PDA

View Full Version : Toning it down: hiding optimization



Sploosh
2009-10-04, 07:19 PM
I am in a group of 5, two who DM swap campaigns and two fellow players. We are all close, but we have a polar opposite playstyles. I am a diehard optimizer (who still loves to roleplay) while they are clerics who prepare nothing but cure moderates and wizards who spam fireballs.

I didn't think this was a huge problem, and had a philosophy of "You do it your way and I'll do it my way" until my DM dropped a CR 18 on my solo character's ass (level 11) and one shotted me before I could do anything.
He then told me that he simply wanted to give me a taste of my own medicine.

I was a little upset, but it spurred a few confessions from the others stating they were not enjoying my character hogging the combat spotlight with my high rolls and whatnot. It led me to try and make a compromise.

I want to be a God wizard because that way I am more of a sidekick (one who does 90% of the work) but I can appear in the background. That way they dont feel useless.

I also considered the idea of a Bard or druid but I am afraid of playing a bard because I always hear how gimp they are, and I dont think I could make a druid appear even midly weak if I tried.

Are there any suggestions for being strong without appearing overtly strong or any other class suggestions? Could a Beguiler work? They liked my friend's Factotum.

Chrono22
2009-10-04, 07:23 PM
I toss in a vote for beguiler.
Although they have many advantages, their limited spell selection makes them one of the most balanced mage classes in the game.

Milskidasith
2009-10-04, 07:23 PM
Leave the group. If they're going to kill you off in one shot because you build a strong character, without discussing it with you beforehand, and call that even remotely the same thing as optimizing, then just leave and find a group that has a good DM.

Olo Demonsbane
2009-10-04, 07:25 PM
Bards are only gimped in core.

*Casts Summon Keld Denar*

Eldariel
2009-10-04, 07:26 PM
Wizard seems perfect. Logic Ninja's guide deals with exactly the kind of Wizard that would fit the party perfectly.

Saintjebus
2009-10-04, 07:27 PM
While I don't agree with Milskidasith that you should leave the group for this, they did not handle this well at all, either. They should have taken it up with you first. However, that being said, try talking with them. See what kind of party member they would like. I'm not saying let them build your character, but communicating.

Darcand
2009-10-04, 07:27 PM
I vote bard!

Foryn Gilnith
2009-10-04, 07:27 PM
QFT, even before bard-man arrives. You can make an awesome bard if sources like Dungeonscape are allowed (though that specific book has nothing for them). It won't set off immediate alarm bells because bards are known to be support characters, and have a bit of a gimp reputation. And your killing power will be mostly supportive.

Lapak
2009-10-04, 07:29 PM
I also considered the idea of a Bard or druid but I am afraid of playing a bard because I always hear how gimp they are, and I dont think I could make a druid appear even midly weak if I tried.Based on this alone? Play a bard. For one thing, a lot of their best talents revolve around making other people better, which will take some of the spotlight off you; for another, it will provide an interesting challenge for you if you feel that they are harder to optimize. Everyone wins.

Paulus
2009-10-04, 07:36 PM
I am in a group of 5, two who DM swap campaigns and two fellow players. We are all close, but we have a polar opposite playstyles. I am a diehard optimizer (who still loves to roleplay) while they are clerics who prepare nothing but cure moderates and wizards who spam fireballs.

I didn't think this was a huge problem, and had a philosophy of "You do it your way and I'll do it my way" until my DM dropped a CR 18 on my solo character's ass (level 11) and one shotted me before I could do anything.
He then told me that he simply wanted to give me a taste of my own medicine.

I was a little upset, but it spurred a few confessions from the others stating they were not enjoying my character hogging the combat spotlight with my high rolls and whatnot. It led me to try and make a compromise.

I want to be a God wizard because that way I am more of a sidekick (one who does 90% of the work) but I can appear in the background. That way they dont feel useless.

I also considered the idea of a Bard or druid but I am afraid of playing a bard because I always hear how gimp they are, and I dont think I could make a druid appear even midly weak if I tried.

Are there any suggestions for being strong without appearing overtly strong or any other class suggestions? Could a Beguiler work? They liked my friend's Factotum.

Certainly. Optimize all you like, even as far as your previous character.. then use none of it's stronger combo's until their fat is in the fire. Then when you pull them out with it, they'll thank you, and since you aren't hogging the spot light in combat or otherwise, yet have all that power... there is your roleplay. "I, am not left handed." or "I don't like using guns... bad things happen when I use guns." etc.

Edit: also, if no one else optimizes, it won't matter how gimped you are. Things will work out, group effort! Have fun!

JellyPooga
2009-10-04, 07:41 PM
Bards are awesome. If you're leery of playing one because you feel you'll struggle to contribute meaningfully, a Rogue can fill a nice 'background' role whilst still giving a meaningful contibution; let the others deal with the combat, whilst you do the other stuff.

It seems like they don't want too much competition for the limelight, so find a niche that they don't fill and fill it. That way, any limelight you take will be doing stuff they can't.

Korivan
2009-10-04, 07:55 PM
You can always go the buff addiction route (if possible). This is where you buff the heck out of the players so much that they come to depend on it. Though this isn't just buffs. Really anything that makes the situation easier for them. Soon, if you play your cards right, they'll come to depend on you.

There's also the utility. This is where you become the guy Mass Shrinking them and 'Porting them around. Ya, the Utility Mage will make you feel like a cheap lockpick/taxi/etc, you become a valuble member of the party...sorta.

Or you can simply tell them that Wizards are powerhouses, ban them if ya can't deal with it. Oh, and clerics when played right only use healing when the crap hits the fan. Otherwise, they whip up a melstrom of coolness all on their own.

Broccoli21
2009-10-04, 08:02 PM
I vote cleric. they'll be thankful for the healing and buffing, and if you want to, use persistent spell+divine metamagic to buff them all day. you can also be a melee powerhouse. just don't make yourself cleric-zilla

averagejoe
2009-10-04, 08:07 PM
Man, when I read this title I thought it would be a question on how to make the most effective use of the hide skill.

This is actually something I've been thinking about for myself. My idea was to make clericzilla, but then not play it as clericzilla unless the situation warrants. Get DMM quicken, but then don't cast things like divine power unless the party is really in trouble. I dunno if that would bug your group (or you), but it seems like it could be an interesting role play. I'm going to try it out, anyways, when I get the opportunity.

KellKheraptis
2009-10-04, 08:15 PM
While I agree with playing a GOD wizard from the backlight (War Weaver in particular shines in this role), if a DM ever pulled that crap with me, he'd be picking up more than his dice off the table. That is a low-down, immature trick. Those are the DM's that get full Pun-pun curbstomp treatment followed by a swift epithet and if need be a swift kick for emphasis. GRRRR!!!

:smallfurious:

Raiki
2009-10-04, 08:20 PM
I actually ran into this problem myself in one of my previous games. I was, of course, the wizard (since few other classes really HAVE this problem) and the party got a bit upset about a combat against a nigh-unto-army of blackguards and assassins that I just *happened* to be able to take out with one Chained Mass Flesh to Salt + Whirlwind combo. Since that battle, the character has taken a backseat role in combat (Wall of force, mass flight, transmute stone to lava, et cetera) until things got really grim...THAT is when he pulled out the Quickened, Chained, Twinned, Maximized, Heightened Disintigrate spell that ended the fight. (Using the Metamagic Cradle feat and a goodly portion of his daily spell slots...)

Anyway...just try to help the rest of the party out a bit...it can be just as fun, and helps you in the long run too (in AND out of character).

~R~

Indon
2009-10-04, 08:25 PM
Bards are only gimped in core.

Not even this. Bards just aren't as powerful as optimized full casters in core.

In that group, that doesn't seem like it'll be any concern.

The Bard functions as a group face (but since you're the Bard, your group members should expect that of you) and secondary skill monkey, and does group support excellently.

In core.

Deastorm
2009-10-04, 08:26 PM
I had a group I ran with, and I made a drow wizard. Not very optimized, was an enchanter/controller type, but very rude to the other party members, but in an absentminded way. To the dwarven warrior/former slave, "I used to have a slave that made the most remarkable breadsticks, did your masters teach you anything useful?" I had fun with it, and he was a braggart about magic, but never actually stole the spotlight. Just claimed a bunch of nonsense. (The psion gnome actually did all the overpowered stuff, but he was quiet about it)

Anyway, because the player that found my style abhorrant happened to be the DM's girlfriend, (who also happens to hate me as a person) my drow (level 7 wizard) was jumped by two level 18 drow warriors. I managed to kill one and incapacitate the other, before a 19th level psion matron shows up, incapacitates me, and basically makes me an NPC.

I was asked if I wanted to be a DM tool in the party, or make a new character. As I had no intention of not getting to actually play (I usually DMed for this lot), I made a new toon. A bard.

He was polite, and nice. Very nice. Vow of Peace nice. I scavenged these and other boards, and made him give +9/+9 to all his Inspire Courage, and a diplomancer, I think it was upwards of +45 for a 9th level character. We could no longer fight anything sentient, as I would talk them out of being evil. Anything we did fight, we killed in a few rounds, since even the helplessly built rogue was now a murder machine. The DM ran exactly 3 sessions of this before he kinda gave up, and didn't know what to do anymore.

I don't play with this group anymore, for similar reasons, and many more.

So, tl;dr? Yea, bards can be good. :smallsmile:

Keld Denar
2009-10-04, 08:38 PM
Yea, just go Bard and optimize Inspire Courage. You're group will all feel all manly and stuff cause they can power attack stuff and stuff, and it'll be ok.

Flickerdart
2009-10-04, 08:43 PM
[QUOTE=Deastorm;7057373"I used to have a slave that made the most remarkable breadsticks, did your masters teach you anything useful?"[/QUOTE]
That's hilarious! I have no idea why your DM didn't like you.

Temet Nosce
2009-10-04, 08:58 PM
Leave the group. If they're going to kill you off in one shot because you build a strong character, without discussing it with you beforehand, and call that even remotely the same thing as optimizing, then just leave and find a group that has a good DM.

This. I understand the feelings of the person who suggested physical or in game violence, but bluntly it's not gonna help. It's already been made clear that this is someone you do not want to game with. Leave.

sadi
2009-10-04, 09:02 PM
I'm playing in a game where no one optimizes, so knowing this i intentionally took the path to arcane heirophant, we also have a sorcerer who believes in direct damage only. The party cleric just got himself arrested for deciding to be an arsonist, so he's making a new character since the party paladin already said he has a better chance of dying than rejoining the party. We have one incompetent rogue who has negative spot and listen checks and no one in the party has a spot score higher than 2 besides me. So we have huge holes and the rogue tells the now characterless cleric he should play a wizard. This is the point I've realized I'm in a non optimizing group where only direct damage matters for competence.

Note the sorcerer already saved the rogues life with a useful casting of ray of enfeeblement, and I've saved several lives with grease/entangle. Note that besides the fact the rogue fails at life as a skill monkey, he insists on causing some sort of ruckus everytime we get to any town, ruckus that should end up with him being arrested, but the dm has no balls to do it.

tl:dr Some groups just have a very different flavor, accept it and go with it, or move on.

sonofzeal
2009-10-04, 09:29 PM
Not even this. Bards just aren't as powerful as optimized full casters in core.

In that group, that doesn't seem like it'll be any concern.

The Bard functions as a group face (but since you're the Bard, your group members should expect that of you) and secondary skill monkey, and does group support excellently.

In core.
I disagree. I mean, yes they can do group face, and yes they can do skillmonkey, and yes they have some group support. But Rogue can do just as well for Face (almost better, since Bards don't get Intimidate and Rogues can UMD Glibness), and certainly make better skillmonkeys.

The Bard class features are rather shoddy in core. The bonuses from Inspire Courage are nominal at best, hardly worth the combat actions unless you're picking up Dragonfire Inspiration from out of Core. The spell list helps a little, but is hampered by ridiculously few spellslots and bad spell level progressions, meaning their DCs suck and you're much less likely to have what you need when you need it. It's better than no spellcasting, but worst than having class features that are actually functional.

Basically, it's a jack-of-all-trades class who, in Core, generally fails pathetically in combat, can't buff nearly enough to make a significant difference, and doesn't (imo) get nearly enough spellcasting to justify his existence. Of the core Bard spell list, the vast majority are things other spellcasters can do earlier, more often, with higher DCs, more opportunity for metamagic, and with far more alternatives. Looking at the max level Bard spells, there's only a single one that Bards get before other casters and only because it's unique, and it isn't even all that useful what with a 10 minute casting time (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/sympatheticVibration.htm) and basically replicating something Wizards could do more often five levels ago (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/disintegrate.htm) as a standard action with far fewer restrictions. By that level, the amount of gold for a Rogue to UMD the far, far superior Wizard version is basically pocket change, and the Bard spell is so horribly situational that I can't imagine it being used more than once or twice in a normal campaign, if that.

The Core Bard never going to hold his own in combat (Inspire Courage doesn't even compensate for his mediocre BAB), and can't take a hit (light armor and d6 hitdice and no combat-focused class features make for a very suicidal combatant). I've played a lot of Core games, and I've seen a lot of Core bards, and my experience is that they generally launch a nominal Inspire Courage in the first round and then proceed to fail even harder than Monks.

Social interaction is really their strong point in Core, but is hampered by the fact that, aside from Glibness, they really have no advantage (and a few disadvantages) over a social Rogue. Anyway, social interaction in D&D usually rides heavily on the ability of the player to actually speak convincingly, something no class helps with. It's important to have a party face, but a high Charisma and a few ranks in Diplomacy don't generally cut it in most games I've been in, except to claim "dibs" over the rest of the players. I'm sure there's games where a Diplomacy roll is king, but that's been rare in my experience.



....that said, outside of Core it's not too hard to make Bards ridiculously broken. Song of the Heart + Masterwork Instrument + Regalia of the Hero + Word of Creation (+ Dragonfire Inspiration)? Yeah, a properly spec'd Bard out of Core can be powerful, and make the rest of the party absolutely lethal. Their spell options improve dramatically, they get some interesting and useful class features, they get some really powerful PrC options, and they're generally much more flexible and useful. Actually, you almost get the opposite problem - an optimized Bard can be darn closed to overpowered, and the single most broken character I've ever actually played used Bard as a major component (along with Marshal and Divine Mind). Bards are a delicate balancing act between "suck" and "omghax", and while there's a few who walk that line well (here's to you Zohra), it's a hard line to walk and I'd call Bards probably the most "imbalanced" class in the game, in the sense that their middle ground is one of the hardest to find.

Riffington
2009-10-04, 09:41 PM
Why not play something that you know is underpowered? Something that's fun but genuinely as weak or weaker than everyone else? Just try an arcane trickster, mystic theurge, or ranger/rogue/shadowdancer? If you prove you can have fun with them without being in the most powerful half of the group, it'll be easier to get along in the future.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-10-04, 09:44 PM
Play a S&B fighter for a few sessions?

The Glyphstone
2009-10-04, 10:46 PM
Play a Dwarf Commoner who dual-wields Dwarven Waraxes while non-proficient with them, and use maximal Improved Combat and Power Attack on every swing. At level 11, you can have a -32/-36 to-hit. Then demand that your DM give you another taste of your own medicine and supply enemies equally weak for the party to fight, so that they can feel powerful again.

Siosilvar
2009-10-04, 11:00 PM
Play a Dwarf Commoner who dual-wields Dwarven Waraxes while non-proficient with them, and use maximal Improved Combat and Power Attack on every swing. At level 11, you can have a -32/-36 to-hit. Then demand that your DM give you another taste of your own medicine and supply enemies equally weak for the party to fight, so that they can feel powerful again.

How are you managing -32/-36? Your BAB is 5, you can only ICE or Power Attack for 5 points.

A fighter, though, could get -26/-31/-36/-30 with a pair of Large kama (which are one-handed weapons).

Attacks (before all penalties): +11/6/1 main hand, +11 off hand
-6 main hand, -10 off hand: TWF one-handed no feats (+5/0/-5, +1)
-4: nonproficient with kama (+1/-4/-9, -3)
-2: Large-sized weapon (-1/-6/-11, -5)
-11: Improved Combat Expertise (-12/-17/-22, -16)
-11: Power Attack (-23/-28/-33, -27)
+1: Strength (req'd for Power Attack) (-22/-27/-32, -26)
-4: Fighting Defensively (-26/-31/-36, -30)

-2: Noncombatant Flaw (-28/-33/-38, -32)

quillbreaker
2009-10-04, 11:04 PM
Ah, that most common killer of 3.5 D&D tabletop games. Knowledge. The more you know about the system, the more powerful you are, the less necessary the other characters are. The other players go through a couple of sessions of being ineffectual, then get bored of being upstaged and quit coming. Most 3.5 games which I've seen end, have ended because of this.

I dodged the problem by quitting playing 3.5. I wish, given all of the core material and neat worlds to play in, that there was a good way to fix it. I don't think there is. The system is byzantine and infinitely exploitable, and if everyone isn't on the same page it is very, very hard to keep the game on an even keel. More trouble than it's worth, I think. It was apparently more trouble than it was worth for your DM to treat you fairly.

Given that you don't want to stop marginalizing everyone else, and only want to give up the *appearance* of marginalizing everyone else, I imagine things are only going to get worse.

The Glyphstone
2009-10-04, 11:05 PM
How are you managing -32/-36? Your BAB is 5, you can only ICE or Power Attack for 5 points.

A fighter, though, could get -26/-31/-36/-30 with a pair of Large kama (which are one-handed weapons).

Attacks (before all penalties): +11/6/1 main hand, +11 off hand
-6 main hand, -10 off hand: TWF one-handed no feats (+5/0/-5, +1)
-4: nonproficient with kama (+1/-4/-9, -3)
-2: Large-sized weapon (-1/-6/-11, -5)
-11: Improved Combat Expertise (-12/-17/-22, -16)
-11: Power Attack (-23/-28/-33, -27)
+1: Strength (req'd for Power Attack) (-22/-27/-32, -26)
-4: Fighting Defensively (-26/-31/-36, -30)

-2: Noncombatant Flaw (-28/-33/-38, -32)

Whoopsies. Blame my being tired, I somehow was giving Commoners full BAB.

Zovc
2009-10-04, 11:15 PM
I've never read the Artificer, but isn't he all about putting spells in items? If he is, just put spells in party members' items instead of putting everything in yours.

Seems like it works to me, you get to optimize as much as you want and everyone benefits.

Then again, I've never read the class.

sofawall
2009-10-04, 11:20 PM
Bards are only gimped in core.

*Casts Summon Keld Denar*

Hey, I love me some bards, too.

He and I had a wonderful discussion based on theoretical optimals (192d6 attacks) or realistic optimals (Being able to do something in more than one combat)

Curmudgeon
2009-10-04, 11:31 PM
Pick anything in Tier 4 or below and optimize the heck out of it. If you're really "a diehard optimizer" you'll enjoy the challenge. Make the very best Marshal or Paladin or whatever possible.

sonofzeal
2009-10-04, 11:32 PM
I've never read the Artificer, but isn't he all about putting spells in items? If he is, just put spells in party members' items instead of putting everything in yours.

Seems like it works to me, you get to optimize as much as you want and everyone benefits.

Then again, I've never read the class.
The Artificer is about making items for the whole team, and getting extra mileage out of wands and scrolls. The issue is, he can make wands and scrolls rather easily, and apply powerful metamagics to even the higher level ones without too much trouble. Now, some metamagic'd wands/scrolls benefit the whole party, but many just do 42607d6 damage in a single round, which tends to make the rest question their contribution to the team.

Draz74
2009-10-04, 11:49 PM
+1 Bard vote.

Stay away from Dragonfire Inspiration; it will make the other players love you, but will still make the DM mad. Same with Sublime Chord and Words of Creation.

You can still make a perfectly awesome Bard without those three tricks, if you use all the other optimization stuff that's come out for Bards. Song of the Heart, Inspirational Boost, Improvisation, Melodic Casting, Captivating Melody, skill tricks, Badge of Valor, Versatile Peformer, Crown of the White Raven, Martial Stance (Leading the Charge) ...

(Caster-focused? Metamagic Song, Chain Spell, Sculpt Spell, Heighten Spell, Rapid Metamagic ...)

(Melee-focused? Snowflake Wardance, maybe Song of the White Raven, more Tome of Battle dipping, feycrafted weapons ...)

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-10-04, 11:50 PM
Pick anything in Tier 4 or below and optimize the heck out of it. If you're really "a diehard optimizer" you'll enjoy the challenge. Make the very best Marshal or Paladin or whatever possible.

Real optimizers use Samurai*!

*Damn you Shneeky!!!

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2009-10-04, 11:55 PM
For this group I'd probably make a character who's good at everything except offensive combat. The best choice I've found for this would be an Arcane Swordsage, but get only defensive buffs and problem solving abilities. Get Adaptive Style and probably Weapon Finesse and Shadow Blade with TWF, or even Spring Attack and the PH2 upgrades, and don't really try to do anything impressive in combat. Focus on AC and saving throws, and pick spells that grant immunities or get you out of bad situations like the Heart Of line from Complete Mage and Ruby Ray of Reversal in SC. Be the one character that escapes the trap and rescues everyone else, or the one survivor who drags everyone else to safety. You can also get party buffs like Haste, Bull's Strength, and Greater Magic Weapon, with no limit to the number of uses/day so everyone else will feel more useful.

Aldizog
2009-10-05, 12:09 AM
The Bard class features are rather shoddy in core. The bonuses from Inspire Courage are nominal at best, hardly worth the combat actions unless you're picking up Dragonfire Inspiration from out of Core.
I've been a lurker for a long time, and just joined to respond to this. I'd be really curious to know what Core games look like where Inspire Courage is "hardly worth" a single standard action.

I played in a level 1-to-20 mostly-Core campaign and noticed that Inspire Courage was HUGE. The bonus to damage was nice, but the bonus to hit was tremendous. Iteratives hit, and summoned creatures hit. Now, the party in this campaign included, among others, a summon-happy druid, a dual-wielding rogue and an archer Shadowdancer. The combats tended to involve generally 8 or more enemies, often 12+ and sometimes 20+. (This meant my druid would often summon lots of weaker creatures, who benefit more from Inspire Courage.) So the situation was skewed towards the ability being more effective in some ways. In many combats, the bard was responsible for more damage than anybody else, albeit mostly indirectly.

But I was curious about this. I ran the numbers with my assumptions of a "basic Core non-optimized game" (e.g. Default Array, human, weapons +1 per 4 levels, rounded down). Looking at sword-and-board fighter, THW fighter, single-weapon rogue, and TWF rogue. By my math, vs. AC of APL+15, Inspire Courage at +1 adds about +20% to party damage on full attacks. The bard can still make his own attacks (archery often a good option) or cast spells. At +2 it's +50%. At +3 it's +75% and is better than Haste for most combatants. At +4 it's over +100%. The gain is higher for a TWF rogue, lower for a THW fighter, and about at that level for a sword-and-board fighter or single-weapon rogue. And higher for opponents with an "AC margin" of better than 15. Depending on party composition, the bard may be "pulling his weight" in combat just by singing, even at low levels, and anything else he can do is gravy.

If you're curious about the math I can present my assumptions about stat boosts, weapons, feats, and so on. But the bottom line is that the Inspire Courage bonus can be an astoundingly good benefit in Core, WAY more effective than it is generally given credit for. That's just a result of the numbers.

oxinabox
2009-10-05, 12:41 AM
So i hear you like optimising?
Howabout taking Marshal as you base class and building an uber buffer.
Try and see how much marshal you can fit (common belief is two, but i suggest trying to get up to grant movement, for the challange).
The nenought for Insire Courage as a Bard.
Then move one to Warblade (or maybe swordsage, keep you BaB down nice an low) White Raven tactics: Your intitator should now be Highish, so you won't have to waste manovers on too much out side white ravin (sinfact since you want to minimse your warblader lvls you should do only white raven to makesure you maent the prerequisits for all manouvers)
I'm sure you as an optyimiser can take my rough idea and turn it into a powerful build.

What everyyou do stay away from tier 1 casters, your group may not trust you with them.



Oh and just for lols Have a Mule.
If the party ever turns on you, focus all your buffing into that Mule, and make it eat them.

Maybe animal cohort feat so you have an AC to buff and attack with, but then he might take the spotlight too much (it could be looked on as you taking two actions for everyone elses 1)

Flickerdart
2009-10-05, 12:54 AM
Play a Ranger. Not much that can make them good.

sonofzeal
2009-10-05, 12:55 AM
I've been a lurker for a long time, and just joined to respond to this. I'd be really curious to know what Core games look like where Inspire Courage is "hardly worth" a single standard action.

I played in a level 1-to-20 mostly-Core campaign and noticed that Inspire Courage was HUGE. The bonus to damage was nice, but the bonus to hit was tremendous. Iteratives hit, and summoned creatures hit. Now, the party in this campaign included, among others, a summon-happy druid, a dual-wielding rogue and an archer Shadowdancer. The combats tended to involve generally 8 or more enemies, often 12+ and sometimes 20+. (This meant my druid would often summon lots of weaker creatures, who benefit more from Inspire Courage.) So the situation was skewed towards the ability being more effective in some ways. In many combats, the bard was responsible for more damage than anybody else, albeit mostly indirectly.

But I was curious about this. I ran the numbers with my assumptions of a "basic Core non-optimized game" (e.g. Default Array, human, weapons +1 per 4 levels, rounded down). Looking at sword-and-board fighter, THW fighter, single-weapon rogue, and TWF rogue. By my math, vs. AC of APL+15, Inspire Courage at +1 adds about +20% to party damage on full attacks. The bard can still make his own attacks (archery often a good option) or cast spells. At +2 it's +50%. At +3 it's +75% and is better than Haste for most combatants. At +4 it's over +100%. The gain is higher for a TWF rogue, lower for a THW fighter, and about at that level for a sword-and-board fighter or single-weapon rogue. And higher for opponents with an "AC margin" of better than 15. Depending on party composition, the bard may be "pulling his weight" in combat just by singing, even at low levels, and anything else he can do is gravy.

If you're curious about the math I can present my assumptions about stat boosts, weapons, feats, and so on. But the bottom line is that the Inspire Courage bonus can be an astoundingly good benefit in Core, WAY more effective than it is generally given credit for. That's just a result of the numbers.
I'd be very interested in seeing your math and assumptions; I'm a bit of a number cruncher myself, and I admit I threw that out there based more on my experience than on actually calculating things.

A brief counterargument

- At extremely low level (1-3), the number of uses per day can be a substantial limitation. It's only ever good for a single encounter and possibly not even that (at least without going out of Core for Lingering Song). At level 1, the Bard can only do it once, can only cast Cantrips, and is down to fighting with a Rapier or Shortbow the entire rest of the day.

- At mid levels (3-7), it scales too slowly. This is the level range I've played with the most, and my impression is that the majority of games are around here. The Bard's Inspire Courage is still a piddly +1/+1, while the Cleric is starting to be able to cast Prayer which adds to a whole lot more thing and equally debuffs the enemy with no save. Really, by level 5 most characters are starting to become dangerous inside their own idiom, but the Bard lags sorely behind. Only the Barbarian waits longer for his definitive class feature to improve, but at least he has Core feats to improve his style and can easily stay competitive, while the Bard's still tossing out the same +1/+1 that he was at first level.

- At higher levels, it doesn't matter enough. Attack bonus scales way faster than AC, and by the time the Bard can be adding the really big numbers to attack rolls, it really isn't anything to write home about. Any other buffer can do a whole lot more and have it last a whole lot longer, and another "controller" or "striker" (to borrow some 4e terms) could have a much bigger impact on the battle.

- It's not so much that the bonuses don't do anything, it's that the Bard spends one round tossing out a basic buff that any other buffer could probably do better, and then... what? Tries to hit things with his rapier? Casts a couple low level spells with poor DCs? Acts like a Rogue without Sneak Attack (and less skillpoints and a worse class skill list and no trapfinding)? I've never been impressed.



Frankly I think the class was just poorly designed by WotC. Every other Core class gets Core feats that help it rock out in style, but what does the Bard get? What can it do to boost its effectiveness in Core? What else can it do effectively besides provide a nominal buff and occasionally lie through its teeth? I completely agree that there's certain "best case scenarios" for the Bard - a large party with a lot of allies, and many people that rely on masses of attacks with a relatively low chance to hit - but the Core Bard seems profoundly disposable. If all he's doing is tossing out one buff that isn't all that level dependent, why not hire an NPC or get a cohort? And if an NPC or cohort who's five levels behind can provide almost as big a contribution, then what justifies your place in the party?

(Of course, all this is a total wash in an RP-heavy game, where the flavourwise coolness covers a multitude of sins. But I'm a firm believe that flavour is what you make of it.)


EDIT - We're getting rather off topic here. I'd still love to see your numbers, and am more than willing to be proven wrong, but perhaps we should take this to PM?

herrhauptmann
2009-10-05, 01:14 AM
Come on, did some one say it and I jsut missed it? Vow of Poverty Monk :)

Or in the same vein as 'optimize a buffing character' here's a link to a character I made last year and his build.
Chain wielding maniac focused on AOOs.

The party was absurdly large, with mostly new players. 2 sorcerors, 1 wizard, 1 rogue, 1 healer, 1 do nothing cleric, 1 neanderthal barbarian, and 1 goliath knight. THe last 2 were heavy damage dealers for melee, then there was my character.
The DM had warned us against too much powergaming, but I managed to get relatively free rein because my character was intended as a backup melee character from the start (we started at level 3)

Here's the original build I posted when asking for help in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=93094). Though in the end I switched the order around for my feats a little.

Rog1: Exotic weapon prof, combat reflexes
Ftr1: Deft Opportunist (+4 on AoOp)
Ftr2: Weapon Focus :chain
Ftr2: Vesxing flank (+4 when flanking)
Ftr 4: Adaptable flanker (any square I threaten, can be used to give allies flanking)
Ftr5: Combat Expertise
Ftr6: Improved Trip
Ftr8: Vae School (drow of underdark. )

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-10-05, 01:17 AM
Come on, did some one say it and I jsut missed it? Vow of Poverty Monk :)

Ah, but you are forgetting the fact that VoP is "hideously overpowered".

herrhauptmann
2009-10-05, 01:24 AM
Ah, but you are forgetting the fact that VoP is "hideously overpowered".

But it's a monk! :)

edited for smiles

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-10-05, 01:33 AM
A broken class.

Myou
2009-10-05, 01:34 AM
While I don't agree with Milskidasith that you should leave the group for this, they did not handle this well at all, either. They should have taken it up with you first. However, that being said, try talking with them. See what kind of party member they would like. I'm not saying let them build your character, but communicating.

This. I would have been furious is a DM did that to me.

Anyway, +1 vote for wizard.

Tackyhillbillu
2009-10-05, 01:51 AM
Ehhhhh, yeah, I don't think you should make anything. It's obvious you are having a pretty serious goals difference here. Doing the hidden optimizing thing is just going to result in you being fine up until you reveal your optimization, and then having everybody get even more pissed at you.

A question, are these guys making "Bad" Characters, or just non-optimized? If you are using Time Stop and Contingency Cheese, and they are just having fun, well I think they have a valid concern. The DM didn't deal with it in the proper way, but their concern is valid.

If they are making "Bad" characters, as in characters that in someway do not work (say they all decide to play truenamers) just help them make some better one's that fit in with their concept.

If they are playing characters that simply to do not break the system (say a Fighter who doesn't abuse Dungeoncrasher or tripping, a Cleric who doesn't use DMM and Nightsticks to break the game, a Druid that doesn't take Natural Spell) well then... you might have to take a bullet. Play something that matches their level of power. Intentionally making the game unfun (like some of the given examples) is a stupid and childish idea, and makes you just as bad as the DM who dropped the monsters on you.

Either way, work with the DM and players, not against them. Hiding things from them and trying to prove them wrong is a bad idea that will only make things worse.

---

God damn that makes me look like a Pansy. If that doesn't work, make a grappler. The DM will quit before the first couple of rounds.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-10-05, 01:55 AM
Grappler who trips things while in a grapple from a mounted position.

Xenogears
2009-10-05, 02:03 AM
Combine Monk, Sohei, and Bear Warrior to do multiple flying kicks as a bear after a charge? Not amazingly effective but an awesome image...

gdiddy
2009-10-05, 02:05 AM
Play a tripping knight with a buckler and glave. You won't do a lot of damage. You'll just be a walking debuff. Everyone else looks good as they get the damage. Meanwhile you can actually be useful.

oxinabox
2009-10-05, 02:24 AM
I actaully know someone who played in a game with a guy playing a sorcerer, for a whole campaign, pretending to be a fighter, to everyone one, DM, PC's, NPC's monsters.

He wore Fullplate and a wielded a greatsword, taking the Massive nonporficency pentites to everything.
He basically never Hit anything the whole campaign.
He Would Charge in to Battle, Roaring battlecried,m and hew about with his greatsword. and need to be healled back to conciosness after almost everyfight.
They all thought he was just a really badly built fighter.

HE played the whole campaign like this, for mulitiple months.

Until they came to a room in the dungeon.
They Saw a Balor.
And everyone one charged in to battle.
excedpt player X.
Player X: "I start taking of my armour"
Dm: "... OK?" :smallconfused:
The other players all kept fighting it, taking large amounts of wounds.
everytime it came to X's turn.
DM :what do you do?
X: I countinue taking off my armour.
DM: "...ok, whatever, it's your character"
Gradually everyone one else in the Party died.
DM: what do you do?
X: I've finished taking of my armour. I cast dismissal.
DM, Other Players: :eek:!:eek:!:eek:!

DM: You What!
Players: but,t but you're a fighter! you don't cast spells
X: nope Sorcerer, says it right here on my character sheat.

I'm not sure if he succeeded the first time, but he was on full HP, and full spell attoment.
When after he got rid of the demon.
Player X: heh, that was fun, i should do that more often.
Players to DM: thanks for the tpk

gdiddy
2009-10-05, 03:19 AM
Sorry, Guisarme for tripping. Also: Get Quick draw, so if some poor bastard gets inside your range, drop the guisarme and trip him with a scythe.

Of course, you'll need Dex for combat reflexes, Strength for trip attempts, Con for hit points to pull it off, Cha for knight abilities, and Int for feat reqs. So your optimization is going to be limited by the nature of the build.

PhoenixRivers
2009-10-05, 03:26 AM
The full plate sorceror works best with still spell. Takes much longer to take off armor than to eat the 1 round metamagic cost.

sonofzeal
2009-10-05, 03:28 AM
The full plate sorceror works best with still spell. Takes much longer to take off armor than to eat the 1 round metamagic cost.
I did this once. Actually, what I did involved a Divination-specialist Wizard who'd do his heavy lifting out of combat when he didn't need the armor, and used Wands to buoy up his in-combat ability.

riddles
2009-10-05, 03:52 AM
+1 for optimised inspire courage bard. everyone loves a good bard. hell, even with a 2handed weapon you can power attack fairly well, but you don't need to because you made everyone else awesome.

MickJay
2009-10-05, 04:20 AM
In such situation, if I still wanted to stay with the group in the first place, I'd probably pick a very weak class and make the character fairly un-optimized. He'd be a survivor ("defensive" feats like toughness, fortitude, evasion etc), but little else, and would barely contribute in combat. I'd pick a couple of interesting skills to avoid being completely useless. Now I wouldn't go with Monk, because with the party you described even an unoptimized Monk would be fairly strong, but I'm sure there's something appropriate out there...

Expect to be attacked by CR 1 or 2 monsters so you could "taste your own medicine"; alternatively, if someone complains that you're useless, simply reply that you didn't want to steal the spotlight this time, and that you were simply being considerate while making your character. :smalltongue:

Yora
2009-10-05, 05:18 AM
If you know the game, and the other players don't, than you could steal the show even with the weakest classes.
I'd go the route of making a character that is really good with assisting his teammates. You get your fun with optimization and the others have fun in the spotlight. Wielding the weapons you enchanted for them, charging through a dragons breath with the energy resistance you put on them, and crashing the adamantine doors with their magical strength provided by you. :smallbiggrin:

Tempest Fennac
2009-10-05, 05:22 AM
Based on the "killing you with something you had no chance against" part, I'd argue that you're better off leaving, especially since they didn't have the decency to talk to you about it first (my stance is that compromizing in any wqay will suggest to them that they have a point, which is probably a bad thing if they aren't willing to optimize their characters at all while you are).

potatocubed
2009-10-05, 06:16 AM
Another vote for bard. Specifically, a whip-wielding bard who does a neat sideline in trip and/or disarm attacks.

More generally, think of niche protection. Pick a role that the party is currently not filling and preferably does little direct damage (buffer, debuffer, healer) and do that. This is tricky in 3.5, for a variety of reasons that I'll not go into here, but it can be done.

Alternatively, take on a challenge to your optimising skills. Instead of going for 'huge DPS' go for survivability. See just how many hit points you can rack up. How many buffs can you deploy in one round? Or pick a deliberately lower-tier class and see how effective you can make it.

Fitz
2009-10-05, 07:02 AM
ok i'd normally be towards the head of the queue for comprimise and discussion. but in this case first i would be letting off a bit of steam at how the DM reacted. then point out that if they have a problem with the way you are gaming, they need to talk first.

Then play a party enhancement speicalist (bard/cleric/transmuter/knight/ whatever...just primary focus is powering up others)
optimise the hell out of making others good, and just add a bit on to your defensive power (high AC, DR, fast healing , etc), and everything else on upping the other party members damage quota?

but really they were not communicating with you so, until that is sorted it could be a lot of issues over time.

Fitz

Radiun
2009-10-05, 07:02 AM
I'd say take Dragonfire Adept
Then take stuff like Draconic Knowledge, Endure Exposures, Magic Insight

Be the useful sage type

This can also be done with a Bard of course, but then you don't get to walk around in full-plate breathing on stuff like some madman

warmachine
2009-10-05, 07:07 AM
Bard is a good choice but I'd vote for Cleric, as long as you stay away from the DMM cheese. Or at least stay away from the Nightsticks. Cleric spells are mostly healing, buffs and defensive magic. The others will love your Deathwards, Freedom of Movements, Magic Circle Against Evil etc. You'll still have a bag of tricks and can go melee if needed. The DM will still hate you but the other players will love you.

God wizard is also good but watch out for excessive battlefield control.

gdiddy
2009-10-05, 10:04 AM
One of the best memories I have playing was when myfriend was playing a Halfling bard who went around calling himself "King of the Gypsies". Gypsies do not listen to anyone, but it might have been true. He spoked with a neutral Eastern European accent and "loved all women, regardless of their people or Level adjustment." He duel wielded whips and had a custom feat called Greater Improved Sunder: Lady Garments.

This resulted in many hijinks and made him the most hated member of our party to our Evil Duchess BBEG. Invariably, he would be able to diplomance her into loving him, every time he was captured.

I miss the little guy.

oxinabox
2009-10-05, 10:20 AM
B
God wizard is also good but watch out for excessive battlefield control.

Batman wizard has a bad (undeserved) rep.
He has only 1 damage spell, (+ everysave or die he can get his hands on, admittedly)
and considers doing damage to be other peoples job.

But he has a bad rep, and you want a good rep,
Buffer! buffer! buffer!
Then skip a sesson, and everyone relieses how much you contibute.

Curmudgeon
2009-10-05, 10:37 AM
Bard is a good choice but I'd vote for Cleric, as long as you stay away from the DMM cheese. Or at least stay away from the Nightsticks. Cleric spells are mostly healing, buffs and defensive magic. You haven't played enough Clerics, I think. I can make a Cleric be the dominant melee character and dominant spellcaster in a game without a Wizard. When used by an optimizer, Clerical domains and undead turning attempts can be a very powerful advantage. While it's true that much of Clerical spells are healing and defensive magic, because they know all spells on the class list there are enough options that you can prepare your spells with a different emphasis. After all, non-Evil Clerics can always get Cure spells anyway.

A Cloistered Cleric with CHA 12 can take the Travel domain and swap it for a free Travel Devotion feat. Then for 3 encounters daily the CC gets to move their speed as a swift action 10 times in a row, powered by those undead turning attempts. CCs also get Knowledge as a free third domain, and can swap that for Knowledge Devotion. Knowledge Devotion gives bonuses to hit and damage vs. everything if you put points into the 6 Knowledge skills related to creature types -- and CCs get 6 + INT mod skill points each level. A 1st level Cloistered Cleric with INT 14 using Knowledge Devotion has +0 BAB -- but will also get an average of +1.6 to hit and damage against all foes.

So that would be a decent start to make a melee Cleric, and it still leaves all the normal feats and spell choices freely available. You want to be a surprise round hitter? Take Improved Initiative (or choose Time as your third domain and get it included). Do a partial charge on the surprise round (since your WIS makes for good Spot and Listen even without ranks) and whale away with your Knowledge Devotion bonuses. Then on the next round (since you've got superior initiative) you full attack, and use Travel Devotion to move to interpose obstacles so the enemy can't charge in turn. No surprise round? Cast Rhino's Rush as a swift action and get double damage on your charge instead -- including doubling that Knowledge Devotion bonus. Or you could cast Hemorrhage and with a touch attack deal bleeding damage that lasts up to 5 rounds -- with your Knowledge Devotion bonus added to the damage roll each round, while you do other things. And that's just level 1 spells.

No Divine Metamagic. No Nightsticks. No arcane spells (although you can get those via items with the Magic domain if you want). And you'll still dominate the game.

tyckspoon
2009-10-05, 10:55 AM
A Cloistered Cleric with CHA 12 can take the Travel domain and swap it for a free Travel Devotion feat. Then for 3 encounters daily the CC gets to move their speed as a swift action 10 times in a row, powered by those undead turning attempts. CCs also get Knowledge as a free third domain, and can swap that for Knowledge Devotion. Knowledge Devotion gives bonuses to hit and damage vs. everything if you put points into the 6 Knowledge skills related to creature types -- and CCs get 6 + INT mod skill points each level. A 1st level Cloistered Cleric with INT 14 using Knowledge Devotion has +0 BAB -- but will also get an average of +1.6 to hit and damage against all foes.


Cloistered Clerics have all Knowledge as class skills because of their free Knowledge domain. Trading it away for the Devotion means you're left with the standard Cleric skill list, which misses out on Know: Local, Nature, and Dungeoneering. If you're going to swap it for early access to Knowledge Devotion, you'll need the Education feat to make up for it.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-10-05, 10:58 AM
Well, then; use the Mind or Inquisition domain to get Knowledge Devotion through equivalency. You still have one extra domain free, while still setting up the Knowledge Devotion combo without blowing a feat.

riddles
2009-10-05, 11:23 AM
i thought once a class skill, always a class skill?

Tyndmyr
2009-10-05, 11:34 AM
i thought once a class skill, always a class skill?

If you have a skill as a class skill for any level, then it's treated as a class skill for purposes of skill caps. It's only treated as a class skill for purchase price for that level.

Note that this does not apply to substitions. If you somehow traded off class skill x for y, so that you never actually took skill x as a class skill for any level, then it does not act as a class skill.

Hopefully that was clear enough.

Curmudgeon
2009-10-05, 12:43 PM
Cloistered Clerics have all Knowledge as class skills because of their free Knowledge domain. Trading it away for the Devotion means you're left with the standard Cleric skill list, which misses out on Know: Local, Nature, and Dungeoneering. If you're going to swap it for early access to Knowledge Devotion, you'll need the Education feat to make up for it.
Yes, I understand this. I was just providing options without going through all the variations. For instance, if you're building a one-shot character at a particular level you could use the Knowledge domain up through the last level to develop the CC's Knowledge skills, and then trade the domain for Knowledge Devotion. There's no requirement about when you make the trade, so it's a player option at any time (but just once, of course). Foryn Gilnith provided some other options. Or you could take Able Learner at 1st level and the cost is still 1 point/rank thereafter. Your Education suggestion is even better for this specific application, and it's a choice I've used in the past. And of course you can just take Knowledge Devotion normally and still keep the domain.

potatocubed
2009-10-05, 12:46 PM
I miss the little guy.

See, bards may not be combat monsters, but they are optimised for style.

:smalltongue:

ericgrau
2009-10-05, 01:31 PM
He was polite, and nice. Very nice. Vow of Peace nice. I scavenged these and other boards, and made him give +9/+9 to all his Inspire Courage, and a diplomancer, I think it was upwards of +45 for a 9th level character. We could no longer fight anything sentient, as I would talk them out of being evil. Anything we did fight, we killed in a few rounds, since even the helplessly built rogue was now a murder machine. The DM ran exactly 3 sessions of this before he kinda gave up, and didn't know what to do anymore.
I'm using this as an example since I didn't see the OP give any specifics. +9 and can't fight anything sentient? That's just plain silly. This kind of thing is the problem with excessive optimization. Nothing is challenging any more when you utterly overwhelm the encounter and the game is no longer any fun. Soon it ends because no one wants to play any more, unless they're the strange kind of person that needs to maintain their fragile self esteem by saying "I win" over and over again.

Current path based on thread title: Your build doesn't look broken so it gets allowed. Soon you're saying "I win" every encounter, then your trick is revealed, but only after the campaign is ruined. Ever think of just dumping the insane cheese instead of hiding it? Optimization within reasonable bounds is great, but making a build full of cheesy tricks to get insane bonuses only means that you won't be playing D&D anymore. Good job? IMO just make a nice strong build, but make an effort to stay away from any known cheesy tricks or even combining a few feats or special abilities to add up to a crazy bonus to X. Enough +1's can really add up.

Deastorm
2009-10-05, 05:35 PM
I'm using this as an example since I didn't see the OP give any specifics. +9 and can't fight anything sentient? That's just plain silly. This kind of thing is the problem with excessive optimization. Nothing is challenging any more when you utterly overwhelm the encounter and the game is no longer any fun. Soon it ends because no one wants to play any more, unless they're the strange kind of person that needs to maintain their fragile self esteem by saying "I win" over and over again.


You've seen exactly the point then. It WAS silly. It was a very deliberate, behind the scenes, game-breaker. I had taken exception to having my very reasonable character taken away for no real reason, and fought fire with napalm.

ericgrau
2009-10-05, 05:58 PM
Ah, Mutually Assured Destruction. And then the (campaign) world blows up. IMO destruction should be a last resort to resolving problems. Always look for a peaceful way first, then take more forceful action, but still with the goal of fixing things.

Sploosh
2009-10-05, 06:19 PM
Current path based on thread title: Your build doesn't look broken so it gets allowed. Soon you're saying "I win" every encounter, then your trick is revealed, but only after the campaign is ruined. Ever think of just dumping the insane cheese instead of hiding it? Optimization within reasonable bounds is great, but making a build full of cheesy tricks to get insane bonuses only means that you won't be playing D&D anymore. Good job? IMO just make a nice strong build, but make an effort to stay away from any known cheesy tricks or even combining a few feats or special abilities to add up to a crazy bonus to X. Enough +1's can really add up.

I suppose I should clarify the abuigity I am presenting with the title and the post. I am not trying to sneak a campaign breaker into the game or trick my DM. I am trying to find a build that allows me to have the fun that is sitting up at 3 AM with some coffee, going over every known book, Dragon Mag and Errata to find what I enjoy and what would benefit my character but at the same time, not have that hog the spotlight.

I would never timestop celerity with this group and I haven't. I merely took a rogue, roleplayed him with a Jack Sparrow style feel, and cranked up the SA dice. I assumed that was fine since I purposefully gave myself low will saves, did not take any golemstrike/ghoststrikes and I even left out UMD.

Don't get me wrong, I have DMM'd clerics, scry and died, ubercharged other groups before but I knew that was okey in those situations.

I appreciate all the suggestions I've gotten so far and am rolling up a Bard and Beguiler to ask them which they would prefer. I loved the idea of a Bard but the post about how delicate their balance is was a little frightening.

I'm going to downplay either one a little bit and I hope one day I'll be able to go "I'm not really left handed".

Tyndmyr
2009-10-05, 06:23 PM
Dude...if trying to get a good SA on a rogue constitutes power gaming worthy of instadeath in that group....

You're going to have to do something ridiculously gimped, like playing a sorcerer using melee weapons for it to be accepted by them. This sounds like one of those groups that rails about monks being overpowered because they get so many abilities and stats.

jiriku
2009-10-05, 06:32 PM
I suppose I should clarify the abuigity I am presenting with the title and the post. I am not trying to sneak a campaign breaker into the game or trick my DM. I am trying to find a build that allows me to have the fun that is sitting up at 3 AM with some coffee, going over every known book, Dragon Mag and Errata to find what I enjoy and what would benefit my character but at the same time, not have that hog the spotlight.


Hear, hear! I salute you, sir. You are a D&D player at his finest.

Bonus points if the coffee is espresso.

Aldizog
2009-10-05, 08:15 PM
I'd be very interested in seeing your math and assumptions; I'm a bit of a number cruncher myself, and I admit I threw that out there based more on my experience than on actually calculating things.
I think I'll reply here rather than in a PM. Since the OP is dealing with a mostly non-optimized game, might be worth taking a look at what that math looks like.

My numbers for "basic core non-optimized":
Standard Array (15/14/13/12/10/8), humans, rogues have 10 Str (to make the TWF math simple), all stat increases to primary attribute.
Weapons: Bastard Sword (S&B), Greatsword (THW), Rapier (Rog), Short Swords (TWF Rog).
Feats: Weapon Focus for all, WS/GWF/GWS for fighters, Improved Crit at 9 for fighters and at 12 for rogues, Finesse for rogues at 3, TWF chain as fast as possible for TWF rogue. EWP for S&B.
Magic weapons: +1 per 4 levels (rounded down).
AC margin: 15+APL
Permanent stat-boosters at levels 9 (+2), 13 (+4), 17 (+6).
Optimal Power Attack doesn't add much to expected damage against an AC margin of 15 under these assumptions.

At L8, total attack bonuses are +15/+10 (fighters), +12/+7 (rogue), and +10/+10/+5 (TWF rogue, who picks up ITWF next level). The opponent's AC is 23 at this point. Damage per hit is 13.75 (S&B), 16.5 (THW), 20.33 (Rog), and 20.05 (TWF), assuming sneak attacks. Expected damage per round is 14 (S&B), 17 (THW), 15 (Rog), and 19 (TWF). That's with no Haste or IC. Take one fighter and one rogue for your party, with the wizard throwing 14-pt Magic Missiles each round, and an enemy will take about 45-50 damage per round, plus whatever the cleric does. Most core MM brutes at CR7-9 seem to have around 80-120 hp, so 2-3 rounds to drop. I think the design intention was more likely this than 1-shotting everything of equal CR.

Add in Inspire Courage and the average damage is 20, 23, 21, and 28. That's a pretty nice increase in damage that the bard can take credit for, and he can also directly deal damage with a bow, or disarm with a whip, while singing. IC will also help if the cleric attacks or the wizard is using ray spells. At lower AC, IC matters less, but the bard's direct damage is higher.



- At mid levels (3-7), it scales too slowly. This is the level range I've played with the most, and my impression is that the majority of games are around here. The Bard's Inspire Courage is still a piddly +1/+1, while the Cleric is starting to be able to cast Prayer which adds to a whole lot more thing and equally debuffs the enemy with no save. Really, by level 5 most characters are starting to become dangerous inside their own idiom, but the Bard lags sorely behind. Only the Barbarian waits longer for his definitive class feature to improve, but at least he has Core feats to improve his style and can easily stay competitive, while the Bard's still tossing out the same +1/+1 that he was at first level.
At level 5, the cleric has maybe one Prayer to cast each day, if that (given that many other level 3 spells are also very compelling). The bard has 5 uses of Inspire Courage and a decent selection of spells beyond that. The design intention of ~4 combats per day would, at these levels, lead to parties saving the Prayer (and Haste) for a really tough fight and using IC in every fight.

And even a +1 is pretty good in non-optimized core at low levels. It's often around +10-15% hits (if you need an 11+ or a 14+), and +1 damage is often about +10-15% (if you're doing 1d10+5 or 1d8+2). It doesn't sound like much, but +1/+1 is often +20-30% damage. But, yes, that boost to +2 at L8 is quite welcome.



- At higher levels, it doesn't matter enough. Attack bonus scales way faster than AC, and by the time the Bard can be adding the really big numbers to attack rolls, it really isn't anything to write home about.

Attack bonus does scale faster than AC, but then iteratives start to matter. It's not "Can I hit the giant?", it's "Can I hit the giant with my second and third attacks?" So that +2 or +3 is very useful. And then you start getting the really good abilities (well, for Core anyway) like Inspire Greatness and Inspire Heroics.

True, many of the bard's abilities are in his out-of-combat role. He'll likely have the best social skills, the best UMD, the most languages, and Bardic Knowledge, which is a really fantastic ability. But Inspire Courage is actually quite effective, more than it is often acknowledged to be.

sonofzeal
2009-10-05, 09:03 PM
At L8, total attack bonuses are +15/+10 (fighters), +12/+7 (rogue), and +10/+10/+5 (TWF rogue, who picks up ITWF next level). The opponent's AC is 23 at this point. Damage per hit is 13.75 (S&B), 16.5 (THW), 20.33 (Rog), and 20.05 (TWF), assuming sneak attacks. Expected damage per round is 14 (S&B), 17 (THW), 15 (Rog), and 19 (TWF). That's with no Haste or IC. Take one fighter and one rogue for your party, with the wizard throwing 14-pt Magic Missiles each round, and an enemy will take about 45-50 damage per round, plus whatever the cleric does. Most core MM brutes at CR7-9 seem to have around 80-120 hp, so 2-3 rounds to drop. I think the design intention was more likely this than 1-shotting everything of equal CR.

Add in Inspire Courage and the average damage is 20, 23, 21, and 28. That's a pretty nice increase in damage that the bard can take credit for, and he can also directly deal damage with a bow, or disarm with a whip, while singing. IC will also help if the cleric attacks or the wizard is using ray spells. At lower AC, IC matters less, but the bard's direct damage is higher.
See, I approach it slightly different. Of course having a Bard is going to improve the situation over not having anything; the issue is whether adding a Bard is of equivalent value to adding another of... anything else.

Since we're talking about damage here, and given the roll Bards fill in most group, their closest alternative is the Rogue (a UMD social rogue specifically, but that doesn't hinder the Rogue's combat ability). The standard party is Arcane + Divine + Skill + Melee, with Bard competing for the Skill slot. Let's assume the Cleric is performing roughly as a S&B Melee, while the Fighter is TWF, and the Wizard is doing his own thing.

Expected Total Party Damage Output with a rogue is: 14 (S&B) + 17 (THW), 19 (Rog) + ??? (Wiz) = 50 + Wiz

Expected Total Party Damage Output with a bard is: 20 (S&B) + 23 (THW) + not a whole lot (Bard) + ??? (Wiz) = 43 + Bard + Wiz

....closer than I thought, actually. The numbers are a lot better if you replace the Fighter or Arcanist instead, but you lose a lot more too. You could easily make up the difference with animal companions, summons, or other similar bonuses. Still, this is a pretty good scenario for Bards; they'll do a lot worse at 12-13 or 6-7.

Now, one could argue the utility of Bard spells is more valuable than the missing damage from not having a Rogue. I'm still unconvinced; I've seen UMD Social Rogues be massively effective, while most Bards I've seen have been dead weight, but that's merely anecdotal and there's a selection bias at work in who chooses to play Rogues (in my groups, often the cleverest and most cunning player) over who chooses to play Bards (in my groups, often the one who just wants to look cool).

In any case, I'll withdraw my complaint that Core Bards are massively underpowered; I still think there's a gap, but it's not as significant as I thought, and they do make a good addition to larger teams where there's more people making attack rolls. I still think that they're not particularly fun inside Core, but that's just me.

Tyndmyr
2009-10-05, 09:10 PM
There's always the option of playing an NPC class. It gives your optimization skills a workout, while artificially lowering your effectiveness enough that your party might not mind said optimization.

Riffington
2009-10-05, 09:23 PM
I suppose I should clarify the abuigity I am presenting with the title and the post. I am not trying to sneak a campaign breaker into the game or trick my DM. I am trying to find a build that allows me to have the fun that is sitting up at 3 AM with some coffee, going over every known book, Dragon Mag and Errata to find what I enjoy and what would benefit my character but at the same time, not have that hog the spotlight.

Very good to hear. One alternative solution (not to reject your "playing left-handed approach", but it can backfire if done wrong): optimize for something other than power. You can optimize for any parameter given the character creation restraints - why must power always be the chosen parameter?
Example: you could optimize for eclectic knowledge (Bardic Knowledge + Loremaster or Paragnostic Apostle + Different Knowledge Skills; favored enemy and sneak attack are both forms of applied knowledge; Jade Phoenix Mage gives knowledge of past lives; etc. The goal would be the biggest knowitall, not the biggest contributor to combat.
Or you could optimize for the most organizations/individuals hunting you (Changeling or Doppleganger helps a lot here). Or for the largest landholdings.

Tyndmyr
2009-10-05, 09:25 PM
Landholdings is fun, grab the stronghold builder's guide, and enjoy. I actually enjoy the admittedly rudimentary economy/building stuff side of D&D as much as the combat side.

And your party members should love the idea of having various safehouses.

Mike_G
2009-10-05, 09:46 PM
... I am trying to find a build that allows me to have the fun that is sitting up at 3 AM with some coffee, going over every known book, Dragon Mag and Errata to find what I enjoy and what would benefit my character ...

See, this I don't get at all.

And the other players probably don't get at all.

To me, sitting up all night with a pile of books is masturbation, while the actual give and take at the table is like sex. Nothing against the one, but when it detracts from the other, well....

I know I'm in the minority on this forum, but apart from a thought exercise, I don't see the joy of hardcore optimization. Every thread seems to want to build the ultimate win button pusher, which just seems so unsatisfying in actual play.

It's perfectly fun to play a Sword and Board Fighter and gank you some orcs with a table full of buddies on a Thursday night. When CharOp the Twinked casts Heightened Quickened Contingent I Win, Bitches in the first round, interrupting the enemy surprise round since he's a Diviner and never surprised, how is that fun?

sonofzeal
2009-10-05, 09:53 PM
There's always the option of playing an NPC class. It gives your optimization skills a workout, while artificially lowering your effectiveness enough that your party might not mind said optimization.
One of the ideas in Optimizing Weakness was to play a traditional caster, but voluntarily limit yourself to Adept spell slots. Invent a story reason for the limit, and a way to temporarily remove it in-game, and give the power to remove it to one of the weakest party members. That way you can still bail them out when need be, and the one with the reigns gets to feel like he was a part of it too.

sonofzeal
2009-10-05, 09:57 PM
See, this I don't get at all.

And the other players probably don't get at all.

To me, sitting up all night with a pile of books is masturbation, while the actual give and take at the table is like sex. Nothing against the one, but when it detracts from the other, well....

I know I'm in the minority on this forum, but apart from a thought exercise, I don't see the joy of hardcore optimization. Every thread seems to want to build the ultimate win button pusher, which just seems so unsatisfying in actual play.

It's perfectly fun to play a Sword and Board Fighter and gank you some orcs with a table full of buddies on a Thursday night. When CharOp the Twinked casts Heightened Quickened Contingent I Win, Bitches in the first round, interrupting the enemy surprise round since he's a Diviner and never surprised, how is that fun?
Sitting up to 3am making characters satisfies a totally different set of urges as actually playing. It's like comparing the joy of making a really awesome Halloween costume against the joy of going trick-or-treat with your friends. Some people really enjoy the costuming part, and put a lot of effort into making something fantastic; some just slap on some silly old thing and enjoy themselves. Some people only like making the costumes, some only enjoy the actual event if they look awesome, and some enjoy both the costuming and the event tremendously.

Should any of those people be denied the right to make a fantastic costume, just because their friends don't want to put in the same effort?

Mike_G
2009-10-05, 10:08 PM
Sitting up to 3am making characters satisfies a totally different set of urges as actually playing. It's like comparing the joy of making a really awesome Halloween costume against the joy of going trick-or-treat with your friends. Some people really enjoy the costuming part, and put a lot of effort into making something fantastic; some just slap on some silly old thing and enjoy themselves. Some people only like making the costumes, some only enjoy the actual event if they look awesome, and some enjoy both the costuming and the event tremendously.

Should any of those people be denied the right to make a fantastic costume, just because their friends don't want to put in the same effort?

If they used it as Contingent Quickened Give Me All The Candy, then yes. Yes they should be denied.

You said it yourself, making the nine splatbook PC satisfies different urges than playing the game. Satisfy those urges online or whatever, but satify the game playing urges in gameplay.

Optimizing is generally a solo activity. Actually playing is a group activity. If the group is bored and the campaign in tatters because you twinked out and won the game in round one, then you have lost D&D, not won it.

Optimizing is a spectrum, not a binary condition, so everyone falls somewhere along it. The key is to play with a group that is close enough that everyone enjoys the gameplay while at the table.

Zaydos
2009-10-05, 10:24 PM
Personally I love sitting up till 3 AM making a character (I don't like coffee but soda, or milk do fine), maybe watching a show on tv and looking at a dozen books and Dragon mags. That doesn't mean I always have to have the strongest character, I often get asked to help make my friend's characters (especially when I DM) but I like having a character that really fills his role. Sometimes this is game mechanic, sometimes RP, usually I try and make #1 fit #2, but sometimes its reversed. For example I made a cleric who was supposed to be a full-power heal bot. Turned out he was still better in combat than the party knight when he needed to be but not usually (he didn't use DDM persist or any of that and with his gear and feats turned towards healing it rather weakened him till he loosed a powerful harm spell which crippled the mini-boss and then a second which crippled the boss of the adventure). Another was my wizard-druid who I simply chose the feats required to be a wizard-druid (natural bond, practiced spellcaster, and natural spell) along with some maximized spell fun. Was he the most powerful character ever? No. Was he fun and did he involve staying up and looking through a dozen sourcebooks? Every time he leveled. It's possible to do it for RP purposes, and when you make a character around a concept you should be able to actually play it and not be penalized because it works.

sonofzeal
2009-10-05, 10:31 PM
If they used it as Contingent Quickened Give Me All The Candy, then yes. Yes they should be denied.
If someone's deliberately hogging all the loot in-game, well that's something else entirely. But usually an optimized character in an unoptimized group gets the same gold, the same xp, often even the same fame as everyone else. They're not "getting all the candy", they're just being generally more awesome as they go about stuff.


You said it yourself, making the nine splatbook PC satisfies different urges than playing the game. Satisfy those urges online or whatever, but satify the game playing urges in gameplay.
Part of the joy of making costumes is actually wearing them. You can easily imagine how that would work, and how a pro costume designer would feel hurt and unsatisfied if they were forbidden from wearing their Halloween masterpieces just because they happened to be better at it than others.


Optimizing is generally a solo activity. Actually playing is a group activity. If the group is bored and the campaign in tatters because you twinked out and won the game in round one, then you have lost D&D, not won it.
Agreed. The game should be fun for everyone. But that's just it, it should be fun for everyone. Banning optimizers, or insisting that they play characters far beneath their skill, will often ruin their enjoyment of the game and leave them frustrated or unsatisfied. Mixed groups should work to accommodate eachother; the optimizer should be considerate, the other players should be tolerant, and the DM should even the playing field as much as possible.


Optimizing is a spectrum, not a binary condition, so everyone falls somewhere along it. The key is to play with a group that is close enough that everyone enjoys the gameplay while at the table.
Often not possible. I don't know anyone in my extended gaming circle who's even remotely close to my level of rules-knowledge and optimization skill. I'm not one of the bigshots, but most of my IRL gaming group is in the "cutting holes in bedsheets to make ghost costumes" stage, to continue the Halloween analogy. Do I dump my friends and deny myself any chance to play, just because I can't find a group that's closer to my level?

Aldizog
2009-10-05, 10:51 PM
there's a selection bias at work in who chooses to play Rogues (in my groups, often the cleverest and most cunning player) over who chooses to play Bards (in my groups, often the one who just wants to look cool).
Whereas in the 1-20 campaign I played in, the bard's player was an admitted powergamer who played a weaker class to avoid letting those tendencies wreck the game. As well as a great roleplayer. His Brb1/BrdX was a fantastic character who pulled off some amazing things in and out of battle. AND looked cool doing it. So I got a different perspective on the 3.5 bard.

Now, I played the druid, but I tried hard *not* to powergame. Even nearly-core-only (just Rapid Spell), no Animal Companion at high levels, non-dumped physical stats, and never buying a single magic item, the power in that class is just so hard to avoid.

Akal Saris
2009-10-05, 11:07 PM
I know I'm in the minority on this forum, but apart from a thought exercise, I don't see the joy of hardcore optimization. Every thread seems to want to build the ultimate win button pusher, which just seems so unsatisfying in actual play.

It's perfectly fun to play a Sword and Board Fighter and gank you some orcs with a table full of buddies on a Thursday night. When CharOp the Twinked casts Heightened Quickened Contingent I Win, Bitches in the first round, interrupting the enemy surprise round since he's a Diviner and never surprised, how is that fun?

As you yourself said, there is always a spectrum of optimization. And not every optimization thread is about being the ultimate win pusher - some threads are about making the best of a bad class or race, or coming up with neat combos and under-used spells, or creating a strong character modeled on a fantasy character, or creating a character that is awesome at XYZ like jumping or appraise, or simply advice for a good character build to fit the party's needs.

To use your 2 examples above, I've actually used each character type in the same pvp arena game.

The Sword & Board character took all of the shield-focused feats I could find, and was a mediocre character by most standards (at 6th level, he dealt 1d6+3 a hit, I think), but mechanically he was quite fun, as nobody had ever fought somebody like him before, and he was able to pull off quite a few nifty tricks - one time having his shield bonus to touch AC won a fight against somebody abusing touch attacks, and another few times his Shield Slam tripped opponents who hadn't expected that tactic from a S&B fighter - and often the opponents simply hadn't expected to fight somebody with a high AC and missed him a lot while he slowly shield bashed them. Would I play him in a normal campaign? Definitely!

The 'God' wizard was a conjurer who focused on crowd control spells and summoning, and was a blast to play because of the huge amount of flexibility he had. It helped that he was only 5th level, and I had to work with very limited resources to build him. Would I play him in a normal campaign? Yes, but a lot of his spells don't work well in actual play compared with theory - solid fog and stinking cloud are hard to use if the party is in melee with the opponents or can't see into the cloud.

Still, even my level 2 wizard in PF that I'm playing now feels like he has 10x more options than the other PCs at the table because I bought a bunch of scrolls - and generally, options are fun - especially when you use them to help the other PCs out or have an unexpected solution to an encounter. I liked the S&B fighter that I built because he had a few unexpected options - but if my only choice was to walk forward and hit every round, it would have gotten boring fast - especially if I hadn't designed the character.

CharOp the Twinked Diviner (and I can tell he's a PF one from your example!) is probably only fun to play if he's on the same team as Super-Cleric and Ragnaros the Charging 1-Shot-1-Kill Wonder. I actually don't especially like designing the ridiculously powerful characters like that, since it's like masturbation - you're never actually going to play that level 17 wizard who can stop time all day long, so why bother getting excited over it?

Finally, I think of min/maxing as being a little like an auto enthusiast who tinkers with cars. It's one level of fun to design and build a cool engine - and then it's another level of fun when you can take something you've built and race it. Especially when you're like me and enjoy creating playable characters who are strong and fun at all levels of play (1st to 14th is usually the range I shoot for), so as you play, you can enjoy the gradual progression of options and flexibility and the way that each feat and class level adds an element to the build.

Oh, and sonofzeal, I think you underestimate yourself - I consider you quite skilled at min/maxing from what I've seen on this board and BG/339.

Tackyhillbillu
2009-10-06, 12:15 AM
This is something for another thread, but frankly, I disagree with the notion that "Options are fun."

That's my problem with the Wizard as a whole. He replaces every single class in the game, given a few levels and some gold. Rather then just having an infinite number options, I actually prefer having a very limited toolset, ala Melee (with the exception of ToB, which I like because they are the best made WoTC base class.)

Your Sword and Board Fighter sounds way more fun then the Wizard. You have to think about how you use the very limited mechanics availible to you to achieve victory, and are forced to rely on your Party Members effort. The Wizard just picks the assorted set of "I Win" buttons, and that's that.

Options can be fun, but not when they allow you to obliterate the need for other players to even sit at the table.

---

And SonofZeal, frankly, yes. If the only way you will play is to make the rest of your friends feel completely unneeded, then yeah, you probably shouldn't play with them.

It all depends what you mean by optimizing. If you mean making a character that blows away every other single one in the party, then yes, you are causing a problem. If you are talking about taking a concept, and realizing it to the fullest, go ahead.

If you have to, take up some of the challenges those here have mentioned. Make the best of bad situation which you give yourself. Explore esoteric options. Try something like the CA Swashbuckler, and make it fun to play, and equitable with the other party members.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-10-06, 12:33 AM
This is something for another thread, but frankly, I disagree with the notion that "Options are fun."

That's my problem with the Wizard as a whole. He replaces every single class in the game, given a few levels and some gold. Rather then just having an infinite number options, I actually prefer having a very limited toolset, ala Melee (with the exception of ToB, which I like because they are the best made WoTC base class.)

Your Sword and Board Fighter sounds way more fun then the Wizard. You have to think about how you use the very limited mechanics availible to you to achieve victory, and are forced to rely on your Party Members effort. The Wizard just picks the assorted set of "I Win" buttons, and that's that.

Options can be fun, but not when they allow you to obliterate the need for other players to even sit at the table.

That's not a problem with options, that's a problem caused by the fact that one of a wizard's many options is generally superior to any of a martial character's options. If you play a themed wizard such as a pyro blaster, a zombie necromancer, etc. you also have a limited toolset--yet even when the number of options is comparable, the wizard can still come out ahead if the options are just better.

Ideally OPTIONSfighter * POWERfighter options = OPTIONSwizard * POWERwizard options, but in practice it turns out that generally OPTIONSfighter * POWERfighter options << OPTIONSwizard * POWERwizard options; however, in either case, having more options is better than having fewer.

sonofzeal
2009-10-06, 01:30 AM
And SonofZeal, frankly, yes. If the only way you will play is to make the rest of your friends feel completely unneeded, then yeah, you probably shouldn't play with them.
Hardly anybody's like that, and yeah I wouldn't want to play with them either. Optimization is more like what you talk about later, taking a concept and making it work to the best of your ability. Strict powergaming died the day someone built a lvl1 Pun-Pun; the rest is about "Practical Optimization", and I don't know anybody who confuses that with "Theoretical Optimization", which is also fun but fairly obviously unplayable. TO is about the absolute limits of the system, akin to theoretical physicists attempting to determine the temperature of a Black Hole. PO is about making things work on a playable level, akin to an engineer attempting to design the strongest bridge with the materials at hand. It's possible that his answer involves black holes, but he'll discard that out of hand because that's not the sort of answer he cares about.

If anyone was playing TO in a normal game, yeah, kick them out. If anyone's playing PO, well there's a chance they'll overshadow others, but they'll generally respond well if the DM gives them special unique limitations to work under, like what's discussed in my Optimizing Weakness thread. If anyone's playing a Werebear Halfdragon Celesial Karsite... well, they may LOOK nasty but their HP will be in the gutter and they'll probably go down in a round the first time they meet someone who can reliably affect them.


Oh, and sonofzeal, I think you underestimate yourself - I consider you quite skilled at min/maxing from what I've seen on this board and BG/339.
Thank you! I do consider myself pretty good at PO, I'm just not in the TO big leagues. I'm not the guy who discovers new combos, or creates famous builds. I do think I have pretty reliable good advice for practical gaming though, and I'm very gratified that you feel the same way. Thanks. =)

oxinabox
2009-10-06, 07:05 AM
Very good to hear. One alternative solution (not to reject your "playing left-handed approach", but it can backfire if done wrong): optimize for something other than power. You can optimize for any parameter given the character creation restraints - why must power always be the chosen parameter?
Example: you could optimize for eclectic knowledge (Bardic Knowledge + Loremaster or Paragnostic Apostle + Different Knowledge Skills; favored enemy and sneak attack are both forms of applied knowledge; Jade Phoenix Mage gives knowledge of past lives; etc. The goal would be the biggest knowitall, not the biggest contributor to combat.
Or you could optimize for the most organizations/individuals hunting you (Changeling or Doppleganger helps a lot here). Or for the largest landholdings.

Just a note (not entirely related to what you said, infact quiet far from it)
but the most broken character of all time is the lvl 1 punpun;
He is build around just 1 thing (IIRC) getting 25 in knowledge religion at lvl 1.

Mike_G
2009-10-06, 07:16 AM
Often not possible. I don't know anyone in my extended gaming circle who's even remotely close to my level of rules-knowledge and optimization skill. I'm not one of the bigshots, but most of my IRL gaming group is in the "cutting holes in bedsheets to make ghost costumes" stage, to continue the Halloween analogy. Do I dump my friends and deny myself any chance to play, just because I can't find a group that's closer to my level?


I would just play closer to my friends' level.

We play with the groups available. Sometimes because we like these people outside of game and want to hang out, sometimes because there aren't more options. If you play together for a long time, you tend to arrive at a consensus, at least in my experience.

If four people are having fun and the optimizer is bored, I think it's up to him to compromise. If the party is all about the min/maxing and I try to bring an unoptimized Sword and Boarder, and complain that I don't get to contribute, then I need to compromise.

"Proving a point" never ends well. It may trash the campaign, or piss people off, or make you feel superior while you look for another group or play with four sullen, angry, resentful players, but it never makes the rest of the group suddenly see your side and agree with you.

Needs of the many and all that.

Tyndmyr
2009-10-06, 07:42 AM
One of the ideas in Optimizing Weakness was to play a traditional caster, but voluntarily limit yourself to Adept spell slots. Invent a story reason for the limit, and a way to temporarily remove it in-game, and give the power to remove it to one of the weakest party members. That way you can still bail them out when need be, and the one with the reigns gets to feel like he was a part of it too.

This is an interesting idea...and I feel that using optimization in a party-improving way is probably one of the best general solutions. I might use such an idea in the future myself.

warmachine
2009-10-06, 10:08 AM
Yeah, I forgot how much Cleric can be cheesed out. I don't scour the expansion books and optimization boards looking for tricks during character concept.

Try core-only Cleric and every spell that you prepare is only prepared once. You'll have a trick for most situations and you'll only pull powerful tricks, such as Divine Power or Flame Strike, when the fight looks tough. You can be effective and others will be grateful when you're really effective.

If you can't stand this kind of holding back, leave the group. They can't do what you want from a game.

Optimystik
2009-10-06, 10:43 AM
I didn't think this was a huge problem, and had a philosophy of "You do it your way and I'll do it my way" until my DM dropped a CR 18 on my solo character's ass (level 11) and one shotted me before I could do anything.
He then told me that he simply wanted to give me a taste of my own medicine.


Anyway, because the player that found my style abhorrant happened to be the DM's girlfriend, (who also happens to hate me as a person) my drow (level 7 wizard) was jumped by two level 18 drow warriors. I managed to kill one and incapacitate the other, before a 19th level psion matron shows up, incapacitates me, and basically makes me an NPC.

Wow, there are some real ***hole DMs out there.


If they used it as Contingent Quickened Give Me All The Candy, then yes. Yes they should be denied.

You said it yourself, making the nine splatbook PC satisfies different urges than playing the game. Satisfy those urges online or whatever, but satify the game playing urges in gameplay.

Optimizing is generally a solo activity. Actually playing is a group activity. If the group is bored and the campaign in tatters because you twinked out and won the game in round one, then you have lost D&D, not won it.

Optimizing is a spectrum, not a binary condition, so everyone falls somewhere along it. The key is to play with a group that is close enough that everyone enjoys the gameplay while at the table.

You seem to be confusing "optimizing" and "twinking." The former means being good at your job, the latter means overshadowing the other players. You CAN do the former without doing the latter.

Tyndmyr
2009-10-06, 10:46 AM
Wow, there are some real ***hole DMs out there.


Yeah...when vastly level inappropriate encounters are being whipped out just to kill you...the point of the game has been lost somewhere along the way.

That said, if such a thing happened to me, and I did drop the first two, I'd demand my xp before fighting the second. That should be enough to level, at least.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-10-06, 11:31 AM
Real optimizers use Samurai*!

*Damn you Shneeky!!!

Hehe, that was a fun exercise in making the worst class strong enough to use. I'm trying to improve it by finding some way he can render opponents "Helpless" so he can CDG his opponents and make it go by *much* faster.

Back on the original topic, however:

If you want to Optimize, but don't want to out-shine everyone, then optimize Party Support!

I built a Cleric a while back. Used DMM, but not Persist. He used DMM Chain Spell. + Reach Spell. And would be a party buff bot and healbot. Alone? He was weak and almost helpless. His BAB was abysmal, and he didn't even *HAVE* the Divine Power or Righteous Might spells (Spontaneous variant), he didn't 'nuke' and didn't have many Save or Screwed spells. What he *DID* have, in spades, was party buffing, and fix-it type spells.

Basically, unless the entire party died in the surprise round, they won, because they couldn't match my character's ability to negate what they could do.

In the beginning, he would DMM Chain Greater Magic Weapon, DMM Chain Reach Spell Magic Vestments, DMM Chain Mind Blank (Protection Domain), and I would reserve spells for DMM Chain Reach Spell Shield of Faith and DMM Chain Reach Spell Barkskin for when we got into combat. I would also be sure to be able to drop a DMM Chain Spell Reach Death Ward or a DMM Chain Spell Reach Freedom of Movement spell in the event the whole party needed it.

In other words, the whole party had +5 gear, and was immune to mind-affecting and divination. If necessary, they could also be immune to Negative Energy effects (including Enervation), movement hampering effects (like Slow or Solid Fog), or both. If opponents did nasty things when they hit (like Rust Monsters), Shield of Faith would go off, and possibly Barkskin as well, if it would help.

If we got hurt, then I would simply Heal whomever got hurt. If it was everyone getting hurt, I'd DMM Chain Reach it. If anyone would get negative effects, I'd negate those too.

In other words, I wasn't strong because I could kill everything. I was strong, because as long as I was up, nothing could really hurt the party, who could then mop up anything they encountered.

There was an arcane variant which used War Weaver and Arcane Disciple to great effect. Rather than Heal, he had more Battlefield Control, which again went along with the theme of "I didn't hurt anything, I just made it easier for the party to win"

sonofzeal
2009-10-06, 11:42 AM
I would just play closer to my friends' level.

We play with the groups available. Sometimes because we like these people outside of game and want to hang out, sometimes because there aren't more options. If you play together for a long time, you tend to arrive at a consensus, at least in my experience.

If four people are having fun and the optimizer is bored, I think it's up to him to compromise. If the party is all about the min/maxing and I try to bring an unoptimized Sword and Boarder, and complain that I don't get to contribute, then I need to compromise.

"Proving a point" never ends well. It may trash the campaign, or piss people off, or make you feel superior while you look for another group or play with four sullen, angry, resentful players, but it never makes the rest of the group suddenly see your side and agree with you.

Needs of the many and all that.
It's honestly not that easy. I could take any core class and overshadow them without even having to consult a book or go searching for feats. I don't have to be out to "prove a point", or even put much effort into it. When I hear "Sword and Board Fighter", I immediately think Shield Ward, plus Animated Shield or TWF with Improved Shield Bash, plus Goad or Martial Stance: Iron Guard's Glare. I immediately think that a Ranger dip for the TWF would be a great idea, that I should pack a longbow and weapons of various metals, that being a Dwarf would open up some nice PrC options as well as helping defend against magic, and that a detour through PsiWar 2 could be well worth it for the bonus feats, and if I did so that Warmind could be fantastic. And then I might actually start thinking about it.


By contrast, here's an example of what I'm "up against":
In one campaign I was in, we'd started around level three and worked our way up to eight, and there was this one Human Fighter who was.... interesting. He never once spent any of the gold we got, never claimed a magic item (note: this wasn't a part of his character, the player just "never got around to it"), was using a longsword onehanded with no shield, and his feats were Alertness, Dodge, Endurance, Improved Critical (longsword), Improved Initiative, Self-Sufficient, Weapon Focus (Long-sword), and Weapon Specialization (Long-sword). He had an AC of 19 and was attacking with +13/+8(1d8+5), and had no other significant combat options. At level eight. And actively resisted any friendly advice I tried to give on how to be more effective.


That player may have been an extreme case, but that gives you some idea about the rest of the group. Playing on that level is going to make me feel horribly confined. Have you ever played in a campaign where the DM made character sheets for everyone and told you right up front who you had to play and how you had to play them? It generally doesn't make for a particularly fun experience, and this would feel the same way to me.

Now, I personally have a lot of good ideas for making this work, after the whole Optimizing Weakness thread. I posted one or two of those ideas already, and there's a bunch more I'd definitely consider playing next time I'm in a group like that. There's a whole lot more people like me though, and not all of them have that one obscure thread. Asking them to play deliberately crippled characters is going to damage their enjoyment of the game, just as being horribly overshadowed is going damage everyone else's. Yeah yeah, "needs of the many" and all that, but this is a game, and games are supposed to be fun for everyone. Compromise is in order, and that involves accommodations on both sides. Here's three ideas.



1) The veteran works with the others at character creation. This is popular, but a lot of mediocre players really resent it and actively resist any attempt to improve their character. Still, it's a good place to start.

2) The DM makes the veteran's character plot-significant in some way. Perhaps he's a noble the players have to protect and all the NPCs are gunning for. Perhaps he's re-fluffed as wielding some ancient power that's significant to the plot. Making it a part of the game world removes some of the pressure from the other players, and helps them feel like it's not a direct competition. It doesn't matter as much if you're not quite as powerful as the walking macguffin, as long as the DM pitches the campaign to you and makes sure you have plenty to do.

3) The DM puts special limits or challenges on the veteran's character. This is what's covered in Optimizing Weakness, conditions the veteran can operate under that bring him back into line. Perhaps he's banned from using Core material, perhaps he has to use 3d6 organic stats, perhaps he has to use only Tier 5/6 classes. Whichever way, defining the handicap at the outset is a great way to bring things back into line. It's what they do in a lot of real-world sports!



In my experience, DMs are uncomfortable doing some of these things, but I personally would downright appreciate it. I'd far rather start working under limited conditions and get to flex my optimization might within them, than have stuff get nerfed/banned later on. It's the DM's job to make sure everyone's having fun, so it's their job to work with the veteran too.