What does "optimization" mean to you?

[WinWin]

What I will say to finish is, I've seen where too much of the wrong kind of optimisation leads. It seems like absolute freedom and power at first. But really it's a trip to characters all being the same and to a boring game experience. The more you optimise, the narrower your set of choices are. Until you reach the point where the last three characters of a given type that you played are almost indistinguishable.

I've seen it in GURPS, in Cyberpunk, in D&D, in L5R and in quite a few other games. People hit on combinations that work, and either repeat them over and over or other people copy them.

Usually when that happens, it's time for a new game system. One where people don't know the exploits yet.

That explains the continual 4e errata and subsequent shift to Essentials.

People play games to have fun. RPG's are notable for being able to make meaningful choices, not just in gameplay, but in the creation of a character. Limit those choices and you end up with a bland system. Expand you choices and you can overwhelm new players. Putting in 'trap' options can lead to frustration, especially once people have invested time and effort into developing a character.

Optimization is needed in a game like 3.x, as it was in 2e and 1e. I am not saying that this is a great thing, or that any of those games were perfect systems. However, a lot of people found that practical, in-game optimization was a fun addition. Building a successful character required skill just as roleplaying requires skill.

A game without optimization, one where everyone can succeed regardless of skill, is not fun for me. Choices become meaningless. Gaining a level or reward becomes a participation award. Mediocrity is not why I play a fantasy game.

[kyoryu]

Definitely this. Optimizing a Tier 4 or 5 class is great fun. I've actually taken the strategy of encouraging my optimizers to play lower-tier classes and my non-optimizers to play high-tier. Currently my fairly heavily optimized TWF fighter and my non-optimized sorcerer have about the same power level. It works out fairly well.

Edit: This (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html) is why I get nervous when someone says "I don't optimize."

Strange. I read that and think "there's someone I want to game with."

People clearly have differing opinions on what they want out of roleplaying games. And I think that's a lot of what this thread really boils down to. Knowing your group, knowing what you want, and being willing to compromise.

[WarKitty]

Strange. I read that and think "there's someone I want to game with."

People clearly have differing opinions on what they want out of roleplaying games. And I think that's a lot of what this thread really boils down to. Knowing your group, knowing what you want, and being willing to compromise.

Just to be clear I meant the second half - the player type that it's meant to correct, i.e. "I have to do it this way because it's how my character would react" without considering any options or whether that character type fits the game.

[kyoryu]

What I will say to finish is, I've seen where too much of the wrong kind of optimisation leads. It seems like absolute freedom and power at first. But really it's a trip to characters all being the same and to a boring game experience. The more you optimise, the narrower your set of choices are. Until you reach the point where the last three characters of a given type that you played are almost indistinguishable.

I've seen it in GURPS, in Cyberpunk, in D&D, in L5R and in quite a few other games. People hit on combinations that work, and either repeat them over and over or other people copy them.


This is incredibly common in MMOs. Skill-based (as opposed to class-based) MMOs appear to offer more variety than a class-based game, but all too often devolve into a small number of usable builds, and end up with less diversity in playstyle than class-based games.

It's a combinatorial problem. The more pieces and parts you can put together in different ways, the more likely it is that some combinations combine in extremely synergistic ways. Having fewer options can, in some cases, mean having more viable choices available.

[Caphi]

Definitely this. Optimizing a Tier 4 or 5 class is great fun. I've actually taken the strategy of encouraging my optimizers to play lower-tier classes and my non-optimizers to play high-tier. Currently my fairly heavily optimized TWF fighter and my non-optimized sorcerer have about the same power level. It works out fairly well.

Edit: This is why I get nervous when someone says "I don't optimize."

I'm confused, what part of that article exactly has to do with optimization? It is, at minimum, a decent snack for thought regardless of how optimized you are.

[WarKitty]

I'm confused, what part of that article exactly has to do with optimization? It is, at minimum, a decent snack for thought regardless of how optimized you are.

Fixed my post for you.

[Keld Denar]

What I will say to finish is, I've seen where too much of the wrong kind of optimisation leads. It seems like absolute freedom and power at first. But really it's a trip to characters all being the same and to a boring game experience. The more you optimise, the narrower your set of choices are. Until you reach the point where the last three characters of a given type that you played are almost indistinguishable.

It sounds to me that your problem is not in the mechanics, or in the system, or in optimization itself, but in the people. People have let you down, and because of that, you blame the system and the beliefs. That or you have no idea what optimization really is.

You'll notice that while some advise is "X is dumb, play Y instead" gets passed around, most of it isn't. Check out the Iron Optimization contest! Its a lot of taking the worst crap out there, doctoring it up, and making it useful. Look at the various guides out there. Suel Arcanamach has a guide, and is bad in nearly every case compared to a more traditional Sorcadin. It does have some shiney point though, and if you bend it and twist it a little, apply some feats and PrC, it comes out shaped like something you'd be proud to play, and that can compete in most areas as well as a Sorcadin. Sure, it may have some common features with a Sorcadin (like say...the Abjurant Champion PrC), but its still mechanically different.

Thats fun. Thats practical optimization, and in my experience thats a lot of what goes on around here. While there is some "help me make my DM cry" and "help me break X system" going around, most of those are met with "try build X or build Y. They are balanced, streamlined, easy to play, and won't get you hit with a book". If a player comes and says "I wanna play X, but I don't want to feel worthless in a fight", we have advise on how they can boost their efficiency, longevity, survivability, etc. Some of that advise is stronger than others, but most of it tends to stay in the middle ground of playability.

At least that's what I've seen around the playground, and I've been here for a fair while.

[aje8]

And on the gripping hand, you have the other group. The ones that say things like "If you refluff the mechanic that you didn't want in your game, it's now compatible with your campaign. Even though you used your right as a GM to say no to a certain group of mechanics. And by saying no to me, you're obviously a bad GM."
Well..... I understand that this can be taken too far, I've seen it happen in fact, but I do think it's reasonable to talk to the DM about refluffing and/or mechanically modifying a banned mechanic. If a DM told me he had banned Tome of Battle, I would not be pleased with the status quo as it's one of my favorite books. This is because I find melee boring when I can only do 1-2 things each round. (I hit him, I charge him and I grapple him are basically the extent of it unless the character is built to do something else specifically well) I would thus ask him if I could:
A. Refluff Warblade and take manuevers only an approval basis (to ensure realism)
B. Play a Warblade with entirely homebrewed, but totally mundane, manuevers.
C. Play a totally homebrewed class that is totally fluff and crunch acceptable to the DM that still gives melee 5 or 6 different things to do each round.

Now, if a DM refused to work with me on coming up with a solution acceptable to both of us after banning maetrial, that I would call that unreasonable. If he banned ToB but accepted one of the above/ offered me some reasonable alternative I would have no problem with this.

[Gensh]

Well..... I understand that this can be taken too far, I've seen it happen in fact, but I do think it's reasonable to talk to the DM about refluffing and/or mechanically modifying a banned mechanic...Now, if a DM refused to work with me on coming up with a solution acceptable to both of us after banning maetrial, that I would call that unreasonable. If he banned ToB but accepted one of the above/ offered me some reasonable alternative I would have no problem with this.

This right here is the problem. The vast majority of people say this, but half of them don't follow through. Whenever someone posts about a GM disallowing , then half of the posters here automatically go off on them and say "bad GM bad, play by the rules" without even hearing the full situation. Many of us who play in no-op casual groups are fine with optimization in principle but inevitably have to deal with 9 out of 10 players using "optimization" as a justification for cheating.

As a DM, I haven't had to deal with real optimization at all [B]and my entire group consisted of mediocre roleplayers. When we played, we played for fun, and in fact, the entire party's victory usually hinged on the monk despite there being a druid and a wizard. The only one who was disappointed about my no ToB rule was the guy who played the wizard. He had wanted to play a swordsage, but that's probably the only class I won't ever allow so he picked his next favorite. During play, I let him get away with a little extra shenanigans, and when he asked if he could be a tainted scholar, I told him yes, as long as he didn't go overboard since the party needed a boost anyway.

Guess what he did? Chugged a fermented jar of trophies from tainted monsters that the bard had been saving. Again, I wouldn't consider this optimization so much as playing chaotic stupid (which he was actually doing), but when I said "stop, I said no going overboard," guess what he said. The exact same thing as a legitimate optimizer: that he was only making the most powerful character possible, that it was perfectly within the rules, and that it wouldn't harm the party. That is the heart of this argument, that people here frequently don't read the whole story and automatically jump to the defense of anyone who so much as claims to be an optimizer, even if it's obvious that he/she is a powergamer.

[kyoryu]

It seems like we're now going around in circles basically saying "disruptive players suck." We're just saying it from two different angles.

In a game where there is an established (explicitly or implicitly) level of power, someone coming in with a character that's more effective than the rest of the group (combined) is being disruptive. If that's the kind of disruption you're used to seeing, you'll probably come down on the "optimization is bad" side of the fence.

On the other hand, if you're more familiar with seeing the "I'm going to deliberately gimp myself so the whole group has to focus on ME! ME!" type of disruption, you're likely to come down on the "people who won't optimize are drama queens" side of the fence.

But it's really the same problem in both cases - players that create characters outside of the established parameters of the group, and refuse to compromise. It's the disruption that's bad, not (inherently) optimization, or lack of optimization.

[Tyndmyr]

People who can't work with others are bad at cooperative games. More at 11.

That really doesn't say much about optimization as such, though. Heck, I think the different definitions of optimization listed or assumed throughout this thread vary so wildly that making any value judgements based on that is going to inevitibly lead to disagreement for that reason alone.

[WarKitty]

I'm having a feeling that your opinions also depend on which responders you get that time. I've been jumped on as a powergamer (which admittedly was fair that time). I've also been jumped on for complaining about players creating gimped characters.

Optimization is a tool. How it should be used depends on the game.

[kyoryu]

Optimization is not a binary value. It is a continuum.

It's like driving speed - anyone that drives faster than you is a maniac, and anyone that drives slower than you is an idiot. "Optimization" is what I do. "Powergaming" is what the people that optimize more than me do. "Being poor gamers and drama queens" is what people that optimize less than me do.

There is no difference of type between maxing your strength when playing a warrior and Pun-Pun - only a matter of degree of optimization. Every argument for using feature X that the DM disallowed can be applied to Pun-Pun.

At the same time, there's no difference of type between minimizing your strength as a warrior and playing "Pun-Pun - 1" - only a matter of degree of sub-optimzation. Every argument that can be made for playing anything less powerful than Pun-Pun is a valid argument for playing a completely anti-optimized character.

And that's probably why this is so contentious. Because there are no real lines, just a matter of gradations. Everyone agrees Pun-Pun is bad, and everybody would agree that a Str/Dex/Con 8 Fighter who walks around naked is bad. It's the area in the middle that's murky and leads to bad feelings.

[HamHam]

It seems like we're now going around in circles basically saying "disruptive players suck." We're just saying it from two different angles.

In a game where there is an established (explicitly or implicitly) level of power, someone coming in with a character that's more effective than the rest of the group (combined) is being disruptive. If that's the kind of disruption you're used to seeing, you'll probably come down on the "optimization is bad" side of the fence.

On the other hand, if you're more familiar with seeing the "I'm going to deliberately gimp myself so the whole group has to focus on ME! ME!" type of disruption, you're likely to come down on the "people who won't optimize are drama queens" side of the fence.

But it's really the same problem in both cases - players that create characters outside of the established parameters of the group, and refuse to compromise. It's the disruption that's bad, not (inherently) optimization, or lack of optimization.

It's really not that hard to accommodate different levels of power within a party from a narrative perspective. The real problem is probably inter-player issues.

[Keld Denar]

It's like driving speed - anyone that drives faster than you is a maniac, and anyone that drives slower than you is an idiot.

Kudos on the George Carlin reference. RIP good sir, you are well remembered!

[The Big Dice]

It sounds to me that your problem is not in the mechanics, or in the system, or in optimization itself, but in the people. People have let you down, and because of that, you blame the system and the beliefs. That or you have no idea what optimization really is.
The problem is, in any given game system, there are a finite number of optimal solutions to a given problem. D&D is very much one of those games. I see the same solutions being offered to things all the time, especially in the Playground. Tome of Battle being a very common one. But even ignoring that, the same spells and feat combos get reiterated all the time.

I don't know how muh of that is simply recieved wisdom, the RPG equivalent to net decking, and how much is just the fact that these things work. Whatever the reason, there really aren't that many builds around that are proven.

And the fact that they are called builds is proof enough that these concepts aren't characters. They're thought excercises and equations, not something you'd really want to play out over 20 levels.

[Keld Denar]

I don't know how muh of that is simply recieved wisdom, the RPG equivalent to net decking, and how much is just the fact that these things work. Whatever the reason, there really aren't that many builds around that are proven.
You really haven't spent much time around here, have you? I know hundreds of builds, maybe even a thousand. And each one? It has dozens of variations. Not all the same feats, not all the same spells, not all the same manevuers, whatever. Most builds allow a healthy amount of race, PrC, skill, and feat options. Yea, some things are constant across the board, like taking Natural Spell for Druids, or Power Attack for nearly everyone will fullish BAB. Yea, they are good, and well established, but they are also very basic levels of optimization. Most first timers who build a druid are gonna see Natural Spell and think "man, this is something I'd like for my druid" because its SO intuitive. So yea, there are some reoccuring themes, but its not nearly as cookie cutter as you make it sound.



And the fact that they are called builds is proof enough that these concepts aren't characters. They're thought excercises and equations, not something you'd really want to play out over 20 levels.

Why not? How do you pick your feats and PrCs? How do you plan for Prereqs? Cause you know, it really sucks when you think "man, I wish I could become an Arcane Trickster, but I just didn't put enough ranks in Discipher Script. Oh well.

[Tyndmyr]

Optimization is not a binary value. It is a continuum.

It's like driving speed - anyone that drives faster than you is a maniac, and anyone that drives slower than you is an idiot. "Optimization" is what I do. "Powergaming" is what the people that optimize more than me do. "Being poor gamers and drama queens" is what people that optimize less than me do..

Wisely said...but I disagree with your second part. Infinite loops are somewhat different in nature than other forms of optimization, and if there's one thing people can agree is purely TO, not PO, it's infinite loops.

[Umael]

And the fact that they are called builds is proof enough that these concepts aren't characters. They're thought excercises and equations, not something you'd really want to play out over 20 levels.

...I find the wording on that last part to be needlessly dismissive.

When I get a character concept, I go through a similar process, including the mapping the character out from level 1 to level 20. I have researched ways to get into X Prestige Class by Y level and see if there was a way to break that barrier. I go through equations and thought exercises just like these other people who identify themselves as optimizers.

But by saying that these people who create theoretical builds are "not [doing] something you'd really want to play out", you are saying that these people have no emotional investment in the character, nor any interest in the character's development. Given that my character creation procedure and mirror the same procedure they use, it is not a stretch to conclude that you are accusing me of the same by proxy.

[kyoryu]

You really haven't spent much time around here, have you? I know hundreds of builds, maybe even a thousand. And each one? It has dozens of variations. Not all the same feats, not all the same spells, not all the same manevuers, whatever. Most builds allow a healthy amount of race, PrC, skill, and feat options. Yea, some things are constant across the board, like taking Natural Spell for Druids, or Power Attack for nearly everyone will fullish BAB. Yea, they are good, and well established, but they are also very basic levels of optimization. Most first timers who build a druid are gonna see Natural Spell and think "man, this is something I'd like for my druid" because its SO intuitive. So yea, there are some reoccuring themes, but its not nearly as cookie cutter as you make it sound.


Depends on the level of optimization, which is what I think TBD is getting at.

Let's say you take 1000 builds, and have some way of objectively determining their power. If '1.0' represents a nominal build (RAI, core books only, etc.), Builds might range from .5 or so to 5 or so in a system that allows a lot of optimization.

If you're looking to be above 2.0, there's a lot of variation. If you're looking to be above 3.0, there's still a bit, but less than for 2.0. If you're looking to be above 4.0, there's less.

And at the end of the day, there's only one build that is the *most* powerful.

M:tG is probably a good example of this. It has potentially far more variety than the build options of any RPG, yet at higher levels of play decks start to resemble each other more and more.

Taking Power Attack and Natural Spell is, all in all, a pretty low level of optimization.

[Tyndmyr]

The problem is, in any given game system, there are a finite number of optimal solutions to a given problem. D&D is very much one of those games. I see the same solutions being offered to things all the time, especially in the Playground. Tome of Battle being a very common one. But even ignoring that, the same spells and feat combos get reiterated all the time.

This is true. There's a few reasons for this...but mostly, it's just really, really hard to memorize everything in 3.5. There's just a lot there. I guarantee there are awesome combos nobody has found yet, simply because they require some ridiculously obscure mixing from wildly different sources and use unusual steps along the way.

And of course, there's always the easy answer. I'm frequently guilty of lazily linking to an existing guide or quoting stock answers when people ask for build advice. Give 'em the easy paths to power first.


I don't know how muh of that is simply recieved wisdom, the RPG equivalent to net decking, and how much is just the fact that these things work. Whatever the reason, there really aren't that many builds around that are proven.

Well, there's a lot of builds...but there's a limit to how many builds can be well known. And to how many builds one person can reasonably play at a time. Personally, if Im involved in over 2 campaigns at once, my schedule gets too stretched. While I can play around with optimization a fair bit in theory, my actual playtime is limited, and when I get it, I like to play one character for lengthy periods of time.


And the fact that they are called builds is proof enough that these concepts aren't characters. They're thought excercises and equations, not something you'd really want to play out over 20 levels.

A build is only a portion of a character. If the only aspects of your character are those written on your sheet, you're probably not roleplaying much or at all. This is logical, as most builds don't enforce a single character concept. Keeping the optimization related to just the build is a GOOD thing. Imagine if it were strictly mechanically superior to be say, chaotic neutral, and to kill a baby every week. Optimization then WOULD be terrible for roleplaying. Best to preserve seperation.

However, you are correct in that many builds only consider the final goal, not the process of getting there. While it might be fun to have ultimate power after 19 levels of suck, that probably isn't a great build for most situations.

[Greenish]

And the fact that they are called builds is proof enough that these concepts aren't characters. They're thought excercises and equations, not something you'd really want to play out over 20 levels.Of course builds aren't characters! That's like saying leaves aren't a tree. A build is just the mechanical aspect of the character.

Wisely said...but I disagree with your second part. Infinite loops are somewhat different in nature than other forms of optimization, and if there's one thing people can agree is purely TO, not PO, it's infinite loops.What, you mean you wouldn't actually play a character that can provoke infinite Attacks of Opportunity per round? :smalltongue:

[Esser-Z]

No, because that would meant taking infinite critical hits.

[Greenish]

No, because that would meant taking infinite critical hits.Only if you find someone who can make infinite attacks of opportunity. Is there a way to do that?

[Esser-Z]

...point. But there surely is!

[kyoryu]

Wisely said...but I disagree with your second part. Infinite loops are somewhat different in nature than other forms of optimization, and if there's one thing people can agree is purely TO, not PO, it's infinite loops.

But they're within the rules. The same arguments apply. The reason that people don't play them is a combination of convention ("loops are bad, even if legal") and gentleperson's agreement ("they'd completely break the game, making it pointless").

Those are exactly the same reasons people avoid lesser levels of optimization. The only difference is where the boundaries are set. The limits you placed are arbitrary - perhaps universal, or nearly so, but still arbitrary.

I'm not saying "all optimization = Pun-Pun," just to be clear. Merely that every group *has* these limitations, the only question is where they exist for a particular play group.

[WarKitty]

Only if you find someone who can make infinite attacks of opportunity. Is there a way to do that?

Infinite dexterity?

[Esser-Z]

That'd do it.

[Greenish]

Infinite dexterity?As far as I know, even Pun-Pun can only achieve insanely high ability scores, but not truly infinite.

Anyway, I had to double-check and I don't think the method (atavist 10 + Psionic Meditation) I was thinking for generating infinite AoO would work.

[WarKitty]

As far as I know, even Pun-Pun can only achieve insanely high ability scores, but not truly infinite.

Anyway, I had to double-check and I don't think the method (atavist 10 + Psionic Meditation) I was thinking for generating infinite AoO would work.

Technically he can achieve infinite scores, but it would take an infinite amount of castings to do so.

[Arillius]

Optimization for me is making the best character I can with in the part of the story I'll be filling. So I do as much as I can without sacrificing story elements.

[Umael]

Technically he can achieve infinite scores, but it would take an infinite amount of castings to do so.

Can Pun-Pun do that?

I mean, an infinite number of castings require an infinite amount of time. I don't know how long the generic D&D universe is supposed to last, but... well, does the D&D universe have the time? Or is there a way for Pun-Pun to extend the time of the universe.

...I have a bad feeling I just opened the floodgates to a line of thought best left undisturbed. Kind of like "ancient evil trapped in the earth". Probably eats the flesh and only the flesh off still living babies.

[liquid150]

Can Pun-Pun do that?

I mean, an infinite number of castings require an infinite amount of time. I don't know how long the generic D&D universe is supposed to last, but... well, does the D&D universe have the time? Or is there a way for Pun-Pun to extend the time of the universe.

...I have a bad feeling I just opened the floodgates to a line of thought best left undisturbed. Kind of like "ancient evil trapped in the earth". Probably eats the flesh and only the flesh off still living babies.

Pun Pun can ascend in approximately 2 rounds, or maybe it was 3? I don't remember.

Whatever it was, it wasn't even close to 10 rounds.

[Esser-Z]

Technically he can achieve infinite scores, but it would take an infinite amount of castings to do so.

I'm pretty sure somebody made an actual infinite loop for him at one point.

[Tyndmyr]

Can Pun-Pun do that?

I mean, an infinite number of castings require an infinite amount of time. I don't know how long the generic D&D universe is supposed to last, but... well, does the D&D universe have the time? Or is there a way for Pun-Pun to extend the time of the universe.

...I have a bad feeling I just opened the floodgates to a line of thought best left undisturbed. Kind of like "ancient evil trapped in the earth". Probably eats the flesh and only the flesh off still living babies.

Yeah, you really don't want to know the answer to that. People will start discussing the difference between arbitrarily high stats and actually infinite stats, which leads to discussion on different orders of infinity. It's better for your sanity to never contemplate such things.

Rest assured that Pun Puns stats are whatever Pun Pun wants them to be.

[The Glyphstone]

Wow, 10 pages about optimization before someone PunPun's the thread. Impressive.

[a_humble_lich]

Yeah, you really don't want to know the answer to that. People will start discussing the difference between arbitrarily high stats and actually infinite stats, which leads to discussion on different orders of infinity. It's better for your sanity to never contemplate such things.

It's true, even after an infinite number of castings you'd still be left with merely a countably infinite stat. You'd need to find a way to pull off Cantor's trick to get an uncountably infinite stat. Even worse, is the time required, to get a singularity in finite time you'd want something of the form xn+1=A x2n, perhaps with clones . . .

[Ravens_cry]

I am glad Pun-Pun was invented, as it is the ultimate, endgame example of brinkmanship in 3.5. Now that we know it can be done, there is no need to do so. Optimisation is dead, long live optimisation.
Now we can get back to just playing the game. A given amount of optimisation is required in a given campaign. And that amount varies from campaign to campaign, DM to DM.

[dsmiles]

I am glad Pun-Pun was invented, as it is the ultimate, endgame example of brinkmanship in 3.5. Now that we know it can be done, there is no need to do so. Optimisation is dead, long live optimisation.
Now we can get back to just playing the game. A given amount of optimisation is required in a given campaign. And that amount varies from campaign to campaign, DM to DM.

w00t! ANOTHER nail hit square on the head!

[liquid150]

It's true, even after an infinite number of castings you'd still be left with merely a countably infinite stat. You'd need to find a way to pull off Cantor's trick to get an uncountably infinite stat. Even worse, is the time required, to get a singularity in finite time you'd want something of the form xn+1=A x2n, perhaps with clones . . .

The brokenness of Pun Pun is not just his ability scores. He has every ability ever published, and any ability he can come up with that isn't published.

Even without infinite ability scores, Pun Pun may grant himself something silly like:

Pun Pun Wins (Ex): Any action that would be harmful in any way to Pun Pun immediately fails. Pun Pun is unable to be damaged in any capacity, whether it be hit point damage, level loss, ability score damage, etc. Anything that would negatively impact Pun Pun immediately fails. Pun Pun may not be targeted by any attack, be it melee, ranged, spell, spell-like ability, supernatural ability, extraordinary ability, or any other form of attack.

[Caphi]

dsmiles, did you contribute anything to this thread other than quoting other posts and saying "^ this"?

Speaking of which, ^ this. As liquid says, Pun-Pun's arbitrarily high stats are not themselves his power, but a mere side effect of his actual power, which is nothing more than getting Manipulate Form on a PC. Manipulate Form is the core of Pun-Pun. Everything else comes from there.

[kyoryu]

I am glad Pun-Pun was invented, as it is the ultimate, endgame example of brinkmanship in 3.5. Now that we know it can be done, there is no need to do so. Optimisation is dead, long live optimisation.
Now we can get back to just playing the game. A given amount of optimisation is required in a given campaign. And that amount varies from campaign to campaign, DM to DM.

OTOH, he's the ultimate excuse for munchkins. "Hey, I'm not a munchkin. I mean, it's not like I tried to get away with playing Pun-Pun!"

Kinda like "Kim-Jong Il's not too crazy. I mean, sure, he's a little off his rocker, but he's no Hitler."

[Esser-Z]

Pun-Pun is an exercise in putting DM tools into player hands. Manipulate Form is pretty much an abilityified form of DM Fiat. Unfortunately, it's within the rules, and so...

[The Glyphstone]

OTOH, he's the ultimate excuse for munchkins. "Hey, I'm not a munchkin. I mean, it's not like I tried to get away with playing Pun-Pun!"

Kinda like "Kim-Jong Il's not too crazy. I mean, sure, he's a little off his rocker, but he's no Hitler."

Oh good, now we've PunPunned and Godwin'ed the thread.:smallcool: This is going great places.:smallsmile:

[Greenish]

Oh good, now we've PunPunned and Godwin'ed the thread.:smallcool: This is going great places.:smallsmile:We've also had… (spoilered for length):
ToB
reflavouring vs. canned flavour
a passing mention of stormwind
roleplaying your character's mental scores
D&D vs. other systems
ramming chtulhu with a boat (always a winner)
AD&D nostalgia
kobolds
PF druid changes
guisarme-guisarme-guisarme-glaive-nosepicks
edition warz
disney movie references
personal antimagic fields
cheese
suel arcanamachs
monks
George Carlin
M:tG
PO/TO
grievous bodily harm with obscure sourcebooks
binders
Neverwinter Nights
Errol Flynn
Bob the Plumber's cousin Jack the Sorcerer
Metal Gear Solid

…and many others.

"Going places" doesn't begin to describe this thread. :smallcool:

[Esser-Z]

I'm not seeing any Monty Python. Can't be D&D without some Python!

Or is that just D&D sessions?

[Umael]

Oh good, now we've PunPunned and Godwin'ed the thread.:smallcool: This is going great places.:smallsmile:

...

As the contributor of Pun-Pun to the thread, and thus the indirect contributor of Godwin to the thread, I have to say... thanks, Glyphstone. You just made me feel guilty.

...hug?

(Hey, we hadn't taken this thread to group therapy yet.)

[kyoryu]

Oh good, now we've PunPunned and Godwin'ed the thread.:smallcool: This is going great places.:smallsmile:

I like pie.

Cake eaters are evil.

[Ravens_cry]

OTOH, he's the ultimate excuse for munchkins. "Hey, I'm not a munchkin. I mean, it's not like I tried to get away with playing Pun-Pun!"

Kinda like "Kim-Jong Il's not too crazy. I mean, sure, he's a little off his rocker, but he's no Hitler."
And I would say " No, you're not Pun-Pun, but you're still breaking this world in ways I don't like." The stinkiest Gouda for me is abusing the granularity of the rules, such as Free Action abuse.

[The Glyphstone]

I like pie.

Cake eaters are evil.

That's because they eat lies.

(Chalk up a Portal reference to the list now.)

[Zaydos]

We've also had… (spoilered for length):
ToB
reflavouring vs. canned flavour
a passing mention of stormwind
roleplaying your character's mental scores
D&D vs. other systems
ramming chtulhu with a boat (always a winner)
AD&D nostalgia
kobolds
PF druid changes
guisarme-guisarme-guisarme-glaive-nosepicks
edition warz
disney movie references
personal antimagic fields
cheese
suel arcanamachs
monks
George Carlin
M:tG
PO/TO
grievous bodily harm with obscure sourcebooks
binders
Neverwinter Nights
Errol Flynn
Bob the Plumber's cousin Jack the Sorcerer
Metal Gear Solid

…and many others.

"Going places" doesn't begin to describe this thread. :smallcool:

I wish I had been keeping a better eye on this thread.

[kyoryu]

We've also had… (spoilered for length):
ToB
reflavouring vs. canned flavour
a passing mention of stormwind
roleplaying your character's mental scores
D&D vs. other systems
ramming chtulhu with a boat (always a winner)
AD&D nostalgia
kobolds
PF druid changes
guisarme-guisarme-guisarme-glaive-nosepicks
edition warz
disney movie references
personal antimagic fields
cheese
suel arcanamachs
monks
George Carlin
M:tG
PO/TO
grievous bodily harm with obscure sourcebooks
binders
Neverwinter Nights
Errol Flynn
Bob the Plumber's cousin Jack the Sorcerer
Metal Gear Solid

…and many others.

"Going places" doesn't begin to describe this thread. :smallcool:

http://www.roflcat.com/images/cats/270913946_efa38ec3d8.jpg

[Keld Denar]

Thread needs more angsty Cloud rip-off characters. Thats a good one we haven't seen in a month or so...

[Knaight]

Thread needs more angsty Cloud rip-off characters. Thats a good one we haven't seen in a month or so...

MY CHARACTER ISN'T CLOUD! IT'S AN INFUSION OF CLOUD AND ME! WHY WON'T YOU PEOPLE SEE THAT!!!???

[The Glyphstone]

Is it bad that I remember that guy?:smalleek:

[Keld Denar]

lol, I POSTED in that thread. And survived. Lots of people got scrubbed that day.

Funny thing is, about a month ago, a guy with almost the EXACT same name posted almost the EXACT same thread.

That one also went down in flames...

So, is this thread done yet?

[Umael]

So, is this thread done yet?

Nope.

Just checked.

The inside is still pink.

[Keld Denar]

QUICK! FIREBALL IT AGAIN!

Or better yet...Maximized, Twinned, Quickened, Energy Admixtured, Occular, Empowered, Searing, Fiery, Repeating, Echoing Orb of Fire it!

[Yukitsu]

Nope.

Just checked.

The inside is still pink.

That might just be a smoke ring. Or if it wasn't, it probably is now.

[Knaight]

lol, I POSTED in that thread. And survived. Lots of people got scrubbed that day.

Yeah, it had way more banned posters in it than the typical archive binge of that era.

[Zaydos]

QUICK! FIREBALL IT AGAIN!

Or better yet...Maximized, Twinned, Quickened, Energy Admixtured, Occular, Empowered, Searing, Fiery, Repeating, Echoing Orb of Fire it!

Not quite sure what Echoing does (not sure what book that metamagic feat is from) but two of these just don't seem to work together well... or actually up the damage at all.

[Keld Denar]

Well, Quickened means you can do 2 in a round...one Quickened, one not.

Occular means you save it in your eyes, allowing you to release 2 of them in ray form.

Echoing is in some Ebberron book, it recalls the spell back into your memory after an hour, but the next time you cast it, it gets -4 CL. Keeps coming back till your CL is too low to cast it anymore.

[kyoryu]

That might just be a smoke ring. Or if it wasn't, it probably is now.

Mmmmmm, smoke ring.

I miss Texas.

Cretins here think barbeque is something done in 30 minutes with direct heat.

[Zaydos]

Well, Quickened means you can do 2 in a round...one Quickened, one not.

Occular means you save it in your eyes, allowing you to release 2 of them in ray form.

Echoing is in some Ebberron book, it recalls the spell back into your memory after an hour, but the next time you cast it, it gets -4 CL. Keeps coming back till your CL is too low to cast it anymore.

See that's the thing with Occular though is it makes you cast 2 as a full round spell. So it would be
Maximized, Twinned, Quickened, Energy Admixtured, Empowered, Searing, Fiery, Repeating, Echoing Orb of Fire it
Then
Maximized, Twinned, Energy Admixtured, Occular, Empowered, Searing, Fiery, Repeating, Echoing Orb of Fire it twice

Which is actually quite nasty and I don't want to encounter a mage who can throw down that much metamagic so casually.

[thompur]

See that's the thing with Occular though is it makes you cast 2 as a full round spell. So it would be
Maximized, Twinned, Quickened, Energy Admixtured, Empowered, Searing, Fiery, Repeating, Echoing Orb of Fire it
Then
Maximized, Twinned, Energy Admixtured, Occular, Empowered, Searing, Fiery, Repeating, Echoing Orb of Fire it twice

Which is actually quite nasty and I don't want to encounter a mage who can throw down that much metamagic so casually.

Could you do all of that meta-stuff to a Sonic Snap with Fell Drain?:smallbiggrin: