How do you feel about semi-extreme but not game-breaking optimization?

[danzibr]

Let's take Dragonborn water Orc or Venerable Dragonwrought desert Kobold.

Suppose you're playing in a world with racial variants and dragons (pretty reasonable, I think). Then surely there's a lair of desert Kobolds somewhere. 1% of them or so (don't have RotD handy) are Dragonwrought. And then... some of them are probably really old. So venerable Draonwrought desert Kobolds exist and you choose to play as one.

Then water Orcs also exist. A few people feel the calling of Bahamut and one of them is a water Orc. So you have Dragonborn water Orcs... and you play as one.

Personally, I don't play characters like this, but as a DM I'd allow both (probably). Just wondering how others feel.

[Grendus]

Depends on how optimized your party members are. If they're still playing half-elf rogues, your dragonborn water orc might be a little over the top. If they're using lesser planetouched or taking calculated level adjustment, it's probably ok. As with all optimization, it doesn't become a problem until you're outshining your party mates and making them have less fun.

[SuperFerret]

I don't like it personally. Luckily, I haven't had to deal with such stuff in a while (though never in the case of alternate races, usually things like classes and such from books I don't have).

[LordBlades]

For me, the end result is all that matters optimization-wise.

A human wizard played to full potential can be much worse than a dragonborn water orc barbarian for example.

[Gardener]

That's not optimisation cheese. Venerable Dragonwrought Kobold taking up the Loredrake archetype or qualifying for Epic feats at level 1 as a great wyrm true dragon is optimisation cheese. And to be honest, I'm more than okay with reflavouring things too - that Draconic Viletooth Lizardfolk with Dragon Wings? Yeah, that's the bastard offspring of a black dragon. Half-Dragon might exist, but it's weird, unfocused, and doesn't make the creature all that dragon-y. And really? Breath weapon 1/day?

[Alefiend]

I dislike this kind of play for a number of reasons, but largely because it makes no sense outside of rules hacking. The odds of such a combination of traits existing are laughably low, and all the effort put into finding these game-breaking arrangements is effort that isn't spent on making a roleplayable character with a consistent background, motivations, and personality. I have no interest in kewl d00dz rampaging around; I want heroes and adventurers who might conceivably be people when they take off their battle gear.

Of course, I play in games where it's not uncommon to go an entire session where the dice aren't touched except for the occasional skill check. In games whose premise is "Round 1: FIGHT!" then I suppose you can have whatever kicks the most butt.

[Serpentine]

Optimization cheese: has no place in any of my games (unless it's one explicitly made for ridiculous builds). In the case of your justification examples, if they're playing it because they like the idea of playing that sort of background, okay, although I'll watch what they do. If they want to play it because it's powerful, no dice. You won't like my games.

[Alchemistmerlin]

There's a specific reason that "Optimization" is a technical term...it has nothing to do with fluff.

I would even go so far as to say that Optimization is inherently opposed to fluff.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I dislike this kind of play for a number of reasons, but largely because it makes no sense outside of rules hacking. The odds of such a combination of traits existing are laughably low, and all the effort put into finding these game-breaking arrangements is effort that isn't spent on making a roleplayable character with a consistent background, motivations, and personality. I have no interest in kewl d00dz rampaging around; I want heroes and adventurers who might conceivably be people when they take off their battle gear.

1) To be fair, PCs are all about the whole "exceptional heroes" thing and always tend to have convoluted backstories ("parents murdered in front of you" optional); is it really that surprising that the rare and strange critters are the ones that go out adventuring.

2) You can roleplay and optimize at the same time just fine, thanks, and neither one takes up so much effort that you can't do the other. In fact, if you have a good enough handle on the rules (which you probably do if you're building these sorts of characters), you can focus almost entirely on the backstory because you know the racial stats by memory and don't have to dumpster-dive for them.

[Gullintanni]

There's a specific reason that "Optimization" is a technical term...it has nothing to do with fluff.

I would even go so far as to say that Optimization is inherently opposed to fluff.

Stormwind would have words for you, I think. Optimization and Fluff can, and often do, live very happily together.

Look at the Uttercold Assault Necromancer. He can throw coldfire-negative energy fireballs around that heal him and his undead minions while still being a Wizard at everything else. The fluff is awesome. And what of the Bearbarian Bearing himself into battle on Bearback in the form of a Bear while Bearing down on his enemies with his unBearably awesome Bear-Fu? Its more Bear than your Bears can Bear!! And it's fun!

Both builds optimize different roles, and while they don't necessarily represent the peak of power in 3.5 the same way Pun-Pun does, they do min-max the hell out of their respective roles.

Life at the top is great, it's fun, and it's flavorful. You just need to be creative :smallsmile:

[Coidzor]

There's a specific reason that "Optimization" is a technical term...it has nothing to do with fluff.

I would even go so far as to say that Optimization is inherently opposed to fluff.

You mean Mr. Stormwind? :smalltongue:

The real thing is that there's no real way to have a good "optimization cheese" for discussion in this sort of context because what is viewed as "optimization cheese" is too much of a variable.

Venerable Dragonwrought Desert Kobold vs. Venerable Loredrake Dragonwrought Desert Kobold with the rites of draconic passage that uses the extra sorcerer levels to offset the costs of gishing vs. Venerable Loredrake Spellhoarding Dragonwrought Desert Kobold with the rites of draconic passage and levels in Wizard specializing in conjuration.

If you just mean "anything that's improbable but also good," well, I'd probably judge it against things that are equally improbable but bad as to whether the improbability didn't mesh with my world. But I see no reason to disallow a choice based upon its power potential without also having some context with which to interpret the player and understand whether he or she enjoys breaking games or would do so by accident.

[Sir Homeslice]

I would even go so far as to say that Optimization is inherently opposed to fluff.

And I'd go as far as to say you're wrong. The only thing inherently opposed to fluff is the complete lack of fluff. Optimization can assist fluff.

[Big Fau]

Dragonborn Water Orc is cheese?

[QuidEst]

I lean towards the roleplaying school, although I'd like a character I use to be at least competent. If the character is supposed to be highly skilled, then yeah, I'll go for some heavier optimization. But frankly, if I'll have more fun playing as a single-classed Bard in a Core-only game, I'll go with that. XP

Anyways, if I DM'd, I would probably try to bring in realistic effects of being an oddly specific species combination. It might be kind of hard to purchase equipment from humans, and other things like that. But I wouldn't mind if people felt like min/maxing, so long as they were fine with some tough opponents.

[Ernir]

For your information, danzibr, "optimization cheese" can be perceived as derogatory for those who practice optimization. It may put them on the defensive, reducing the likelihood of useful information cropping up in the thread.


Anyway.


Opinions on racial variant optimization, you say?
I generally don't care how much the players do of it. If the player wants to play a feral half-minotaur half-ogre mineral warrior, my question wouldn't be "how unlikely is that combination?", but rather "what does this mean for your character?". If the player's explanation for that is that the character fell into a magic cauldron when he was young, and mutated into this huge, horned, never-before seen monster thing, whatever. :smalltongue:
"This race doesn't exist in my setting" hasn't been much of a problem either. If a player needs a race that has ability score bonuses of Str +4, Con +2, all mental stats -2 for optimization purposes, but I hadn't intended to include orcs in the setting... applying the eraser to "water orc" in the racial line and replacing it with "strong stupid human" or something isn't very difficult.

Players optimizing to different degrees is a separate issue.

[danzibr]

Hmm, insightful posts all (well, most).

I should have clarified a bit. I know Dragonwrought Kobolds can get way cheesier than what I originally posted.

When I say cheesy stuff I mean... for the right classes, Dragonborn Water Orc is waaaaaaaaaaay better than almost any other LA +0 race you can find. Sure, you can make a backstory about how you were an Orc... living in a watery place... and felt the call of Bahamut (joking here), but I think it's clear Dragonborn water Orc is chosen for mechanical reasons.

I'm NOT saying I'm opposed to optimization. In fact, I'm in favor of it (unless it gets ridiculous). As a DM, I like my players to be strong. I do a pretty high point buy and give a few bonus features.

In any case, I feel Grendus nailed it on the head.

[danzibr]

For your information, danzibr, "optimization cheese" can be perceived as derogatory for those who practice optimization. It may put them on the defensive, reducing the likelihood of useful information cropping up in the thread.

Eek, okay. I'll change the title. I didn't think the word cheese would offend.

I liked the rest of your post too, btw.

[Alchemistmerlin]

Stormwind

People can't just make up a fallacy as a group and decide it is suddenly a valid argument to defend rule-abuse. You don't need to optimize to be effective, the game is not designed around optimization. The "Optimization" mindset that took over these boards when I took my extended break from them is just...the worst.


For your information, danzibr, "optimization cheese" can be perceived as derogatory for those who practice optimization.

That's just ridiculous.

[Big Fau]

You can't just make up a fallacy as a group and decide it is suddenly a valid argument to defend your rule-abuse. You don't need to optimize to be effective, the game is not designed around optimization. The "Optimization" mindset that took over these boards when I took my extended break from them is just...the worst.

Welcome to reality. Things like to change here. You now have three choices: Go with the flow, turn your back to this place, or oppose the system. And that last one is a nightmare to actually try.


With that out of the way, what is your problem with optimization? It's a survival strategy people use to play a game at best or a thought experiment at worst.

[danzibr]

For your information, danzibr, "optimization cheese" can be perceived as derogatory for those who practice optimization. It may put them on the defensive, reducing the likelihood of useful information cropping up in the thread.That's just ridiculous.
Hmm, well, I changed the title anyways... I mean, I like cheese. This reminds me of a scene from Avatar.

[Serpentine]

I suppose my attitude can more or less be summarised thusly:

1. Rule: Character concept always come first. Crunch serves fluff, not vice-versa. Interesting and fun overrules powerful, always, and the game is about playing a role in a story in a world to be explored, not about winning.

2. Observation: Character concepts usually incorporate something the character is good at. e.g. "An elf/succubus tiefling with a strong family connection, a fondness of jewellery and a decent case of PTSD after being dragged into the bloodwars who has a pet snake, roams around the countryside and leaps about the battlefield wielding two swords. A character that isn't good at the thing they're meant to be good at is frustrating.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

You can't just make up a fallacy as a group and decide it is suddenly a valid argument to defend your rule-abuse. You don't need to optimize to be effective, the game is not designed around optimization. The "Optimization" mindset that took over these boards when I took my extended break from them is just...the worst.

No one here is defending rules "abuse"--likely because "obscure and powerful combination" is not equivalent to "abuse". The Stormwind Fallacy simply states "Optimization and roleplaying are not mutually exclusive." That's it. It doesn't say optimizers are necessarily good roleplayers, it doesn't say you must accept optimized builds in your game as a DM, it doesn't make any other value judgments at all. All it says is that people who claim that optimization and roleplaying (or optimization and fluff, as someone said upthread) are intrinsically opposed are wrong, because it's perfectly possible to do both well, and just because a person thinks they're opposed or may not have come across someone who can both optimize well and roleplay well does not give them leave to call optimizers derogatory terms or claim that roleplaying is superior to "rollplaying" or whatever else.

[Alchemistmerlin]

To answer the original poster's question more directly than I did.

I would not allow those combinations in my game unless they had a decent story behind it (Which would be hard at level 1, where my games usually start), or there was precedent in the world.


Given that I give my players freedom to make up whole tribes and nations if they'd like, they're free to attempt shape the world around their concept, though I'll still likely turn down things that sound ridiculous/don't fit with the surrounding area.

However, the argument that "Well there's less than a 2% chance of that existing!", I don't feel is a very good argument against. The players in a game are not meant to be "average joes" they are supposed to be outliers, and it makes total sense for them to be Orc Paladins or Undead Priests, even if such a thing would be exceedingly rare, because Adventurers SHOULD be exceedingly rare. Heroes are rare.


I understand I am contradicting myself. :smalltongue: But I feel its usually pretty easy to tell when a player wants a concept because "That would be really cool!" or "That would make a fun story!" as opposed to "That would be so super strong!"

[Prime32]

There's a specific reason that "Optimization" is a technical term...it has nothing to do with fluff.

I would even go so far as to say that Optimization is inherently opposed to fluff.Suppose someone wants to play a Death Seeker (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DeathSeeker) type. An martial artist feared throughout the land for his insane power, who is seeking an opponent strong enough to defeat him.

The player picks the monk class and ends up the weakest member of his party. He attacks a random guard and misses, then dies to a critical hit from his axe.


What would you suggest?

[Gullintanni]

You can't just make up a fallacy as a group and decide it is suddenly a valid argument to defend your rule-abuse. You don't need to optimize to be effective, the game is not designed around optimization. The "Optimization" mindset that took over these boards when I took my extended break from them is just...the worst.


Whoa hold on. Rules abuse =/= character optimization. Optimization is simply the act of picking up feats, class features and PrC's that result in the maximum possible power with the least amount of drawback. Druid 20 + Natural Spell could easily be considered Optimized, just because it's, mechanically speaking, that damned good. Nothing about Optimization demands that it be convoluted or couched in rules lawyering. It just means buying phenomenal cosmic power for lowest conceivable cost. In the case of Druid 20, 1 feat.

Given your mindset, that Stormwind is invalid, then because Druid 20 + Natural spell could be considered well optimized, it is a bad build for roleplaying. Power is power. Roleplaying is Roleplaying. Some players do one well. Some players do both well. Some players do neither well. But it is absolutely false to say that no player can combine both well.

Stormwind is not the result of an arbitrary decision to "create" a fallacy. Rather, it is the result of an observation that a myriad of players had, and someone (Stormwind) decided to name it.


No one here is defending rules "abuse"--likely because "obscure and powerful combination" is not equivalent to "abuse". The Stormwind Fallacy simply states "Optimization and roleplaying are not mutually exclusive."

Basically, this.

[druid91]

You can't just make up a fallacy as a group and decide it is suddenly a valid argument to defend your rule-abuse. You don't need to optimize to be effective, the game is not designed around optimization. The "Optimization" mindset that took over these boards when I took my extended break from them is just...the worst.



That's just ridiculous.

... Uh, yes we can. Its how every other fallacy ever was made.

And yes yes you do. And yes it is.

To do anything you have to focus on what you want your character to be, noone in that game could say Isaac wasn't an interesting and fun character. He could kill squads of armed and armoured githyanki troops with his bare hands. Without breaking a sweat, He was chopped to pieces and sat there laughing with his throat missing while he stabilized.

You have to optomize to do anything. Not optomizing is taking your first level as commoner and spending your money on food and a cart & mule.

[Alchemistmerlin]

Not optomizing is taking your first level as commoner and spending your money on food and a cart & mule.

That sounds like it has the potential to be an amazingly fun game.

[Prime32]

Whoa hold on. Rules abuse =/= character optimization. Optimization is simply the act of picking up feats, class features and PrC's that result in the maximum possible power with the least amount of drawback. Druid 20 + Natural Spell could easily be considered Optimized, just because it's, mechanically speaking, that damned good. Nothing about Optimization demands that it be convoluted or couched in rules lawyering. It just means buying phenomenal cosmic power for lowest conceivable cost. In the case of Druid 20, 1 feat.Correction: Optimisation is picking things which help you achieve your goal. So if you want to make a guy good at wielding two weapons at once, you choose Two-Weapon Fighting rather than Power Attack.


That sounds like it has the potential to be an amazingly fun game.That's probably how Spice & Wolf (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WolfAndSpice) started. :smalltongue: Though honestly, there are probably better games for that than D&D. Unless you make dealing with superpowerful adventurers part of the plot. (which I've seen lead to much hilarity)

High-optimisation games can be awesome too though. I recall one where a band with a sentient airship and a small army of groupies flew into Riedra to perform a concert while trying to hide their connection with the kalashtar resistance, and another where a group of legendary figures and servants of deities travelled back in time to kill Pun-Pun (my favorite part: when they payed an aboleth for information by letting one of their party members be eaten and resurrected :smalltongue:).

[Gullintanni]

Correction: Optimization is picking things which help you achieve your goal. So if you want to make a guy good at wielding two weapons at once, you choose Two-Weapon Fighting rather than Power Attack.

op·ti·mized, op·ti·miz·ing, op·ti·miz·es
1. To make as perfect or effective as possible.
2. Computer Science To increase the computing speed and efficiency of (a program), as by rewriting instructions.
3. To make the most of.

optimize, optimise [ˈɒptɪˌmaɪz]
vb
1. (tr) to take the full advantage of
2. (Business / Commerce) (tr) to plan or carry out (an economic activity) with maximum efficiency
3. (intr) to be optimistic
4. (Electronics & Computer Science / Computer Science) (tr) to write or modify (a computer program) to achieve maximum efficiency in storage capacity, time, cost, etc.
5. (tr) to find the best compromise among several often conflicting requirements, as in engineering design

Emphasis mine. Optimization is specifically the act of setting a goal, and then eliminating every less than perfect choice. Where this approach causes conflicts, then options which create sub-optimal conditions are discarded in favour of compromise. Or, in the context of DnD this:


...maximum possible power with the least amount of drawback.

Replace power with your preferred adjective. Effectiveness, competence...how you characterize it is ultimately irrelevant to the point being made. The core concept remains unchanged.

[ImperatorK]

There's a specific reason that "Optimization" is a technical term...it has nothing to do with fluff.

I would even go so far as to say that Optimization is inherently opposed to fluff.
Blasphemy!!!

[big teej]

Let's take Dragonborn water Orc or Venerable Dragonwrought desert Kobold.

Suppose you're playing in a world with racial variants and dragons (pretty reasonable, I think). Then surely there's a lair of desert Kobolds somewhere. 1% of them or so (don't have RotD handy) are Dragonwrought. And then... some of them are probably really old. So venerable Draonwrought desert Kobolds exist and you choose to play as one.

Then water Orcs also exist. A few people feel the calling of Bahamut and one of them is a water Orc. So you have Dragonborn water Orcs... and you play as one.

Personally, I don't play characters like this, but as a DM I'd allow both (probably). Just wondering how others feel.

if they're taking it to op (as in the given example)
I'd tell them "no"

if they REALLY liked the idea of a waterorc who worshipped the god of dragons.

I would inform them that they are a singularity, and will be treated as such.

sorta like elf barbarians, I have no place for them in my world, but if somebody REALLY wanted to play one, I'd let them pick what barbaric race ACTUALLY raised them.

in summary: I feel the same about "semi-extreme" op as I do about game breaking

"don't, not at my table, at least not if you plan to come back"

[ShneekeyTheLost]

People can't just make up a fallacy as a group and decide it is suddenly a valid argument to defend rule-abuse. You don't need to optimize to be effective, the game is not designed around optimization. The "Optimization" mindset that took over these boards when I took my extended break from them is just...the worst.

I have an eight page thread (and growing) that pretty much directly contradicts you.

Give me any RP fluff background you want to... I will make it a mechanically viable build. I've done it for others already, and other forumites have chimed in as well with some options I had never considered.

We can build it! We have the sourcebooks!

[Prime32]

sorta like elf barbarians, I have no place for them in my world, but if somebody REALLY wanted to play one, I'd let them pick what barbaric race ACTUALLY raised them.Why do they need to come from a barbaric race? Why can't they just be an angry guy, like Sir Lancelot? :smallconfused:

[Tyndmyr]

Rock it. I'll list the banned items initially. This will include any infinite/arbitrarily high looping mechanism.

Merely good combinations of elements that are highly synergistic will result in high fives, not punishment.

[Ravens_cry]

As long as everyone is optimizing by similar levels and everyone enjoys it, sure, it's OK. My one exception is when the optimization abuse the rules as rules, rather then as a way to play a world. The classic one is bucket healing, or how, by RAW, drowning someone at negative hit points will 'reset' their hitpoints to 0. Some of the abuses of magic traps and cursed items also qualify for me.

[faceroll]

Stormwind would have words for you, I think. Optimization and Fluff can, and often do, live very happily together.

Look at the Uttercold Assault Necromancer. He can throw coldfire-negative energy fireballs around that heal him and his undead minions while still being a Wizard at everything else. The fluff is awesome. And what of the Bearbarian Bearing himself into battle on Bearback in the form of a Bear while Bearing down on his enemies with his unBearably awesome Bear-Fu? Its more Bear than your Bears can Bear!! And it's fun!

Both builds optimize different roles, and while they don't necessarily represent the peak of power in 3.5 the same way Pun-Pun does, they do min-max the hell out of their respective roles.

Life at the top is great, it's fun, and it's flavorful. You just need to be creative :smallsmile:

If I want to play an optimized cleric, I pick the domains Undeath and Planning. I may up a few levels in Church Inquisitor. I use a two handed weapon to attack people with. My feats are all spent on Divine Metamagic.

But what if I want to play a rowdy, chaotic, rough-and-tumble cleric of Kord, who picks up unarmed strike and TWFs? Not optimized. But in an optimization paradigm, there's no room for my cleric. Actually I could probably do it with DMM just fine, just would come online later and suck at his intended roll for quite some time. That, and there are inherent weaknesses in the TWF mechanic that are hard to cover with a cleric's strength.

In other words, I could optimize my concept, but playing an optimized cleric? Not possible with my concept, because I have a mechanically poor deity and fighting style.

The problem with high levels of optimization isn't that there's no room for fluff, it's just that every one has to use the same fluff to justify their mechanical choices.


If the player's explanation for that is that the character fell into a magic cauldron when he was young, and mutated into this huge, horned, never-before seen monster thing, whatever. :smalltongue:
"This race doesn't exist in my setting" hasn't been much of a problem either. If a player needs a race that has ability score bonuses of Str +4, Con +2, all mental stats -2 for optimization purposes, but I hadn't intended to include orcs in the setting... applying the eraser to "water orc" in the racial line and replacing it with "strong stupid human" or something isn't very difficult.

Players optimizing to different degrees is a separate issue.

I much prefer the second solution to the first.


People can't just make up a fallacy as a group and decide it is suddenly a valid argument to defend rule-abuse. You don't need to optimize to be effective, the game is not designed around optimization.

It really depends on the kind of game you are running. The caveat here is that 3.5 is large enough to pretty much run whatever you want it to, with a bit of finesse, but there are some really brutal Gygaxian holdovers in the fiend folio, monster manual I&II. The beholder, at what, CR 10? gets up to like 4 save-or-dies a round. That's pretty brutal.

I've run low-op parties from level 1 to 15. The game changes in a really big way around level 8, and you need to be aware of it, otherwise things get very, very hard.

So in general, I would agree with you, but certain things DO require optimization. Or at least an awareness of character weaknesses. A fighter with weapon awesomeness spectacular focus in bastard swords can still kill things, he just needs to know that he should buy potions of protection from evil and fly, because his brain and lack of flight are his two biggest weaknesses once he hits the midlevels.


Why do they need to come from a barbaric race? Why can't they just be an angry guy, like Sir Lancelot? :smallconfused:

To be fair, the Britons were a pretty barbaric race.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

If I want to play an optimized cleric, I pick the domains Undeath and Planning. I may up a few levels in Church Inquisitor. I use a two handed weapon to attack people with. My feats are all spent on Divine Metamagic.

But what if I want to play a rowdy, chaotic, rough-and-tumble cleric of Kord, who picks up unarmed strike and TWFs? Not optimized. But in an optimization paradigm, there's no room for my cleric. Actually I could probably do it with DMM just fine, just would come online later and suck at his intended roll for quite some time. That, and there are inherent weaknesses in the TWF mechanic that are hard to cover with a cleric's strength.

In other words, I could optimize my concept, but playing an optimized cleric? Not possible with my concept, because I have a mechanically poor deity and fighting style.

The problem with high levels of optimization isn't that there's no room for fluff, it's just that every one has to use the same fluff to justify their mechanical choices.

If you'll pardon my bluntness, this is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Optimization is not about making the best possible character; if it were, no one would play anything but Druid/Planar Shepherds or Wizard/Tainted Scholars or the like. Optimization is taking a concept and making the best example of that concept you can. Cindy the metamagic-abusing Mailman build is an (if not the most) optimized blaster, not because blasting is the best use of arcane casting, but because it takes the concept of "I want to kill things with damage and I don't want anything to stop me" and builds to that.

Likewise, nothing is stopping you from building an optimized TWFing unarmed cleric of Kord; it'd probably involve chaos monk and sacred fist, maybe saint if you're fighting mostly evil things and can fit it in there, maybe Shiba protector if you're going for a SAD Wis build, but the exact specs don't matter at the moment. The point is that that cleric wouldn't be as powerful as a Power Attacking DMM Persist Clericzilla, but it is optimized--can be very well optimized, in fact--to take what you want to do and express it in the most mechanically optimal manner.

This misunderstanding is, I think, at the heart of the "rollplaying vs. roleplaying" debate; the people on the "roleplayer" side of the argument hear "optimized wizard" and think "OMG! Tainted scholar! Incantatrix! Broken evil munchkins!" while the people on the "rollplayer" side of the argument hear the same and think "What kind of optimized wizard? A blaster? Go for incantatrix. A buffer? Go for war weaver. A minionmancer? Actually, you'd be better served as a beguiler, and dip mindbender while you're at it." Optimization is a spectrum, not a binary property.

[Gullintanni]

The problem with high levels of optimization isn't that there's no room for fluff, it's just that every one has to use the same fluff to justify their mechanical choices.


This isn't necessarily true at all. Again, Stormwind wants a word. If the problem you're having is, "I want to play a TWFighter, then I can't be a Cleric of Kord, it's not optimized." then I suggest you revise your process.

Start with the premise, "I want to play a TWF Cleric of Kord. Time to start optimizing". Optimization is not about achieveing the most powerful character in the game, otherwise we'd all be running around with level 6 Kobold over-deities. Optimization is about grabbing a concept you like and making the most powerful possible permutation of said character.

And frankly, as much as TWF is a lousy choice for almost any character, a Cleric is still a Cleric. You can still be better at TWF than a Fighter.

EDIT: Ninja'd pretty much entirely by the post above. But it's an argument that merits mentioning twice.

[faceroll]

If you'll pardon my bluntness, this is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Optimization is not about making the best possible character; if it were, no one would play anything but Druid/Planar Shepherds or Wizard/Tainted Scholars or the like. Optimization is taking a concept and making the best example of that concept you can. Cindy the metamagic-abusing Mailman build is an (if not the most) optimized blaster, not because blasting is the best use of arcane casting, but because it takes the concept of "I want to kill things with damage and I don't want anything to stop me" and builds to that.

Mailmen builds are extremely efficient, probably the most efficient character builds barring very high levels of action abuse. There are literally only a handful of defenses vs. a proper mailman build, and as a wizard, you have sufficient abilities to circumvent those defenses.


stuff.

That's nice.
But again, in a game with, and I quote the OP here, semi-extreme but not game breaking levels of optimization, DMM persist abuse is going to result in some pansy lich-worshipping cleric outfighting my cleric of a god of strength and brawling. From like level 1, too. If I am going into Shiba protector, I am pretty much lighting my feats on fire, followed by my caster level.


stuff

Yeah bro, you're missing what I'm saying. Given an environment with a certain level of optimization present, certain ideas pretty much have to be parked due to the inherent limitations in some mechanics that would match with your fluff.

The biggest issue being the schism between magic users and non-magic users. The best you can achieve is low T3 (ToB material). You just won't be able to compete in a T1 environment. The very best brawlers are actually full casters. So despite forsaking magic to train your body, the wizard prepares three spells and is just as strong as you, and still is a wizard.

[Taelas]

People can't just make up a fallacy as a group and decide it is suddenly a valid argument to defend rule-abuse. You don't need to optimize to be effective, the game is not designed around optimization. The "Optimization" mindset that took over these boards when I took my extended break from them is just...the worst.

Two points.

Fallacies are not "made up". Something is either a fallacy, or it is not. A fallacy is a flawed logical argument. A fallacy can be a strawman, if no one has actually put forth the argument the fallacy represents, but the Stormwind Fallacy has been put forth many, many times.

Secondly, optimization is not automatically rule-abuse. Rule-abuse is the realm of theoretical optimization, i.e. Pun-Pun. If something is abusing rules to do something they are probably not intended to do, it is theoretical, not practical, optimization.

[faceroll]

If something is abusing rules to do something they are probably not intended to do, it is theoretical, not practical, optimization.

Interesting.
I would suspect most optimization tricks do something that they weren't intended to do. GOD wizards, for instance, seem to fall greatly outside the blaster archetype, and play hell on encounter balance.

[Alchemistmerlin]

If you'll pardon my bluntness, this is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Optimization is not about making the best possible character; if it were, no one would play anything but Druid/Planar Shepherds or Wizard/Tainted Scholars or the like. Optimization is taking a concept and making the best example of that concept you can. Cindy the metamagic-abusing Mailman build is an (if not the most) optimized blaster, not because blasting is the best use of arcane casting, but because it takes the concept of "I want to kill things with damage and I don't want anything to stop me" and builds to that.

Likewise, nothing is stopping you from building an optimized TWFing unarmed cleric of Kord; it'd probably involve chaos monk and sacred fist, maybe saint if you're fighting mostly evil things and can fit it in there, maybe Shiba protector if you're going for a SAD Wis build, but the exact specs don't matter at the moment. The point is that that cleric wouldn't be as powerful as a Power Attacking DMM Persist Clericzilla, but it is optimized--can be very well optimized, in fact--to take what you want to do and express it in the most mechanically optimal manner.

This misunderstanding is, I think, at the heart of the "rollplaying vs. roleplaying" debate; the people on the "roleplayer" side of the argument hear "optimized wizard" and think "OMG! Tainted scholar! Incantatrix! Broken evil munchkins!" while the people on the "rollplayer" side of the argument hear the same and think "What kind of optimized wizard? A blaster? Go for incantatrix. A buffer? Go for war weaver. A minionmancer? Actually, you'd be better served as a beguiler, and dip mindbender while you're at it." Optimization is a spectrum, not a binary property.

I think the heart of it is this:

Definition of OPTIMIZE
transitive verb
: to make as perfect, effective, or functional as possible

[PairO'Dice Lost]

That's nice.
But again, in a game with, and I quote the OP here, semi-extreme but not game breaking levels of optimization, DMM persist abuse is going to result in some pansy lich-worshipping cleric outfighting my cleric of a god of strength and brawling. From like level 1, too. If I am going into Shiba protector, I am pretty much lighting my feats on fire, followed by my caster level.

In any party with two characters of the same class, one is going to overshadow the other unless they're carbon copies of one another. Even a pair of truenamers can have a power disparity if one picks up Skill Focus (Truespeak) and the other picks up Item Familiar. You didn't say you were worried about being overshadowed by another cleric, you said your TWFing cleric was unoptimized, which is not at all the case; you can take any concept and optimize it as much or as little as possible.

If you had a Power Attacking DMM: Persist cleric of Nerull in the party, however, all is not lost, as you can simply optimize for different things. Sure, the PA DMM CN is going to probably do more damage, but your unarmed TWFer can go for, say, Stunning Fist stuff and better combat maneuvers if you go the chaos monk/cleric/sacred fist route, or emphasize reach and number of attacks, or a number of other things. One player playing a character of class X with the same schtick as another class X member of the party is really a player problem rather than an optimization problem--again, even if you're just throwing two unoptimized fighters or rogues or whatever into the same party, you're going to have some overlap and overshadowing--and that doesn't mean you can't optimize your TWFing cleric.


Interesting.
I would suspect most optimization tricks do something that they weren't intended to do. GOD wizards, for instance, seem to fall greatly outside the blaster archetype, and play hell on encounter balance.

There's a difference between rules abuse and unintended rules usage. Rules abuse is becoming immune to the drawbacks of taint as a Tainted Scholar, or binding efreet for free wishes, or the like. Unintended rules usage is...well, practically anything beyond the blasty/healy/smashy/sneaky party, to be honest. There's definitely a gray area there, but in general TO is actively detrimental to the game where PO is merely powerful--polymorph is a powerful spell but isn't really harmful to the game, whereas permanently polymorphing into a dragon and getting all of its powers on top of your own can bring your game to a screeching halt.

[Prime32]

I think the heart of it is this:

Definition of OPTIMIZE
transitive verb
: to make as perfect, effective, or functional as possibleHowever, perfect for what? Functional at what? You could say that Pun-Pun is completely non-functional since he makes the game irrelevant. Likewise, if you set out to make a normal guy who weaves baskets then building the Omniscifier is terrible optimisation.

[Big Fau]

: to make as perfect, effective, or functional as possible

As possible. AKA Whatever the DM is OK with, or with whatever the OP asked for. We do not tell people who want to play melee characters "Play a DMM: Persist Cleric" or "Play a Planar Shepherd". We tell them "Why don't you try a Warblade/Crusader/Incarnate/Totemist/Psychic Warrior?"


If the goal of Min-Maxing were not constrained by common sense, the only advice we'd give to people would be "Play Pun-Pun".

[NecroRick]

There's a specific reason that "Optimization" is a technical term...it has nothing to do with fluff.

I would even go so far as to say that Optimization is inherently opposed to fluff.

In my limited experience I find that the more I play, and the more interesting the character fluff is, the more crucial it is that I do the research and optimisation to get all the ducks in a row as far as character design goes.

Here's a really simple example, let's say I want feats X,Y and Z to make my concept work. Now, if I shuffle things around so that I qualify for X at level 3, Y at 6 and Z at 9, then that character is going to have a much easier time of it than if they qualify at 4, 8 and 12.

This is not theoretical either, I had worked really hard to take an oddball combo and make it work. I wanted three feats, one I can get at 6, and the other two I couldn't get before 10. That means I'm buying X, Y and Z at levels 6, 12 and 15. However I recently realised there _was_ a way to get one of the two later feats at level 9 instead of 15... I just had to throw out (read as: delay) my entry into the target prestige class.

But here's the thing with prestige classes - the good ones are (usually) obviously much more powerful the sooner you can get into them. Ur Priest isn't especially broken if you don't even start on it till level 12 (for instance). Dual progression classes (whether caster/caster or caster/gimp) are obviously much better the earlier you go into them.

E.g. at level 20 cleric 5/wizard 5/dual prog 10 is exactly the same as cleric 3/wizard 1/dual prog 10/cleric 2/wizard 4... but at level 14 there is a significant difference: 9/9 casting vs 13/11

Optimisation is often necessary simply to qualify for the fluff you want down the track. E.g. at one stage I was looking at doing Monk 2/Druid 4 to qualify for Sun School, then another 3 levels in Druid to get lvl 4 spells and qualfy for the reserve teleporting, but the only lvl 4 teleport spell is Dimension Door... which _is_ available in divine form via the travel domain, but Druids don't get domains, but Seeker of the Misty Isle prestige class grants that domain, but you have to be an elf or a half elf and you need lots of ranks in survival... does the Druid get survival as a class skill? Yes they do... phew.

Now, okay so the combo exists (Note: I'm not saying it's a *good* combo, just that it was one that I had considered - I thought it might be 'cool' to have a crack at it). But if I don't figure out the combo till the character is level 5 or 6, it's way too late to retroactively go back and decide to be an elf! If I don't discover the combo till the level just before I could qualify for the prestige class, I probably don't have the skill points allocated 'correctly' etc.

In other examples, given that the competition for feat slots at 3rd and 6th level is so strong, you often need to take certain feats at level 1, and you might not even use them till you get to level 7 or 8 (and then only for entry to the particular prestige class you want).

It is hard to decide halfway through your character's career that because of the way things have worked out (on the roleplaying side - e.g. maybe instead of a shining beacon of hope you've turned into a cyncical grizzled old veteran) you want to aim for a different prestige class. One of them required combat casting and toughness, the other one requires combat reflexes, tracking and dogged stoicism. Whoops. *bzzt* thank you for playing.

Now, okay, what you do in those situations is sit down with your DM and see if you can work something out. Because as always, the DM is the arbiter, judge and executioner of the rules. But the *system* as designed has this unfortunate 'trickle down' effect whereby where your character will be N levels from now influences you all the way back down to level 1. And if your DM doesn't like the re-training optional rules (for whatever reason, maybe someone abused them in the past, or maybe they don't like that sourcebook) then you're stuffed.

[Big Fau]

I would even go so far as to say that Optimization is inherently opposed to fluff.

BS. Fluff is mutable, crunch is not. Optimizing crunch has no impact on fluff, as fluff only exists in whatever form the DM allows.


While you cannot optimize fluff (at least from a mechanical standpoint), you can alter it so it works for your character.

[NecroRick]

Interesting.
I would suspect most optimization tricks do something that they weren't intended to do. GOD wizards, for instance, seem to fall greatly outside the blaster archetype, and play hell on encounter balance.

From the discussions I've seen on the boards, things like God Wizards and Pun-Pun (Prime32's prime [sic] example) rely on bullying the DM into either ignoring all the obvious balance rules ("oh, don't worry about that, that's just flavour text, now... just sign on the dotted line") or bullying the DM into accepting grossly distorted interpretations of the spells/rules in question.

For Wizards the way to keep them in check is two-fold: make them play from level 1 (regardless of whatever level the other characters play at), and secondly to limit the access to what spells they can put in their spellbook. The player will say "but surely any scroll I can buy I can scribe?" sure, so start by limiting their access to scrolls.

If the Wizard getting teleport is going to break all your adventure ideas, don't ever let him get teleport. It's really not that hard.

----

But this is just the obvious implementation of the general principle - if the DM is weak (or ignorant) and lets the players do whatever they want, then yes, some of them will abuse that to become more powerful than they 'should' be.

DMs *need* to be good at saying "no" to the players. Odds are someone in the group is better at abusing the rules and twisting wordings around. Rules are like multiple choices in an exam... you look at them and your initial reaction, your gut feel about the spell or rule and how it works is usually the correct one. It doesn't matter if some obscure and contorted torturing of the language can pop answer (a) as being correct some of the time, if your gut feel is that (b) is the correct answer then go with (b), and the rules-lawyers can go "whistle dixie".

[Arundel]

Interesting.
I would suspect most optimization tricks do something that they weren't intended to do. GOD wizards, for instance, seem to fall greatly outside the blaster archetype, and play hell on encounter balance.

Did I miss wear it said in the wizard class description that wizards are blasters? Chain trip fighters probably aren't what the dev team had in mind either.

[Big Fau]

Did I miss wear it said in the wizard class description that wizards are blasters? Chain trip fighters probably aren't what the dev team had in mind either.

Pick one:

When one of the Devs said Flaming Sphere/Meteor Swarm were good Battlefield Control spells (a pre-4E preview thread, but in reference to the 3E spell).

All of the times they advocated Evocation as a specialty school.

All of the sample spell lists for Dragons.

Any pre-made Wizard/Sorcerer NPC.

[Coidzor]

When I say cheesy stuff I mean... for the right classes, Dragonborn Water Orc is waaaaaaaaaaay better than almost any other LA +0 race you can find.

You mean other than plain old boring Human, natch. :smallamused:

We need a way to say "chosen for mechanical reasons" instead of just using the blanket term "cheese." I think that'd clear up a lot of people talking past each other...

[PairO'Dice Lost]

From the discussions I've seen on the boards, things like God Wizards and Pun-Pun (Prime32's prime [sic] example) rely on bullying the DM into either ignoring all the obvious balance rules ("oh, don't worry about that, that's just flavour text, now... just sign on the dotted line") or bullying the DM into accepting grossly distorted interpretations of the spells/rules in question.

Theoretical Optimization, such as Pun-Pun, relies on rules-as-written without DM intervention, and is never meant to be played; obviously a DM would say no to Pun-Pun (more like "NO!" :smallwink:) in an actual game, but that's the entire point--TO points out loopholes, strange rule combos, and such in a "look what you can make the rules do!" way rather than in a "Oh boy, I'm going to screw over my game!" way. However, TO is still perfectly legal by the rules, no cheating or ignoring of rules involved, and quite often TO even errs on the side of conservative readings of vague rules to make finding loopholes more challenging.

Practical Optimization, such as GOD wizards, relies on neither ignoring nor twisting the rules. I challenge you to find a single spell in the God Wizard handbook that is overly powerful due to vague wording or wording shenanigans. I can tell you right now that you're not going to find any, and that even conservative readings make them quite powerful. As with TO, PO is also perfectly rules-legal, and quite often relies on "reasonable DM" standards to determine what shouldn't see play in real games.


For Wizards the way to keep them in check is two-fold: make them play from level 1 (regardless of whatever level the other characters play at),

...seriously? :smallconfused: There's no reason to think that would help at all, seeing as that rule (A) contradicts every piece of party composition advice in the DMG and (B) would just ensure that no one plays wizards, in which case it's easier to ban them.


and secondly to limit the access to what spells they can put in their spellbook. The player will say "but surely any scroll I can buy I can scribe?" sure, so start by limiting their access to scrolls.

If the Wizard getting teleport is going to break all your adventure ideas, don't ever let him get teleport. It's really not that hard.

Do note that the wizard's free level-up spells don't come from scrolls, so you have to handle this out of game ("Hey Joe, I'd really rather you didn't...."), not in-game ("You can't find any scrolls of...."). Trying to fix an OOG problem in-game never turns out well.


But this is just the obvious implementation of the general principle - if the DM is weak (or ignorant) and lets the players do whatever they want, then yes, some of them will abuse that to become more powerful than they 'should' be.

DMs *need* to be good at saying "no" to the players. Odds are someone in the group is better at abusing the rules and twisting wordings around. Rules are like multiple choices in an exam... you look at them and your initial reaction, your gut feel about the spell or rule and how it works is usually the correct one. It doesn't matter if some obscure and contorted torturing of the language can pop answer (a) as being correct some of the time, if your gut feel is that (b) is the correct answer then go with (b), and the rules-lawyers can go "whistle dixie".

Frankly, from your tone and suggested solutions, I'm going to go out on a limb and say you don't know the rules very well. Anyone who suggests that most casters rely on rules abuse to be powerful and that starting wizards off at level 1 when the rest of the party is of higher level, or that DM fiat is required to rein players in and that you should always go with what "feels right" rather than what the rules say, really needs to sit down and look at the rules again, because said person would quickly find that while the most powerful and frequently-banned options are open ended things like polymorph, gate, miracle, etc., everything but those top-tier options are all clean, clear, explicit, and ironclad. Color spray says here's what happens if you fail a Will save, Evard's black tentacles is nothing but grappling, and so forth--and there are a lot more of those explicit spells than there are open-ended DM-approval-required spells.

[LordBlades]

From the discussions I've seen on the boards, things like God Wizards and Pun-Pun (Prime32's prime [sic] example) rely on bullying the DM into either ignoring all the obvious balance rules ("oh, don't worry about that, that's just flavour text, now... just sign on the dotted line") or bullying the DM into accepting grossly distorted interpretations of the spells/rules in question.

For Wizards the way to keep them in check is two-fold: make them play from level 1 (regardless of whatever level the other characters play at), and secondly to limit the access to what spells they can put in their spellbook. The player will say "but surely any scroll I can buy I can scribe?" sure, so start by limiting their access to scrolls.

If the Wizard getting teleport is going to break all your adventure ideas, don't ever let him get teleport. It's really not that hard.


God wizards rely simply on using spells as intended, expect that instead of what the designers thought it was fun (blowing stuff up), they pick the spells that really are effective.

Secondly, wizards are rather strong from level 1; how many low CR monsters have a less than horrible chance to make a DC 16 Will save? That's the DC for Color Spray or Sleep from a 1st level wizard with 20 int.

Third, trying to limit a wizard in-game is an exercise in futility. They get 2 free spells at each level that they can freely pick, and also get a bunch of spells for finding stuff. If there's a scroll/spellbook containing Teleport in the campaign world, you can be sure sooner or later wizard will find it and take it.

[faceroll]

There's a difference between rules abuse and unintended rules usage. Rules abuse is becoming immune to the drawbacks of taint as a Tainted Scholar, or binding efreet for free wishes, or the like. Unintended rules usage is...well, practically anything beyond the blasty/healy/smashy/sneaky party, to be honest. There's definitely a gray area there, but in general TO is actively detrimental to the game where PO is merely powerful--polymorph is a powerful spell but isn't really harmful to the game, whereas permanently polymorphing into a dragon and getting all of its powers on top of your own can bring your game to a screeching halt.

Ok. I wasn't the one defining things poorly.


BS. Fluff is mutable, crunch is not. Optimizing crunch has no impact on fluff, as fluff only exists in whatever form the DM allows.


While you cannot optimize fluff (at least from a mechanical standpoint), you can alter it so it works for your character.

No one has ever adequately explained to me where this "fluff is whatever" attitude. The fluff is as RAW as any other rule.


DMs *need* to be good at saying "no" to the players. Odds are someone in the group is better at abusing the rules and twisting wordings around. Rules are like multiple choices in an exam... you look at them and your initial reaction, your gut feel about the spell or rule and how it works is usually the correct one. It doesn't matter if some obscure and contorted torturing of the language can pop answer (a) as being correct some of the time, if your gut feel is that (b) is the correct answer then go with (b), and the rules-lawyers can go "whistle dixie".

Hahaha, I don't think so bro. People look at crap like the psion and go "22d6 damage!? What were they thinking!!!!!" Hahaha, oh damage, how scary you seem.

No, the best way to tell if a spell is broken is how much text it requires to describe what it does. The really busted stuff takes up like a half page of rules.


Did I miss wear it said in the wizard class description that wizards are blasters? Chain trip fighters probably aren't what the dev team had in mind either.

Well I am glad you see the issues inherent with arguing RAI vs. RAW, but there's no need to be so passive aggressive.

[Heatwizard]

No one has ever adequately explained to me where this "fluff is whatever" attitude. The fluff is as RAW as any other rule.

The whole point of divvying it up between fluff and crunch is that fluff isn't the rules.

[faceroll]

The whole point of divvying it up between fluff and crunch is that fluff isn't the rules.

Where in the rules is such a division made between rules and not rules?

[Darth_Versity]

To be fair, the Britons were a pretty barbaric race.

Im sorry but this just made me laugh. During medieval times who wasn't a barbaric race? Briton just proved to be the ones who came out on top in most of the fighting!


As for light optimisation, i'd say its required in most games, but a lot of people still take this attitude that simple optimasation is detrimental to the game, so i'll give an example.

I wanted to play a Wizard, but the way my DM had set up his game all arcane classes had to have an equal amount of divine casting. So I opted for Mystic Theurge to make the dual progression work. At first I thought of Cleric 3/Wizard 3, but then I learned of Archivist and their INT synergy with Wizards. So it was Archivist 3/ Wizard 3. But then I found out about Precocious Apprentice to get a second level Wizard Spell at lvl 1. That changed the entry to Archivist 3/ Wizard 1 and I got into the PrC early.

Now a Mystic Theurge is not very strong option, but that is what I wanted and I made an optimised version of that build. If I had wanted to be uber powerful then I would have used an Archivist 20 build, but that wasn't my goal. I didn't pick my class or feat for the fluff, I picked it for the mechanical benefit as it made my character better at the thing I wanted him to be good at. Does that make me a Power Gamer? No. It just makes me good at my job.

I then came up with a backstory explaining how I wanted to gather every single Arcane and Divine spell ever made and start a magic library with them and I was all set.


The whole point of divvying it up between fluff and crunch is that fluff isn't the rules.

I think the biggest proof of this is the adaption section of most classes. I think Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil is a good one. The adaption is to to change it to a series of seven magic verses, or books, or seven anything! It pretty says "take all the fluff we put in for this class and throw it away and make stuff up, it doesn't matter'

The only time I believe fluff on PrC or feat is truly important is when its setting specific as that lets you know how certain organizations adn such work. The rest of the time you just make it fit round your campain world.

[Heatwizard]

Where in the rules is such a division made between rules and not rules?

Frequently, the bit after classes talking about how the class interacts with the rest of the world and such has a section recommending alternate fluff if you find the current aesthetic undesirable for your purposes and want to throw it out. Binder talks about how you could rewrite all the vestiges as divine/demonic if all that Lovecraftian "wayward soul denied both life and death, falling through the cracks past the frayed and dissolving edges of time and space, becoming alien and warped" just won't gel with your campaign, for one. Radiant Servant of Pelor says you should feel right at home ripping Pelor's name off the class and subbing in a local sun-related deity. Aforementioned Initiate of the Sevenfold Whatever-you-please.

[Serpentine]

I think the DMG probably has a lot of support for it, too. Even if it's not explicitly stated, I'd say it's even more standard than things like "Monks are proficient with their fists" :smallconfused:

[Heatwizard]

Also! In the PHB, the chapter on classes goes over the template they use to describe them, and what all this stuff means in terms of the rules. Notably absent are things oft considered fluff, like where these classes come from or what alignment they usually are(paladin-style restrictions are name-checked, but that's a feature).

So, it says in a lot of places, is what we're saying.

[Kojiro]

Well, the way I've seen it, character concept should at least make sense. If you combine whatever in a manner that is ultra-powerful, but just fails as a thing that could actually happen in the world, then, well, obviously, that's bad. However, taking a character idea, like "axe-wielding, crazy barbarian", "dagger-throwing, fast-talking thief", or "wizard with a specialization in fire and thunder spells", and then making it really good within those constraints (and without sacrificing the character idea for extra, possibly unnecessary effectiveness), that's not inherently bad. Like, that last one, the wizard could take Energy Affinity (I think I saw it in the Miniatures book, it caught my eye because it sounded neat, even if, upon reading, it wasn't all too spectacular) two times for his two elements, and hopefully not abuse the more ridiculous spells out there (although if the DM thought of it he may have disallowed certain things already), and, well, while it'll still be dangerously effective, being a wizard and all, it's not inherently game breaking (beyond the wizard's natural game-breaking state, I mean). Optimization to a certain extent (yes, I've read the dictionary definition, but at least in the commonly-used sense it's a thing that has several levels, so to speak) isn't bad, and in fact if your character is meant to be good at what they do it's a bit necessary to get that to be true in gameplay terms as well, but at the same time, as many, many threads here show, there is a point where it's gone too far.

Beyond that, well, most of what I think lines up with what's already stated (don't optimize several levels above what the rest of the party is doing, don't go overboard for what the DM's throwing at you, and so on), so restating it isn't really worth it.

[faceroll]

Also! In the PHB, the chapter on classes goes over the template they use to describe them, and what all this stuff means in terms of the rules. Notably absent are things oft considered fluff, like where these classes come from or what alignment they usually are(paladin-style restrictions are name-checked, but that's a feature).

So, it says in a lot of places, is what we're saying.

But it also says in many places "if you don't like these mechanics; don't use them, or change them."

[Serpentine]

Rule Zero applies both to fluff and crunch, but there's more advice on altering fluff and it's much easier than changing crunch.

[Darth_Versity]

Rule Zero applies both to fluff and crunch, but there's more advice on altering fluff and it's much easier than changing crunch.

^This

Changing fluff is easy, it can be done by anyone and makes no difference to game balance. Changing mechanics requires careful planning and in some cases, play testing. Admittedly WotC don't seem to plan or test anything but that doesn't mean we shouldn't either :smallwink:

[faceroll]

^This

Changing fluff is easy, it can be done by anyone and makes no difference to game balance. Changing mechanics requires careful planning and in some cases, play testing. Admittedly WotC don't seem to plan or test anything but that doesn't mean we shouldn't either :smallwink:

Ehh, you've got lightning warriors on one hand and drizzt clones on the other. Don't see much difference, tbh.