a hypothetical discussion...

[big teej]

I want you to imagine something for me.


you're looking for a new real life group and -gasp- lo and behold, you find one.

you talk with the DM a bit, explain your interest, he tells you "that's awesome, we're looking for two new players"

surely, you rejoice having found a new group.

the person that will (hopefully) be your DM in the near future says....

"I'm glad your interested, lets go make you a character"

perhaps curious, you ask "why do you need to be with me?"

a reasonable question, answered by anything as simple as "to see what you're like as a player"
to something rather longwinded such as "due to some ... conflicts with our last 'new player' I've decided to personally interview each and every potential new player and walk with them through character creation so as to make sure to head off any potential disasters."

this seems like a reasonable request aye? so you aseed... aceed. asceed.
crap
somebody spell that for me :smallredface:

so you so "okay, lets go make me a character"

and y'all go off somewhere and make a character.
for purposes of discussion, lets say you make one of the following
- uber-charger
- spiked chain trip-tastrophe
- batman wizard
- some crazy bard build I don't have memorized.
- Cleric Zilla
- any other build even approaching 'moderate' optimization you can think of.


you hand the sheet over to the DM for his approval, and he gets a very troubled look on his face, looks at you and asks your reasoning for certain character choices. Feats, spells, etc.

you explain your build to him and what your choices allow you to do.

all is well and dandy, your build is legal, hell, your build is even ENHANCED by certain houserules.

and the DM informs you "I'm sorry, but your playstyle doesn't mesh with the group as is. how far are you willing to tone this down?"

how do you respond to such a question?

do you offer (or insist) to help the other players "reach your level"?

do you storm off in a huff? how dare he restrict you!

I'm honestly curious.

I have a fairly newbish group. how newbish? simple think on this for a moment
Druid - least contributive member of the group
Fighter and the paladin - MVPs*
Pathfinder Alchemist - waaaaaay overpowered.

now, in such a group, ask yourself the question again.
"how far back are you willing to tone it down?"

if you're still with me at this point I really appreciate you wading through my huge wall of text.

the reason I ask is because my IRL group will soon be in the market for a new player.

being aware that many people optimize far more than we do, I don't wish to cause any clash within the group.

furthermore, I am a HUGE fan of self-discovery. sure, I could point my group to these forums and prove "the monk sucks, stop playing fighters, that alchemist is not overpowered" etc.

but to me that seems almost like a blasphemy, to rob these new players of their chance to make discoveries and teach themselves the game.
as such, I stand by my group where the Human Paladin is the consistently most effective character and where our Sword and shield knight also wades into melee as a top 3 party member.

so I ask you, if you were to encounter such a group, and the DM asked you to, essentially, stop optimizing completely. (or very close to it)

how would you respond?



*this is looking to change as we've got a good player playing a cleric and working it good. but humor me.


for the record, I have no problems with people optimizing, it's simply not something I enjoy, and I feel that even if my players were shown how, not something they would enjoy either. to each their own.

[Hirax]

and the DM informs you "I'm sorry, but your playstyle doesn't mesh with the group as is. how far are you willing to tone this down?"

how do you respond to such a question?


I usually just ask for an example character to balance against, do a teardown & rebuild, then work out any final kinks with the DM. This has happened to me multiple times, I don't mind playing left handed, and indeed will happily do so, as long as it's a good group. What's a good group? Well, that's a separate discussion.

[big teej]

I usually just for an example character to balance against, do a teardown & rebuild, then work out any final kinks with the DM. This has happened to me multiple times, I don't mind playing left handed, and indeed will happily do so, as long as it's a good group. What's a good group? Well, that's a separate discussion.

heh, I hope this is the response I get if it comes up.

off topic spoiler.
also, as for the seperate discussion, the discussion for "what is a good group" will, in a manner of speaking, go on forever.

however, we can all agree on what makes a good group. it's been established since before the first natural 20.

"a good group is a group that is having fun."

obviously the same group isn't good for everyone, but hey, it's poetic.

[Bobby Archer]

I tend to be the least optimized person at the table, but I know some people who take their builds very seriously and view optimization as something of an inalienable right. Your best bet is to be as upfront as possible with a prospective player right from the start and hope they're okay with a low/no-op group.

[Big Fau]

My question is this: Why?


Why would you ask something like this? The purpose of optimization is two-fold:


To make a concept both possible and efficient without being impractical.
To ensure that your character survives to the end of the encounter/module/campaign, in that order, without needing to be Resurrected every session.



Now, there is such a thing as excess. I can understand not wanting excess. But basic character optimization and survival? Why would anyone want to ask people to stop optimizing?

[Bobby Archer]

My question is this: Why?


Why would you ask something like this? The purpose of optimization is two-fold:


To make a concept both possible and efficient without being impractical.
To ensure that your character survives to the end of the encounter/module/campaign, in that order, without needing to be Resurrected every session.



Now, there is such a thing as excess. I can understand not wanting excess. But basic character optimization and survival? Why would anyone want to ask people to stop optimizing?

The problem that arises is that an optimized character in a low op group can quickly and unintentionally overshadow the other characters. Encounters that are challenging to the rest of the party are cake to a high-op character. In a worst case scenario, the high-op player isn't challenged by the encounters and begins to resent the other players for holding the party back; the low-op players feel like their characters can't contribute and resent the high-op player for what they perceive as showboating; the DM can't balance encounters so that everyone can contribute; no one has fun.

Everyone has a right to play the game however they want, but not all playstyles work well together. I think it's perfectly reasonable for a DM to tell a new player that their group is high/low/no op right from the get-go. As long as the DM is setting up encounters with a low-op group in mind, they won't miss all the optimization they're skipping.

[Honest Tiefling]

Parties work best when near each other in power, or usefulness. (Some builds might be useless, but can get you out of a pinch. Bards, for instance, might shine if the rest of the party has an average charisma of 9 and you are in a city.)

I might be pretty gosh darned incompetent at optimization, but I go build first, then RP concept not the other way around. Sure, some might think I'm a charop munchkin, but I find it easier to be clear on what my PC can and cannot do and figure out how such a build can work in the world then the reverse as well as determine personality from stats.

I think being upfront from as early as possible will make people the happiest. Some optimizers are perfectly happy playing say, a monk, if the rest of the group is not going to overshadow them. And nobody has to waste their time if you advertised for someone who does not optimize build. I'd be a bit confused if the DM told me to make a non-optimized build after I showed up with a character sheet.

Some people like self-discovery. But I actually make PCs for my sibling whenever she plays RPGs. Sure, I tell her what I did and I always make sure to stick to the concept she gives me as best I can. But I know that she's more interested in being destructive, looting and RP then crunching numbers. She is willing to work in a group, but can get easily frustrated. I know that in her case, telling her to make her own PC and having her be stuck with a less then useful one will not make her enjoy the game. Some people rather explore on their own, but it depends on the person.

As for optimization...I think if a DM told me not to optimize, I would wonder what they meant. Do they mean don't make ridiculous characters? Do they mean have an RP reason for each character option? Do they mean stick to a lower power level? Do they mean make a less powerful character?

[Greenish]

"how far back are you willing to tone it down?"If I want to play in with the group, to something that's not disruptive of the game.

Really, as long as I can come up with a concept and execute it in a way I'm happy, I'm all right. I've never played an übercharger, or even the basic pounce+shock trooper+leap attack guy, for example.

[Gamer Girl]

As a DM I just ignore this. My game is far more deadly and far more powerful then any 'by the rules' build. Most builds, especially spellcaster ones, as based off the very weak world presented in the Core Rules. So sure a druid who does the whole godzilla thing is tough when fighting 1st level human warriors but suddenly has a much harder time vs half song dragon/gray elf fey warlocks.

So the great builds don't stand up too much in a more high powered game. This has driven players away as they won't adjust and they don't like not being a star.

[Divide by Zero]

Would said hypothetical DM be ok with an optimized buff-focused wizard, bard, or other supporting character? Then you get to optimize without making the party useless, and they get to play more powerful characters without additional work on their part. Everybody wins!

Alternately, start with some restriction (monster race, low-tier class, whatever) and try to work within that restriction.

[Ormur]

I'd ask about the rest of the players and see what power level they are one. I'd tone things down by playing a less powerful class, perhaps one that's more about buffing and not optimizing as much, but if we'd go below the average tier 4 build I'd probably start offering advice.

[olentu]

The question is of course how far toned down does the group want. Without knowing that I can not know if I care to join that group or not. I mean toned down can be fine but if the only thing that will fit is basically a copy of an existing character played without intelligent thought that might be a little grating.

[Pika...]

The problem that arises is that an optimized character in a low op group can quickly and unintentionally overshadow the other characters. Encounters that are challenging to the rest of the party are cake to a high-op character. In a worst case scenario, the high-op player isn't challenged by the encounters and begins to resent the other players for holding the party back; the low-op players feel like their characters can't contribute and resent the high-op player for what they perceive as showboating; the DM can't balance encounters so that everyone can contribute; no one has fun.

Everyone has a right to play the game however they want, but not all playstyles work well together. I think it's perfectly reasonable for a DM to tell a new player that their group is high/low/no op right from the get-go. As long as the DM is setting up encounters with a low-op group in mind, they won't miss all the optimization they're skipping.

Basically what he said.

We are having some serious issues in my Saturday group due to this.

[Kantolin]

and the DM informs you "I'm sorry, but your playstyle doesn't mesh with the group as is. how far are you willing to tone this down?"

how do you respond to such a question?

Granted, I'm not a fan of optimization myself, but I'm totally okay with being asked to tone down a character of mine. ^_^

Frequently I'll in fact do it myself - I have the habit of checking everything with the DM ahead of time to ensure it's okay.

On the other hand, I do get annoyed when I'm told something is overpowered when it's not really a big deal even compared to the rest of the group. For example, even in my low-op group, reserve feats usually are quite ho-hum - but a couple of our DMs dislike them as they go on forever. That's not 'I charge and deal 800 damage!' or even all that powerful, so I usually comment about it.

But hey - being asked to tone things down is okay with me. Not that it's happened terribly often, I admit. ^_^'


So sure a druid who does the whole godzilla thing is tough when fighting 1st level human warriors but suddenly has a much harder time vs half song dragon/gray elf fey warlocks.

So the great builds don't stand up too much in a more high powered game. This has driven players away as they won't adjust and they don't like not being a star.

o_o Wait, so if people optimize in your setting, optimization becomes manditory? What do the sword and board fighters do in your setting vs those half song dragon/grey elf fey warlocks? Go home and get a better class? That sounds like it'd encourage people to move up - or perhaps be half song dragon/grey elf warlocks themselves, if that's proven to work, instead of human fighters with longswords and weapon specialization (which is what I'm used to in my rather low-op games)

[Boci]

As a DM I just ignore this. My game is far more deadly and far more powerful then any 'by the rules' build. Most builds, especially spellcaster ones, as based off the very weak world presented in the Core Rules. So sure a druid who does the whole godzilla thing is tough when fighting 1st level human warriors but suddenly has a much harder time vs half song dragon/gray elf fey warlocks.

So the great builds don't stand up too much in a more high powered game. This has driven players away as they won't adjust and they don't like not being a star.

The problem is how do you challange a party with a wide spread of power.


o_o Wait, so if people optimize in your setting, optimization becomes manditory? What do the sword and board fighters do in your setting vs those half song dragon/grey elf fey warlocks? Go home and get a better class? That sounds like it'd encourage people to move up - or perhaps be half song dragon/grey elf warlocks themselves, if that's proven to work, instead of human fighters with longswords and weapon specialization (which is what I'm used to in my rather low-op games)

If you brought a sword and board fighter with weapon specialization to my current game setting I'd tell you:

a. Hardly anyone teaches such fighting styles anymore

b. Your character will most likely die

its up to you whether you change your build to reflect this or decide that my game is not for you.

[Seonor]

how would you respond?



Hurrah, I can finally play a soulbow!

As long as you are upfront about it and have a fun group I would play a samurai if that is the average powerlevel.

[sonofzeal]

I'd be cool with it, but I'd want to work with the DM on the issue. Specifically, I'd want him to give stated restrictions I can work inside. Part of what's fun for me is the tactical/strategic game, doing as well as I can with the resources available to me. Asking me not to isn't reasonable, but removing resources is fine. "Okay you can be a spellcaster but no Core spells", or "okay you can be a beatstick but only Simple, nonmagical weapons", or "okay you can be a skillmonkey but no UMD", or "okay you can be anything you want but your stats are all 10's".

I don't care about being super-effective, I just enjoy pushing myself. If you don't want me to surpass the other players, give me a context where I can push myself without doing that. Or, let me help the other players up so I'm not surpassing them anymore. Or both.

[erikun]

all is well and dandy, your build is legal, hell, your build is even ENHANCED by certain houserules.

and the DM informs you "I'm sorry, but your playstyle doesn't mesh with the group as is. how far are you willing to tone this down?"

how do you respond to such a question?
Well, my first question would be to look at said houserules. If a wizard using Fog Cloud or a Cleric using Righteous Might is so stunningly overpowered because of them, then I'd want to know what they are and how they affect any characters I make.

I have no problem toning down high-op builds, although I may ask the DM for allowances that aren't technically by the rules. For example, rather than using that Bard/Warblade that uses a feat to attack and maintain bardic music, allow a basic Bard (perhaps with a feat) that allows the same thing. I have no problem with playing an actual Fighter/Cleric (THE HORROR!) instead of Clericzilla, or something like a Rogue/Deepwarden.

Some character concepts I may just drop outright. If you find my Wizard/Bard/Ultimate Magus to be too overpowering, then I'll likely switch gears and build a completely different character. I realize your desire to keep the game low-power, but realize that the concept of "highly learned master of multiple magics" gets somewhat lost when playing only a Warmage or Adept.



My biggest concern, though, is the intentions of such a DM. Most DMs don't have any problems with at least a moderate level of optimization - I'm talking about Lion Totem Barbarians with Power Attack, rather than Chain-Tripping Shock Troopers. DMs that want to restrict further than that are frequently either grossly misunderstanding how the system works, or want to put their players through the meatgrinder and intentionally take away player options to avoid it.

[molten_dragon]

and the DM informs you "I'm sorry, but your playstyle doesn't mesh with the group as is. how far are you willing to tone this down?"

how do you respond to such a question?

I would ask how far he needed me to tone it down to mesh well with the rest of the group.

What I did after that would depend on the answer to that question.

If he wanted me to tone it down moderately, I'd probably be fine with it. I've had fun playing just your average barbarian before, or blaster sorcerer. I like to min-max things, but it's not a requirement.

If, through incompetence or design, the characters in the group were actually weaker than average, and the DM wanted me to make something that was purposely weak, I'd probably try to talk him into letting me help the other players optimize their characters a bit or change the game a bit so everyone was a little bit more powerful.

If he was unwilling to do so, I'd probably just tell him politely that it didn't sound like I would have a good time playing with the group, and I'd try to find a different one that fit my playstyle better.

I don't mind making unoptimized characters, but I definitely wouldn't enjoy having to put effort in to make my character weaker than average.

Your group specifically sounds like one I could still have fun in. And I'd probably make a warmage or a beguiler or some other low-tier spellcaster that would still be fun for me.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Build big, play small.

In a low-op group, you don't need to build Batman to be good, and even if after toning it down you *do* build stronger than everybody else, you can intentionally tone it down to the point where you don't completely overshadow everybody.

For perspective, my group (and their tier makeup) consist of:
Myself (Wizard, tier 1)
Druid (tier 1)
Cleric (tier 1)
Sorceress (tier 2)
Scout (tier 4)
Fighter (tier 5)
Bardbarian (tier 4?)

The Fighter and the Scout were built in advance, and are thus (relatively) high-op. The Cleric is new and doesn't stray too far from the Core books (which he knows pretty well). The Druid and Sorceress are girlfriends of other players (well, as of yesterday I guess the Sorceress is actually my ex, but we're splitting hairs here), and are very low-op. The Bardbarian is low-op, roleplay-heavy. I'm the only high-tier class that is being researched for relatively high optimization. So what do I do?

I play a blaster.

This isn't the type of game where doing hundreds of damage in a given turn is really a focus; we're playing a specific world, and the whole thing is more about story than anything else, so we're going off of that. I don't need to stop the show, and don't gain many of the world-breaking benefits of a sandbox (since that would be completely derailing, and I'm complacent), so I'm going to shoot fire at things, but I'm going to metamagic the bajeezus out of it as I do. That way, I can prepare my spells with a host of blast spells ranging from "marginally useful" to "dragon? What dragon?" and anything in-between, and when I find the sweet spot, I can place a greater focus on that. I'll still have a lot of Batman's capabilities at my disposal (since I don't need to devote a wide spell list to blasting, and the metamagic feats are extraneous for most of the Batman stuff), but I can "play myself down" if I overstep my bounds, and I don't make the party feel useless.

I mean, it's not like I'm necessarily the showstopper anyway; the Scout player's more together about it than I am, since he has the benefit of experience and, for all my research (both from a character and DM standpoint), I am still new.

[Yora]

how do you respond to such a question?
In such a situation, I would be the DM asking that question.

However, exactly because of that, I would first have said what kind of game we are playing and asked what he thinks would work for him to fit into the group. That's the reason I want to be present when everyone makes characters. Once that is sorted out, their pick of classes and feats is really up to the players.

As a DM, I would offer two options:
1.) Adopt our style of play, at least for this campaign.
2.) You better look for another group.

[visigani]

Man... what?


I mean... and I'm being serious here... precisely what is the point of "Optimization" when "optimizing" the character becomes so important to actively choose to NOT play the game you're optimizing for.

I mean if the beginning and end of your enjoyment with the game depends solely on you becoming a worldspanning god even while you're surrounded by mere mortals then I don't think it's it's a roleplaying group you need.

It's a self help group.


Seriously, if the desire to bei zo mai gawd powuhfulz is so strong that you'd rather design characters alone than play characters together then something has gone terribly wrong.


Here's what's gone wrong: When optimization is that important you're no longer playing a co-operative game, you're playing a competitive one.

You've whipped out your A-peen (the distant and decidedly luddite version of the E-peen), and now your fellow players and the DM must pay for what they've done to you.

[big teej]

in regards to "what's the party level" I defined it in the OP

here:



I have a fairly newbish group. how newbish? simple think on this for a moment
Druid - least contributive member of the group
Fighter and the paladin - MVPs*
Pathfinder Alchemist - waaaaaay overpowered.




also, many have used the phrase "weaker than the average party"

well I ask you, what's an average, universal benchmark?

for purposes of THIS discussion, I recommend the CR assumption.
Blaster Wizard/sorcerer
Healbot Cleric
Beatstick/tank fighter
Skillmonkey Rogue.

[Darrin]

and the DM informs you "I'm sorry, but your playstyle doesn't mesh with the group as is. how far are you willing to tone this down?"

how do you respond to such a question?


I tend to prefer playing "fifth-wheel" or support characters, so I'd probably make a vanilla rogue or bard (maybe a Factotum if available) and lay low until I see how the group dynamics shake out.

If the DM is being persistently and willfully ignorant about blazingly obvious balance issues and is unwilling to re-examine his beliefs, and the other players are also getting frustrated, then I might save up a few hundred GP, take a few tricks out of Shax's Haversack (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=148101), and then break his campaign world in half as a "learning experience".

If the DM is good and everyone is having fun, then I probably won't care if I'm running a low-op PC. After the DM sees how I play and is confident that I'm not trying to optimize to showboat, pwn the other players, or poop in his sandbox, then I'll probably approach him about working in a stronger high-op PC with built-in hooks to help him move his plot forward. This is the "Buy In" pitch: He gives you access to more powerful options, and you give up some narrative control over where the PC is going. You're not optimizing this PC for yourself, you're doing it to make his plot/NPCs stronger, challenge the party with something unexpected, and move the story where he wants it to go. You put in a few "dark secret" background elements that the DM can shut you down story-wise at any time if you go too far as a failsafe. You're essentially pitching him a chance to play a "ringer" or "turncoat" NPC. Give him a rough "scripted" exit so you both know where the PC is headed, but with some wiggle-room for a big dramatic "heel turns face", "villain redeemed", or "heroic sacrifice" scene.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Honestly, I'd ask what was wrong with the build in particular. I understand that not every group I join would like me to play a Malconvokor who summons 24 HD centipedes with two epic feats dedicated to being big and scary with that one bite attack, but it honestly depends on what I made for the group.

In the case of a pure caster dedicated to either blasting (either directly or via summoned monsters), debuffs, or battlefield control, I' probably just find a different character concept or swap my spells to a more passive role of team buffs with a few debuffs just to be safe.

In the event that I'm doing something with a lot of casting, but as a means of executing a specific concept (e.g., Spellthief 1/Wizard 4/Unseen Seer 10/Arcane Trickster 5 for the finished build) I'd either ask for things that help me achieve something close to the end result but without the nearly full powered wizard casting, which could be nearly anything considering the versatility of Spellthief combined with any other caster. More specifically, though, I may just roll up a straight rogue with a few other things or something else, depending on what sets off that DM's "cheese meter."

In the case of a chain tripper or ubercharger, as I am not often one to play a basic melee type without something odd to him (last nongish or Tome of Battle melee character I remember playing was a Shifter Barbarian with levels in Weretouched and I think Warshaper), I would probably go with a very simple battle bard or just focus on playing something else.


Really, this sort of question depends on far too much, and I would absolutely have to talk with the DM more than once to figure out what exactly the perceived problem is. If it's a case of an inexperienced group, I'd just tone everything down and help them all learn. If the DM and group hold an adamant "Those guys online saying 'monks are underpowered' ARE wrong!" I'd probably just not play with them and save myself the headache.:smalltongue:

[JaronK]

I actually always ask about the other characters in the group before I even make anything. That way I can appropriately match the power level, as well as generally fit in.

JaronK

[Savannah]

Well, I wouldn't build anything that would make the DM tell me to tone it down :smalltongue: However, if I were better at optimizing and did so, I'd be rather annoyed that the DM didn't tell me up front what I was supposed to be doing. Why waste everyone's time?

In your situation, I'd make sure to tell the new players what's already in the party before they start building anything. You might want to ask if they're fond of optimization and, if so, what they consider optimized (as some people try but are hopeless :smallamused:). If they are familiar with optimization, you can explain the situation so that they know what the group is like, and if not, you don't have to worry.

[Maho-Tsukai]

I would love to play a True Necromancer in your group. I love that class despite how "bad" it is and lament not being able to find a group underpowered enough for it to fit into.

Anyway...I myself tend to be odd when it comes to OP. I tend to like RP but also like to have effective characters so I straddle the line between OPer and RPer a lot though I have many times been accused of being an OPer due to always asking for homebrew and 3rd party materials that people automatically assume are broken and only being taken because they, due to being 3rd party or homebrew, must be totally unbalanced and overpowered...

Though many times I take them for RP related reasons more so then OP ones.

As for what I would do? As the player I would most likely play a character I liked that was not as OP. So I am a fan of fullcasters like the wizard...perhaps in your group I would play a Sorcerer 4/Cleric 3/Mystic Theurge X and focus totally on support spells and just sitting in the back handing everybody fee buffs while they fight the good fight, trying hard not to overshadow them. Or perhaps I would break out a Shugenja, Warmage or Healer instead of a wizard, druid or cleric.

If I where the DM I would most likely work with the player and help him/her realize a build that is both appealing to them yet dose not overshadow the party or, perhaps, even allow an overpowered class such as the wizard so long as that player and I worked together closely to make sure said class was played in a non-overshadowing way and select spells that would not make the other party members redundant/trample on their rolls.

[Divide by Zero]

I tend to like RP but also like to have effective characters so I straddle the line between OPer and RPer

There is no line. They're orthogonal.

[Maho-Tsukai]

There is no line. They're orthogonal.

People however seem to act as if there is a distinct line between them, though, and that seriously irks me sometimes. I mean, just because I want a character who is effective why dose that mean I automatically care only about power and will just sit around twiddling my thumbs when RP situations present themselves? You don't have to be the kind of person who will play with horrid ability scores, purposely gimp their character or play a horridly bad class simply because it fits their concept better to be a good RPer. You can still get into and effectively RP a well-built character but yet people assume that you hate RP/can't RP well just because your bringing an OP build to the table and that frustrates me. Yes, there are those who care for their characters only as a set of stats but I hate it when people assume that I am one of them just because I make my Xaolin monk character an unarmed swordsage instead of a monk...

However, in your situation I know full well to tone it down a bit as in the end the most important rule of PnP RPGs is to have fun, and I know full well being overshadowed is no fun at all.

[visigani]

People however seem to act as if there is a distinct line between them, though, and that seriously irks me sometimes. I mean, just because I want a character who is effective why dose that mean I automatically care only about power and will just sit around twiddling my thumbs when RP situations present themselves? You don't have to be the kind of person who will play with horrid ability scores, purposely gimp their character or play a horridly bad class simply because it fits their concept better to be a good RPer. You can still get into and effectively RP a well-built character but yet people assume that you hate RP/can't RP well just because your bringing an OP build to the table and that frustrates me. Yes, there are those who care for their characters only as a set of stats but I hate it when people assume that I am one of them just because I make my Xaolin monk character an unarmed swordsage instead of a monk...

However, in your situation I know full well to tone it down a bit as in the end the most important rule of PnP RPGs is to have fun, and I know full well being overshadowed is no fun at all.


Doesn't mean you care only about power... it means you care MORE about power.

[only1doug]

As with several other replies, I would prefer being told in advance about the desired power level of the group (waiting until after the character is completely made is a disadvantage). Knowing that the desire is for a low powered group would drastically change the character build i would make.

A Nice opportunity to play with a lower teired class (maybe warlock or dragon shaman).

[Badgerish]

Like others have said, it's a perfectly reasonable request. Indeed, I would be asking about the current party/power-level/campaign themes before I started to create a character.

You shouldn't just "build a character", you should "build a character for the campaign" and this includes fitting in with the party.

edit: One of the negative issues/preconceptions with a situation like this is that some groups have very strange ideas about power-levels, and showing up with someone who is effective all day (ToB classes/DFA/Warlocks etc) will be met with shock, while god-casters are happily accepted.

[Iferus]

I would make a new character that at top potential might just overshadow other players. And then I'd optimize the **** out of it. Anything tier 5 or lower, so I can still have my optimization kicks. Either that, or I'd kick ass at some support role. Buffing, battlefield control, healing - just something that does not step on any toes.

[Honest Tiefling]

Enter the Bardatron. Are you ready to rock?

On a serious note, has anyone had seen issues arise when a more optimized character stuck to buffing, or is everyone happy with the buffs and does not complain?

[sonofzeal]

Enter the Bardatron. Are you ready to rock?

On a serious note, has anyone had seen issues arise when a more optimized character stuck to buffing, or is everyone happy with the buffs and does not complain?
I once had a fully optimized character focused on passive aura-based buffs. He shattered the game. His horse was more powerful than the Fighter, and he needed a spreadsheet to keep track of everything he was doing.

[Honest Tiefling]

But did the other characters complain? I'd imagine so, given that the horse was more powerful, but just checking.

[sonofzeal]

But did the other characters complain? I'd imagine so, given that the horse was more powerful, but just checking.
I didn't hear the other players complain. They were enjoying many of the same buffs too, and if it does that much to a horse you can imagine what it does to a PC. The problem was the DM, who couldn't balance combat for us any more. We'd demolish stuff we were supposed to struggle with, and anything powerful enough to pose a threat would tend to hit like a freight train, which we couldn't take because our HP wasn't any higher. Plus, it slowed things down a lot when there were 4-6 buffs on every character at any given moment.

Would not recommend, except in moderation.