Useful Things Gleaned from 4e

[Tydanosaurus]

The penalties for not min-maxing in 4E are immensely larger than in 3E.

The change to races, on its own, reduces the worst penalty for not min-maxing from four points in your primary stat, to two points in your primary stat.
That there are other things in 4e that you believe make it important to min-max is a separate issue.

Everything is relative. A -2 in 4E is worse than a -4 in 3E. A +2 in 4E is better than a +4 in 3E.

If you're arguing that racial mods shouldn't exist, than say it.

[MartinHarper]

Let's see - in terms of character construction, as opposed to in-game tactics:
-1 from the wrong race
-1 from the wrong weapon (eg using a simple weapon as a martial class)
-6 from using powers based on your worst stat
-5 from not having a magic weapon
-1 other

Most of that just shows that it's important to have a brain. I can't see many folks getting below -4 relative to a well constructed character, which is noticeable, but not insurmountable with luck or tactics.

[MartinHarper]

If you pick a race that lacks Wis or Int mods, you Fail. ... That effect is going to be at least a 10% effect.

If 4e used 3e races then it would be at least a 20% effect. So, 4e would be even worse if it used 3e races. Or, conversely, 3e would be even better if it used 4e races.

If you're arguing that racial mods shouldn't exist, than say it.

I'm not arguing that racial mods shouldn't exist. I'm arguing that two +2 stats (or, equivalently, four -2 stats) is better than a +2 stat and a -2 stat, if the goal is to decrease the penalty for picking a bad race/class/build combination.

[Tydanosaurus]

I'm not arguing that racial mods shouldn't exist. I'm arguing that two +2 stats (or, equivalently, four -2 stats) is better than a +2 stat and a -2 stat, if the goal is to decrease the penalty for picking a bad race/class/build combination.

You're arguing that a lesser modifier is better because it punishes failing at min-maxing less. Then why isn't no modifer even betterererer because now there's absolutely no penalty for any choice?

If 4e used 3e races then it would be at least a 20% effect. So, 4e would be even worse if it used 3e races. Or, conversely, 3e would be even better if it used 4e races.

3E would be roughly the same. You ignore your sucky attributes.

Otherwise, we're back to a difference of opinion. Either you think races should matter, or you don't. If races shouldn't matter, then get rid of stat mods altogether. 4E isn't an "improvement" here. In context, 4E sucks just as much for making a bad choice as 3E.

[Tydanosaurus]

Let's see - in terms of character construction, as opposed to in-game tactics:
-1 from the wrong race
-1 from the wrong weapon (eg using a simple weapon as a martial class)
-6 from using powers based on your worst stat
-5 from not having a magic weapon
-1 other

Most of that just shows that it's important to have a brain. I can't see many folks getting below -4 relative to a well constructed character, which is noticeable, but not insurmountable with luck or tactics.

Uh, that's the point. In 4E it's pretty much impossible to get to far off the RNG. About the only way to do it is to pick a bad race.

That's what I'm trying to pound into your head. You:

1. Automatically have the right weapon (it's right in the power)
2. Automatically have the right stat (ditto)
3. Automatically have magic (DM hasto give it to you)

That leaves bad race, and miscellaneous crap, as the only way to mess up the RNG in 4E.

IOW, your race really, really, really, really matters in 4E, in a way that it doesn't in 3E.

[Bigode]

Martin's indeed right that the wrong-race penalties in 4E are smaller than in 3.x, But:

- they still exist, and players have been acting like they didn't;
- the actual penalties 3.x handed out are literally less harmful than presence/absence of bonuses: a penalty went on a non-important stat (of which there are multiple choices for most classes), while having/not having a bonus narrows good choices much more (especially in 4E where every class cares about 2 abilities mainly, and a third for a save).

EDIT: races should matter ... due to their features, not for actively offing classes.

[MartinHarper]

-1 to hit is not "far off the random number generator" when your random number generator is a twenty-sided dice.
It's possible to play a mace fighter, and be at -1 to hit compared to someone with a longsword.
It's possible to be a high-charisma Warlock and pick some constitution-based powers.
It's possible to not have a level-appropriate weapon because you picked up a Flying Carpet instead.
It's possible to roll worse stats than another player.

Picking a bad race/class/build combo is one of a few ways to have an innately less powerful character. This does not mean that it matters a great deal.

[JonSetanta]

Frank's explanation on the min-maxing of races is great. I'll second that.


3e races could leave you screwed over with a bad class combo, but not nearly as bad as in 2e. There, you pick the wrong race and it could even narrow down which classes you were allowed in to like some kind of Jim Crow Law for demihumans.

In a new RPG a brother and I (and a few friends, when it comes to playtesting) are working on, we might go as far as removing base race stat bonuses. It's a classless system wherein you assign your 3 stats as you wish. Combat works on a scale broad enough that the benefits of being dwarf or orc wouldn't make you that much of a better melee warrior from human or elf by nature of stats alone.
So, you can have your tough elf or quick dwarf. No penalty, maybe some minor bonuses, but it won't go to stats. I'm being very careful not to provide cultural benefits from racial source (3e, I'm looking at you)

[Tydanosaurus]

-1 to hit is not "far off the random number generator" when your random number generator is a twenty-sided dice.
It's possible to play a mace fighter, and be at -1 to hit compared to someone with a longsword.

-1 is about as far off as you can reasonably get in 4E. I'm not going to get into the reasons why you might want to play a mace guy instead of a longsword guy, but you might want to eat the prof penalty and do it. YMMV.

Again, I think you're ignoring the context. The relative racial mods in 4E are every bit as powerful as the 3E racial mods.

[Psychic Robot]

The penalties for not min-maxing in 4E are immensely larger than in 3E. A relative -2 to AC in 4E (very easy to get if you mess up) is huge. It's just harder to find those penalties b/c it's virtually impossible not to min-max in 4E.

Is this because the game is specifically designed around everything having a (roughly) 50% chance to hit?

[Tydanosaurus]

That, and everything scales evenly. Everybody's offense bonuses and defense bonuses go up exactly the same. (Well, in theory, the monsters get kind of screwy IMO.) Your -1 always is a 10% disaster. In 3E, things scale unevenly, so your -1 ends up being less important. It usually only matters on your 3rd iteration, or strong saves, stuff like that. It matters, but not quite as much.

[JonSetanta]

Is this because the game is specifically designed around everything having a (roughly) 50% chance to hit?

It's meant to, but sure doesn't end up like that once players get their hands on it.

[MartinHarper]

-1 is about as far off as you can reasonably get in 4E.

Do you understand the meaning of the phrase "off the random number generator"? A -1 modifier is "on the random number generator" for a twenty-sided dice. A -20 modifier is "off the random number generator" for a twenty-sided dice.

I think you're ignoring the context.

Correct. This is a thread about "useful things gleaned from 4e", so I'm deliberately ignoring the context. On its own the 4e style of races is a useful improvement on the 3e style of races. I thought I was being reasonably clear about that, so I'm sorry that you missed it.

[Bigode]

The races technically are an improvement over 3.x, but only in the sense of "a bit less terminally retarded", so that hardly qualifies as "useful thing gleaned".

[RandomCasualty2]

That, and everything scales evenly. Everybody's offense bonuses and defense bonuses go up exactly the same. (Well, in theory, the monsters get kind of screwy IMO.) Your -1 always is a 10% disaster. In 3E, things scale unevenly, so your -1 ends up being less important. It usually only matters on your 3rd iteration, or strong saves, stuff like that. It matters, but not quite as much.

That's flawed thinking.

The only time the -1 becomes less important is if you get pushed off the RNG entirely, but that's something that just shouldn't happen in a well designed RPG, at least not against foes of similar level.

So you're proposing that a bug of 3.5 is actually a feature, which is quite incorrect.

The problem with 4E isn't so much that a -1 penalty to your attack stat is a -1 penalty and hurts you by -1 for the rest of the game. I mean, that's supposed to happen. A -1 penalty is a -1 penalty.

The problem comes in the very concept of an attack stat in the first place. As long as you have attack stats, then pumping that attack stat is going to be the most important thing that you do. The only reason that 3.5 seemed like it was possible not to max out your intelligence as a caster is when you weren't using spells with saves. In simple terms, you were using spells without an attack stat that used a generic DC.

Now, the answer IMO is to just eliminate attack stats altogether. Your ability scores are for skills and defenses only. Your attack should be fixed to some number, like 4 + 1/2 level. And that way you don't hose multiclass characters as much through MAD either.