The Voice of Optimization

[legomaster00156]

I'm known at the table as being the one who can build well-optimized characters and knows systems inside and out, but the rest of the party seems firmly rooted in the belief that roleplay and optimization are mutually exclusive. They'll accept build advice, but they're... suspicious of my characters, at best. I'm still working on convincing them that they can have both.
Am I the only one who is the sole "voice of optimization" in his/her group?

[Snowbluff]

I tend to be this in some of my groups. Unfortunately, my bro in my Encounters group has been doing some hardcore OP, so it's not helping people's opinion of my characters.

You should find when their cut offs and false dichotomies are. For example, if they think high ACs are overpowered, cut back on HP and make up for it in DR or HP if you want to play strong.

[Madara]

Yeah, that'd be me. But of course, since I DM most of the time, I spend the most time working with the system, and more experience simply leads to me being the voice of Optimization. Just try living with the same sword & board Dwarven fighter in your party for 3 different campaigns :smallsigh:

[dascarletm]

I find that a lot of resentment from players who don't like to optimize comes when favorite characters they have are unplayable.

Example: Two friends of mine played in a game I ran that lasted about a year or two that went from level 1-30(some). Long, Epic, really tailored to the two of them. They played a straight Fighter, and a Monk. No optimization, really, maybe a little. I, in turn, gave them a little more WBL to make up for it, and didn't optimize their adversaries. They had a lot of fun.
The next campaign the Fighter DM'd, and me and the monk both played optimized wizards. The DMPC, a straight rogue, was completely useless, and we crushed his first encounter in one round. He didn't like having to play at a higher level, and instead tried to DM fiat nerf us. Knock didn't work against some locks, and my Rod of Greater Quicken was banned.:smallfrown:

Anyway, that could be the problem with the skepticism.

[Madara]

I find that a lot of resentment from players who don't like to optimize comes when favorite characters they have are unplayable.

Example: Two friends of mine played in a game I ran that lasted about a year or two that went from level 1-30(some). Long, Epic, really tailored to the two of them. They played a straight Fighter, and a Monk. No optimization, really, maybe a little. I, in turn, gave them a little more WBL to make up for it, and didn't optimize their adversaries. They had a lot of fun.
The next campaign the Fighter DM'd, and me and the monk both played optimized wizards. The DMPC, a straight rogue, was completely useless, and we crushed his first encounter in one round. He didn't like having to play at a higher level, and instead tried to DM fiat nerf us. Knock didn't work against some locks, and my Rod of Greater Quicken was banned.:smallfrown:

Anyway, that could be the problem with the skepticism.

Eh, in that case is sounds more like the problem was having a DMPC, which are not recommended at all. But you do have a point about players being attached to a concept. The thing is though that they could still play the same character Warblade and Unarmed Swordsage respectively, but it takes more effort than "Pick this class" to meet the concept and optimize.

[dascarletm]

Eh, in that case is sounds more like the problem was having a DMPC, which are not recommended at all. But you do have a point about players being attached to a concept. The thing is though that they could still play the same character Warblade and Unarmed Swordsage respectively, but it takes more effort than "Pick this class" to meet the concept and optimize.

the guy in question, the DM/fighter. Hates the ToB with a unwavering passion. Bans it in all his games, and refuses to touch it.

As a player he loathes optimization. I see his point which is, "No matter what power level you are at the DM will make the challenge appropriate. The problem with high OP is that there is a chance the DM might accidentally make the encounter too powerful and squish you. If you do 1,000 damage out of 10,000 is it not the same as 100 out of a 1,000?"

[Madara]

the guy in question, the DM/fighter. Hates the ToB with a unwavering passion. Bans it in all his games, and refuses to touch it.

As a player he loathes optimization. I see his point which is, "No matter what power level you are at the DM will make the challenge appropriate. The problem with high OP is that there is a chance the DM might accidentally make the encounter too powerful and squish you. If you do 1,000 damage out of 10,000 is it not the same as 100 out of a 1,000?"

Of course, the DM is limited in options when they have to keep the gloves on, which can often limit the adventures and campaigns you can have. Still, I find it Ironic that optimizers are to D&D players what D&D players are to the rest of the world :smallwink:

In the end though, as long as he doesn't get too difficult for you to have fun, its fine for him to put a limit on the optimization. Plus, you did play a T1, maybe a 3 would've been better.

[hymer]

I think there is some reason to being suspicious of optimizing. I got really tired of the guy whose character concepts always were abducted by a gang of thieves early in their lives, but always later escaped. The guy wanted his first level as rogue, so he'd get 8x4 skill points. Or the druid who keeps asking for dinosaurs when there obviously aren't any in the campaign world, because he read about them being really good as animal companions somewhere. Or the guy who insists on building a diplomancer and using it at every turn.
It's also annoying, as some have mentioned, from the other end. Say you picture your character as a dual-wielding melee tough guy, and you stick to it though it kinda sucks. Then it feels a little like cheating when others bend the story to the rules, and it sucks your fun out of the game as their leaky hulls of personality concepts outperform your own elegant design in all game technical ways.

[danzibr]

Yeah. In my party I'm the only optimizer. And actually I just optimized IC and party buffs. I encourage the other players to, well, read the books but they don't.

[legomaster00156]

I think there is some reason to being suspicious of optimizing. I got really tired of the guy whose character concepts always were abducted by a gang of thieves early in their lives, but always later escaped. The guy wanted his first level as rogue, so he'd get 8x4 skill points. Or the druid who keeps asking for dinosaurs when there obviously aren't any in the campaign world, because he read about them being really good as animal companions somewhere. Or the guy who insists on building a diplomancer and using it at every turn.
It's also annoying, as some have mentioned, from the other end. Say you picture your character as a dual-wielding melee tough guy, and you stick to it though it kinda sucks. Then it feels a little like cheating when others bend the story to the rules, and it sucks your fun out of the game as their leaky hulls of personality concepts outperform your own elegant design in all game technical ways.
The first is a roleplay problem, not an optimization problem. The second is a problem with the player, who is obviously just not listening to the DM. The third is not a problem at all. If one wants to play an underpowered character, he's fine so long as he doesn't drag the rest of the party down.

[Augmental]

As a player he loathes optimization. I see his point which is, "No matter what power level you are at the DM will make the challenge appropriate. The problem with high OP is that there is a chance the DM might accidentally make the encounter too powerful and squish you. If you do 1,000 damage out of 10,000 is it not the same as 100 out of a 1,000?"

He thinks getting big numbers is all there is to optimization? :smallsigh:

[hymer]

@ lego: I disagree that it's that simple. The notion of different ingame power levels is not inherently unproblematic, and therefore neither is optimization.

[Madara]

@ lego: I disagree that it's that simple. The notion of different ingame power levels is not inherently unproblematic, and therefore neither is optimization.

The problem is that it goes both ways. If anything, the two players should meet in the middle, with the optimizer toning down to T3 and the Fighter getting a different build to reach up to T3. Just because he's the one with lower power doesn't mean others should have to hold themselves back for his sake. Not only is fighter a T5, but TWF isn't very good either. He ought to find an aditional source of damage, so he could meet the Optimizer halfway.

Its interesting to see this split view on optimization.

Player A is Unoptimized and Player B is Optimized

If Player A complains about Player B being too strong, than Player B must be doing something wrong, and should weaken his build

If Player B complains about Player A being too weak, Player B is being a jerk, and Player A should be allowed to keep his current character.

[dascarletm]

He thinks getting big numbers is all there is to optimization? :smallsigh:

No, he doesn't. It was just an example, not a comprehensive viewpoint.

[lunar2]

in one of the groups i used to play with, i was the voice of optimization, the voice of RP, and the voice of knowing the rules.

yeah, really dumb group. one of them, when we explicitly told him to walk up to a held ettin and do a coup de grace next round, charged and attacked (we had a houserule that if a held creature takes damage, he is no longer held.) his justification: "i only have an intelligence of 7, i don't know what a coup de grace is". we, of course, pointed out that even a wolf, Int 2, goes for the throat of a down opponent instead of just randomly biting. another one charged a door to attack it (not even an ubercharger, just randomly charged), and another tumbled into a wall. if i hadn't built all the characters and ran half of them, we never would have gotten anything done.

[Mithril Leaf]

I'm far and above the greatest optimizer in my group, the DM taking second (Its my friend who DMs most games with me as a party leader and such to keep the game moving). I build most of the characters in my group around the concept they choose. If they really resist I let them do what they really want and try to buff them up in game.

[Endarire]

I am the biggest voice of optimization in my group. I've optimized so well that I was called a cheater. I've since learned that I'm the one who cares the most about stats in the group (by far), with the others caring more about story than I when they're players.

However, (and this is my main point) there is a big conflict of interest between people who know the rules and people who merely think they know the rules!

This discrepancy has caused so much heartbreak. It's one reason why low tier characters get played so much, because those who don't know the rules trust the game designers as the authorities over their fellow players and GMs when these weak character lovers say, "But it's cool!" The Rule of Cool (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfCool) only works if the GM says it does.

See also Ye Olde Stormwind Fallacy (http://www.loremaster.org/content.php/146-The-Stormwind-Fallacy).

[demigodus]

@ lego: I disagree that it's that simple. The notion of different ingame power levels is not inherently unproblematic, and therefore neither is optimization.

a) different in game power levels can still work. Therefore they are not inherently problematic. Yes, they can lead to problems, and they are best avoided. But I wouldn't call that inherent.

b) optimization does not cause different in game power levels. Differences in optimization does. Your argument only works against different levels of optimization, not optimization instead.


It's also annoying, as some have mentioned, from the other end. Say you picture your character as a dual-wielding melee tough guy, and you stick to it though it kinda sucks. Then it feels a little like cheating when others bend the story to the rules, and it sucks your fun out of the game as their leaky hulls of personality concepts outperform your own elegant design in all game technical ways.

Say I want to play a wizard who is not mentally deficient. Even if he has an obsessive compulsive disorder to solve everything by explosions (which is not exactly a smart wizard), he might not exactly work with that character. If I actually want to roleplay him being smart (as in casting spells intelligently, not necessarily optimized feat choice), I can either chose to forgo that, or crush your fun.

Same with a sorcerer.

Say I want to play a cleric who calls on the power of his god in a fight to reinforce him, so that he can crush his enemies. I would completely out damage you. Or if I wanted to play a cleric who called on the power of his god to smite his foes. You would get relegated to honorary janitor.

Or if I wanted to play a Druid who's whole shtick was to eventually make the world's best basket, and asking nature and its creatures to take care of his problems so that he could go back to making baskets. As in, I just picked the class, took a series of feats/skills that had 0 combat applications, and just used 2 class features (animal companion + Summon Nature's Ally) for all problems. No optimization at all. Would still overshadow that character.

Yes, over optimization can be annoying to a non-optimizer. However, if you de-optimize to the point that entire base classes become incompatible with your character, even when unoptimized, unless played stupidly, that is a problem on your end at that point. You should at the least be required to optimize to the point where the other person's character concept works. If your character concept is incompatible with entire classes, your character concept isn't fit for the game.


The problem is that it goes both ways. If anything, the two players should meet in the middle, with the optimizer toning down to T3 and the Fighter getting a different build to reach up to T3. Just because he's the one with lower power doesn't mean others should have to hold themselves back for his sake. Not only is fighter a T5, but TWF isn't very good either. He ought to find an aditional source of damage, so he could meet the Optimizer halfway.

Its interesting to see this split view on optimization.

Player A is Unoptimized and Player B is Optimized

If Player A complains about Player B being too strong, than Player B must be doing something wrong, and should weaken his build

If Player B complains about Player A being too weak, Player B is being a jerk, and Player A should be allowed to keep his current character.

Pretty much this. Although if there are multiple players, the target optimization level should shift to meet at the average

[Malak'ai]

I'm not the 'Voice of Optimization' in my group, though I am one of the better ones.
But IMO it's all about the group dynamic and how you work around (possible) problems like IC power level differences.
Now I've played in Low OP, Mid OP and have dabbled in High OP (though I didn't find it to be my cup of tea) and I've found that as long as the players agree to keep to the role they have chosen for their characters without encroaching to much into anothers territory things go fine.
Now that doesn't mean "You're a Cleric, you can't fight on the front line" nor does it mean "You're a Wizard. You sit back there and throw fireballs, let my Rogue deal with the logic puzzles". No, it means agreeing that every class/character has it's place and letting them excel in it as best as the player is able to manage.
Just because a high OP Wizard can do everything by himself doesn't mean he always should.

But then again, I find my own personal comfort level to be more mid op.

[Slipperychicken]

I've tried, but learned (slowly :smallannoyed:) not to bother about it. It doesn't lead anywhere productive in the long run. Only give help where it's asked for, otherwise you just seem like you're a showboating prick trying to self-aggrandize (or worse yet, marginalize others) with rules knowledge.


If someone expresses that his character feels useless (I've seen two PF Sorcerers this semester with horrible spell picks), then I try to help them ("Sorcerers' strength is that they can spam spells, but they can only pick so many, so you'll only want to pick spells which you know you'll use a lot. You should swap out that Mage Armor for something like Color Spray or Sleep").


Basically, let people learn for themselves that, say, shelling out your WBL for AC is really ineffective (maybe mention it once, then back off. Some people can only learn by experience). Then if they come to you for help, you're seen as helping out your friend, rather than imposing your demented view of what the game "should" be.

[123456789blaaa]

I've tried, but learned (slowly :smallannoyed:) not to bother about it. It doesn't lead anywhere productive in the long run. Only give help where it's asked for, otherwise you just seem like you're a showboating prick trying to self-aggrandize (or worse yet, marginalize others) with rules knowledge.


If someone expresses that his character feels useless (I've seen two PF Sorcerers this semester with horrible spell picks), then I try to help them ("Sorcerers' strength is that they can spam spells, but they can only pick so many, so you'll only want to pick spells which you know you'll use a lot. You should swap out that Mage Armor for something like Color Spray or Sleep").


Basically, let people learn for themselves that, say, shelling out your WBL for AC is really ineffective (maybe mention it once, then back off. Some people can only learn by experience). Then if they come to you for help, you're seen as helping out your friend, rather than imposing your demented view of what the game "should" be.

I'd like to second this post (is that a thing?).

[LadyLexi]

I play by the don't be a jerk(as I can't remember if this site has rules against language that the elderly are shocked by) rule. Basicly, if it would ruin it for everyone else, don't do it. And if you cause games to end because of your behavior, don't expect to be allowed into another game.

I am edging ever closer to banning one of my long time friends from playing over this, its a shame too.

Build to fit with the group, or build much more powerful and then just play down your power. Wizards are great for this, as are well built bards, let the melee guys have the glory and hold on to the save the day spells for when the day needs saving. Play down your strengths until they are needed.

The point of the game isn't supposed to be to convince everyone else that you shouldn't be played with.

That being said, when I play games, I often offer up advice to other players on how to improve what they want to do, within their own concepts. Someone wants to be a Drunken Master, I do what I can to help with the build. Someone wants to be an Arcane Archer, I show them Duskblade for easy entry.

[Slipperychicken]

I'd like to second this post (is that a thing?).

Until GitP introduces a "like" feature, quoting with a "+1", "Seconded", "Agreed", "This", or other expression of agreement is the best we can do.

[Snowbluff]

But don't you get it? You will never master your demonic powers and you will kill yourself if your character dies! (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.ASP)

[Aegis013]

Build to fit with the group, or build much more powerful and then just play down your power. Wizards are great for this, as are well built bards, let the melee guys have the glory and hold on to the save the day spells for when the day needs saving. Play down your strengths until they are needed.

I ended a campaign because of this.

Details spoiled for length:
I played a Shadowcraft Mage, I explained exactly what it was capable of, exactly what I intended to do with it (exactly what you said) and told the DM flat out "This is an incredibly powerful build, if you ban it, and I absolutely would understand if you do, then I'll make something less powerful."

When push came to shove, I managed to take down the biggest in game threat way before I was supposed to, (hooray scrolls) because my character was patriotic to the nth degree and I thought it was coming to attack my country (it has passed our borders and attacked our allies while en route, and we had seen invasion plans against our country). I had help from the playground, but I asked the DM three times, if it was alright if I try, and let him know I was only going to try because I thought I had a chance of bringing it down. He agreed that it was ok each of the three times. I also asked the other party members who also agreed that it was ok. I was very forthright with what I could do. I also directed other players toward choices that would ensure no redundancy in the group (and everybody that I was able to assist was happy, the one person who I didn't get to assist was not happy with his rogue among the Wizard, Cleric, Druid and Warblade).

After I did this the DM basically threw up his hands and ended the campaign short. Despite explicitly ok'ing everything I had done and being warned repeatedly I could do it.

The other players didn't mind my performance at all (they really liked my spamming buffs at them all the time) but the DM simply didn't know how to handle it, even with prior knowledge.

Personally, it was the most fun campaign I have ever played in, I was sad it ended as such. If I had known the outcome, I would have toned my character down.


Now I'm DM'ing for mostly the same group, and encouraging higher optimization (DMM Quicken Cleric, Elven Generalist Wizard, DFI Bard, Duskblade) and due to their options and my ability to cope with it, ie the options it has opened for me to use against them to make encounters the likes of which they've never seen, they've indicated it is the most fun campaign they've ever had.

Optimization is good in the right hands. The right hands is anybody willing to learn with the small modicum of self control necessary to not abuse it, in my opinion.

[huttj509]

Honestly, there are many things not immediately obvious that should be discussed and agreed upon when starting a campaign among friends. Things such as:

Intended power level (includes optimization)
Intended gamestyle (kick in the door, spend a month planning the details of the Duke's next fancy dress ball, anywhere in between)
Rules dispute methodology (DM makes immediate call until end of session? 2 minutes allowed for finding reference? 2 people argue for an hour while the others sit bored?)
Level of "find your own plot" (Not sure how to summarize. Basically a 'sliding scale of railroad' between "what do you mean "what's happening around town?" You're the players, you tell me" and "What do you mean "what do you do?" You're the DM, you tell me."

And more.

[hymer]

@ demi: I don't particularly disagree. I'm the most obvious optimizer in my group. When I call optimization 'not inherently unproblematic', I mean pretty much what you describe, but I do believe the optimizer is just as much to blame for any problem developing as the non-optimizers. And I think in a forum where optimization often seems the obvious thing to do, it bears mentioning (and rementioning) that you need to do so with some thought.
My optimizing is very rarely a problem in my groups, and the OP seems to be having problems. Hence this whole sticking up for the side I'm actually not on.

[Krazzman]

And I think in a forum where optimization often seems the obvious thing to do, it bears mentioning (and rementioning) that you need to do so with some thought.

First off I'm the only real optimizer in our current group. At least that is what I think so far. My GF can play effective druids/Barbarians but that without really optimizing much (no Ubercharging and such but effective). The others I don't quite know so far.
But atm my Character is the "strongest" as my GF tried something new and despite the help of the playground it was a bit dull ingame but again thanks to some advice she has found a goal to work to and the DM greenlighted it.

On another note about a year ago with the roughly same group (the DM doesn't play with us anymore and we got 2 new guys to play with us since then) we made an PF all Dwarf party. 1 Cleric, 1 Druid (me), 1 Cavalier and 1 Barbarian.
I choose the Earth domain as I couldn't really imagine him with an AC... and due to leveling up and reaching a point where Wildshape would come online soon I was thinking... what should I transform into? What would made sense and was dumbfounded. I asked the Playground and became quite a few responses that were... let's call it suboptimal, like try to transform into an raptor. The only animals that character has seen well enough till then were: a Pony, Goblindogs, Owls and Rats which I had stated.

In the current group however I seem to have some good influence as instead of an CLW we cashed in for a wand of Lesser Vigor and resorted to out of combat healing. As someone else here hold it "don't be a jerk" is the best thing you can do. Hint some things here and there (like we hinted to our current druid player that her AC is quite ineffective when it's not going into combat).

[ahenobarbi]

As someone else here hold it "don't be a jerk" is the best thing you can do. Hint some things here and there (like we hinted to our current druid player that her AC is quite ineffective when it's not going into combat).

Yup. Give them suggestions when they are willing to accept. Just remember not to force it.

[Tokuhara]

My optimization 2c.

Personally, I optimize above average, but sometimes, you need to self-regulate your characters so you don't outshine the party and someone doesn't have fun.

Let's say you're a God Wizard build. Just because your character can win every encounter by himself, doesn't mean that he may have some crippling social/psychological flaw. Perhaps he's ADD and you choose to only act every other turn. That isn't a mechanical flaw, but you choose to act that way in order to let your party's Human Fighter have a little fun.

Or maybe your God Wizard is a pacifist. He never wants the killing blow, so he always hits another target, again, letting Mr. Fighter have his fun. Just because the Tier System exists doesn't mean the player can't act unoptimized in order to not make the party unhappy.

And I personally have played the "Scooby" (for those who don't know, the Scooby is a comic relief character who is COMPLETELY sub-optimal, but is the lovable character who no matter what mess he's in, the party still wants him to be safe. The term comes from Scooby Doo (obviously). It's four semi-optimized party members and a half-retarded talking dog) and I enjoy being so sub-optimal that the party is left confused.

[LordBlades]

sometimes, you need to self-regulate your characters so you don't outshine the party and someone doesn't have fun.



This should work both ways. Sometimes others need to step up their game not to make you need to cripple yourself to the point your character is no longer fun to play.

[Slipperychicken]

But don't you get it? You will never master your demonic powers and you will kill yourself if your character dies! (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.ASP)

...What did I just read.


That is the worst DM ever. And the worst players ever (I could see why they'd want Marcie out of the game, though. She probably screams like that every time she fails a save). And the worst battlemat ever (5x10 squares? Seriously? And they have minis the size of soda cans).

I guess it explains why people hate Divinations and play Sorcerers instead of Wizards, if Divinations and Wizards make you "an abomination unto the lord". :smalltongue:

[Snowbluff]

I guess it explains why people hate Divinations and play Sorcerers instead of Wizards, if Divinations and Wizards make you "an abomination unto the lord". :smalltongue:

Wait... what? :smallconfused:

She was totally playing a cleric in the third panel... unless it's a GESTALT CAMPAIGN! Gestalt is made of Satan!

[Xodion]

This should work both ways. Sometimes others need to step up their game not to make you need to cripple yourself to the point your character is no longer fun to play.

The problem with this approach is that while you can almost certainly bring your character down to their level, they might not be able to bring their character up to yours. I play in two games with quite different levels of experience in D&D, and your approach would work for one group but not the other.

The first game has me and another good optimiser as well as other experienced players, and while we both tend to play lower tier classes to not outshine the others we are all pretty optimised and have fun.

The second game was aimed squarely at some of our friends who do not have much experience with D&D and are put off by the complexities of the mechanics, but still want to have a go and do some roleplaying. I am the only optimiser in this game, I have the power level turned right down and I still outshine at times though I try to minimise it. The DM and I have talked about what we can do to help the others shine more, and I am moving into more of a support/buff role to help them do better.

I understand that not everyone would be happy in the second game, but my point is that you should be able to negotiate and arrange the power levels you are all happy with, and be aware of other people's wishes and capabilities. If you can't negotiate and you don't feel you can play at a power level you are happy with, then this is probably not the right group for you - nobody should be forcing anyone else to play in a way they do not want.

[Twilightwyrm]

I am, what one might call, a voice of reasonable optimization. I was the one who originally taught my current group the game, and in doing so emphasized a more "concept before mechanics" philosophy, but as more campaigns began, and hence more character concepts emerged, I've nevertheless been the one to try and generally steer the other members away from the various pitfalls that lurk within the system (convincing the evoker not the ban transmutation, for instance). However, even if it is entirely possible to role-play, quite well, an optimized character, this invariably places mechanics before concept, thereby limiting what concepts a character can play with. Thus I tend to keep my suggestions to within a person's already chosen concept.

[rockdeworld]

I am in my group too. I like making the game easy, and get power-high. Like a kid, I like (relatively) big numbers. I just found out about chicken infested the other day, and considered asking the DM if I could play a Warforged Commoner 1 to get Survivor at level 2... And deal NI damage =P

I ran two campaigns, and learned (roughly) how to balance power against the rest of the party, and how to help them have fun. Now I don't really mind playing at the group's level. Everyone has a role to fill anyway.

Of course, the DM still doesn't trust me, since a few years ago we did the Hinterbite module and my first words were "okay, before I go into the town, I cast Planar Binding." He's used to a lower level of play, and recently was suspicious of my Lesser Aasimar character because he gets a +2 in Wisdom and Charisma without a -2 anywhere.

[Slipperychicken]

Wait... what? :smallconfused:

She was totally playing a cleric in the third panel... unless it's a GESTALT CAMPAIGN! Gestalt is made of Satan!

I was talking about the bible quote after the bottom panel.


EDIT: The DM referred to Debbie's character as a Wizard in the 1st panel, and a Cleric in the 3rd... Either she's playing two characters (or there's some weird multiclass/gestalting going on), or the DM has no f***ing clue what she's doing.

EDIT II: RPG Boogaloo: Maybe Debbie's Wizard died, so she rerolled as a Cleric who got to 8th level.

[demigodus]

When I call optimization 'not inherently unproblematic', I mean pretty much what you describe, but I do believe the optimizer is just as much to blame for any problem developing as the non-optimizers.

I fully agree with this. Maybe I just misread your initial post but I had read it as you putting all the blame on the optimizer. Equal blame (until one side makes concessions), I am fine with.

[Zubrowka74]

While I lean heavily on the side of RP (D&D was made just for that) I do believe RP and optimization are independent. But there is a point where it blurs, that's when you bend the fluff to fit around the crunch. I think it should be the other way around and I really do think that D&D is made with this in mind, hence the little care for balance and all the broken stuff. Of course, maybe low-power campaigns where every player is a beggar with low ressources might not be your cup of tea. To each his preference.

Also, lets not confuse optimizers for power gamers and munchkins. If you use a build you picked up on the internetz just so you can have an "I Win" button you are destroying the game. If everything in the campaign is high OP, you HAVE to build your character this way.