Why optimize?

[Planar]

Or rather; Why exercise high-optimization?

And, I am not talking about theoretical optimization, I am talking about parties apparently chuck full of Dragonwrought kobolds, Focused Specialist Conjurers, Mailman Sorcerers, Uber-chargers, Frenzied Berserkers and whatnot.

Do all your DMs throw enemies with CR+7 then your party? Is it a matter of inner-party competition? Why would an ECL 9 character who can dish out 40 damage per round consistently be regarded as "low-OP" while that is roughly 1/4 th of the hit points of CR-equivalent monsters? Or is it just a matter of personal taste?

Please share your opinions.

[ArcanaGuy]

Different players want different things to have fun. For some, the point is the story. For others, it's the challenge of overcoming all comers. For others, the sheer challenge of math-ing together an unstoppable character gives them great glee.

One way of looking at this is the 'types of gamers' found in the Gaming Bible or any of a number of other helpful GM toolkits which lays out how to figure out and create for different types of players.

Another way is looking at This Article (http://www.criticalmiss.com/issue8/ramblers1.html) from Critical Miss, which describes it in terms of Ramblers and Orienteers.

[Eldan]

I enjoy doing it. I think that's really it. I think it's an enjoyable passtime to dig through twenty books for an afternoon to find some new feat combo you've never used before.

Then, well. I've played 3.5 for what must be about ten years now. I started out playing an elf blaster wizard with 16 intelligence, 10 strength, 8 constitution and 18 dexterity (so he could use his cool longbow). My second character was a dual-wielding kobold druid. I'd like to think I've learned a thing or two since then.

I don't really optimize for high numbers. I optimize for tactics. I want to have a large variety of options in any given situation, since there's nothing I hate more than standing in front of a problem that I can't find a solution to. So, I aim at the higher tiers and some creative trickery purely for that.

And then, well. When all the talking fails, as it sometimes does, it is very enjoyable to throw diplomacy out of the window and utterly annihilate your enemy and part of the landscape around him for the next millennium.

[Amphetryon]

Or rather; Why exercise high-optimization?

And, I am not talking about theoretical optimization, I am talking about parties apparently chuck full of Dragonwrought kobolds, Focused Specialist Conjurers, Mailman Sorcerers, Uber-chargers, Frenzied Berserkers and whatnot.

Do all your DMs throw enemies with CR+7 then your party? Is it a matter of inner-party competition? Why would an ECL 9 character who can dish out 40 damage per round consistently be regarded as "low-OP" while that is roughly 1/4 th of the hit points of CR-equivalent monsters? Or is it just a matter of personal taste?

Please share your opinions.Some people like food with subtle flavors; some people like very spicy food. Neither preference is wrong. Optimizers generally prefer their characters very spicy; that's all.

[AmberVael]

In my experience, higher optimization of characters leads to more complex and tactical combat- assuming of course, that the DM does the same. If they don't and you just run over everything, it's boring and not worth it.

With a low optimization game, you're often left with few options, most of which impact combat in only small and minor ways. In high op you tend to have a much broader array of choices which will alter the course of battle- and when there are quite a few things that might take you out of the picture in one go if they land, you have to have a good balance between pushing and holding back, keeping enough resources to ensure you survive, while pushing your enemy enough to ensure that they don't.

Note: I don't actually consider frenzied berserkers and ubercharges high op. One trick ponies, even if they have a really potent trick, just can't compete in the kind of play I'm talking about here.

It's really only when I got into high optimization situations that I truly started to enjoy D&D combat. Simply taking turns smacking each other only appeals to me when I'm playing Pokemon. (PS, I'm terrible at pokemon, I know there can actually be some strategy there- but note, can be. I am not that kind of player.) :smalltongue:

Plus, there is joy in designing such a character too. It's like a puzzle, fitting all the disparate pieces together into the most efficient and dangerous build, while making sure that all of it contributes to the same theme and style that you're aiming for.


I think what really sums it all up is: It's a challenge when I design it, and if I do it right, even more of a challenge when I play it. I don't optimize because I want things to be easy (though admittedly I like to see my characters succeed), I optimize because I want things to be as tough as possible, and to survive that environment my character has to be even tougher.

[ghost_warlock]

For me it's simple - I love the hobby and I love building interesting and fun characters. Why should I do a mediocre job at something I enjoy?

I'll never understand people who claim to love gaming but can't be bothered to learn the ins & outs of the system.

[darksolitaire]

You can't roleplay with dead character. But you can with undead.

It's much better to make your pc as good as possible and save your punches until you need them, and then use your awesome optimization powers to prevent tpk then it is to make your pc medicore and get waster after few bad rolls.

[Slipperychicken]

Because I'm playing as a Hero. Heroes tend to be good at their jobs. The best of the best.


If you can't do your job, you are a hazard to yourself, to your team, and to everyone who depends on your team. Incompetents should be fired, and someone competent should take his place.


Heroes don't just get the job done. They get the job done right, get the girl, and come back home in time for supper.

[Kaustic]

A friend of mine, and myself Optimize over our group to average the curve. The others in our group love to grab at low-op ideas and goals. The two of us high-op's love to challenge our DM's abilities at thinking outside the box. Which we have done very effectively. In the end we are all having fun and joking around about all the craziness that goes around in our games, or debating a particular tactic or challenges we come up against.

[LTwerewolf]

To have the most fun, what I've noticed is that people optimize towards the average of their group. I find this true as well. You don't want to be the sole overpowering force, but you don't want to be useless. Being able to optimize also means being able to find that sweet spot and how to tone yourself down.

[Xerinous]

I optimize because it's fun. I enjoy pitting my mind against the game's rules and seeing what I come up with. And some character concepts just don't work well with low-op.

Also, what Slipperychicken said. D&D characters are Big Damn Heroes, they're supposed to be good at what they do.

[Planar]

In my experience, higher optimization of characters leads to more complex and tactical combat- assuming of course, that the DM does the same. If they don't and you just run over everything, it's boring and not worth it.

With a low optimization game, you're often left with few options, most of which impact combat in only small and minor ways. In high op you tend to have a much broader array of choices which will alter the course of battle- and when there are quite a few things that might take you out of the picture in one go if they land, you have to have a good balance between pushing and holding back, keeping enough resources to ensure you survive, while pushing your enemy enough to ensure that they don't.

Note: I don't actually consider frenzied berserkers and ubercharges high op. One trick ponies, even if they have a really potent trick, just can't compete in the kind of play I'm talking about here.

It's really only when I got into high optimization situations that I truly started to enjoy D&D combat. Simply taking turns smacking each other only appeals to me when I'm playing Pokemon. (PS, I'm terrible at pokemon, I know there can actually be some strategy there- but note, can be. I am not that kind of player.) :smalltongue:

Plus, there is joy in designing such a character too. It's like a puzzle, fitting all the disparate pieces together into the most efficient and dangerous build, while making sure that all of it contributes to the same theme and style that you're aiming for.


I think what really sums it all up is: It's a challenge when I design it, and if I do it right, even more of a challenge when I play it. I don't optimize because I want things to be easy (though admittedly I like to see my characters succeed), I optimize because I want things to be as tough as possible, and to survive that environment my character has to be even tougher.

Doesn't that start some sort of arms race with the DM?

I can understand preferring to have more options, what i don't understand is people making calls like "You have to do at least X amount of damage per round to stay relevant" or some such. That was the reason for my previous rant; characters that can regularly defeat their intended enemies being considered low-op.


You can't roleplay with dead character. But you can with undead.

It's much better to make your pc as good as possible and save your punches until you need them, and then use your awesome optimization powers to prevent tpk then it is to make your pc medicore and get waster after few bad rolls.

But it's no fun to play a character that cannot die. Having a counter-measure for everything takes away suspension/grittiness and applies a lot of pressure to the DM.

Actually that's why i started to make characters with certain flaws (not that kind of flaw:smalltongue:)

[BowStreetRunner]

Some people are just always looking to push the envelope and test their limits.

When I was 25 I joined the United States Army. At the time, most of my family and friends thought I was nuts. Knowing the type of person I am, they didn't believe I was capable of making it through training, much less actually serving. But at that time of my life, I needed to know whether I could or not. It was important to me so I went for it.

Now I look back on that period of my life and while I understand why I did it, I no longer feel the need to prove myself to anyone anymore.

I see role-playing games in much the same way. ArcanaGuy mentioned Ramblers and Orienteerers in his post above and I think he was right on the mark. Except that sometimes a person can enjoy both. There were times in my life when I feel like an Orienteerer and want to see how far I can push the envelope - how well can I optimize my character? There are other times when I am content to just Ramble and enjoy the scenery. One of the things I like about AD&D/Pathfinder is that the same system can be used to do both.

[LTwerewolf]

Some people are just always looking to push the envelope and test their limits.

When I was 25 I joined the United States Army. At the time, most of my family and friends thought I was nuts. Knowing the type of person I am, they didn't believe I was capable of making it through training, much less actually serving. But at that time of my life, I needed to know whether I could or not. It was important to me so I went for it.

Now I look back on that period of my life and while I understand why I did it, I no longer feel the need to prove myself to anyone anymore.

I see role-playing games in much the same way. ArcanaGuy mentioned Ramblers and Orienteerers in his post above and I think he was right on the mark. Except that sometimes a person can enjoy both. There were times in my life when I feel like an Orienteerer and want to see how far I can push the envelope - how well can I optimize my character? There are other times when I am content to just Ramble and enjoy the scenery. One of the things I like about AD&D/Pathfinder is that the same system can be used to do both.

This is something common among us military types. We take "you can't" as a challenge, not as a suggestion, and don't get really interested in something until we're told it's impossible.

[HunterOfJello]

Playing powerful characters can be really fun. It becomes a much different game once character get to higher levels and get really strong. I think it's more of just a matter of taste. Plus, just the act of optimizing a character can be really fun. I love just sitting around building a really complex and fun, optimized character.


One good thing to remember is that many of the games with those types of characters arise from groups who just want to play at high levels after never seeming to be able to. Most campaigns don't naturally last till anywhere near level 15, nevermind 20+. This happened to my group recently. We stopped a gestalt campaign at level 13 and started a single class one up again from level 1. The players thought it was fun, but eventually one of them agreed to DM and he decided it should be level 15 gestalt with the players going all out powerlevel-wise. His explanation was that the group never gets to play at high levels, and it would be fun to get a chance to finally do that for a while.

[Yora]

People make optimized characters, but are those actually played at any significant numbers? It seems to me once the build is wrapped up, all the entertainment you get from it is over.

[Menteith]

I don't play at that level (outside of really rare occasions), but I can envision why someone might want to. When you're DMing for a group of optimized Tier 1s, you can throw basically any challenge at the party and expect them to solve it. Get into Vecna's private library, obliterate the Bronze Citadel, cause every mortal on the Material Plane to forget that a specific god ever existed, and so on. A DM can tell some really amazing stories and have the mechanics of the game support those stories. Very high op play does have unique stories & games that couldn't take place at other levels of play.

At the same time, there are really good stories and games that can't take place at high op play either, and I don't assume high op play for any table. Low op is a subjective category (I'd say it's harder to pin down than "high op" is), and to some people, 25% of a single monster's HP/round is low power. Again, subjectivity.

[Kaustic]

I also like to actively plot out the spread sheets and math(as much as I hate math) of the builds. It's another reason I like games like WarMachine, takes a moment to play, but a lifetime to master.

[AmberVael]

Doesn't that start some sort of arms race with the DM?
In the scenario I'm presenting, no. Because the DM is in on it, and should know what to expect from the players from the beginning (ideally, the DM literally asked for it). If you don't have DM and player cooperation, then this doesn't work. So the DM should be expecting high op characters, and should be making challenges to suit them. It isn't an arms race, it's just setting a high baseline of power for the game.


I can understand preferring to have more options, what i don't understand is people making calls like "You have to do at least X amount of damage per round to stay relevant" or some such. That was the reason for my previous rant; characters that can regularly defeat their intended enemies being considered low-op.

Well, in the scenario I describe above, if the DM is making higher power challenges, and your character doesn't have the power to keep up with it... yeah, that's a thing you can say. Because the power of the intended enemy is higher, and thus the effort (damage in this case) required to defeat them is greater.

Determining whether your character is relevant or not cannot be done in a vacuum, the challenges they face must be taken into account. Different games are going to have different levels of challenges. If your character is regularly contributing to overcoming challenges, then they are relevant.

Describing what is 'low-op' is really a lot more about personal opinion, so I can't really get into that.

[Sponson]

People make optimized characters, but are those actually played at any significant numbers? It seems to me once the build is wrapped up, all the entertainment you get from it is over.

Which is where the RP comes in. But often times I find it very hard to justify half the stuff that I threw in to make the build effective, and that a good RP can not exist if you arbitrarily justify things you took. If you have to come up with reasons with why your character is the way he is after you built him, that's arbitrary.

I mean the concept of levels, dips, and classes are abstract. When someone asks what your character is in-game, you don't respond with Sorc5/Barb5/RageMage 5. You respond with "a martial infuser of magic and fury". So in that regard you wouldn't need to justify outlandish dips and builds if it boils down to a cohesive character concept.

I mean I've had games where I'm just a straight up barbarian and I've broken the game for my gaming buddies. My characters made the game unerringly bad/no fun to play due to the fact that my colleagues do not really surf the web for dnd tricks and tips.

But its terrible because we found all of these top optimized web builds that anyone can access. I mean, dragonwrought kobolds are said to be the best, so every optimizer will play one. So how do you justify a campaign where 3 of your players are all dragonwrought mailmen kobolds because it's the most optimized?

[prufock]

My opinion on the matter:

Optimization is really just an arms race between the players and the DM. The DM's job is to provide a range of appropriate challenges to the players. If the players are level 10 and regularly blowing away CR 12 enemies, the DM will increase the challenge of the encounters. Likewise, if they're having trouble with CR 8 enemies, the DM will decrease the level of encounters.

This is, of course, ruling out games that have a "killer DM" that treats encounters as a competition (pointless, since the DM has fiat powers).

Optimization, then, offers 2 possible benefits.
1) Collect experience points faster. This is sort of dependent, because the DM is meant to adjust XP awards for actual difficulty, not use the XP chart as set in stone.
2) More options, more power, more fun. This is a preference of play style. Some people just LIKE being turbocharged. It isn't my cup of tea, but I can see why people enjoy it. Of course, it's no fun to be underpowered either. I try to make my characters useful, but don't see the point of applying a laundry list of loops, loopholes, and "creative interpretations."

The important point, to me, is that the optimization levels among players is roughly equal. It's no fun to be a monk in a group of Ruby Knight Vindicators, Planar Shepherds, and Incantatrices.

[Person_Man]

Two Words: Viable Options.

More options give you more interesting things to do, and/or more ways to survive encounters.

And those options must be numerically high enough that you have a reasonable chance of success at them. Otherwise, it's the same thing as if you had taken no action at all.

[LTwerewolf]

Two Words: Viable Options.

More options give you more interesting things to do, and/or more ways to survive encounters.

And those options must be numerically high enough that you have a reasonable chance of success at them. Otherwise, it's the same thing as if you had taken no action at all.

Sometimes failure is worse than doing nothing. Trip, grapple, some failed dispels, etc.

[Gnome Alone]

So how do you justify a campaign where 3 of your players are all dragonwrought mailmen kobolds because it's the most optimized?

You three all start in your father's castle with four of your other siblings. He is divvying up regional forts to your command, so that you might arrest the progress of his archnemesis, a Jumplomancer Italian plumber.

[jaybird]

Because it's FUN. Would I rather play a Cleric running around the battlefield tapping people with Cure X Wounds every time we roll initiative, or a Cleric who can control the field, blast groups of enemies, and, should the Fighter drop, wade into the mess of things and cover for him?

[Planar]

I can relate with most answers like it's fun to build optimized characters or it presents more options in the game but even the idea of competitive roleplaying sends shivers down my spine. Is that even a thing?


You three all start in your father's castle with four of your other siblings. He is divvying up regional forts to your command, so that you might arrest the progress of his archnemesis, a Jumplomancer Italian plumber.

Did... did that just happen?

[Gnaeus]

I can relate with most answers like it's fun to build optimized characters or it presents more options in the game but even the idea of competitive roleplaying sends shivers down my spine. Is that even a thing?

Yes. Google The Cheesegrinder. (a game played at dragoncon). There are other examples.

[LTwerewolf]

You three all start in your father's castle with four of your other siblings. He is divvying up regional forts to your command, so that you might arrest the progress of his archnemesis, a Jumplomancer Italian plumber.

This healed my soul in ways that I didn't know it was broken.

[Aegis013]

In the scenario I'm presenting, no. Because the DM is in on it, and should know what to expect from the players from the beginning (ideally, the DM literally asked for it). If you don't have DM and player cooperation, then this doesn't work. So the DM should be expecting high op characters, and should be making challenges to suit them. It isn't an arms race, it's just setting a high baseline of power for the game.

+1 for this. I am DMing a game currently in which I highly encouraged optimization and even pointed my players to guides and powerful combos and feats. (Bard? Check out Dragonfire Inspiration and Words of Creation! Cleric? Have you checked out Divine Metamagic? etc)



My opinion on the matter:

Optimization is really just an arms race between the players and the DM.

By encouraging optimization, I've opened up so many options that I haven't had with previous low-op/low system mastery groups. I can now run tactically diverse encounters, make use of interesting templates and the like without completely blowing my party away. This has allowed me to create unique lore and what not relating various things in my world, and my players have said that it has really brought the setting to life for them. I couldn't do this, or at least, not as easily, in a low op setting where using, for example, mineral warrior template made encounters simply too difficult.

I don't see how that is an arms race. Everybody won out due to the optimization in my scenario, and I really wouldn't mind, in some cases would really like to see, higher op combos at my table.


If you have to come up with reasons with why your character is the way he is after you built him, that's arbitrary.

I mean the concept of levels, dips, and classes are abstract. When someone asks what your character is in-game, you don't respond with Sorc5/Barb5/RageMage 5. You respond with "a martial infuser of magic and fury". So in that regard you wouldn't need to justify outlandish dips and builds if it boils down to a cohesive character concept.


So if I say "I want to play a martial infuser of magic and fury, how do I build that? Maybe Sorc5/Barb5/RageMage 5" then it's cohesive and good, but if I say "I want to play a Sorc5/Barb5/RageMage 5, how do I justify that in character? Maybe I'm a martial infuser of magic and fury" then it's arbitrary?

I have to disagree, I think you can create a purely mechanical build and then create an interesting personality and justification which thematically ties it all together.

[Squidfist]

Or rather; Why exercise high-optimization?

And, I am not talking about theoretical optimization, I am talking about parties apparently chuck full of Dragonwrought kobolds, Focused Specialist Conjurers, Mailman Sorcerers, Uber-chargers, Frenzied Berserkers and whatnot.

Do all your DMs throw enemies with CR+7 then your party? Is it a matter of inner-party competition? Why would an ECL 9 character who can dish out 40 damage per round consistently be regarded as "low-OP" while that is roughly 1/4 th of the hit points of CR-equivalent monsters? Or is it just a matter of personal taste?

Please share your opinions.I find it's all about the campaign, so there is no real answer. Some DM's will have campaigns where optimizing in this manner is encouraged, some groups may not, some players may enjoy it, some not, etc.

The obvious answer is that people enjoy feeling powerful. They enjoy 1 shotting that purple wyrm with their Frenzied Berserker, and don't care that their build is a cookie cutter with no real creative input from the player themselves... except maybe what type of stick they are swinging. When this is the environment for character creation, your power-level is really just relative. The ECL 9 unoptimized guy will FEEL underpowered, but of course is a much more standard power level. If you value your character as a damage dealer, and are doing it less effectively than everyone else, it's understandably frustrating, and encourages them to adapt that play style.

As a DM, I make sure to encourage creative character building, and find a big part of any campaign I run to be non-combative encounters. If I had a group with all of these builds for example, and a bard, I'd stress the importance of diplomacy and bardic knowledge.

It's also easy to justify targeting these players, as being a super specialized wizard or sorcerer would probably be obvious to the enemies, and they would be prioritized as the immediate threats. Also, people would probably catch word of relatively inexperienced heroes dealing with high CR encounters with no issue. All of a sudden some BBEG wants to deal with that super-powered wizard personally.

[Killer Angel]

You can't roleplay with dead character.

Well, I could say that this isn't necessarly true (that optimization favors the surviving).
When you wander around with an ubercharger and / or a mailman (sort of), that can one-shot the enemy, the DM will change the challenges accordingly. And when it becomes only a matter of who wins initiative, well, sometime you can lose it...

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Oh. This again.

The short answer is "Because the GM dared us to", or "Because that is the level of gameplay which I prefer to play in."

Generally, when I'm playing on that level of optimization, it's because either 1) The GM said something along the lines of 'Go ahead, try to break my campaign setting', 2) The GM said something along the lines of 'This is a super-hostile campaign. Expect to deal with CL +4 as random encounters. Bring backup characters for when -not if- your character dies', or 3) I'm playing in a competition (such as Test of Spite), and the rules allow for such.

The intent here is not to 'break the game' or get into a pissing match with the GM, it is because the GM has either thrown down the gauntlet, or issued the invitation and given expressed permission to do so.

However, all of the builds you have listed are, in fact, theoretical optimization. They're not designed to be actually played, they're designed to be theoretical exercises.

[manyslayer]

To me its all about what you and the people you play with enjoy playing. If your group likes high op games, then go for it. If your group likes low op games, good on you. Like so many things in role-playing, I don't think there is a right or wrong, just what is right for a given group.

I play in two groups.

One is fairly low op (at 19th level when my wife's character was doing 150+ damage in a round that was impressive for that group and now that we are 21st level I now have 1 stat above 16). The other is a bit higher optimized (but still probably low by most people's ideals). I enjoy them both. I've also played in high op games and enjoyed them as well, but truthfully, not usually as much.

The funny thing is I find that there are more options in low op games than in high ops games (unlike many on this thread). Many high-op characters are going to be very good at a few things (even discounting one-tricks like uber chargers). For a low op character, those things I'm not geared specifically towards doing might still work and I can try if it seems characterful to do so.

So, why optimize? Because it fits the type of play you and your friends enjoy. The same answer applies to why to not optimize.

[ArcanaGuy]

I see role-playing games in much the same way. ArcanaGuy mentioned Ramblers and Orienteerers in his post above and I think he was right on the mark. Except that sometimes a person can enjoy both. There were times in my life when I feel like an Orienteerer and want to see how far I can push the envelope - how well can I optimize my character? There are other times when I am content to just Ramble and enjoy the scenery. One of the things I like about AD&D/Pathfinder is that the same system can be used to do both.

Well, thank you very much! :) And yes, I didn't mean to exclude the possibility of enjoying both. More below.


This is something common among us military types. We take "you can't" as a challenge, not as a suggestion, and don't get really interested in something until we're told it's impossible.

Heh. I think lots of Engineers are the same way.


Doesn't that start some sort of arms race with the DM?

Speaking as the DM, not necessarily. I'm usually the one who can best 'optimize' a character in the group, being most familiar with the rules. Oftentimes, when I see a player having trouble with their character build, or see that they're making some sub-optimum choices, I offer suggestions for how to better optimize their character to match their concept. I will also be very happy to bring in custom feats and spells, and DragonStar - style schools, in order to help them make their character even more potent.

It's not a choice between optimization and roleplay, after all - roleplay and character reasons can drive the direction to minmax. If someone wants an insanely fast character who always goes first and has tons of attacks ... because that's what their story is like ... then I'm more than happy to pull out the splatbooks and built custom feat trees based off the one feat they really liked. If someone wants to make a fighter/sorcerer who focuses their magic through their sword to make it so that any sword they wield always bursts into flame as their internal magic floods through it ... I'll make a feat tree or prestige class to let them do that!

Folks play these games, often enough, because life is frustrating them. They want to be heroes, they want to perform admirably against the forces of darkness, and they have a story they want to tell. The rules should support them being heroic avatars of justice ... not get in the way! :)

Or at least, that's one way of looking at it. :) It all depends on the group you have.

[Sponson]

So if I say "I want to play a martial infuser of magic and fury, how do I build that? Maybe Sorc5/Barb5/RageMage 5" then it's cohesive and good, but if I say "I want to play a Sorc5/Barb5/RageMage 5, how do I justify that in character? Maybe I'm a martial infuser of magic and fury" then it's arbitrary?

I have to disagree, I think you can create a purely mechanical build and then create an interesting personality and justification which thematically ties it all together.

Precisely, the discussion point is about intent - isn't it? Not the end result. If the campaign is heavy RP orientated, then rolling a character with a dozen dip classes and then trying to puzzle the RP out is not within the spirit of the session, due to the fact that you're running numbers and not concepts. It's a lot like being passive aggressive. It's not to say your heavily optimized character can't have a great RP, that's far from it, but it's all about intent. If it was your intent to be the best at everything and could roll up a character with a beautiful RP then rad. But if you're just running numbers for the sake of having a powerful character, then groan about having to come up with an RP because the DM wants you to, then are you even playing the whole game?

Sure, a player can really make something work and then grow into the RP really well, but often times that doesn't happen, often times its "when do I roll dice" if its an optimized character - because it's what the player wants. If it isn't RP heavy, then why would building a backstory even matter? If RP didn't matter, then the whole point falls apart in the first place.

[Menteith]

In my experience, the people with the dedication and understanding necessary to build a mechanically strong character tend to be better roleplayers, if only because they've spent more time on their character. They know exactly what their character is capable of, and they can make the mechanics match what they envision their character as. I cannot stress how much I disagree with this sentence;

"...but often times that doesn't happen, often times its "when do I roll dice" if its an optimized character - because it's what the player wants."

Optimization happens for a wide range of reasons, and I've found that the ability to optimize goes hand in hand with the ability to roleplay well. I've never actually met the "Powergamer" who only wants to kill everything they see and plays a Mailman/Ubercharger to do it. I don't know if my experiences match everyone else's. You're generalizing to a comical extreme here.

[NichG]

I really feel that there is "the right kind of optimization" and "the wrong kind of optimization" for a given table.

The right kind of optimization is optimization that makes play richer and lives up to the table environment's expectations. If the DM says 'this is going to be a really difficult campaign and I won't hold back' then its appropriate and necessary to respond to that challenge. Beyond being explicitly told to optimize, if you know that the group and the DM can handle it and enjoy a high-powered game, then its also good to do.

At a lower-power table, there are still some things you can do. Optimizing in such a way that you help the rest of the group is usually good - I've heard this referred to as 'party-friendly optimization'. Things that make other characters more survivable, help shore up gaps in power, etc, rather than make your character a god amidst mortals. Optimizing to make a mechanically dubious concept work out is another one that comes up a lot - if you want to play a blind swordsman because you think the idea is cool, but you don't want to drag on the rest of the group.

The wrong kind of optimization is optimization that makes other people at the table feel bad, useless, bored, etc. Its the creation of a character in a vacuum without regards for what characters other people have made, how complex a character they are used to dealing with, how much work the DM is going to put into encounters, and how skilled the DM is at running at particular levels of power. If you have fun, but you push a DM who doesn't know how to optimize out of the zone where he can create interestingly challenging encounters for the party, thats not 'encouraging the DM to step up', thats pushing your table's environments past the region where the DM is confident in running a quality game, and everyone's play experience can suffer for that. If you make a wonderful, powerful character who can solve every situation and does, and the rest of the party are playing Aragorn or Frodo, that will just make everyone else enjoy game less. Things like 'I'll help them optimize too!' or 'its their fault for bringing monks to the table!' are rationalizations for that insensitivity.

[ahenobarbi]

Because fights when you stand next to your opponent and each of you just rolls d20 every round get boring quickly.

And more importantly so my character will be able to do what I want it to.

[Gnaeus]

Precisely, the discussion point is about intent - isn't it? Not the end result. If the campaign is heavy RP orientated, then rolling a character with a dozen dip classes and then trying to puzzle the RP out is not within the spirit of the session, due to the fact that you're running numbers and not concepts. .

If the campaign is heavy RP oriented, making a melee monster with a shakey background probably isn't good optimization. An optimized character in that game might be a bard with high social skills, or a wizard who can get clues to the mystery via divination.

The most common type of optimization is for combat, because:
1. most games include combat
2. combat is generally easier to optimize for than social encounters
3. Most games that involve combat tend to really punish people who are bad at it, but many times, players can just wing it through social encounters without such bad effects as dying a lot.

But most common =/ all. You can optimize towards almost anything. Most players aren't interested in building (for example) Faerun's greatest chef. But that is an optimization exercise too.

[Augmental]

The funny thing is I find that there are more options in low op games than in high ops games (unlike many on this thread). Many high-op characters are going to be very good at a few things (even discounting one-tricks like uber chargers). For a low op character, those things I'm not geared specifically towards doing might still work and I can try if it seems characterful to do so.

So high-op characters can't do things they aren't geared for? Because a high-op caster is going to be able to do almost anything without gearing for it, just by the sheer versatility of Polymorph, Gate, etc. A low-op character can do things he's not geared for, but he's a lot less likely to succeed.

[Kelb_Panthera]

So high-op characters can't do things they aren't geared for? Because a high-op caster is going to be able to do almost anything without gearing for it, just by the sheer versatility of Polymorph, Gate, etc. A low-op character can do things he's not geared for, but he's a lot less likely to succeed.

I actually do see where he's coming from.

If you ignore the pre-packaged cheese that is polymorph, low-op characters, at least non-caster characters, actually do have more relevant options than high op characters.

In a game where a fighter is spec'ed to trip with near guaranteed success, the gm will respond with much larger or stronger enemies* to give a real chance of failure. This cuts off the option of bull-rushing & grappling too. If, on the other hand, you've only put -some- resources toward tripping, the gm doesn't need to throw the untrippable at you and, consequently, you still have at least some chance of bull-rushing or grappling, even if you have a better chance of tripping.


* A good gm will only respond in this manner sometimes. If he's always throwing the untrippable at the tripper he's being a dill-hole.

My 2cp:

Optimization is like the martial arts to me. In the beginning you don't know much and just kinda flail around trying not to hurt yourself. As you get better, you start to pose a serious challenge to your opponents and the opponents you face get stronger too. As you approach mastery conflicts reach the point where victory is decided in only a moment by a single move, but when you reach true mastery you no longer feel the need to prove yourself. You set aside those skills and simply try to enjoy yourself. You have the skill to crush anything in your path, but no longer feel any need to do so.

I could build a mailman and blow everything in my path to smithereens, but if I did then to be challenged would require the DM throw things at me that either have more hp than a god, or are outright immune to hp damage. The former makes it impossible for the rest of the party to keep up unless they too have spec'ed for maximum damage dealing while the latter makes the core of my build useless, forcing me to use the unoptimized options that are left over. I've also done the DM the disservice of destroying what usability the CR system still had, forcing him to ad-hoc experience.

It is for this reason that I've largely abandoned heavy optimization for the characters I play, and stick closer to the games expected power level. A power level that's almost universally regarded as low-op on the internet.

[Aegis013]

-Excellent point, in my opinion-

Thanks, I have to agree, that has been my experience too. The only time when something like that happened was when the game I was running (for a single friend to pass time) as purely arena style combats with no RP involved. Then RP didn't matter.

I've never had a player give me trouble for asking for RP reasons behind their mechanics, and that's one of the most enjoyable parts of char-op for me, personally. I created this beautifully ridiculous pile of classes and prestige classes that does whatever crazy thing I was aiming for, now the next fun part is figuring out "What kind of a person would actually become this throughout their life/adventuring career, and what would his/her, for lack of a better term, descriptor be?" (descriptor being "martial infuser of magic and fury" from previous example)

[Gnome Alone]

This healed my soul in ways that I didn't know it was broken.

"Hey, that's what I do." -Philip J. Fry

[Darius Kane]

"Why optimize?"
Why not?

[Sponson]

If the campaign is heavy RP oriented, making a melee monster with a shakey background probably isn't good optimization. An optimized character in that game might be a bard with high social skills, or a wizard who can get clues to the mystery via divination.

The most common type of optimization is for combat, because:
1. most games include combat
2. combat is generally easier to optimize for than social encounters
3. Most games that involve combat tend to really punish people who are bad at it, but many times, players can just wing it through social encounters without such bad effects as dying a lot.

But most common =/ all. You can optimize towards almost anything. Most players aren't interested in building (for example) Faerun's greatest chef. But that is an optimization exercise too.

You bring up good points, my fault was thinking that optimization=combat optimizing only.

But I guess here's a question, where does the Jumplomancer fit in? Could anyone actually convince their DM that their jumplomancer is legit?



Optimization happens for a wide range of reasons, and I've found that the ability to optimize goes hand in hand with the ability to roleplay well. I've never actually met the "Powergamer" who only wants to kill everything they see and plays a Mailman/Ubercharger to do it. I don't know if my experiences match everyone else's. You're generalizing to a comical extreme here.

I suppose my definition of optimization has been confused with a more extreme end of optimization - mailmen, pun pun, hulking hurler, jumplomancer... etc.
I am unaware of what the general experience is, so I ask this question -
What is optimizing exactly? Is it getting ridiculously high Charisma so you can Stunning Surge 30x a day at a ridiculous DC because that's the only way Stunning Surge is actually good? Or is making sure that your unarmed attacks are as good as they can be, irregardless of how you come about it, because anything less just isn't going to cut it? Or is there a line where you say "Okay my unarmed attacks output X dps a round, it could go higher but it would require 3 dip classes"? Is that optimizing, or anti-optimizing, or just playing a regular character?

[Menteith]

I suppose my definition of optimization has been confused with a more extreme end of optimization - mailmen, pun pun, hulking hurler, jumplomancer... etc.
I am unaware of what the general experience is, so I ask this question -
What is optimizing exactly? Is it getting ridiculously high Charisma so you can Stunning Surge 30x a day at a ridiculous DC because that's the only way Stunning Surge is actually good? Or is making sure that your unarmed attacks are as good as they can be, irregardless of how you come about it, because anything less just isn't going to cut it?

Optimizing, to me, is the ability to mechanically express a character in the best possible way. People using TO in low power games is horrible optimization to me, and is instead what I'd call munchkin-ery (as at that point, the game is fundamentally broken due to a player's actions). Optimization concerns itself with a game's relative power, and tries to make the best possible character for a given situation, not the most powerful character. Optimization isn't a list of abilities, and it doesn't have set rules, as what's appropriate differs so wildly between games and groups. I know of tables that ban Complete Champion because it has Travel Devotion and Pounce for melee, and making unmodified attacks is the standard power level. I know of people who play at a power level where classes like Incantrix and Ur-Priest are the norm, and are perfectly acceptable. There are games that require the party to be fighting gods (or even become gods in their own right), and there are games where that tribe of goblins needs to be a threat. Optimization, practical optimization, is about making the best character you can - and I'd say that includes roleplay elements.

People play high power because it can be really damn fun to do. Aside from the awesome stories that can be told (usurp a god! Create your own plane with a new race/conquer a race and set yourself up as their new god), the players are limited only by their imagination. It can be a freeing experience, and a fantastic blast to play. Imagine fighting a being across thousands of realities and time itself, having a literal unstoppable force meet a literal immovable object, or destroying a fundamental aspect of reality (try murdering Death and see what happens)! There are fantastic things that can be accomplished through very high op play that just aren't possible outside of that level.

To be completely honest, most TO builds aren't even that good for high power play. The Jump-O-Mancer has absolutely no utility beyond their trick. A Hulking Hurler can throw a moon, but when Persisted Undermaster is in play and everyone's immune to damage, who cares? TO material comes about because people like to push the envelope for specific concepts ("Lets make the fastest possible character!") rather than actually making characters - I think everyone who's ever worked on a TO project will freely state the idea of using TO builds in practice is laughable to them.

And finally, the correct way to optimize Stunning Surge is to instead use the "Sudden Stunning" enchantment from DMGII p261. Cost is +2000g, can be used Cha Bonus/day, takes Swift Action, Reflex Save 10 + Cha Mod + 1/2 CharLevel against stun 1d4+1 rounds. 2000g >>>>>> +1 bonus, targeting Ref >>>>>> targeting Fort.

[Eldariel]

I've also done the DM the disservice of destroying what usability the CR system still had, forcing him to ad-hoc experience.

Meh. While I agree with the sentiment, I disagree with CR system being suited for awarding experience in basically any case as anything more than a direction-giving ("this is about how much experience an even fight should give"-sort of direction) table of random numbers; I'd say ad hoc is going to generally result in experience gain more accurately corresponding to the challenges overcome than using CR, since then you can account for the party's power too, not just the monsters' power.

[TuggyNE]

But I guess here's a question, where does the Jumplomancer fit in? Could anyone actually convince their DM that their jumplomancer is legit?

It doesn't, they shouldn't, and no TO build is intended for practical play.


I suppose my definition of optimization has been confused with a more extreme end of optimization - mailmen, pun pun, hulking hurler, jumplomancer... etc.

Of those, all but mailman (and perhaps hulking hurler's mountain-tossing stunts) are TO builds, fit for nothing but theorycrafting and rules pondering. So no, you wouldn't expect to play Pun-Pun (or the omniscificer, for that matter) in a real campaign; Pun-Pun is actually pretty much the ur-example of a character that shouldn't be played, because there's no point to it.


I am unaware of what the general experience is, so I ask this question -
What is optimizing exactly? Is it getting ridiculously high Charisma so you can Stunning Surge 30x a day at a ridiculous DC because that's the only way Stunning Surge is actually good? Or is making sure that your unarmed attacks are as good as they can be, irregardless of how you come about it, because anything less just isn't going to cut it? Or is there a line where you say "Okay my unarmed attacks output X dps a round, it could go higher but it would require 3 dip classes"? Is that optimizing, or anti-optimizing, or just playing a regular character?

In a technical sense, practical optimization is anything from "hmm, I'm a wizard, I should probably have a fairly high Int" to "hmm, by shifting my levels around a bit I can qualify one level earlier and pick up a different metamagic that gives me the ability to pull off a certain trick just in time for level 20" and beyond*. But, importantly, a good practical optimizer works with three basic constraints:

The rules of the system
The playstyle and op level of the group and campaign
A given character idea or set of ideas


TO is defined by ignoring all but the first of those constraints. Munchkinism generally ignores the second, and occasionally the first or third. What is sometimes referred to as "Magical Tea Party" ignores the first by common consent.

*Impressively, there are those who decry any example at all of practical optimization, even the mentioned "wizards should have high Int" example.

[Sponson]

So it turns out I've been over thinking the definition. By the board's seemingly general agreement, optimization is simply not playing the game stupidly, with varying levels of it.

I mean if playing a high int wizard is considered any bit "optimizing" and not under "common sense", then why wouldn't you optimize I suppose. I mean I'm no stranger to optimizing, having come from playing MTG and various board games competitively. But it's strange when theres the concept of a varying relative experience due to the RP element. But if the relative experience shifts so drastically from group to group, or even player to player, how can I gauge what is acceptable on a general basis?

For example, taking two levels of fighter because the diminishing returns of feats makes taking a third level dumb is frowned upon in my group, because you're taking two levels of fighter for the feats because that is the most efficient way of getting free feats at low levels. How can I convince my group that it's really not cheese? Is that even a plausible question?

General optimization as you guys know it is a strange discussion for me because of the group I come from. Banning ToB and all Vows along with Seven Fold Initiate is standard, 22 point buy and super low WPL (we had 30k starting gp at level 9). Dipping is super frowned upon, so I guess even dipping classes is considered high-optimization in my group, and henceforth my perception is based on my experience in the group.

[ryu]

Jumplomacer legit: Silly campaign.

The half-dragon turtle thing and his brood have stolen your aristocrat princess who may or may not have sorceress levels depending on the campaign. Also the dm is subject to giving terrifying temporary loot which goes away if you take damage.

[Spuddles]

Or rather; Why exercise high-optimization?

And, I am not talking about theoretical optimization, I am talking about parties apparently chuck full of Dragonwrought kobolds, Focused Specialist Conjurers, Mailman Sorcerers, Uber-chargers, Frenzied Berserkers and whatnot.

Do all your DMs throw enemies with CR+7 then your party? Is it a matter of inner-party competition? Why would an ECL 9 character who can dish out 40 damage per round consistently be regarded as "low-OP" while that is roughly 1/4 th of the hit points of CR-equivalent monsters? Or is it just a matter of personal taste?

Please share your opinions.

My DMs run grinders. An entire evening of tactical wargaming- moving minis around a giant mat with terrain. Our level 3 characters being assaulted by dozens of goblins, a dozen orcs, another dozen bugbears, a hobgoblin warchief and his ogre honor guard, with an adept or two with wolf companions.

Then the next session picks up with us looting, patching up wounds, and preparing for the hunting party of dire wolves and goblins before we get rest.

It's not like we're gonna sneak around- our DM didn't spend a couple hours putting 40 minis on the board and reading up what adept spells do so we could walk around it.

Naturally, our builds improved.

[eggs]

...Because it's fun?

Honestly, a rules-heavy, convoluted difficult-to-teach system with bookshelves of rulebooks would be the last system I'd use if deep min-maxxy character-building weren't a priority.

[Menteith]

I mean if playing a high int wizard is considered any bit "optimizing" and not under "common sense", then why wouldn't you optimize I suppose. I mean I'm no stranger to optimizing, having come from playing MTG and various board games competitively. But it's strange when theres the concept of a varying relative experience due to the RP element. But if the relative experience shifts so drastically from group to group, or even player to player, how can I gauge what is acceptable on a general basis?

If you're not being rhetorical, the answer is you really can't. If I'm giving someone build advice, my first question is going to be "What are the other people in your group playing?" As a very rough guideline, some people shoot for around Tier 3 (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1002.0) as a good point, but this is in no way a general rule.


For example, taking two levels of fighter because the diminishing returns of feats makes taking a third level dumb is frowned upon in my group, because you're taking two levels of fighter for the feats because that is the most efficient way of getting free feats at low levels. How can I convince my group that it's really not cheese? Is that even a plausible question?

It's a very reasonable question, and a hard one to answer. Some people/groups can be very fixated that their current way to play the game is the right way to play it, and any attempt to deviate from that will be confronted. If you really want to play at a little higher power than what's currently allowed, I'd honestly suggest DMing a one-shot or short campaign where everyone else is playing more powerful characters. Point them in the right directions toward powerful classes/feats, and if they have fun with it they might recognize that there's so much the game has to offer. You need to let people make their own decisions about the game, and the best way to do that is by letting them experience it and come to their own conclusions.

There's no right or wrong way to play the game if everyone is having fun. To me, that's a fundamental rule of gaming.

[Gnaeus]

For example, taking two levels of fighter because the diminishing returns of feats makes taking a third level dumb is frowned upon in my group, because you're taking two levels of fighter for the feats because that is the most efficient way of getting free feats at low levels. How can I convince my group that it's really not cheese? Is that even a plausible question?

General optimization as you guys know it is a strange discussion for me because of the group I come from. Banning ToB and all Vows along with Seven Fold Initiate is standard, 22 point buy and super low WPL (we had 30k starting gp at level 9). Dipping is super frowned upon, so I guess even dipping classes is considered high-optimization in my group, and henceforth my perception is based on my experience in the group.

The first step is getting them to understand that CORE is not balanced. Druid 20, Cleric 20, and Wizard 20 with maxed casting stat and rest of points in con are all very strong builds in any but the most highly optimized game. This goes double with low point buy and triple in any game with low WBL. Casters dont need much gear or anything but a high casting stat, fighters and monks need a lot. I would start by printing up JaronK's tier system (and the addendum, why each class is in its tier) and maybe one of the countless discussions on the board that show that Wizards are mechanically superior to Monks or that the Druid's pet (if its master is standing within 30 feet with his all day and some short term buffs up) is by itself more than a match for a typical fighter.

The second step is pointing out that while a fighter can really never compete with a druid without a ton of cheese, a Warblade can. Or a barbarian with a fighter dip and a good prc, etc. One of 2 things will likely result:
1. They will widen their class restrictions or spell restrictions to ban full casters. This is bad for those who want to play casters, but is actually good for balance in a low pb, low wbl low tier game.
2. They will ease some of their restrictions on things like ToB or dipping.

The game they are playing as you describe it is horribly balanced. A person who wanted to break it (which I do not suggest) would not need Iot7V or Vows. They just need to write Cleric or Druid on the top of their character sheet, read a handbook or 2, and play a core class with no PRCs at a decent fraction of its potential.

[sonofzeal]

Or rather; Why exercise high-optimization?

And, I am not talking about theoretical optimization, I am talking about parties apparently chuck full of Dragonwrought kobolds, Focused Specialist Conjurers, Mailman Sorcerers, Uber-chargers, Frenzied Berserkers and whatnot.

Do all your DMs throw enemies with CR+7 then your party? Is it a matter of inner-party competition? Why would an ECL 9 character who can dish out 40 damage per round consistently be regarded as "low-OP" while that is roughly 1/4 th of the hit points of CR-equivalent monsters? Or is it just a matter of personal taste?

Please share your opinions.
Well.....

I spar. I used to do a lot of sparring with a wide variety of weapons. Sometimes I just want to cross swords and goof around, but generally I want to push myself. I want to be challenged at the thing I'm best at, so I'll pick up my spear and/or go 1v2 or 1v3, or just try for the best hit ratio I can.

I like being challenged. Me, not my characters. I can make a 5th level character who's challenged by a housecat, but that's not challenging me. Making a 5th level character who's challenged (but not curbstomped) by a CR 10 monstrosity? That challenges me.

[Wyntonian]

In many cases, it helps me both understand and represent the roleplaying fluff of my character.

In the first case, a fighter 10 I slap together in five minutes, pulling feats out of a hat, shotgunning skill points all over the freaking place just 'cause... I can't really say that he's the greatest warrior in his nation if he has Skill Focus: Craft (Basketweaving) three times, can I? He's unoptimized, and it prevents him from fulfilling his role as a character.

Then, let's say I spend a couple hours reading books, "splat-diving", etc., to make an awesome Warblade. I balance out every feat, make sure he has good stats, maybe make some sacrifices, pore over maneuvers and the like to make a character that's versatile, powerful and works excellent in a group. Well, I don't know about anyone else, but spending that much time making a character is going to help me understand what they'll be like from a roleplaying perspective, as well as a gamist perspective.

Plus, y'know, it's more fun to say that your character's a badass when they actually are.

[Flickerdart]

Let's say there are three characters.

Alice is a Fighter. She can swing her sword and do some damage if she's standing close to monsters.

Bob is a Fighter. He can swing his spiked chain and knock enemies over or prevent them from getting to his allies.

Carl is a fighter. He can knock over enemies with his powerful attacks, zip around the battlefield, use an array of skills that have nothing to do with fighting and even cast a couple of spells.

Alice is ineffective - her player might be able to fluff her attacks in a cool way, and generally be an awesome roleplayer, but the character isn't bringing anything to the table. Whether or not Alice is fun depends on the player exclusively.

Bob is effective. He's focused on one thing, and he does that one thing well. But when it comes to being interesting, Bob is still holding his player back, because whenever the situation doesn't call for tripping something, Bob doesn't have any way of interacting with the D&D 3.5 system, which is kind of the point of making a character in said system.

Carl is both effective and fun. Not only is he competent at what he does, he does a hell of a lot of things, so Carl's player always has a meaningful way of contributing to the situation. While a creative player can make do with Alice or Bob, paired with Carl they can truly shine. And since Carl is a lowercase-f fighter, he's a blast to build as well as play, since both his crunch and fluff are vastly more diverse and interesting.

Of course, there's a fourth optimization level. Dan the sorcerer, the man with the hammer, might be able to pull off a single trick that is always applicable to the task at hand...but when your response to everything is pressing the shiny red button, then after a while you'll probably get bored, branch out into something else, and go back to Carl - and because your core trick is so effective, you won't have become irrelevant by diversifying, like Alice and Bob would.

In terms of the tier system, this maps quite neatly to T5 (Alice), T4 (Bob), T3 (Carl) and T2 (Dan).

[Curmudgeon]

I can't really say that he's the greatest warrior in his nation if he has Skill Focus: Craft (Basketweaving) three times, can I? Since that feat choice is specifically designed to do nothing the second and third time, you really can't say much for the choice regardless of what you're trying to accomplish with the character.

If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description.

In general, having a feat twice is the same as having it once.
Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new skill.

[Alienist]

Some people like food with subtle flavors; some people like very spicy food. Neither preference is wrong. Optimizers generally prefer their characters very spicy; that's all.

More to the point - because you didn't have that vindaloo six months ago, now you're not allowed to eat at $Fancy_Restaurant

Which is to say that if you don't optimise in advance you usually cannot get into the prestige class(es) you want.

[ThiagoMartell]

Actual optimization (as in, your character is better at what he does) is easy for skill checks, since they are for the most part set in stone.
Combat is a different issue. If you and your DM optimize the same amount, you're back in square one. A character is actually optimized (as in, becomes more efficient through character building choices) when his performance advances just enough for it to be noticeable, but not enough for the DM to just bump things up.
Or the DM could simply throw random stuff at you and let you be invincible, of course. Or challenge you outside your area of competency (say, throw monsters straight out of the MM in an ubercharger's way, but frequently have him face social encounters he can't solve). Both options sound ridiculously boring to me, but hey... your game.
When my players want to pick something that might make them too powerful, I just say "That's going to give me a lot of work, and after that amount of work you went through to do it and the amount of work I went through to counter it, it will all end up the same. So why do it?"
I tend to see my games as mid-OP, which is the best point in the curve, IMHO. Enough rules-fu to have both character building and tactical combat be interesting, but not enough power level to make adventure generation a chore. As always, YMMV.

[ThiagoMartell]

Actual optimization (as in, your character is better at what he does) is easy for skill checks, since they are for the most part set in stone.
Combat is a different issue. If you and your DM optimize the same amount, you're back in square one. A character is actually optimized (as in, becomes more efficient through character building choices) when his performance advances just enough for it to be noticeable, but not enough for the DM to just bump things up.
Or the DM could simply throw random stuff at you and let you be invincible, of course. Or challenge you outside your area of competency (say, throw monsters straight out of the MM in an ubercharger's way, but frequently have him face social encounters he can't solve). Both options sound ridiculously boring to me, but hey... your game.
When my players want to pick something that might make them too powerful, I just say "That's going to give me a lot of work, and after that amount of work you went through to do it and the amount of work I went through to counter it, it will all end up the same. So why do it?"
I tend to see my games as mid-OP, which is the best point in the curve, IMHO. Enough rules-fu to have both character building and tactical combat be interesting, but not enough power level to make adventure generation a chore. As always, YMMV.

[Curmudgeon]

I can't really say that he's the greatest warrior in his nation if he has Skill Focus: Craft (Basketweaving) three times, can I? Since that feat choice is specifically designed to do nothing the second and third time, you really can't say much for the choice regardless of what you're trying to accomplish with the character.

If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description.

In general, having a feat twice is the same as having it once.
Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new skill.

[gooddragon1]

Some of my DM's throw around encounters that are "CR appropriate". The way they use them makes me feel that they are not appropriate especially when so many of the people I play with are not optimizing. This has forced me to play a wizard (Read: Tier 1). I can freely scale the powers of my wizard by choosing what to cast depending on the tendencies of the DM. Haste or bulls strength for example in the case of a reasonable DM and Polymorph or silent image in the case of an unreasonable DM.

[LordBlades]

Personally, I don't really optimize for power in the absolute sense, as with a good DM you end up with what Thiago said: battles will be as challenging as if you were playing a blind monk.

I optimize mainly for 2 reasons: the feel of fighting greater challenges (bashing in a balor's head feels better than bashing a goblin's even though the challenge is the same) and versatility. Most low tier chars have their shtick, and are helpless otherwise. I dislike having my char sint around twidling his thumbs for singificant lengths of time. In contrast, most high tier characters can contribute to most situations, and it feels you're playing more in the same session length.

[molten_dragon]

Or rather; Why exercise high-optimization?

And, I am not talking about theoretical optimization, I am talking about parties apparently chuck full of Dragonwrought kobolds, Focused Specialist Conjurers, Mailman Sorcerers, Uber-chargers, Frenzied Berserkers and whatnot.

Do all your DMs throw enemies with CR+7 then your party? Is it a matter of inner-party competition? Why would an ECL 9 character who can dish out 40 damage per round consistently be regarded as "low-OP" while that is roughly 1/4 th of the hit points of CR-equivalent monsters? Or is it just a matter of personal taste?

Please share your opinions.

I don't generally optimize my characters all that heavily. There have been a few exceptions, but those were specifically for a very high-powered campaign. Most of my characters are moderately optimized, and that's because to me, it's more fun to play characters that are good at stuff, than it is to play characters who are bad at stuff.

[PersonMan]

I generally have three concepts for each character. The first generally spontaneously comes to me - often it's a fighting style or similar. Sometimes I refine the concept in this phase, but I usually go looking for a game to apply the character into (I play almost entirely PbP).

Then, while making the character and changing them to fit the setting/game, I refine the concept. Sometimes I make mechanics-based decisions and then consider what this will do with their fluff.

Finally, I play the character. The in-game development and how the on-paper personality actually works is the final stage in the realization of the concept.

An example of a character I made for a game on these forums is Arvalest Ring-Edge, Herald of the Red Sands. The concept was a sand-based/sand-using warrior. During the application process I had a bit of trouble talking with the DM - he wanted fluff applications first, mechanics done after we were picked, but I came to him with mechanical questions.

My response is, in my opinion, a good one for explaining why one might plan out a character's mechanics before their personality. Essentially, it's that a character's abilities determine how they react to many things. A Fighter with sand-fluff can't do much more than fight normally, but a Cleric with the same fluff had supernatural abilities that allow them to change the world in ways others cannot. I wanted to know which abilities he would have so that I could write his backstory/personality with these in mind.

That was the second stage. Finally, the game started and I actually played Arvalest. He turned out to be quite introverted and I had quite a bit of fun with his reactions to some of the party's antics (AoE spells in a crowded marketplace, for example), as well as with the fluff writing to accompany his spellcasting.

For me, optimizing for the concept in mind is both natural, often necessary and leads to further development of the character-to-be.

[Eldan]

Optimization is a huge spectrum. For me, it ranges all the way from "I should put more points into strength, it will make me hit harder" or "Hm. Dwarves get special proficiency with dwarven weapons, maybe I should try one of them" to "And now I use the Ice Assassin to give myself divine ranks."

It doesn't even have to mean being the most powerful. I think a short definition is "use the resources available to make an effective character". Doesn't say effective at what. Then, from there, there are sub-groups: Theoretical optimization (Guys, Guys, look what I can do!) and the probably most important one, game-oriented optimization (I make a character that isn't useless and works well in this campaign).

[prufock]

By encouraging optimization, I've opened up so many options that I haven't had with previous low-op/low system mastery groups. I can now run tactically diverse encounters, make use of interesting templates and the like without completely blowing my party away. This has allowed me to create unique lore and what not relating various things in my world, and my players have said that it has really brought the setting to life for them. I couldn't do this, or at least, not as easily, in a low op setting where using, for example, mineral warrior template made encounters simply too difficult.

I don't see how that is an arms race. Everybody won out due to the optimization in my scenario, and I really wouldn't mind, in some cases would really like to see, higher op combos at my table.

Basically everything you just said is in agreement with what I said, but in the inverse. In my scenario, the players optimize and the DM adjusts. In your scenario, the DM increases EL and the players adjust. If they don't, the higher level encounter will wipe the floor with them.