. Big weapons, heavy armor were his stock-in-trade.

When Wizards of the Coast first got the D&D license and created 3rd Edition, they decided that the Fighter, though effective, as he always has been, was, well, boring. Gasp! Say it isn’t so!

So with their Feat system, they decided to let the Fighter stock up on all the cool combat tricks the game had. And there were some nice gems. I remember hearing people gush about Cleave alone like it was the Second Coming! I’ll get back to Cleave in a minute.*

Now it was about this time that a new breed of gamer entered the picture. Young folks who hadn’t been playing the game for years. “Why don’t the monsters just beat up the spellcasters?”

I kid you not that I was physically present to hear older players simply gape at these young whippersnappers like they were the stupidest morons around. But for all their bluster, they didn’t have a definite answer. The unarmored opponents have traditionally been the scariest ones in D&D’s history (looks like we’ll be talking about the Monk** eventually as well). Why would you focus on the guy with the highest AC and the most hit points first? Divide and conquer, man!

Well, in their defense, 3.0 had some answers to this question. Attacks of Opportunity and combat options such as Trip, for example. But Attacks of Opportunity, while dangerous at low levels, could simply be ignored as you went on! Exposure to MMO-style gaming familiarized players with the ‘threat/aggro’ mechanic, and it was obvious that Fighters needed something like that.

The entire class, therefore, suffered because the designers had the wrong assumptions about how the game would function in play. But let’s use some other examples.

*Cleave sounds like a great Feat. I mow down an enemy, I get a free shot at another enemy nearby. At low levels, where you can decapitate an Orc with a backswing, this Feat lets you slaughter HORDES. And it’s Improved brother just adds to the fun. But as the game progresses, enemies will bunch up less often, and it will take a lot more work to kill one. The occasional free hit stops being as useful.

Like Toughness, Cleave suffers from a wrong assumption. The designers assumed that a free hit would always have the same value. Or that the 30% boost in level 1 hit points would always be appreciated. Because these Feats did not scale (and most Feats did not), their value changed drastically as game play progressed.

And you can see a lot of builds in the PHB have Toughness suggested as level 1 Feats! Some would say “the Feat that keeps you alive to earn xp is more valuable than the cool shiny Feat that doesn’t”. However, let’s face it. If you die at level 1, you haven’t lost much. Making a new character, even if the rest of the party is level 2, doesn’t hurt much. And it’s a small price to pay for a Feat that doesn’t suck.

Image by shapeshift via Flickr

**Monks are another example of mistaken expectations. Beating enemies with Kung Fu is AWESOME. Always has been, always will be. The Monk class, in all it’s past incarnations (the new Monk, though a bit wacky, is pretty darned good. About time!), has suffered from some horrible design decisions. I’ll focus on the 3.5 Monk.

Role: Striker. The Monk runs up and attacks things. It’s Flurry of Blows is the most efficient multi-attack power in the game, is available from 1st-level, and scales as you level-up, with no Feat investment. Further, the Monk, though it can use weapons, has a scaling damage mechanic in it’s Unarmed Strike, which will eventually inflict more damage than any weapon in the game.

Thematic Role: Skirmisher. The Monk has a high movement speed and several powers that allow the class to get around the battlefield quickly.

Sub-Role: Controller. The Monk’s Stunning Fist allows it to temporarily stun an enemy, making them unable to attack, and granting “combat advantage” to their allies.

Well this is all to the good, right? Heck, there were even Feats to expand upon Stunning Fist, including some truly awesome ones, like Weakening Strike, Sickening Touch, and more!

So what went wrong?

1- average accuracy. The one thing I was very impressed with in 4.0 was the decision to give all classes the same basic accuracy mechanic. Because not hitting, sucks. Granted, the weapon-using classes get a nice bonus with proficiency, but you can adjust for that if you’re careful. The Monk couldn’t hurt high-AC opponents. Granted, there were lots of enemies with poor AC in the game, but as things got bigger, WotC handed out Natural Armor like it was candy

2-average AC. True, the Monk could add Wisdom to their AC, and they gained AC bonuses as they levelled up. They could use the same AC options as the Wizard, such as Bracers of Armor, or Amulets of Natural Armor. One could optimize Monk AC to be very decent, especially at low levels when the Fighter can barely afford Medium Armor.

However, the Monk didn’t use Wisdom to hit. They used Strength (or possibly Dex, but more on that in a minute). Wisdom granted them AC, and empowered their Stunning Fist, and that was about it. So you could optimize on defense at the cost of offense.

3-average hit points. Better than the Rogue, but the Rogue didn’t need to wade into melee combat. The Monk did (I mean, shurikens? Seriously?).

4-combat mechanics. To deliver the Flurry of Blows required the Monk to sacrifice their Move action. Not good for a Skirmisher! And while the damage DIE of Unarmed Strike quickly rose to insane proportions, it was still inferior to weapons for two reasons. One, enhancement bonuses. The Fighter can pick up a +2 sword. The Monk had a hard time finding +2 hands!

And two, Power Attack. Power Attack was simply King in 3.5. The Fighter could easily have 5 (or more) more attack bonus over the Monk. In any fight where the Monk could reliably hit, the Fighter could trade 5 points of attack to get 5, 10, or more (Ubercharger, ho!) damage per hit!

Now these were all design decisions, but they are important considerations nonetheless; if you try to build a character in a vacuum, and don’t take into account the way the game is going to play at the table, even the most impressive build can fall flat. You can’t predict what kinds of encounters you will face, or how much support you will get from your party. In my previous blogs, I talked about my first 4.0 characters and why they don’t work the way I thought they would.

Tony Jaa, my Avenger, for example, was based on the premise that enemies wouldn’t want to fight him when there were squishier targets around (hm, this sounds familiar…). But to my surprise, in the 4.0 environment, enemies rarely move if they have an enemy in range! If they move at all, it’s because a player makes them move.

It doesn’t make sense at first, until you realize how prevalent push/pull/slide mechanics are. What’s the point of trying to get combat advantage or outmaneuver an enemy when they can’t even hold a single square of ground?

I mean, imagine playing King of the Mountain in D&D. It wouldn’t matter how big or tough you are; a Halfling trained in Intimidate could pick up a utility power that gives him a close burst 3 push 1!

Now, I’m not saying that his Censure of Pursuit is useless; I’m sure there will be fights when the enemies try to find easier prey. But Tony will need more than a high AC to deter his foes.

I also talked about Bonesnap, who is pretty darned good in a game with an overworked Defender. Not so good in a game with two Defenders already in it!

So it’s important to keep an eye on the metagame when building a character. How good will your Defender be? What kind of Leader do you have? Can you afford to take risks, knowing the Cleric will have your back, or do you need to invest in some bonus Healing Surges? Will you have a good Controller, or do you need to take defensive Feats?

And of course, there’s the ultimate equalizer. The DM. Does your DM like to use Lurkers or Skirmishers? Is he all about the tactics, or does he just fill the map with cannon fodder? Does he like to use themed adventures or enemies? Nothing like an Ice Fortress or a Fire Cavern to really hose an elemental build.

I’ll get to the actual building process next time.

Continued in Part 2: Heroic Low