PDA

View Full Version : Character Optimization, Yea or Nay?



TheMightyBanjo
2010-06-08, 03:06 PM
Character Optimization is something you will hear a lot about in discussions of table-top RPGs, especially D&D, but why?

Banjo personally feels that when game-play becomes super focused on character optimization the actual "gaming" aspect of play is destroyed. It becomes more of a competition, where is the fun Banjo asks you? WHERE?!

Banjo started playing D&D when he was seven, starting with second addition. It took Banjo several years to adapt to third edition and now he is trying to adapt to fourth! One of the reasosn Banjo's gaming friends have defected to forth is because third had issues with "super builds" which when optimized litterally became unstoppable, but when Banjo DM's he still uses third edition and many of the "issues" encountered with it never occur because he is extremely loose with the rules and is more interested in having fun than following the letter of gaming law.

But what do YOU think? Is optimization good for casual game play, or does it get in the way?

[EDIT] best answer...





So, the general thesis of my post: optimization is a tool. It can be used to ruin games, but it can also be used to make a game more fun for everyone involved; making unusual concepts more playable, keeping everyone at about the same level, despite what they want to play.

Eloi
2010-06-08, 03:08 PM
Optimizations is separate from normal play, a fun little mind-teasing hobby that you post your results on forums. What you play depends on what character you want to role-play. I really don't see how the two overlap.

Kesnit
2010-06-08, 03:11 PM
IMO, it depends on the players and the group as a whole. If everyone is optimizers, there is no problem with optimization. If a few players are optimizers but the rest are not, problems can arise.

valadil
2010-06-08, 03:12 PM
Optimizations is separate from normal play, a fun little mind-teasing hobby that you post your results on forums. What you play depends on what character you want to role-play. I really don't see how the two overlap.

Exactly. I enjoy optimization. When I'm bored at work I try to make crazy builds. None of them ever get played. I just don't see the point in dominating an RPG like that. I think that people who do go all out and play uberchargers in home games have inferiority complexes or nothing else going on in their lives.

Deth Muncher
2010-06-08, 03:13 PM
Banjo, I just want to say, THANK YOU for using the correct usage of "yea" for "yea or nay." SO MANY PEOPLE DON'T, and it warms my English major heart to see it done.

Anyhoo, back to the point of the thread, I dabble in CharOp, but it's generally not to do anything ridiculous with it: it's often just to figure out what's a better choice for my character for what I want him to do. For example, I play blaster sorcerors -shock and gasp- but I temper that by having some really good non-blast, often utility spells so that when I run out of ammo, I don't just sit there like a log.

EDIT @ ^ - Ridiculous builds like Uberchargers have their place: Versus a DM with the oldschool mentality that it's their job to kill you, and throw the biggest, baddest pieces of meat at you all the time.

TheMightyBanjo
2010-06-08, 03:13 PM
Banjo agrees with valadil. Optimization in play makes things much to serious.

Greenish
2010-06-08, 03:14 PM
Obviously, you'll optimize to be on the same "power level" as the other PCs. It's part of the fun in the game.

Ecalsneerg
2010-06-08, 03:14 PM
But what do YOU think? Is optimization good for casual game play, or does it get in the way?

What level of optimisation?

This isn't me being facetious, it's an important question. Optimisation is not an on-off switch. You can optimise slightly, or you can get into theoretical optimisation, or you can anti-optimise, and there's everything in between.

Ernir
2010-06-08, 03:14 PM
I optimize every time I'm not playing a Blue Goblin CW Samurai.

Anyway...

The most commonly held belief around these parts is that optimization doesn't get in the way of anything.

Greenish
2010-06-08, 03:15 PM
"Optimization" doesn't necessarily mean "power gaming", peeps.

Caphi
2010-06-08, 03:16 PM
I optimize concepts. I begin with what I want my character to be like, and also what I want them to be good at, and then I try to make them good at that within the rough bounds of tier 3. It doesn't interfere with roleplaying at all. Quite the opposite - it's really hard to roleplay a good $concept well if the character is, mechanically speaking, bad at being a $concept.

TheMightyBanjo
2010-06-08, 03:17 PM
What level of optimisation?

This isn't me being facetious, it's an important question. Optimisation is not an on-off switch. You can optimise slightly, or you can get into theoretical optimisation, or you can anti-optimise, and there's everything in between.

Good point. I suppose Banjo only takes issue with over the top optimization. If one of Banjo's players is taking an hour to level up there character from level three to four, then Banjo is unhappy. Such intense self focus is disruptive to game play.

Keld Denar
2010-06-08, 03:18 PM
There are various levels of optimization. The lowest is simply streamlining. Streamlining is picking classes and features that synergize well to produce an above average result. On the other side of the spectrum is Theoretical Optimization. Theoretical Optimization is things like Pun-Pun, the Jumplomancer, the Hulking Hurler, the Hulk-less Hurler (aka Chuck, the Ruby Knight Windicator) and anything involving Afinity Field recursive loops. Those are just thought experiments to test what is actually possible within the system, but should NEVER see a gaming table.

In between is the happy world of Practical Optimization. Being as good as you can be, within a given set of constraints. Those constraints might be books allowed, a certain ban list (see the Test of Spite banlist for an example), or just a certain level of trust between friends (a gentleman's agreement, of sorts).

Its a facet of the game, just as fun as any other.

EDIT:

If one of Banjo's players is taking an hour to level up there character from level three to four, then Banjo is unhappy. Such intense self focus is disruptive to game play.
If this is true, then the player is a poor optimizer. A REAL optimizer has his characters levels, feats, skills, spells, and gear stated out from 1 to 20+, depending on the game. :smallcool:

Umael
2010-06-08, 03:18 PM
Short answer: If everyone is cool with it, there is no problem.
Long answer: The object of a game is to have fun, and that means everyone. You can have fun with it while in the group or you can have fun while all alone in economics class*. In the end, if everyone has fun, before, during, and after, it's all good.

(* - D&D... the refuge from syenergetic elastic demand in an unstable micro-economy!)

Ernir
2010-06-08, 03:20 PM
"Optimization" doesn't necessarily mean "power gaming", peeps.

Heh, I distinguish between those two terms about as strictly as I do between "nerd" and "geek".

TheMightyBanjo
2010-06-08, 03:20 PM
Greenish and Ecalsneerg have both made a good point, Ecalsneerg asked "what level of optimization, and Greenish pointed out that optimization and power gaming are not necessarily the same.

So a better question would be

At what point has optimization been taken to far?

Gnaeus
2010-06-08, 03:22 PM
Character Optimization is something you will hear a lot about in discussions of table-top RPGs, especially D&D, but why?

Banjo personally feels that when game-play becomes super focused on character optimization the actual "gaming" aspect of play is destroyed. It becomes more of a competition, where is the fun Banjo asks you? WHERE?!

Theres lots of stuff there.

Some people enjoy the character creation "minigame". I often love it when my characters die, it means I can make new characters.

There are 2 kinds of "Optimization", practical and theoretical.

Theoretical optimization means Pun-Pun, but it can also mean a tricked out caster in a party of fighters. It is solely an intellectual exercise, not of value in play.

Practical optimization means how do you get the most out of your character at the table. It can include things like making a good build with a tier 3-4 class instead of a good build with a tier 1, or making your caster a party buffer so that the party shines and no one gets mad at your character.


It becomes more of a competition, where is the fun Banjo asks you? WHERE?!

I have a competitive nature, and so does my DM. He throws encounters at us that our party can't necessarily beat, and follows them up with statements like "You are level x, and no one in the party could (Fly, become energy immune, beat DR/SR x, hit AC x, etc)? You had better fix that when you go to town." The unspoken agreement at our table is that he will challenge us with optimized, cr appropriate, monsters, aimed at our weak spots. We build strong characters, and don't usually break out broken material unless he does first. Our party is all tier 3-4, but optimized tier 3-4. It is a great game.

TheMightyBanjo
2010-06-08, 03:22 PM
Well said Keld Denar

DragoonWraith
2010-06-08, 03:24 PM
You need to define "optimizing" more, I think. To me, "optimal" means "best" means "what fits the character, campaign, DM, and players best" means creating a character that I like, that fits in the world, that is competent and can offer something to the party, and does not outshine the rest. I consider that an "optimized" character. Making the character fill his or her role in the party, world, and game as best as possible.

TheMightyBanjo
2010-06-08, 03:24 PM
Theres lots of stuff there.

Some people enjoy the character creation "minigame". I often love it when my characters die, it means I can make new characters.

There are 2 kinds of "Optimization", practical and theoretical.

Theoretical optimization means Pun-Pun, but it can also mean a tricked out caster in a party of fighters. It is solely an intellectual exercise, not of value in play.

Practical optimization means how do you get the most out of your character at the table. It can include things like making a good build with a tier 3-4 class instead of a good build with a tier 1, or making your caster a party buffer so that the party shines and no one gets mad at your character.



I have a competitive nature, and so does my DM. He throws encounters at us that our party can't necessarily beat, and follows them up with statements like "You are level x, and no one in the party could (Fly, become energy immune, beat DR/SR x, hit AC x, etc)? You had better fix that when you go to town." The unspoken agreement at our table is that he will challenge us with optimized, cr appropriate, monsters, aimed at our weak spots. We build strong characters, and don't usually break out broken material unless he does first. Our party is all tier 3-4, but optimized tier 3-4. It is a great game.
Sounds like an appropriate and enjoyable level of optimization to me!

Prodan
2010-06-08, 03:24 PM
So a better question would be

At what point has optimization been taken to far?

When the group becomes unhappy.

Satyr
2010-06-08, 03:25 PM
It's not the optimisation it is the mindset. A character can be both optimised and interesting, but if optimising takes the most important or only significant role, I find things become increasingly boring.

Gnaeus
2010-06-08, 03:25 PM
So a better question would be
At what point has optimization been taken to far?

When it reduces the level of enjoyment of the player or the table. Its a sliding scale and heavily group dependent.

Optimystik
2010-06-08, 03:26 PM
When the game becomes an arms race between the player(s) and DM.

Caphi
2010-06-08, 03:27 PM
Man. I said something, and then Dragoon said what I wanted to say way better.

Does that mean I've been retroswordsaged?

TheMightyBanjo
2010-06-08, 03:29 PM
When the game becomes an arms race between the player(s) and DM.

But the players will always lose in such a race, none can withstand the might of Banjo. :smallcool:

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-06-08, 03:30 PM
Optimizations is separate from normal play, a fun little mind-teasing hobby that you post your results on forums. What you play depends on what character you want to role-play. I really don't see how the two overlap.

This irks me both on the basis that optimization impedes role play and the fact that there is a large difference between theoretical optimization (eg, Pun-Pun) and actual character optimization ("I want to play a samurai who can actually back up challenges.")

That being said, I see little reason not to at least arm oneself with the big guns, even if you stick to a 9mm for most everything.

kamikasei
2010-06-08, 03:31 PM
When I'm creating a character, I generally have some things in mind that the character is supposed to be good at. I'll make mechanical choices that get me the most bang in those areas for the least buck, in terms of whatever resources I have to distribute in chargen. This then lets me round out the character once its primary focus is achieved to ensure it can contribute in some way under a variety of circumstances. That's optimization.

Depending on the game I'm in, I may need to use almost all my buck to get an ungodly amount of bang for one or another purpose, but I try to avoid that in actual play and keep GM- or self-imposed limits in mind to keep from descending into diminishing returns.

When does this practice become excessive? Well, the practice of ensuring your character can do the job you want it to do as well as it's supposed to be able to do it can't really be excessive, because moderation is an inherent part of it. But obviously you don't want your expectation for how well your character does its job(s) to be set much higher than that of others around the table, or you end up stepping on their toes. That's a matter of checking shared assumptions and expectations at the table before and during play, which extends well past character creation to become a necessary part of all aspects of the game.

Incidentally, I don't suppose you can be persuaded to drop the third-person affectation?

Greenish
2010-06-08, 03:32 PM
At what point has optimization been taken to far?When you start using large red letters and referring to yourself in third person. :smallwink:

NeoVid
2010-06-08, 03:34 PM
Stronger characters are capable of doing more, and more effectively.

More effective characters are more fun to play.

Also, a weak character can be a detriment to the whole party, and the whole group's fun.

TheMightyBanjo
2010-06-08, 03:35 PM
Incidentally, I don't suppose you can be persuaded to drop the third-person affectation?

Banjo changes for none but the hand of the almighty Mod!

(However if it becomes unbearable Banjo will cease referring to himself in third person for the sake of his fellow posters, for Banjo is a merciful puppet-god)

TheMightyBanjo
2010-06-08, 03:37 PM
When you start using large red letters and referring to yourself in third person. :smallwink:

Alas, Banjo has been laid low. :smallfrown: (Isn't slaying a god one of the ten signs of being to bad a** for your own good?)

The_JJ
2010-06-08, 03:55 PM
Optimizations is separate from normal play, a fun little mind-teasing hobby that you post your results on forums. What you play depends on what character you want to role-play. I really don't see how the two overlap.

This is a nice theory. In my experience, it's not often the case. It really sucks being in a group that doesn't fit your style, and it's worse when they just don't get that you're looking for something else out of the game. :smalltongue:

Yes, optimization can be used to bring crunch of weak concepts up to the 'level' of others in the group. But it also leads to attitudes like NeoVid's, where if your DPS/AC/DC/aggro/awesome/whatever is less than a certain amount, you are a 'detriment to the whole party, and the whole group's fun.'

He makes three statments as matters of fact, and I simply disagree. It works for him, maybe, but never for me.

Now, Rule 0 is the GM is law, but Rule -1 is group happiness reigns supreme. So I don't mind NeoVid's attitude... just so long as I nver have to game with him.

Another viewpoint echoed hear is 'if it fits the party, it is good.' Which is more or less the sanest stance. But then because of this attitude, for whatever reason playing a single weapon rogue or a Warblade with a Spiked Chain becomes a black mark in certain groups. Ergo 'power gaming vs. drama queens' and 'Stormwind Fallicy vs Formwind Stallicy' fights.

Personally? I dislike it, for two reasons. a. Metagame. How does character x know that by taking these skills and this Feat they qualify for this PrC that combined with this weapon and that spell will, 4 levels down the road, turn them into Awesome McBadass? Charactor x doesn't even know what this crap is! Level up and equipment choices should flow from the game, not the other way around.

b. Sameyness. Yes, you can take weird builds and make them better. But really it leads to every melee fighter going THW Warblade, every stealthy char a beguiler, every CoD some sort of Zilla. No one plays half elves, all the sorcerors are kobolds, no one plays bards, and so on and so forth.

Now a. and b. are my opinions, and the criteria I use for my games. Doesn't work for everyone.

Ceaon
2010-06-08, 03:59 PM
Banjo, I just want to say, THANK YOU for using the correct usage of "yea" for "yea or nay." SO MANY PEOPLE DON'T, and it warms my English major heart to see it done.

So, English isn't my first language, but what is the incorrect version of Yea or Nay? I've only ever seen 'Yea'. Is it Yay? Or Yeah?

Prodan
2010-06-08, 04:00 PM
Personally? I dislike it, for two reasons. a. Metagame. How does character x know that by taking these skills and this Feat they qualify for this PrC that combined with this weapon and that spell will, 4 levels down the road, turn them into Awesome McBadass? Charactor x doesn't even know what this crap is! Level up and equipment choices should flow from the game, not the other way around.
Problem is, in DnD, unless you plan to qualify for a prestige class, pretty much any one of them, really, you won't be able to take them.

The system forces you to metagame and plan things out ahead if you want to take prestige classes, especially ones with odd requirements.

Also, Bjorn the Badass' grandfather could turn into a bear, and passed down the secret through the family.



b. Sameyness. Yes, you can take weird builds and make them better. But really it leads to every melee fighter going THW Warblade, every stealthy char a beguiler, every CoD some sort of Zilla. No one plays half elves, all the sorcerors are kobolds, no one plays bards, and so on and so forth.


Yeah, no, not in my experience it doesn't.

TheMightyBanjo
2010-06-08, 04:04 PM
So, English isn't my first language, but what is the incorrect version of Yea or Nay? I've only ever seen 'Yea'. Is it Yay? Or Yeah?

"Yea" is an answer in the affirmative, equivalent to yes. Yay and Yeah are expressions, like "Alright!" "Woohoo!" or "Hooray!!".

And also Banjo is curious, what is your primary language?

Drakevarg
2010-06-08, 04:06 PM
So, English isn't my first language, but what is the incorrect version of Yea or Nay? I've only ever seen 'Yea'. Is it Yay? Or Yeah?

"Yay," most likely due to phonetic spelling and it's similarity to "nay." Even though saying "Yay or Nay?" is like saying "Wheee! or No?"

(Ninja'd. As a caveat towards Banjo's remark, "Yea" and "Yeah" mean pretty much the same thing, but "Yeah" doesn't rhyme with "Nay".)

Anywho, to answer the question, my OPINION is that optimization is always secondary to character concept. Of course, this is simply a matter of personal taste and people are free to do what they will as long as it doesn't piss off the rest of the group.

Hyooz
2010-06-08, 04:07 PM
This is a really broad question, even if we take the new, more focused approach.

Everyone optimizes to some extent when you're making a character. Someone taking Toughness while playing a fighter instead of Extend Spell is optimizing. Taking a PC class instead of an NPC class is optimizing. Someone cherry picking classes here and there to make their concept of a musically-inclined cleric who buffs in the name of Pelor is optimizing.

For some reason, optimizing has gotten a bad name, and I blame people only looking at the theoretical optimization side of things. Yes, Pun-Pun and his ilk are silly and ridiculously powerful, but those are all made with no intention of ever seeing play. It's theoretical for that reason. It's just a fun brain exercise.

Optimization in general is just a tool to make certain concept work better. I have an idea to be an Indiana Jones-style whip user. I could just pick up a whip and some rogue and hope for the best, but honestly, there's better ways to go about it. I'll do some poking around for feats and classes, and do some optimization to make my idea work at a certain level of power.

And really... that's the real rub of it all. You'll probably never know an experienced optimizer if you play with one, because more often than not, people who optimize LOVE playing DnD, and love having fun with other people playing DnD. Bringing one into the group is, more often than not, a good thing. They can tune their optimization to the general power level of the party, as well as help people tune their characters to a level they're happy with. It opens the door to more concepts because it can tune up the power level of even something like the CW Samurai so no one feels left out.

Yes, there is a dark side to it, but that isn't the fault of optimization. Again, it's just a tool. In the wrong hands, yeah, someone can come into a game and totally dominate it, but those people, more often than not, don't get invited back.

So, the general thesis of my post: optimization is a tool. It can be used to ruin games, but it can also be used to make a game more fun for everyone involved; making unusual concepts more playable, keeping everyone at about the same level, despite what they want to play.

Eldariel
2010-06-08, 04:10 PM
b. Sameyness. Yes, you can take weird builds and make them better. But really it leads to every melee fighter going THW Warblade, every stealthy char a beguiler, every CoD some sort of Zilla. No one plays half elves, all the sorcerors are kobolds, no one plays bards, and so on and so forth.

The whole point of optimization is taking a concept and running with it. A good optimizer can make a subpar concept work in many cases. Warblade is a fine TWFer or S&Ber and can even one-hand somewhat efficiently with slightly different maneuver selection. Coincidentally, one of the great things about ToB is that it makes all weapon styles decent.

And there are many benefits to non-Kobold Sorcerers; not to mention, Loredrake (and the Sovereign Archetypes in general) is kinda TOish and thus not really relevant for most optimized games. Half-Elves suck and that's a fault of the system; make them more useful and they'll see more play. Homebrew is the answer there.


And every stealthy character a Beguiler? C'mon now, Rogues, Factotums, Swordsages, Swift Hunters, Mystic Rangers and company are all fine, serving different roles and working for different concepts.

Just because Beguilers are better doesn't mean they are the best choice for all builds and concepts, and just because magic can do everything doesn't mean it needs to do everything in a game; part of the optimization process is figuring out the general power level of the party and playing to it, or acting more through other characters than with your own power.

Optimizing a concept is generally a very good thing and enables you to perform fine with a suboptimal concept and that's what optimization really boils down to; not just playing optimized Tier 1s, but taking a concept and making it work on the powerlevel the party needs (though sometimes homebrew or heavy refluffing is necessary to cover some goofs in the system).


And also Banjo is curious, what is your primary language?

Seeing as he lives in the Netherlands, "Dutch" is a good wager.

Gnaeus
2010-06-08, 04:10 PM
a. Metagame. How does character x know that by taking these skills and this Feat they qualify for this PrC that combined with this weapon and that spell will, 4 levels down the road, turn them into Awesome McBadass? Charactor x doesn't even know what this crap is! Level up and equipment choices should flow from the game, not the other way around.

The entire character creation and level up process is metagame. Feats by themselves are metagame, unless you are living in a world where it is known that everyone gains a new knowledge at the third rank of power and every three ranks of power thereafter.

As far as qualifying for PRCs, unless the PRC is hidden, there are easy ways to figure that out in character. "Hey Mr. Wizard, how do I become a loremaster like you?" "Good question kid, read these 5 books, study them backwards and forwards, learn these spells, and you are on your way..."

Hyooz
2010-06-08, 04:12 PM
a. Metagame. How does character x know that by taking these skills and this Feat they qualify for this PrC that combined with this weapon and that spell will, 4 levels down the road, turn them into Awesome McBadass? Charactor x doesn't even know what this crap is! Level up and equipment choices should flow from the game, not the other way around.


Point of interest: Classes period are metagame concepts. Character X doesn't know that he is taking skills and feats. He just knows he's training to be good at being Awesome McBadass, because as a character, that's what he wants to be able to do well.

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-06-08, 04:30 PM
Point of interest: Classes period are metagame concepts. Character X doesn't know that he is taking skills and feats. He just knows he's training to be good at being Awesome McBadass, because as a character, that's what he wants to be able to do well.

This is largely it. You could be a rogue/sorcerer as far as classes go, but the character himself may be something of a gentleman thief, using debonair and pose to get what he wants out of people before heading back that night to steal the crown jewel of Tut'tutomnomnom. As said character uses both sides of his abilities, he may eventually find a way to get better information extraction abilities along with his general sneakiness represented by levels in Unseen Seer.

Superglucose
2010-06-08, 05:04 PM
Optimizing is fine.

On a funny note, I got called a munchkin yesterday. Instantly I corrected them. I'm not munchkinny, though I do talk about the stupid tricks D&D has to offer frequently at the table so I know why they'd get confused. I just reminded her that I don't use those tricks and merely mention them because I think they're interesting and/or amusing.

Though my GM is now extremely upset that I don't have to buy the material components for my spells separately each time I gain a new level :smallconfused: I can't imagine how he's going to balance that except go through and attatch GP prices to each spell.

PId6
2010-06-08, 05:25 PM
Though my GM is now extremely upset that I don't have to buy the material components for my spells separately each time I gain a new level :smallconfused:
Wait, whaaaa?

Starbuck_II
2010-06-08, 05:35 PM
Optimizing is fine.

On a funny note, I got called a munchkin yesterday. Instantly I corrected them. I'm not munchkinny, though I do talk about the stupid tricks D&D has to offer frequently at the table so I know why they'd get confused. I just reminded her that I don't use those tricks and merely mention them because I think they're interesting and/or amusing.

Though my GM is now extremely upset that I don't have to buy the material components for my spells separately each time I gain a new level :smallconfused: I can't imagine how he's going to balance that except go through and attatch GP prices to each spell.

Did you remind him Spell component pouches pay them for free for stuff less than 1 gp (or unlisted price).

Draz74
2010-06-08, 05:37 PM
So, the general thesis of my post: optimization is a tool. It can be used to ruin games, but it can also be used to make a game more fun for everyone involved; making unusual concepts more playable, keeping everyone at about the same level, despite what they want to play.

Hyooz's whole post pretty much stole my train of thought. Well done sir!

Deth Muncher
2010-06-08, 05:49 PM
"Yea" is an answer in the affirmative, equivalent to yes. Yay and Yeah are expressions, like "Alright!" "Woohoo!" or "Hooray!!".



"Yay," most likely due to phonetic spelling and it's similarity to "nay." Even though saying "Yay or Nay?" is like saying "Wheee! or No?"

(Ninja'd. As a caveat towards Banjo's remark, "Yea" and "Yeah" mean pretty much the same thing, but "Yeah" doesn't rhyme with "Nay".)


Yus and yus, though it irks me when I see people respond with "yea" when I know they mean "yeah." The only place "yea" still has a place in the vernacular is in the question "Yea or Nay?"

/derailment

IdleMuse
2010-06-08, 05:52 PM
Optimization in general is just a tool to make certain concept work better. I have an idea to be an Indiana Jones-style whip user. I could just pick up a whip and some rogue and hope for the best, but honestly, there's better ways to go about it. I'll do some poking around for feats and classes, and do some optimization to make my idea work at a certain level of power.

...

So, the general thesis of my post: optimization is a tool. It can be used to ruin games, but it can also be used to make a game more fun for everyone involved; making unusual concepts more playable, keeping everyone at about the same level, despite what they want to play.

This is generally my opinion on optimisation. In the three games i'm in at the moment, I'm playing a Rogue, a Swashbuckler/Duskblade/Bladesinger, and a Ranger/Divine Mind who focusses on fear. The latter two are pretty optimised, long-thought-out characters, because you need to be in order to make such concepts fun and workable. The Rogue isn't (beyond taking Craven), because he doesn't need to be to work well.

I'm not talking about comparing powerlevel here, because in my fairly unoptimisable playgroup, no-one is playing tier 1 builds. I'm talking about taking a concept (like fear), and making it actually possible to play a character built around it.

AmberVael
2010-06-08, 06:01 PM
Did you remind him Spell component pouches pay them for free for stuff less than 1 gp (or unlisted price).

A game where that wasn't true would be horrific.

"I'm sorry, you didn't pay your bat dung tax. You can't toast critters now. Heeeheeeee!"



Anyway, Character Optimization is fine. When it becomes powergaming, then it is probably bad. If you have disparate levels of optimization, things can also be bad.

TheMightyBanjo
2010-06-08, 06:08 PM
The only place "yea" still has a place in the vernacular is in the question "Yea or Nay?"

/derailment

And we shall maintain that phrase through....Renaissance fairs!!! Oh, and also in dramatic speeches.

nedz
2010-06-08, 07:12 PM
Yus and yus, though it irks me when I see people respond with "yea" when I know they mean "yeah." The only place "yea" still has a place in the vernacular is in the question "Yea or Nay?"

/derailment

"The yeas have it" or in this case "The nays have it" :smallcool:

Back to the thread:
As a DM one problem I have had on occasion is when the party is unbalanced; either because one PC is more optimised or, just as likely, one PC is sub-par. Whilst this usually fixes itself after a while, because different characters peak at different levels, it does become quite hard to write challanging encounters.
So: as long as all of the PCs are of roughly the same optimisation level then its generally fine.

Endarire
2010-06-08, 07:17 PM
Everyone optimizes to some degree. If you trade your +1 sword for a +2 sword, you optimize a bit.

There's no clear distinction of what's "expected" versus "optimized." The CR system assumes your Fighter will eventually get a magic weapon instead of a mundane one. At some level, this becomes a +2, a +3, and so on. The same with magic armor, items that grant saves, and so on.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-08, 08:03 PM
Optimization is fun, and frequently necessary. Personally, I like to use Tier 4 and 5 classes and try to keep up with Tier 1-2 characters. That requires quite a bit of optimization work and yet it doesn't break the game.

I enjoy a challenge, so optimizing a Wizard seems like a pointless exercise to me. But other people want the thrill of playing a character to whom nothing is a challenge. That might work well in some scenarios; I've just never come across any such games.

PersonMan
2010-06-08, 08:08 PM
I always optimize, and min-max, my characters. Why? Because when I have a mental image of the concept, it's rarely of someone who can barely pull their own weight. No, it's someone who can do something, and do it well. So I make it so that they can do real damage in combat, and that they have abilities that work with their character concept without having to take huge penalties to something else they should be doing well.


Personally? I dislike it, for two reasons. a. Metagame. How does character x know that by taking these skills and this Feat they qualify for this PrC that combined with this weapon and that spell will, 4 levels down the road, turn them into Awesome McBadass? Charactor x doesn't even know what this crap is! Level up and equipment choices should flow from the game, not the other way around.

Because it works. If Dr. Jones McFighter-Fight survived the adventuring/the war/became rich and famous it's obviously because he did something right, and you learned from him. Or you tried a bunch of stuff, and found that this works. And/or you hear about Dr. Jones McFighter-Fight who can hit stuff really well who learned to do this, this and that before becoming an AwesomeGuy. Therefore, if you do that, then you, too, can become an AwesomeGuy,, just like Dr. Jones McFighter-Fight!

I am Dr. Jones McFighter-Fight and I approve this message.

aje8
2010-06-08, 09:09 PM
Because it works. If Dr. Jones McFighter-Fight survived the adventuring/the war/became rich and famous it's obviously because he did something right, and you learned from him. Or you tried a bunch of stuff, and found that this works. And/or you hear about Dr. Jones McFighter-Fight who can hit stuff really well who learned to do this, this and that before becoming an AwesomeGuy. Therefore, if you do that, then you, too, can become an AwesomeGuy,, just like Dr. Jones McFighter-Fight!

Yes... sort-of. The way I'd phrase it is this:
My character doesn't know what feats ect. he's taking. What he knows if that he's training to be the greatest agressive fighter in the land. He wants to throw himself at the enemy and taking them apart as quickly as possible.

In game terms, he's getting Pounce, Power Attack, Shock Trooper and building a standard Uber-Charger build. But the character just knows he's training for all out attacking and acting accordingly.

That's how I see things. Fluff drives mechanics. Your character (in game) trains to do X and you figure out (out of game) what series of feats, classes, spells, items and skills can accomplish X. Then, you level-up accordingly.


I enjoy a challenge, so optimizing a Wizard seems like a pointless exercise to me. But other people want the thrill of playing a character to whom nothing is a challenge. That might work well in some scenarios; I've just never come across any such games.
Meh... unless your using infinite tricks or REALLY over the top stuff like Gate, Planar Binding and Polymorph stuff is always challenging, even to Wizards.

I've actually played an optimized Wizard in a real game. Thing was, I didn't outshine any of the party. The other two were optimized DMM: Cleric and optimized Druid. It was a blast! Now, if my part was straight Fighter and straight Rogue, then I'd have instead build a straight optimized Warlock to be in line with party strength. Optimization is only a problem if it's way, way over the top or if the party is at uneven levels of optimization IMO.

PersonMan
2010-06-08, 09:11 PM
Stuff

I...agree.

...Yeah, not much else to say.

Milskidasith
2010-06-08, 09:18 PM
The entire first post hinges on the Stormwrack fallacy; that optimization somehow negates characterization and role playing.

It's probably already been said, but there isn't anything else left too say.

Well, one thing: There are different levels of optimization. TO, and PO, to be broad, but you can optimize to be a strong, varied T3 character for a group, or be an all powerful wizard, or a strong fighter in one area but still not that great, or a skillmonkey with minimal combat attributes, or being unkillable but with low damage, or whatever. You can optimize to fit a role, not just optimize to be able to beat a dozen Pun Puns at once with only a move action each round.

DragoonWraith
2010-06-08, 09:19 PM
The entire first post hinges on the Stormwrack fallacy;
Hehehe, that amused me. I believe you meant Stormwind fallacy?

PersonMan
2010-06-08, 09:21 PM
Hehehe, that amused me. I believe you meant Stormwind fallacy?

No. Obviously, Stormwrack doesn't exist. Either that or it causes optimization, lack of roleplaying...and global warming. Think of the (min-maxed) polar bears! They didn't put any skill points into Survival so they could Spot prey better!

Boci
2010-06-08, 09:24 PM
No. Obviously, Stormwrack doesn't exist. Either that or it causes optimization, lack of roleplaying...and global warming. Think of the (min-maxed) polar bears! They didn't put any skill points into Survival so they could Spot prey better!

Not my polar bear. He took a dip into mindbender then picked up mindsight.

Milskidasith
2010-06-08, 09:25 PM
I thought Stormwind was the book. :smalleek:

My bad.

PersonMan
2010-06-08, 09:28 PM
I thought Stormwind was the book. :smalleek:

My bad.

Stormwind: The Book of Hurricanes and Other Weather-Related Terrors?

Have your players face the deadly howling winds of John Gone the Hurricane, and fight the evil tornado minions of Alley Tornado!

TheMightyBanjo
2010-06-08, 09:30 PM
Have your players face the deadly howling winds of John Gone the Hurricane, and fight the evil tornado minions of Alley Tornado!
Banjo fought a tornado once... poor windy b*****d

jiriku
2010-06-08, 09:31 PM
A poster said earlier in this thread that in an escalation between you and the DM, the DM always wins.

This is not true. If you are a skilled optimizer and your DM is not, you can build characters capable enough that the DM does not know how to build encounters that will challenge you. If the entire party of characters is highly optimized, you can build a team so strong that the unskilled DM doesn't know how to challenge any of you.

When you cross that line, you are moving into that zone where optimization has become a bad thing. I voluntarily retired a wizard character in my last campaign because the wizard's power had grown beyond the DM's ability to challenge him.

Drakevarg
2010-06-08, 09:36 PM
A poster said earlier in this thread that in an escalation between you and the DM, the DM always wins.

This is not true. If you are a skilled optimizer and your DM is not, you can build characters capable enough that the DM does not know how to build encounters that will challenge you. If the entire party of characters is highly optimized, you can build a team so strong that the unskilled DM doesn't know how to challenge any of you.

By striking you down on the spot with unblockable, undodgeable instant-kill death bolts. No save, bypasses all immunities. Retroactively soul-destroying, too, in case you plan on time travel shinnanegans or ressurection.

DM wins.

TheMightyBanjo
2010-06-08, 09:38 PM
By striking you down on the spot with unblockable, undodgeable instant-kill death bolts. No save, bypasses all immunities.

DM wins.

Banjo finds this plan to be fool proof

PersonMan
2010-06-08, 09:44 PM
@Jiriku Depends on the level. Unless we're talking Pun-Pun, then the DM can always hit you with a dozen Titans or Tarrasques or the like.

If you're high enough level that such things don't work...Well, chances are you can be worn down. Tornadoes, constant combat...the DM has the entire world to fight you with. Even with the best optimization available, the DM can also make something a little bit better. Because a DM has the ultimate weapon: Rule 0.

Boci
2010-06-08, 09:44 PM
By striking you down on the spot with unblockable, undodgeable instant-kill death bolts. No save, bypasses all immunities. Retroactively soul-destroying, too, in case you plan on time travel shinnanegans or ressurection.

DM wins.

But some DMs simply won't do that, especially new ones. They feel they are obliged to stick to the CR, and do not understand the game enough to match their players.

PersonMan
2010-06-08, 09:45 PM
But some DMs simply won't do that, especially new ones. They feel they are obliged to stick to the CR, and do not understand the game enough to match their players.

Ahh, but they can, can't they? 'Can' and 'will' are different arguments.

Boci
2010-06-08, 09:46 PM
Ahh, but they can, can't they? 'Can' and 'will' are different arguments.

They can, but jiriku seemed to be talking about what actually heppens in the game, not what every DM can theoretically do via rule 0.

The Glyphstone
2010-06-08, 09:46 PM
Optimization is not binary. Optimization is like being the dude who runs a nuclear reactor, with the ability to turn that dial anywhere from zero to meltdown.



(yes, I know nuclear reactors don't work like that, and I've used the analogy before. I like it.)

TheMightyBanjo
2010-06-08, 09:51 PM
(yes, I know it doesn't work like that, and I've used the analogy before. I like it.)

As long as it's fun keep doing it! That's the official stance of the Church of Banjo.

The Glyphstone
2010-06-08, 09:53 PM
As long as it's fun keep doing it! That's the official stance of the Church of Banjo.

The Church of Banjo encourages nuclear meltdowns?

PersonMan
2010-06-08, 09:54 PM
The Church of Banjo encourages nuclear meltdowns?

Well, obviously. How else would we get Mutants? And who would play Masterminds&More Masterminds?

TheMightyBanjo
2010-06-08, 10:58 PM
Well, obviously. How else would we get Mutants? And who would play Masterminds&More Masterminds?

Obviously!

oxybe
2010-06-09, 01:40 AM
"blue bolt him, LOL" is a bad solution to a bad problem though. it's the DM admitting he can't actually handle the issue at hand and instead of discussing it with the group, takes the cheap way out and probably leaves a bad taste in a few mouths.

antagonizing the players is the first step in finding yourself without a group. i'm not saying you should suck up to the players or whatever, but calmly discussing issues with them is more mature then just a BB. remember: a DM without a group is just a bad, lonely fanfic writer.

if the PC is starting to become a problem talk to the player. if the player is becoming a problem, ask him to shape up or ship out.

going "blue bolt, roll up a new PC" is immature. why discuss a problem when you can just sweep it under the rug, am i right?

my stance on optimization? everyone does it to some extent once they start learning the game and finding out what works and what doesn't. find out what the power level of the group is and work within those boundaries and within your concept. tone down the optimizing if you're too powerful and ask for help if you're too weak/unsure how.

AslanCross
2010-06-09, 02:49 AM
On the other hand, it's possible for groups to NOT enjoy the game if their characters die all the time and they do nothing.

It all boils down to group playstyle. The difficulty of the campaign should be established by the DM, and he should help the players get their assumptions on the level.

Ceaon
2010-06-09, 05:17 AM
I think character optimization is, for many gamers, one of the most fun things in D&D. Roleplaying is one of the other main attractions to play. I don't think these two are exclusive to one another. Unless your entire group thinks like you, focussing solely on one over the other will probably raise the eyebrows of your fellow players.

If a player is in the game solely to optimize (and others are not), that's powergaming and will create imbalance and probably dissatisfaction. However, if a player is in the game solely to roleplay and others are not, that's a problem as well; it can lead to spotlight hogging, boring the other players with 'cutscenes' they don't care for, or worse.

And, Banjo, as has been correctly deduced, my first language is indeed Dutch ("Nederlands").

Amphetryon
2010-06-09, 05:40 AM
The difficulty of the campaign should be established by mutual agreement between the players and the DM, and he should help the players get their assumptions on the level. That's not a FTFY, that's my own spin on it.

Cogidubnus
2010-06-09, 05:46 AM
Few things, on various points. 1) I don't think I've ever WRITTEN "yea or nay" before, even though I've said it.

2) There is, basically, a sliding switch(es) in nuclear power stations for the depth the boron rods are inserted, and raising them to high will cause a meltdown (but there are all sorts of safetys to prevent that). At least, I think that's what I learned in physics...

3) Optimisation is taken too far when your name is Minmax (http://goblins.keenspot.com/d/20050702.html) and you have weapon proficiency: furniture (http://goblins.keenspot.com/d/20100405.html).

I myself like the IDEA of optimisation, just because becoming more powerful appeals to me. I'm rubbish at actually doing it though, because I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of classes and feats and because part of me likes to single-class because it's neat and tidy and things stack. So I try to meet in the middle. For example, I recently designed a 15th level Diablo's Assassin using PId6's homebrew, which is already good, but has a maximum damage of about 90 a round, compared to the warblade applying for the same game's 300. To improve this, and capitalise on my 6 attacks a round, I went looking for ways to pick up Sneak Attack when I leveled up. I think this is fine. It makes me better at what I do, without making me the party tank. Though I DO have an AC of 31 against enemies I'm dodging and while psionically focused. Not bad considering I have no armour.

PlzBreakMyCmpAn
2010-06-09, 06:14 PM
My opinion should be obvious :smallcool:

When you start using large red letters and referring to yourself in third person. :smallwink:You win. This thread is the sad kind of lol

ShadowsGrnEyes
2010-06-09, 06:19 PM
I like to optimize, its a fun exercize, but it's the last thing i do when making a character and it gets the least attention.

My character making process:
1. Idea
2. backstory
3. edit backstory to meet world continuity
4. choose class
5. build
6. tweak build to fit backstory better
7. tweak build to be slightly more effective in terms of desires for characters abilitys
8. optomize a little if the other players are likely to.

Tar Palantir
2010-06-09, 06:42 PM
I find, as both a player and a DM, that I enjoy a healthily adversarial relationship with whoever is sitting on the other side of the screen. When I DM, I keep house rules and homebrew to a minimum, and my house rules are mostly the bare minimum necessary to keep things from becoming accidentally absurd (banning Shapechange/Polymorph/PAO and the like), and my homebrew enemies possessed no unique abilities which the PCs would have no frame of reference to deal with (they mostly just had Dex poison, some DR, and good SR). I throw level appropriate challenges at my players, optimized to approximately the same level as the PCs, and I don't hesitate to use fiendish tactics, ambushes, monsters with much-loathed abilities, and so on. If two PCs die because they had no means of dealing with Mummy Rot, they damn well will from then on. If ambushes become a problem, the Beguiler dips Mindbender and takes Mindsight. If the PCs are having an easy time of it, I up my level of optimization until we get back to a death every session or two, and then wait for them to respond. Everyone at the table has had a moment where a devious trick or potent combo has been met with a combination of gaping mouths and villainous congratulatory clapping, and a moment where they have fallen prey to such a maneuver. The drive to be the victor in the next confrontation enhances the game, and the shame and recrimination involved in being caught cheating set the boundaries necessary to an enjoyable experience.