Optimization and you [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

huttj509

2012-12-22, 03:51 AM

For me it's not about being 'the best.' My thought process goes more along the lines of:

What are the assumptions of the game/campaign/etc?
What do I want to do?
How can I most efficiently do that?

With 3.5, I unfortunately ran into a lot of situations early on where if I didn't plan carefully I ran into issues of "oh, this doesn't actually work the way it seems." For example "tank," dual wielder (can make it work, but it tends to not be straightforward), "monk."

Depending on the campaign, the intended character concept can be anywhere from "supreme ultimate power" to "I just want a monk archetype that doesn't conflict with itself." Learning more optimization techniques gives me the tools to fine-tune the character to the concept and campaign.

Just because some people take a toolbox and start putting holes in the walls doesn't mean the toolbox is a bad thing when used properly.

What gets my personal ire up is 'newbie traps.' Things that look good, but really aren't once you realize more about the system (monks, fighters who try to tank by being beefy once enemies start ignoring them, etc.). If I want to play a bare bones level 1 commoner in a group of level 9 druids and wizards, I can, and I can have a blast with that (again, assuming it fits the campaign and group, if the DM/players is anticipating me being on the same power level, unexpected changes can come under the heading of "not cool"), but it should be intentional.

TypoNinja

2012-12-22, 04:18 AM

I don't look at optimized builds as something to seriously play, its an example of what the potential is, so you can take portions of a build to play that theme effectively at whatever powerlevel your game is at.

I would never seriously play a mailman or DMM presitomancy or anything like that. Things like the King of Smack and Pun Pun are fun in conception, but worthless as a playable character in my opinion.

On the other hand, I can look at the tricks used in combination to make one massive build and cherry pick just enough to get me a competent build. I'm playing a Swift Hunter, but nowhere near its full potential. It gets me a very nice (for my games OP level) and effective archer build.

Likewise, The Mailman showed me tricks like searing spell to make sure the damage is always delivered, but leaving out the meta-magic reducers drops it into the playable range for me.

Don't look at a complete build as something you need to copy (unless your games really go for that) instead view a complete build as a concept, or archetype, that you can use as a basis for a similar character by deliberately leaving out just enough to bring the power level down to something playable with your group.

It's about system mastery to me, knowing what my options are is useful when planning a new character, my biggest problem with a new game is trying to decide what to play (usually trying to avoid something I've already done before) seeing TO builds shows me different ways to design a character, usually with twists I didn't know exist before I saw it.

Biffoniacus_Furiou

2012-12-22, 04:28 AM

Is it fun or entertaining or anything but frustrating to do something that you're just not good at? What if there's something that you do that you've spent a lot of time and effort learning to do, and you've gotten pretty good at it, but then someone comes along who's never even tried doing that thing before and they happen to be exponentially better at it than you are? If someone is bad at math, and not just bad at math but can't even count above the number of fingers and toes they have, are they going to become an accountant? Assuming they do become an accountant, is anyone in their right mind going to hire that person to handle their finances? Could that person ever be a successful accountant? "Of course he'll be successful, but you'll have to hire him because I'm not going to!"

Let's say your party is looking to fill an arcane caster role, and they get several applicants:

The first applicant is some sort of mysteriously powerful magician who refuses to reveal the source of his power (because an audit of his character sheet would unmake him). He demands a quadruple share of the loot, something about having four souls, and the party doesn't feel like it would be safe to take their eyes off of him for even a moment.

The second applicant is a Half-Orc who carries a spellbook and an Orcish Double-Axe. He can cast spells, but he's not very good at it. He'd rather hit stuff with his double-axe, which he would be even worse at than casting spells if not for all that multiclassing that mostly just makes him worse at spellcasting. Nothing he says he knows how to do makes him any better at anything else he says he's good at, none of his capabilities have any synergy at all. This is the guy who can't do math but wants to be an accountant, or any Stormwind Fallacy denier who makes an intentionally gimped character.

The third applicant is a Grey Elf Wizard who's studied a wide array of methods (multiple optimal prestige class choices), his spells are extremely powerful (high DCs, knows to attack a creature's weak saves), and he's excellent at gauging how many of his spells to use to be sure he never runs out. He's extremely well prepared and seems to always have a solution to any challenge that presents itself thanks to Uncanny Forethought. He doesn't speak unless he needs to, and it's almost always a matter-of-fact statement rather than any sort of conversation. Think Spock or Data from Star Trek.

The fourth applicant is a single-classed Wizard, with nothing special about his capabilities at all. Compared to the Grey Elf, he ends up having to spend more spells per fight, doesn't have as many spells available each day to start with, and seldom happens to have the right spell prepared to deal with a tricky situation. He's a lot more active in party dialogue, and seems to have a lot more personality than the Grey Elf.

Your party of adventurers is going to be risking their lives day after day, hour after hour. You need to bring along someone you can depend on, the candidate who will give your party as a whole the best chance of surviving the battles ahead and succeeding in your various quests. This is why players optimize, because they want their character to be the best candidate for the party, they want their characters to be the best that they can be at their chosen shtick. I like doing things that I'm good at, and I like to be good at the things I do, and likewise I want my character to be good at the things he does, because it's more fun to play a character who does things he's good at than to struggle along with a mediocre character.

Jeff the Green

2012-12-22, 04:52 AM

First of all, "munchkin" =/= optimizer. Munckinry involves cheating, optimization is strictly within the rules*.

Second, optimization is all about reaching a goal. That goal may be ultimate power (and in theoretical optimization, usually is), but it can also be esoteric and silly things, like the highest Jump modifier or the most badass commoner.

Finally, optimization is a sliding scale. If you're building a non-gish wizard and you pick Combat Casting rather than Power Attack, you're optimizing, just not as much as if you picked, oh, Alacritous Cogitation or something. You can adjust both the goal of your optimization and the degree of optimization to fit your group. Playing either a very weak or very strong character, in relation to your party, usually ends up with one or more players not having much fun.

*Including, when applicable, houserules. We just don't talk about them all that much because each group has their own, so the only thing we can assume is RAW and to some extent RACSD.

Lazij Scalesong

2012-12-22, 05:23 AM

I, personally, enjoy creating a character that is both optimized towards usefulness/playability and flavored. I like to pick and choose my optimization. It is true that, some time, I don't fully optimize, but when I go into a game, I generally try to do both. Optimization takes a front seat to character, but only until it starts showing through said character's skin.

For example, some of the simpler classes to optimize (ranger, for example) are fun because you can build a background around the mechanics (tribal society whose ideal person was both a hunter and a fighter) so that you can marry the character with the concept (an escaped slave being a powerful melee and ranged combatant, adept at fighting, stalking, and ambushing).

The farther you go in either direction, the harder it is depending on the class.

Self-moderation of both aspects is the key, I believe.

===== Anyways, on topic.

As the poster above says: Optimization is about a goal. Every time you choose something that isn't strictly and 100% 'because I don't give a flyin' fark about my feat choices', you're optimizing towards something. You're maximizing -some- aspect of your character.

Grinner

2012-12-22, 05:36 AM

NotScaryBats

2012-12-22, 05:58 AM

Character creation is really fun to me; I love both the mechanical and conceptual sides of it. Optimizing is an enjoyable exercise, and I have the good fortune of never having had a game ruined from an over-optimized character (either mine or someone else).

So, the theoretical 'too optimized' character that ruins everyone's fun is a fairy tale to me in all practicality, and I enjoy optimizing to make a competitive character that can do cool things. If I make my colleagues go 'wow, you did how much damage with that attack?' then it really makes me feel good about myself.

Kazyan

2012-12-22, 09:37 AM

The character creation minigame is fun, and I get upset when I can't contribute at the same degree as the rest of the party. But on the other hand, I don't like standards that have been inflated to account for optimization--the point of min-maxing is to the meet the requirements presented to me in the first place. My concepts usually rule out optimal choices; if I don't do what I can with the rest of the wiggle room, my characters become rez-sinks.

Darius Kane

2012-12-22, 12:26 PM

I play the game to be a successful hero, not a chump. I have enough experience in being a chump IRL.

Dimers

2012-12-22, 02:19 PM

Fates

2012-12-22, 02:55 PM

I like to base the level of optimization I use on the nature of the game I'm playing, and the nature of the DM running it. If my DM doesn't want to deal with heavy optimization, I go with something less overwhelming; if the DM fully intends to throw everything he has at the players, I try to play something that will keep myself and my fellow players alive and kicking. If the DM is running a "fun" or "weird" game, I optimize a bit, roleplay a bit, but mostly focus on playing an interesting character. Creativity, (role)playability, and optimization are not mutually exclusive in my experience. I like to try to balance the three as best I can. D&D 3.5 is a rich system, with countless options for building characters, and while I don't like to have to stick to the core rules, I try my best to respect it when a DM wants to keep things "sensical."

Still, there's nothing I like better as a D&D player than making a truly unique, memorable character, and optimization really helps with this. If I want to make a paladin/grey-guard gnome who rides a rust monster (something I very well may be doing soon, actually), I need to optimize somewhat if I want him to stay. If I want to make a Half-Orc Warmage who doesn't believe in killing people, it's going to take every optimization trick I know to make him playable, but the other players and the DM will certainly not forget him.

As a DM, I've rarely had to deal with heavy-op players. Most of my consistent players in tabletop games are more concerned with roleplaying than optimization (and for that I'm extremely grateful), and those who do optimize are like me, and just want to create interesting characters who are powerful enough to get around but really liven the game in all areas. Like most DMs, of course, I have had my munchkins and optimization-experts, but it's usually pretty easy to convince them to try to stay around the same power level as their comrades.

White_Drake

2012-12-22, 03:17 PM

For me, optimization is about making a character concept work. It's irritating if I have a great idea for a character I want to play, but played as a vanilla X it will suck. For example, I've wanted to play a caster focused around magic missile for some time, simply because I think it would be fun. Unfortunately, picking a sub par tactic (blaster mage), and using a sub par spell from said tactic for one's whole career is not the way to make an effective character. However, when you throw in free metamagics, force missile mage, and all other manner of optimization, you end up with a playable character.

ThunderCat

2012-12-22, 03:27 PM

I optimise to get a character that will make for a fun game. If the campaign is likely to be deadly and I don't want to constantly change character, I optimise for survival. If there is a lot of in-group conflict that I don't want to be part of, I optimise for usefulness to the party (to make the other members of the group less likely to pick on my character), and power and perceptive abilities (to make it harder for them to get the better of my character). If I want to play a class/concept that usually has trouble contributing to the group, I optimise to make it better able to contribute.

In short, I optimise to make my character do what I want it to do mechanically. For some people (i.e. pretty much anyone who's ever bragged about how they were role-players not roll-players, or failed to distinguish between optimisation and munchkinism), that can only mean aiming to make my character the most powerful person in the world, but there's nothing I can do to change that, because that type of people are not going to listen anyway :smallsigh:

JellyPooga

2012-12-22, 06:24 PM

For me, optimization is about making a character concept work.

This, I agree with.

Unfortunately, picking a sub par tactic (blaster mage), and using a sub par spell from said tactic for one's whole career is not the way to make an effective character.

This, however, I do not.

ThunderCat, you make a similar point with a slightly different slant, but the intended result is, I think, about the same.

For me, optimisation should be about using the rules to create the character I want to make. I don't believe "contribution" or "power" or "effectiveness" is relevant to any character concept that doesn't inherently involve those things. One thing I very much dislike doing (and I know others have different opinoins) is creating a character without any kind of backstory. The theoretical Druid that always takes a Wolf as his Animal Companion at 1st level because it's the so-called "best" option is completley useless to my Druid character who has an affinity for snakes.

I'm not going to comprimise my character concept just so that I have a greater impact on how easy the game is, because at the end of the day, all "optimisation" is about is trying to make the game easier. In my opinion, the fun of the game is overcoming challenges and if none of your encounters are challenging then what's the point of playing?

When I 'optimise', I look at my character concept (which, before I even put pen to character sheet, will have at least a rough background and personality) and try to think what race, class and feats would be most appropriate. If that character concept is a roguish arcanist with a talent for minor magic, then I'm going to make him a multiclass Bard/Sorcerer. Is he going to single handedly take on a dozen foes? No. Is he going to struggle to deal with higher level encounters? Yes. Does this make him any less viable a character to play? Of course not; the character build fits the concept. Mission accomplished.

Flickerdart

2012-12-22, 07:26 PM

Optimization happens when you think "hey, what if I played a character based around sociopolitical ethnobotany" and then build something that can exist in the same party as characters that the system was actually intended to support without dragging it down. If you want a druid that has a snake companion, that's fine, but there are lots of different snakes, and some of them are better than others at being useful to you and your party. You can optimize your snake without making it into a wolf. Likewise, if you want to be a blaster, that's great, but there are good ways to go about it (precision Orbs with rider effects) and bad ways to go about it (fireballs that deal lousy damage and more often than not, catch your party fighter in the blast) and middling ways to go about it (metamagicked fireballs that deal better damage and are shaped to exclude the fighter from the blast).

Optimization opens doors that were previously locked, and makes the DM's job easier, because he no longer has to meticulously poke and prod at every monster to make sure that it won't wipe the floor with you, and to make sure that it can challenge a naturally strong character without making a naturally weak character irrelevant. He can just go "ok, you fight 3 trolls" or whatever, and chances are that it will work out fine.

Optimization can cause problems when different people (including the DM) have vastly different amounts of experience with the game, but knowing more about the game's mechanics is a better way of dealing with this issue than knowing less about the game's mechanics. There is nothing to be gained from getting angry at your players merely because they make logical decisions about their abilities - after all, their characters (at least, according to the book) literally have life-or-death encounters more often than they eat meals.

Grinner

2012-12-22, 08:04 PM

@Flickerdart: You know, some degree of optimization is only natural. Given two options, people will instinctively be drawn to the clearly superior one, but where would you draw the line? How much cheese do you put on your nachos? How much is enough? How much is too much?

Would your character be nothing more than a bucket of melted cheddar?

Flickerdart

2012-12-22, 08:07 PM

@Flickerdart: You know, some degree of optimization is only natural. Given two options, a person will instinctively be drawn to the clearly superior one, but where would you draw the line? How much cheese do you put on your nachos? How much is enough?

Would your character be nothing more than a bucket of melted cheddar?
In a party with a tray of gorgonzola, a plate of gruyere and a mozzarella-covered pizza, without hesitation. The answer to "how much is enough" is something that every game group needs to agree on for themselves; there is no "right" amount that will work for everyone in every circumstance, because there is no "right" way to play D&D.

Grinner

2012-12-22, 08:13 PM

I'm beginning to like this cheese analogy. :smallbiggrin:

JellyPooga

2012-12-22, 08:15 PM

...if you want to be a blaster, that's great, but there are good ways to go about it (precision Orbs with rider effects) and bad ways to go about it (fireballs that deal lousy damage and more often than not, catch your party fighter in the blast) and middling ways to go about it (metamagicked fireballs that deal better damage and are shaped to exclude the fighter from the blast).

This is the kind of thing that bugs me. I've nothing against someone that wants to play an effective blaster or even suggests that my blaster might benefit from using Orb spells instead of Fireball, but when someone turns around and tells me that my character is sub-par, ineffective, or whatever because I've taken one option and not another, regardless of the reason for selecting that option, it's not productive (in my mind, at least).

There's really no difference (to continue using the example), between playing a blaster caster who uses Orbs instead of Fireballs. Sure, one will be a better "team player" because he's not hitting his allies when he takes down his enemies and has rider-effects when he blasts. On the other hand, Fireball-guy gets to enjoy the tactical placement of his attacks, the conundrums that come with having a fixed area spell and the slightly distracted shout of "Heads!" only moments after casting his favourite spell (and the consequent arguments about blocking lines of fire and who's going to pay for the Bards new clothes). Sure, he could be 'better' with certain metamagic effects, but sometimes they're just not appropriate to the character.

"Optimisation", taken in a vacuum, is a fruitless exercise. It can be enjoyable to experiment with the rules available, but at the end of the day, all that can be done with those experiments is to take them apart and use the pieces to build something else.

Flickerdart

2012-12-22, 08:18 PM

There's really no difference (to continue using the example), between playing a blaster caster who uses Orbs instead of Fireballs.
Your party members will think otherwise. D&D is a team game, and when making choices it's only polite to consider your teammates. If you really really won't settle for anything other than fireballs, and absolutely refuse to modify the spell with metamagic, at least slap some Energy Resistance on your front-liners or something. Still optimization, just this time you're optimizing something different. Refusing to compromise between what you want (explosions!) and what your party members want (not getting exploded, getting an ally that pulls their share) is in conflict with the teamwork nature of the game.

This isn't only something to keep in mind for characters that are choosing weaker options on purpose. Character concepts that are natural fits for powerful options should also be careful about their level of contribution to encounters. Overshadowing the other party members may cause just as many problems.

Unless you hate your party members for whatever reason. Then, go right ahead and do whatever.

warmachine

2012-12-22, 08:25 PM

I create characters by defining their capabilities, often with a backstory, then I optimize to make sure they're good at it. A character can have critical weaknesses and must have another character save his skin but I want him to succeed in his turn in the spotlight.

Such optimization is not absolute as there'll be a small fraction of the build for artistic or professional skills as characters don't define themselves entirely as murdering hobos.

JellyPooga

2012-12-22, 08:37 PM

Your party members will think otherwise. D&D is a team game, and when making choices it's only polite to consider your teammates.

I won't disagree here, except to say that D&D is a team game 2nd. First and foremost, it's a roleplaying game. Very often, it's true, other players will get bugged by your constantly hitting them in this particular example, but not always. Especially if your character is well roleplayed within the group. Then there's the wider picture to consider; the Fighter who takes Improved Unarmed Strike instead of Power Attack or the Druid who takes a Snake instead of a Wolf for his Animal Companion is making the same kind of decision. One option is, from a TO perspective, better than the other but when it comes to a particular character, that TO is pointless.

The other players could argue that by taking the "less powerful" option, that you're not contributing as much as the others, or indeed vice versa, which again creates a similar conflict as catching the Fighter in your Fireball AoE. The only way to really avoid this kind of conflict is to throw any ideas about Optimisation out of the window and just use the tools available to build, as best as possible, the character you have in mind.

Flickerdart

2012-12-22, 08:43 PM

...just use the tools available to build, as best as possible, the character you have in mind.
In other words, optimization. :smallbiggrin:

The mistake you're making is assuming that every decision needs to be an optimal one, and that choosing a less optimal choice is "teh sux" in the eyes of an optimizer. Your druid isn't his snake companion. Your fighter isn't his IUS feat. The total combination of your choices is what's important, and that total combination needs to contribute enough for the other party members to want keeping you around. If roleplaying is more important to you than teamwork, you may very well find yourself roleplaying in front of a mirror instead of with friends. Just like your amount of optimization needs to be adjusted based on your group, so too does your amount of roleplaying - a group of beer-and-pretzels players might not have a lot of fun with a monologuing thespian.

Grinner

2012-12-22, 08:49 PM

In other words, optimization. :smallbiggrin:

The mistake you're making is assuming that every decision needs to be an optimal one, and that choosing a less optimal choice is "teh sux" in the eyes of an optimizer.

I don't think he's saying that at all.

Deophaun

2012-12-22, 08:50 PM

I won't disagree here, except to say that D&D is a team game 2nd. First and foremost, it's a roleplaying game.
Remember that when your character consistently hits other party members with his fireballs, and then wonders why he was kicked from the party.

That said, you might want to re-read White_Drake's post, because you quoted him out of context, and so your objection completely missed his point, which is that optimization allows something that would have otherwise been underpowered and under appreciated (like a magic missile mage) to be a viable option. Optimization allows you to have your snake companion without the other party members, in character, wondering why they stick around with you.

Phelix-Mu

2012-12-22, 08:52 PM

Character concept/backstory/personality always comes first, then I use some optimization within that framework. I agree with previous sentiments, the joy of the game is in overcoming challenges, and if your character fries/trounces the enemies before breakfast without breaking a sweat, that kind of fun doesn't do it for me. At least not for a whole campaign.

As DM, I can adjust pretty well to handle whatever optimization players have done. If the players kill too much too fast, add more/stronger/more resistant, or move away from combat-based challenges.

Eldariel

2012-12-22, 08:52 PM

Optimization skill is what enables me to decide to play literally any kind of a concept I want and make it work on the power level I desire for the game at hands.

It's also what enables me to differentiate between the different power levels in different games (which can be consciously set in experienced groups) and build accordingly.

Of course, there are some concepts that are incompatible with some groups; if I want to play a person completely allergic to magic in a high optimization group (think "Any Sorcerer without the ability to refill his spell slots without resting and switch his spells known on the fly is weak"-level), it's going to take extremely strong homebrew to make the concept at all feasible without forcing the DM to hugely bring down the campaign power level just for my selfish desires.

But between PbP, conventions and my "home" group, I have enough places to play on different levels at that I don't have to play that particular concept in that particular game. In practice, as long as I don't insist on playing a particular unfitting concept in a particular game that's in either extreme of high op or low op, I'll be able to play whatever I want wherever I want within the system thanks to my experience in it. And if the game has less experienced players that have ideas but not the system knowledge to build what they want, I can also help said people build the mechanics for their design, on the approximate desired power level all the while teaching them the ropes of the system.

And occasionally I just want to build something for the hell of it or to see how much can be done within certain constraints.

JellyPooga

2012-12-22, 08:56 PM

Just like your amount of optimization needs to be adjusted based on your group, so too does your amount of roleplaying - a group of beer-and-pretzels players might not have a lot of fun with a monologuing thespian.

Who said you have to be a thespian to roleplay? :smallwink:

I think we're on the same page, largely speaking. I'm not saying teamwork should be thrown out the window, nor that 'optimisers' always think that every decision has to be 'optimal', just that it bugs me when they start talking about "bad ways" or "good ways" of building a character. The only "bad way", to my mind, is to build a character using nothing but the numbers on the page. Whether you're using Fireball or Orb spells, IUS or Power Attack (etc.), so long as you have a character, your character is a "good" one. If that character conflicts with the rest of the party, then so be it. This doesn't mean you're going to end up playing by yourself (unless your friends are a bunch of jerks!), just that the party dynamic is going to be somewhat less like a football team and more like a dysfunctional family!

Flickerdart

2012-12-22, 09:05 PM

...just that the party dynamic is going to be somewhat less like a football team and more like a dysfunctional family!
Most families' livelihoods do not depend on engaging in life-threatening combat to the death multiple times every day. Intra-party conflict (as demonstrated many times in various media) can be fun precisely because you know that the guy that keeps stealing your lunch will have your back when the actual serious stuff goes down. In other words, roleplay is great justification for roleplay-based conflict. When the conflict is about mechanics, roleplay can no longer be a justification. It's the difference between creating a problem because it's fun (where, presumably, the party members all agree that dysfunctional family is a dynamic that they enjoy roleplaying) and creating a problem instead of fun (where the other party members don't get to weigh in on whether they want to be dysfunctional or not). If your party is fine with getting blown up sometimes, then there's your justification for doing it, but if they aren't, they have the right to ask you to stop, because their characters are being unilaterally affected by your character in a non-consensual way.

olentu

2012-12-22, 09:08 PM

Who said you have to be a thespian to roleplay? :smallwink:

I think we're on the same page, largely speaking. I'm not saying teamwork should be thrown out the window, nor that 'optimisers' always think that every decision has to be 'optimal', just that it bugs me when they start talking about "bad ways" or "good ways" of building a character. The only "bad way", to my mind, is to build a character using nothing but the numbers on the page. Whether you're using Fireball or Orb spells, IUS or Power Attack (etc.), so long as you have a character, your character is a "good" one. If that character conflicts with the rest of the party, then so be it. This doesn't mean you're going to end up playing by yourself (unless your friends are a bunch of jerks!), just that the party dynamic is going to be somewhat less like a football team and more like a dysfunctional family!

Hmm, so what happens to be keeping the party from just dumping or killing the guy they don't like and finding a replacement.

JellyPooga

2012-12-22, 09:15 PM

In other words, roleplay is great justification for roleplay-based conflict. When the conflict is about mechanics, roleplay can no longer be a justification.

This is a totally alien concept to me. The mechanics of the game are merely an extension of the setting and the setting is a function of the roleplaying. Mechanics, roleplaying, they're both the same to me. If I want to differentiate between the theme of a game and it's mechanics, I go play a board game. The combat in D&D is not some "mini-game" to be played separately from the other aspects of the game; it's just another part. If my character is surly and argumentative with a particular character in the party, whilst travelling and in the tavern, then he's going to be the same in combat! To expect him to drop his attitude because it's a life-threatening situation, whilst not beyond the realms of possibility, should certainly not be expected.

Flickerdart

2012-12-22, 09:18 PM

To expect him to drop his attitude because it's a life-threatening situation, whilst not beyond the realms of possibility, should certainly not be expected.
Then why, as olentu mentioned, does the party not ditch you and find someone who is actually helpful and won't turn on them in a life or death scenario? After all, in character, that's an exceptionally sensible thing for them to do.

Kazyan

2012-12-22, 09:21 PM

Then why, as olentu mentioned, does the party not ditch you and find someone who is actually helpful and won't turn on them in a life or death scenario? After all, in character, that's an exceptionally sensible thing for them to do.

Nitpick: It is expected that you be a kleptomaniac, partially insane mudrerhobo in 3.5; "reasonable" is less of a factor than you'd think.

Grinner

2012-12-22, 09:24 PM

If I may, I think you all largely agree that a suboptimal decision is not necessarily a bad thing, but you seem to diverge on your personal objectives in playing the game.

Flickerdart seems to place the team before his character, enjoying the satisfaction of teamwork. JellyPooga, on the other hand, likes the tension that emerges from interpersonal conflict, moreso than working with the team in an optimal fashion. However, it would be unwise to assume that JellyPooga would intentionally antagonize another player with his hypothetical Fireball.

JellyPooga

2012-12-22, 09:24 PM

Then why, as olentu mentioned, does the party not ditch you and find someone who is actually helpful and won't turn on them in a life or death scenario? After all, in character, that's an exceptionally sensible thing for them to do.

The same attitude, it should be noted, applies to a character with positive team attributes. If my character has a particular attachment to another, then in combat, he might well be using less effective tactics in order to protect that character.

There's often nothing stopping a party from ditching a character that they don't want around. However, doing so and going looking for a new party member is a truly metgame concept. They would be doing it in the knowledge that there will be a replacement because the player is still available. In character, there is no such certainty and thus less conviction about ditching someone that is, more often than not, as asset to the party, even if he is an unreliable, argumentative, friendly-firing douche-bag.

I can't, obviously, account for every game. Why is the argumentative character in the party in the first place? That's probably going to have a lot to do with it. It's only sensible for the party to replace him if they have a replacement lined up to fill the slot.

Flickerdart

2012-12-22, 09:24 PM

Even kleptomaniac, partially insane murderhobos understand that party members that don't hate them and contribute to fights are preferable to party members that hate them and don't contribute. They may be insane, but they're not stupid.

However, doing so and going looking for a new party member is a truly metgame concept.
That's because this is a metagame problem.

Why is the argumentative character in the party in the first place?
Because you decided for your character to be argumentative. That's what it comes down to, because you adamantly insist that nobody else gets a say. You might suggest some contrivance to be used in-character, but again, it's up to the other players to decide whether or not their characters accept those circumstances. If they think in-character that it's safer for them to do it without you than have to put up with you, then off you go, because your fun takes a step back to their roleplaying, remember?

JellyPooga

2012-12-22, 09:38 PM

Because you decided for your character to be argumentative. That's what it comes down to, because you adamantly insist that nobody else gets a say.

Ummm...when did I insist this? Just curious. :smallwink:

If my argumentative character is in the party, then the rest of the party must have, at some point, accepted that he's worth having in the party, for one reason or another. Adventuring parties don't just magically appear out of nowhere (not, at least, until the Wizard gets Teleport, I suppose...), they're formed of a bunch of characters meeting for one reason or another.

Anyways, I suggest we drop this as it's getting a little off topic. I think Grinner pretty much hit the nail on the head.

Flickerdart

2012-12-22, 09:41 PM

If my argumentative character is in the party, then the rest of the party must have, at some point, accepted that he's worth having in the party, for one reason or another.
Even if they accept whatever explanation you forced on them for this (if they don't matter when you're choosing your character's abilities, then I'm guessing that you're not going to ask them if a character that backstabs the party at random is cool with them - and if you do ask, I wonder what you will do when they say no?), they are free to decide, whenever they please, that he is no longer worth having in the party, and then out you go.

Vorr

2012-12-22, 09:45 PM

Something has been bothering me for sometime. I find the culture of character optimization and build design that has developed around D&D 3.5 strange.

So tell me. What's the appeal for you?

It's easy enough: Optimization and such is just an easy win or even an auto win button. It's for players that don't like the idea that a character might fail at anything. It's a way to reduce the randomness of the dice of the game.

Say something has a DC of 10. With no bonuses, a character only has a 50% to make it. A normal character with like a +5 or so has only a sightly more then 50% chance to make it. But the optimized character, with say a +12, will just about always make a DC of 10 or even 15.

Or say you hit a group of 25 goblins with a blasty spell. A normal character might only kill a whole four of the goblins. But the optimized character might kill at least 19 or 20.

Or a normal fighter that hits a monster three times, but only does ten points of damage total. Compared to the optimized fighter that does 112.

Flickerdart

2012-12-22, 09:47 PM

koboldish

2012-12-22, 10:41 PM

I have been a DM before, and running a game for extremely optimized characters is a challenge in many aspects. As a player, I love to optimize. I am not especially good at it, but it is one of the many things that makes the game fun. Unfortunately, many of my fellow party members have less experience playing, and have tryed to play builds like unoptimized single class fighters. I think the game should be challenging, but players should not feel completely incompetent. If there was a way to play completely optimized characters and still be on par with the challenge ratings of monsters and such based on an unoptimized party, that would be great. Unfortunately, such a sollution has not occured to me.
Sorry for a slight amount of ranting.

Flickerdart

2012-12-22, 10:49 PM

If there was a way to play completely optimized characters and still be on par with the challenge ratings of monsters and such based on an unoptimized party, that would be great. Unfortunately, such a sollution has not occured to me.
CRs aren't based on an unoptimized party - if they were, the CR of a Hydra or a Shadow, for instance, would be a lot higher, to say nothing of the Monstrous Crab. CRs are nothing more than ballparks made by individual designers without any methodology or sense of cohesion, and regardless of the optimization level of your party, should always be treated, at best, as suggestions.

kardar233

2012-12-22, 11:30 PM

I don't believe "contribution" or "power" or "effectiveness" is relevant to any character concept that doesn't inherently involve those things.

The vast majority of character concepts have one thing in common: effectiveness. If I want my character to be a charismatic thug who scares his foes into submission and executes opponents who don't bow to him, at some point I'm going to have to go through the mechanics of the system to do that. If I take Dreadful Wrath and Imperious Command instead of Skill Focus: Intimidate and Persuasive, that's making my character more able to do what defines him. It's not fun to play someone whose concept is that he can scare enemies into cowering with just a glance but mechanically can only slug them with a -2 penalty to actions.

I'm not going to comprimise my character concept just so that I have a greater impact on how easy the game is, because at the end of the day, all "optimisation" is about is trying to make the game easier. In my opinion, the fun of the game is overcoming challenges and if none of your encounters are challenging then what's the point of playing?

No, it really, really isn't. The point of optimization isn't to make the game easier; like you said, if everything is easy, there's no fun. In fact, it shouldn't be possible to do that because the DM is all-powerful and if a character is rolling over encounters they can just make them more difficult.

The point of optimization is to use the system as a tool to maximize your fun. A new player who wants to play a Drizzt expy, a naturally gifted and extremely skilled swordsman, will stop having fun when his character is categorically unable to do the kind of things he wants to do because his character has a low bonus to-hit, extremely low damage output and low AC. An optimized character does what the character is supposed to do.

It's also the optimizer's goal not to make the character too powerful as it ruins all the challenge of the game.

When I 'optimise', I look at my character concept (which, before I even put pen to character sheet, will have at least a rough background and personality) and try to think what race, class and feats would be most appropriate. If that character concept is a roguish arcanist with a talent for minor magic, then I'm going to make him a multiclass Bard/Sorcerer. Is he going to single handedly take on a dozen foes? No. Is he going to struggle to deal with higher level encounters? Yes. Does this make him any less viable a character to play? Of course not; the character build fits the concept. Mission accomplished.

I think of classes and feats as building blocks to emulate the abilities of the character I envision. There's nothing inherently wrong with a multiclass Bard/Sorcerer, it's just that it's likely that that character will struggle to deal with many issues and as such may have a negative impact on the player's fun. That's the important part here. If a person playing a multiclass Bard/Sorcerer is having fun, good for them. They're optimized for their fun. But if they're having trouble because they can't do enough with low-level spells, that means they're not optimized for their fun, so maybe their character could use some work.

Coidzor

2012-12-22, 11:35 PM

Something has been bothering me for sometime. I find the culture of character optimization and build design that has developed around D&D 3.5 strange. It's a pain in the ass to DM a game for munchkins character optimization enthusiasts, but I also think some of the synergies people have discovered are remarkably creative.

So tell me. What's the appeal for you?

Competence in a game centered on conflict primarily through combat scenarios or obviating them.

Edit: I suppose for clarity's sake I should mention that the system is filled with traps and pitfalls and other such things so that my earlier brevity doesn't lead to further miscommunication.

Sure, he could be 'better' with certain metamagic effects, but sometimes they're just not appropriate to the character.

This article is, as always, incredibly relevant to this line of thinking when it comes to characters and "their" decisions. (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html)

"Optimisation", taken in a vacuum, is a fruitless exercise. It can be enjoyable to experiment with the rules available, but at the end of the day, all that can be done with those experiments is to take them apart and use the pieces to build something else.

"Optimization" or optimization cannot be taken in a vacuum, that's the point. :smallconfused:

I don't even know how you can say with a straight face that knowing how to build things, take them apart, and build other things using the experience and knowledge gained is irrelevant, useless, or pointless when you've already conceded that, yes, optimization is in fact about getting what you want out of the system rather than the unfortunately common mistake of believing that optimization is about exploiting loopholes to break the system apart.

So how, pray tell, does increasing or maintaining one's knowledge of how to get what one wants out of the system have nothing to do with getting what one wants out of the system in the future?

Kelb_Panthera

2012-12-23, 12:45 AM

It's easy enough: Optimization and such is just an easy win or even an auto win button. It's for players that don't like the idea that a character might fail at anything. It's a way to reduce the randomness of the dice of the game.

Say something has a DC of 10. With no bonuses, a character only has a 50% to make it. A normal character with like a +5 or so has only a sightly more then 50% chance to make it. But the optimized character, with say a +12, will just about always make a DC of 10 or even 15.

Or say you hit a group of 25 goblins with a blasty spell. A normal character might only kill a whole four of the goblins. But the optimized character might kill at least 19 or 20.

Or a normal fighter that hits a monster three times, but only does ten points of damage total. Compared to the optimized fighter that does 112.

Has this fallacy been named yet?

I'm sorry if this offends, but this line of thought is so painfully obvious in the fact it comes from ignorance that I have to say something.

Optimization doesn't make the game any easier if there's a competent (just competent, not necessarily good) DM behind the screen. You ask, "how can that be?" It's simple, as others have attested already. The DM adjusts the average challenge for his game to match the relative power levels of his PC's. This is not to be confused with a "scaling game world" in which -all- challenges are scaled to the party's power levels and abilities but, rather, a moving of the bar for "average."

The only noteable difference between an extremely high-op game and an extremely low-op game is that the former will be played with bigger numbers and a different set of strategems; if both games are under at least modestly skilled, in the sense of constructing worlds and plots, DM's.

Mid-op does get a little odd, but I'll save that discussion for another time.

As for the accuracy of the CR system, as commented on by many a poster in the past, there are certain assumptions that the designers made and playtested under that are not the same assumptions made by the community at large. The apparent inaccuracy of the CR system (not counting MM2) is a result of this difference in assumptions.

Mind, I'm not talking about the "sword-and-board fighter, heal-bot cleric, trap-hunting sneak of a rogue, and blaster wizard" assumption, though there's a certain amount of that as well, but a more basic set of assumptions about starting abilities as well as when and what equipment will be available at a given level and that certain spells being used to obviate the need for certain pieces of equipment would be atypical rather than the baseline.

Under the assumptions the designers apparently made, the CR system is not unreasonable. The problem lies in that these assumptions, being so wildly divergent from the community's, are no longer an accurate representation of "average."

tiercel

2012-12-23, 03:29 AM

CRs aren't based on an unoptimized party - if they were, the CR of a Hydra or a Shadow, for instance, would be a lot higher, to say nothing of the Monstrous Crab. CRs are nothing more than ballparks made by individual designers without any methodology or sense of cohesion, and regardless of the optimization level of your party, should always be treated, at best, as suggestions.

I have to agree with Kelb_Panthera here; especially Core monsters make assumptions that don't really jive with how even moderately optimized PCs might be built, especially with supplements available. (For instance -- SR is a more formidable defense in Core than in an all-Completes game.)

Even putting that aside, a number of monster entries are... arguably pretty low-op. Look at the poor ogre. Without trying very hard, we could optimize the ogre by swapping its hide armor for studded leather, its Large greatclub for a Large greataxe, give it the standard nonelite array of abilities, swap its Toughness and Weapon Focus feats for Iron Will and Power Attack. Bam! Kicked up a notch without even leaving core, raising CR, or spending the ogre's full treasure allowance.

Heck, as a DM I read about how to optimize so that I can recognize potential problem PCs and just know how to tweak my monsters and NPCs for a party of players that wants to play more-than-low-optimized characters. (If nothing else, I can just tell my players that they can optimize as they like, but after seeing their builds then I will optimize their foes accordingly -- and I can use a lot more of the toys across all of their foes than they can in a single character.)

But this brings us to another point -- while it's often cited that roleplaying and mechanical optimization aren't necessarily exclusive (and, done well, actually work together) -- it's also true that having a heavy focus on one doesn't preclude making it harder to have the other, on the DM's side.

If my players want a more-or-less "high-op" game, as a DM I'm going to have to put a lot of prep time into making sure their opponents are also optimized enough to pose a reasonable challenge; I won't be able to just pull many foes for them straight out of a premade adventure or Monster Manual. If I only have so much time to prep for a game session, that may mean I may have to cut down on flavor text, characterization, and other roleplay considerations if I want there to be challenging combats.

That's not to say that optimization and roleplay necessarily come at the expense of each other -- but it's just as fallacious to say that optimization and roleplay NEVER come at the expense of each other, especially on the part of a DM.

The point is, when players and DM work well together and can agree on a comfortable level of mechanical optimization for everyone, so that all the characters can actually do what their players envision for their PCs' concepts and their abilities mesh with and add to their characterizations, none of the characters completely dominates the party all the time, combats and other challenges are challenging without being either pushovers or impossibly lethal, and the DM has time to prepare the desired mix of combat and roleplay scenarios for his players, then you've found the "right" level of optimization for your game.

huttj509

2012-12-23, 03:49 AM

The point is, when players and DM work well together and can agree on a comfortable level of mechanical optimization for everyone, so that all the characters can actually do what their players envision for their PCs' concepts and their abilities mesh with and add to their characterizations, none of the characters completely dominates the party all the time, combats and other challenges are challenging without being either pushovers or impossibly lethal, and the DM has time to prepare the desired mix of combat and roleplay scenarios for his players, then you've found the "right" level of optimization for your game.

QFT. Any comments about optimizing to "fit the group" and such include the DM as part of the group. Well, at least I presume they do...

JellyPooga

2012-12-23, 07:09 AM

stuff

I'll not really disagree with your post, as a whole. I think my first statement in this thread was words, largely speaking, to that effect!

One thing I will disagree with is that character concepts are usually predicated on being good at something. The most interesting characters I've played, or indeed seen played, are defined more by their limitations and what they're incapable of rather than what they're good at.

The Fireball-guy Blaster Caster, from my previous examples, whilst not being a team player, argumentative, etc. is not as "good" a blaster mage as Orb-guy, but this does not make him any less "good" a character. He's defined by the fact, not that he is the best 'Blaster Mage' around, but by the fact that he likes the Fireball spell, come rain or shine, whether or not his allies are in the way!

This article is, as always, incredibly relevant to this line of thinking when it comes to characters and "their" decisions.

optimization cannot be taken in a vacuum

Again, I'll not disagree with the sentiments in that article; quite the opposite, in fact. It's a good article and I think you're right in saying that it's relevent to my comments. What I will say is that I don't think a player should feel compelled to conform to a particular style of 'team-play', just because they're playing D&D. Sure, you can play the game that way, if that's your thing, but I don't think it's necessarily something to be frowned upon if you want to be the black sheep, the reckless fool, or what-have-you.

I accept that if your non-team player character is impinging on other players' fun, then you should reconsider your character style, but I don't think it a given that such a character will necessarily do so.

As for optimisation in a vacuum, it's perfectly possible. Most of the theoretical builds and discussion on this forum revolves around this kind of vacuum-optimisation. Orb-guy vs. Fireball-guy is a perfect example; nothing is known about these two theoretical characters except that one uses Orb spells and the other uses Fireball. One is considered a "better" character option than the other in the vacuum of the discussion. My point is not that all optimisation is taken in a vacuum, only that when it is, it's only useful as an exercise (much as running on a treadmill will improve your fitness, but it wn't get you from A to B). I'll not disagree that learning how to better use the rules of the game will improve your enjoyment of it, but to me 'better use' of the rules does not neccesarily equate with "being a better team-player", "more effective in combat", or any other qualification. 'Better use' of the rules is entirely subjective for any given character.

Deophaun

2012-12-23, 07:57 AM

IThe Fireball-guy Blaster Caster, from my previous examples, whilst not being a team player, argumentative, etc. is not as "good" a blaster mage as Orb-guy, but this does not make him any less "good" a non-player character. He's defined by the fact, not that he is the best 'Blaster Mage' around, but by the fact that he likes the Fireball spell, come rain or shine, whether or not his allies are in the way!
Fixed it for you. As from a role-playing perspective, no one who journeys far from the comforts of civilization and engages ferocious magical beasts and dark evil deities is going to allow that liability to come with them. It's like going hunting with a gun that explodes in your hand half the time. The only reason to keep such a character around is that the other players don't know how to say no, making the character concept a metagame construct.

Now, you can say "but I cast resist energy and/or do other things to keep my teammates from being roasted," but that would be optimizing to make your character viable as a PC, so can't have that.

JellyPooga

2012-12-23, 08:16 AM

It's like going hunting with a gun that explodes in your hand half the time.

and yet in the early days of firearms, people did just that...

I said it before, but I'll say it again; there's no possible way you or I can account for every character in every situation, in this discussion. You can't possibly make a blanket statement like the one you make here and expect it to hold true in every instance. In the archetypal "heroes of the realm" style of party, sure, you're right, but not every party or game is like that. I'll again repeat myself and say that D&D is a roleplaying game first and an exercise in teamwork second.

Now, you can say "but I cast resist energy and/or do other things to keep my teammates from being roasted," but that would be optimizing to make your character viable as a PC, so can't have that.

I've not once said that you should never optimise in this way, or any other, only that you shouldn't do so solely for the sake of optimising.

ShneekeyTheLost

2012-12-23, 09:13 AM

I guess I should make my contribution to the surplus of opinions on this topic.

Optimization is a medium, and I am an artist. Sometimes, I try something just to see if I can. That's how I came up with Takahashi. "Okay, what is the suckiest non-Trunamer class, and how can I make it work. No, not just work... how do I make it viable?"

The class I chose was CW Samurai. Now the challenge remained: How do I make a CW Samurai powerful without doing a lot of multiclassing out?

So I looked at the class. There was only one unique class feature that I couldn't duplicate elsewhere... the staredown mechanic. So I looked for ways to make it more viable. Then I got a copy of DotUD, and it opened my eyes. Imperious Command and Fearful armor enchantment practically jumped off the pages at me. And thus, the infamous CW Samurai Who (almost) Could was born.

Did I ever intend him to be played in an actual game? No. In fact, it would be pretty boring to play him in an actual game, because either you would lock everything down, or you would be worthless. Either way, no fun. Worse, you'd be ruining everyone else's fun by simply ending every encounter until you run into things immune to your one trick.

I made him as an expression of character development, as a way of pointing out that there might be little gems to be found among the rubbish.

Sometimes, it's not about making a character to play in a game. Sometimes, it's playing with the system, just to see if you can.

Waddacku

2012-12-23, 09:16 AM

While in-game teamwork is a consideration, that's really not the big concern. The important teamwork is the one in the group of players (including the GM). The goal of the team effort is (normally, anyway) enjoyment.
If your character doesn't play well with the other characters, but this is something fun for the group, you are still being a team player.
Conversely, if you insist on a concept or a play style that makes the rest of your group have a bad time, you're not.
Unless you do your roleplaying alone (AKA authoring fiction), the teamwork aspect is absolutely vital.

Deophaun

2012-12-23, 10:32 AM

and yet in the early days of firearms, people did just that...
In bizzaro world, maybe. You forget that hunting was primarily the domain of nobility, who don't react well when the weapon they commissioned almost kills them.

I said it before, but I'll say it again; there's no possible way you or I can account for every character in every situation, in this discussion. You can't possibly make a blanket statement like the one you make here and expect it to hold true in every instance.
I absolutely can make a blanket statement and it will hold true in every instance: Your team-killing fireball mage is highly vulnerable to group veto, which makes it an inferior character concept. End of story. That you might find some game where it fits is neither here nor there.

JellyPooga

2012-12-23, 10:39 AM

You forget that hunting was primarily the domain of nobility

Please don't assume I forget anything.

I absolutely can make a blanket statement and it will hold true in every instance: Your team-killing fireball mage is highly vulnerable to group veto, which makes it an inferior character concept. End of story. That you might find some game where it fits is neither here nor there.

It's only an inferior character concept if it actually suffers that veto. Your blanket statement is false. Vulnerability to something is not the same as suffering from that thing. To express it in game terms, a character with Weakness to Fire is at no disadvantage if never exposed to Fire damage. That in some games Fireball-guy is accepted is entirely the point.

ShneekeyTheLost

2012-12-23, 10:42 AM

In bizzaro world, maybe. You forget that hunting was primarily the domain of nobility, who don't react well when the weapon they commissioned almost kills them.

Actually, he's quite correct. Early gunpowder weapons were notoriously prone to backfire. There's a reason the term 'cannon fodder' came to be... because when a cannon went off, you had better than even odds of the cannon exploding and killing the crew.

This is a totally alien concept to me. The mechanics of the game are merely an extension of the setting and the setting is a function of the roleplaying. Mechanics, roleplaying, they're both the same to me. If I want to differentiate between the theme of a game and it's mechanics, I go play a board game. The combat in D&D is not some "mini-game" to be played separately from the other aspects of the game; it's just another part. If my character is surly and argumentative with a particular character in the party, whilst travelling and in the tavern, then he's going to be the same in combat! To expect him to drop his attitude because it's a life-threatening situation, whilst not beyond the realms of possibility, should certainly not be expected.

I'm going to extremely disagree with this one.

Take, for example, a soldier. Off-duty, he's carousing with his buddies in bars, having' a good ol' time, gettin' into a fight or three, spending money because it gives him an opportunity to blow off steam.

In combat, it's serious business, because it's your life or theirs. You want to see a change of attitude real quick? Watch a soldier on leave, then that same soldier when something triggers his PTSD.

Heck, there was that one incident with the marines in the toys for tots drive. They were joking around with the kids, all smiles and fun. Then some guy comes running out of the bank and bumps into them and tried to pull a knife. The official report stated that the man suffered multiple broken bones, broken ribs, a moderate concussion, and a hyper-extended elbow in the course of 'tripping over the curb'.

The flight or fight adrenaline response will cause a significant change in behavior in 90% of all individuals. The last 10%? Are always that damn scary.

Amphetryon

2012-12-23, 10:58 AM

Please don't assume I forget anything.

Could you please provide citation for your claim that people knowingly used guns that exploded 50% (that's 'half') of the time when fired? If the rate of backfire/explosion was less than that - and my reading on the subject to this point indicates it was - then your argument appears based on hyperbole.

Darius Kane

2012-12-23, 11:12 AM

Back in the days people didn't really have much alternatives, that's why they used firearms, I think. And many of them didn't know how dangerous they were, of course.

Waddacku

2012-12-23, 11:52 AM

Why would they hunt with firearms, anyway? High rates of malfunction and terrible accuracy.

Story

2012-12-23, 11:54 AM

One alternative was a bow. The only advantage of guns was that any idiot could use them.

JaronK

2012-12-23, 12:18 PM

ShneekeyTheLost

2012-12-23, 12:41 PM

Nobody hunted with firearms until the advent of rifling, when guns didn't explode like that anymore anyway. You can't hunt with a musket, it's not accurate enough! You hunted with a bow or just traps or something.

JaronKMuskets were used en masse during the Napoleonic Era to hit massive formations, not for hunting.

Hunting rifles, before things like the Kentucky Long Rifle were around, were one-off master artisan pieces hand-crafted and custom made for the purchaser.

The Bow was generally a much better ranged weapon than a firearm until Civil War era, because it was just as lethal with a much higher rate of fire and about the same range.

Also, the Blunderbuss was an effective hunting firearm, although it was effectively a shotgun, so you'd have to get a lot closer to your target than if you were using a rifle. Good for things you could walk up to, like a hog or a turkey. Not so much for things like deer, though.

Zeful

2012-12-23, 01:18 PM

@Flickerdart: You know, some degree of optimization is only natural. Given two options, people will instinctively be drawn to the clearly superior one

True. Too bad most of D&D options are obfuscated to no end and it's hard to tell the "clearly superior one" without being able to look at every other option simultaneously.

RagnaroksChosen

2012-12-23, 02:50 PM

tiercel

2012-12-23, 03:49 PM

Ill be strait up, I didn't read most of the thread...

But i prefer to have optimized players then unoptimized. I feel like i don't need to worry about there safety as much and I can focus on other aspects of the game.

For most groups, there's usually some "sweet spot" of optimization where the players have optimized enough that the DM can just throw challenges at them and not worry that the PCs won't have the resources to get through them somehow, but where the players haven't optimized enough that the DM has to rewrite and rebalance every encounter from scratch because nothing published in any book has a ghost of a chance against the players' League of (In)Justice.

Exactly where that level is varies a bit; some DMs would rather use preprinted stats more, and occasionally tweak it "just in case" the PCs aren't strong enough, other DMs love being able to "juice up" their monsters/NPCs more.

I think that's the point of the Handbooks and Guides you see on this and other sites --- they give you a full menu of options, from "flavorful rare ability" to "that's kind of a neat trick" to "definitely check with your DM before you try pulling this," and if you are using said Handbook to get ideas, it's up to you in the context of your group to figure out where the line is, for you, where you've crossed over into Cheese Factor Five and the danger of thrown rulebooks and Dwarven Metal dice.

(In general, I've never thought that the point was that you were supposed to cherry-pick ALL the "most powerful" options for any class, but that all the options were laid out for you and analyzed so that you can pick and choose to best realize your own character concept.)

Psyren

2012-12-23, 04:03 PM

JellyPooga

2012-12-23, 04:18 PM

I'm going to extremely disagree with this one.

Take, for example, a soldier.

You're quite correct that people do indeed change quite dramatically when faced with a life threatening situation. Otherwise gregarious or introverted people often become frighteningly focused under that kind of stress. What doesn't disappear is that persons prejudices, attitudes and deep rooted personality. If, for example, a character simply doesn't like or even hates someone else, they're not going to go out of their way to help them (like diving in front of a bullet, sort of thing), even if they're supposed to be allies (unless, of course they consider it part of their duty or something...there are obviously many qualifying factors).

Could you please provide citation

I think we need to take things a little less literally :smallwink: The fact is that early firearms were unreliable. No, not 50% misfire rate, you're quite correct, but I don't think anyone was taking that as read (apart from you, apparantly).

As for whether people hunted with unreliable firearms or not, I think you'll find that people are, despite sometimes being quite intelligent, also incredibly stupid! The advent of the blackpowder weapon was much like any new invention. Those with more money than sense always have and always will jump on the latest craze, whether it's more efficient than existing technology or not. Of course you can hunt with a musket...you just won't hit much! This is conjecture, of course, but it's a reasonable assumption that at least someone tried it!

On a more factual note, (spoilered so only those interested have to read it)
whether a firearm was rifled or not had little to do with its predeliction to explode. The change in the firing mechanism and quality of the powder used had a much greater impact in this regard. The Kentucky Long Rifle, for example was a remarkably accurate weapon of the era, but still used a flintlock firing mechanism in many cases and the blackpowder at the time was often crudely fashioned, both of which make the weapon quite unreliable. Maybe not "explode in your face" unreliable, but it was certainly a possibility. Even years later, when flintlocks were a thing of the past, firearms were still notoriously fickle and often innacurate, but this did not stop people from using them for all sorts of reasons.

Quite how this relates to optimisation and party dynamics; in a game, characters can act however you like. It should be noted, though, that those characters are being played by a bunch of guys sitting round a table. What seems to be a good idea to you, the player, is not neccesarily that which seems a good idea to someone who is actually in that situation. As I say, despite remarkable intelligence, people are often very stupid and players should be careful not to forget that their characters are people too!

Amphetryon

2012-12-23, 04:23 PM

There's nothing especially wrong with hyperbole, provided it's acknowledged.

Flickerdart

2012-12-23, 04:29 PM

As I say, despite remarkable intelligence, people are often very stupid and players should be careful not to forget that their characters are people too!
Stupid people who put their lives on the line multiple times a day are dead people. This is why, if adventurers are alive, you can assume that they have at least one person in their party that's not an idiot, and everyone else listens to that person often enough to not die as well.

TypoNinja

2012-12-23, 06:03 PM

If my argumentative character is in the party, then the rest of the party must have, at some point, accepted that he's worth having in the party, for one reason or another. Adventuring parties don't just magically appear out of nowhere (not, at least, until the Wizard gets Teleport, I suppose...), they're formed of a bunch of characters meeting for one reason or another.
.

I feel the need to chime in cause I see this regularly.

I call this "Because were at the same table" problem.

You sit a group of people down and its assumed that they'll be an adventuring party. And then, the majority of the time everyone will proceed to make characters that have little to no reason to even be in the same room together let alone trusting each other with their lives. People will design characters that are so aggravating that they are only still alive because its bad form to turn on a PC. Or have diametrically opposed attitudes to life.

People will abuse the meta-game knowledge that we'll all be traveling together no matter what (perhaps not consciously) to design a character that would be ignored out of hand if it weren't a PC. And its justified that its how they have fun, without considering that their method of 'fun' equates to annoying everyone else.

DM's deal with the same problem from the other end, how do I get my players to meet up? How do I avoid the overused Tavern Trope? Just about every other consideration is usually sidelined to the far more pressing detail of simply getting everybody at the table (not the PC's necessarily, but the Players themselves) together.

If you are going to play something that doesn't fit well with the rest of the party makes sure OOC that everybody is ok with it. Using IC reasons to justify being aggravating is a cop out, you chose that character and his mannerisms, and you know that you'll be forced together by the OOC realities of the game.

HamHam

2012-12-23, 06:16 PM

Most of the time when playing rpgs, I want to play a hero. And not a barely competent farm boy out of his depth who gets by on strength of will and luck type of hero either. I barely tolerate those kind of characters. I want to kick but and take names. That means being really good at the mechanical combat aspects of the game. Now, there is obviously a paradox here that a DM can make challenges that are easy or impossible for basically any level of character. But the assumption of CR appropriate encounters still gives you some idea of how your character will perform.

JellyPooga

2012-12-23, 07:29 PM

I call this "Because were at the same table" problem.

Urgh, I know exactly what you mean. In the game I'm running right now, one of my PC's died and came back at me with a character, fully fleshed out with a detailed background and everything, describing how his Half-Orc Barbarian hates all Orcs and their kin. When introduced to the party, the first PC he encountered was another Half-Orc, one that has specifically stated that he favours his orcish heritage more than his human side. The conversation went something along the lines of:

Orc Hater: "Who are you?"

Half-Orc Party Member: "I'm a dude. We're adventurers. Want to join us?"

Orc Hater: "Ok"

I couldn't stop them just accepting the newcomer, or berate the new PC for his attitude, without causing undue aggro, but it flied in the face of the entire background written up for the character, simply for the sake of expediating the introduction. Just kinda bugged me, you know. Especially when they'd previously unquestionally attacked so-called aggressors based on race alone, even though these "aggressors" had done nothing but take a cautious approach to the PCs camp.

No, when I'm playing as a PC, I will make sure that my anti-social, antagonistic, douche-bag character (if that's what I'm playing) is going to gel well in the player group (if not the character group). If not, I fully expect the other characters to say "screw that guy" or even just re-write the character before introductions are even made. Don't get me wrong, I'm in full agreement with everyone that's said that fun trumps everything and that getting on the other players nerves with an antagonistic character is something that should not be taken lightly. All I'm trying to clarify is that "optimising" a character, whether that means using Orb spells instead of Fireball, building the character to take on a dozen foes at once or even just taking the Improved Toughness feat instead of Toughness is by no means a neccessity and characters, or players, should not be looked down upon for wanting to take so-called sub-optimal choices.

Making a "better" character should only be defined by how well the character performs in roleplaying the interactions of that character in every situation, based on who and what that character is. If your character concept is to be the greatest swordsman alive, then buff your swordplay skills into the stratosphere. If your character concept is the plucky farm boy that wins despite the odds being stacked against him, then giving him 'leet skillz' with sword or sorcery is not going to add to the aesthetic of this character.

I'm repeating myself again, but optimising a character for the sole sake of making him (or her) a 'better contributor' is not neccesarily a good thing. D&D, at least for me, is about telling a story. Some of the best stories are about characters that aren't competant, yet overcome the odds despite this. The Lord of the Rings is the perfect example, I suppose.

HamHam

2012-12-23, 07:46 PM

I'm repeating myself again, but optimising a character for the sole sake of making him (or her) a 'better contributor' is not neccesarily a good thing. D&D, at least for me, is about telling a story. Some of the best stories are about characters that aren't competant, yet overcome the odds despite this. The Lord of the Rings is the perfect example, I suppose.

You don't need the pages and pages of rules that DnD has to tell a story. You could all jut sit down and tell a story together if that was the only goal. There are systems out there for exactly that kind of thing. But DnD has it's roots in a table top combat game, and it continues to cater in part to that desire for overcoming challenging enemies through your skill at playing the game.

JellyPooga

2012-12-23, 08:06 PM

You don't need the pages and pages of rules that DnD has to tell a story. You could all jut sit down and tell a story together if that was the only goal. There are systems out there for exactly that kind of thing. But DnD has it's roots in a table top combat game, and it continues to cater in part to that desire for overcoming challenging enemies through your skill at playing the game.

I won't deny it. But note that I have never said that making your character better at what he or she does is a bad thing, in and of itself. Only that doing so for the sake of upping the ante, so to speak, is a bad thing. If making a 'better' character means that your DM has to increase the 'power level' of the encounters you face to compensate and maintain a certain level of challenge, then you've failed to achieve anything. You haven't been rewarded for your skill at the game with anything except forcing the DM to match your skill. If the DM cannot, then all you've achieved is making the game easier and as I've mentioned previously, an easy game is rarely a fun one for very long.

Mithril Leaf

2012-12-23, 08:53 PM

After reading this whole thread, I realize I have a rather different perspective, which is fun.

I optimize because I'm an optimizer. I find an awesome ability or spell and find a way to break it more than usual. These are personal builds that don't see the light of day, but I love them nonetheless. I use the character to tell the story of the rule with these. Sometimes it's to realize a flavor ability as well, like my anthromorphic toad that becomes a Planar Shepherd of Limbo to evolve into a Slaad. It's only when I need a character for a campaign that I bust out one of these guys and put some flesh on his bones. I know precisely where each one is optimization wise already, so I can easily pick the right one for the game's tier.

If I'm in a high op game with wizards already, I'll go right ahead and make a stun immune dragonwrought kobold who picked up a few spare levels of casting wherever with Dalamar's Lighting lance subbed to fire, searing spell, and reserves of strength. If I'm in a game where the strongest player is a normal fighter, well, who need to taste Ice Cream anyway.

I like optimization because it's fun for me and helps my gameplay. That might not be the case for a player, but I always try to make my services available to help realize concepts. Plus, if I optimize all the characters as a player, I can tell the DM where we are and make sure nobody is too over or under powered.

huttj509

2012-12-23, 09:18 PM

No, when I'm playing as a PC, I will make sure that my anti-social, antagonistic, douche-bag character (if that's what I'm playing) is going to gel well in the player group (if not the character group).

Ooh, good distinction. Honestly, I know groups where the backstabbing infighting at each others throats knife in the back party is utterly awesome. I also know groups where it's a complete violation of the unstated players' agreement.

White_Drake

2012-12-23, 10:30 PM

You're quite correct that people do indeed change quite dramatically when faced with a life threatening situation. Otherwise gregarious or introverted people often become frighteningly focused under that kind of stress.

Did you mean to say extroverted, or did you mean to specify both ends of the spectrum but exclude the average, or am I failing at comprehension?

123456789blaaa

2012-12-23, 11:43 PM

I optimize because optimizing is fun :smallsmile:.

Bakkan

2012-12-24, 02:22 AM

I won't deny it. But note that I have never said that making your character better at what he or she does is a bad thing, in and of itself. Only that doing so for the sake of upping the ante, so to speak, is a bad thing. If making a 'better' character means that your DM has to increase the 'power level' of the encounters you face to compensate and maintain a certain level of challenge, then you've failed to achieve anything. You haven't been rewarded for your skill at the game with anything except forcing the DM to match your skill. If the DM cannot, then all you've achieved is making the game easier and as I've mentioned previously, an easy game is rarely a fun one for very long.

I don't think this is necessarily correct. Sometimes, I am looking to play a powerful character who does amazing things, and so I (and the group) optimize, and the DM, as you say, increases the difficulty level for us. Now, let's say our chance of success hasn't changed. But now, when we succeed, we've succeede3d at an objectively tougher challenge even though it's relatively as difficult as it would be if we were unoptimized.

Example:
Group 1 consists of four level 3s: a blaster wizard, sword-and-board fighter, healbot cleric, and a standard rogue. The DM, knowing his group's optimization level, pits them against two bog-standard ogres (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/ogre.htm). This is a difficult encounter, and we might estimate the group has about a 50% chance of defeating the ogres (with adjustments based on environment and player ability).

Group 2 also consists of four level 3s: a BFC wizard, a power-attacking warblade, a DMM Persist party-buffing cleric, and a Factotum who's taken the Craven feat and Font of Inspiration as many times as possible. In order to challenge this party, and without wanting to customize any monsters, the DM might throw three ogres (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/ogre.htm), a handful of goblins (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/goblin.htm), and one level 4 kobold sorcerer at them. This is still a difficult encounter, even for the optimized group, and they might still have only a 50% chance of success.

The point is that for the second group, success may feel sweeter (and defeat less humiliating) than it will be for the first group, because the challenge is objecetively greater while being relatively the same.

JellyPooga

2012-12-24, 04:56 AM

Did you mean to say extroverted, or did you mean to specify both ends of the spectrum but exclude the average, or am I failing at comprehension?

I did, indeed, mean to specify both ends of the spectrum, but by implication I meant to include everything in between!

The point is that for the second group, success may feel sweeter (and defeat less humiliating) than it will be for the first group, because the challenge is objecetively greater while being relatively the same

I can understand that. The only problem I have with it, as I said, is that if the GM is incapable of upping the ante sufficiently, then you just enter "easy-mode". I've seen games wrecked by players who outclass their GM in Op-fu and it makes for an unsatisfying experience. The typical example is when running a published adventure; many GMs run these because they don't want to go to the effort of tailoring an adventure themselves. If they're having to change all the encounters to account for their high-op party, then it defeats the point.

Jon_Dahl

2012-12-24, 08:34 AM

The character concept goes first and then comes the optimization. It's always important to make a character that can survive the campaign. I don't think I have ever 100% optimized.

Actually, I have frustrated my old DM several times by making sub-optimal characters. There are a few reason for this.
Firstly, the other players were huge optimizers. Big time. I didn't want to compete with them and it made them feel happy to have superior characters. I was content with my role as the party gimp, even though was DM wasn't happy with that.
The DM himself was very competitive. I didn't want to compete with him either. By making a weak character I made it clear that I folded from the "arms race".

About one year ago we played again and this time we only had two players. This time I made a well-optimized bard and that really suprised my DM. He wanted an explanation for the change of heart and I explained that since the group is so small, I can't gimp anymore :smallsmile:

Bakkan

2012-12-24, 12:06 PM

I can understand that. The only problem I have with it, as I said, is that if the GM is incapable of upping the ante sufficiently, then you just enter "easy-mode". I've seen games wrecked by players who outclass their GM in Op-fu and it makes for an unsatisfying experience. The typical example is when running a published adventure; many GMs run these because they don't want to go to the effort of tailoring an adventure themselves. If they're having to change all the encounters to account for their high-op party, then it defeats the point.

I agree completely. I don't think I've seen anyone in this thread suggest anything else, actually. The group should always try to operate at a similar power level, and this includes the DM. However, since the DM does more work and directly controls the opposition, generally he or she should have the largest say in what power level the group will build for.

That said, lower-power isn't necessarily easier for the DM to handle. As an example, I was once in a mid-high op group of three in a somewhat sandbox campaign. At one point, we assaulted an underground bunker of sorts that turned out to be occupied by a large number of large golems, and essentially nothing else. The fact that we were optimized allowed the DM to do this, since otherwise (say we were group 1 in my previous post) she would have killed us since the rogue couldn't sneak attack, the wizard couldn't affect them with most of his blasting spells, and the cleric and fighter would have been overcome. As it worked out, I (the Ultimate Magus) Glitterdustet, Greased, and Webbed the golems into ineffectiveness while the Factotum and Swordsage beat them down.

A DM running a game with lower-op players needs to be much more careful about how he builds his encounters, since an encounter that's too easy will simply requrie him to increase the threat of the next one while an encounter that's too hard could put an end to the campaign. This is of course all moot if the DM is willing to handwave and fudge things in a big way in order to keep groups alive, but if that's the case, why not allow the group to go high-op and handwave and fudge things the other way?

Coidzor

2012-12-24, 04:34 PM

I did, indeed, mean to specify both ends of the spectrum, but by implication I meant to include everything in between!

I can understand that. The only problem I have with it, as I said, is that if the GM is incapable of upping the ante sufficiently, then you just enter "easy-mode". I've seen games wrecked by players who outclass their GM in Op-fu and it makes for an unsatisfying experience. The typical example is when running a published adventure; many GMs run these because they don't want to go to the effort of tailoring an adventure themselves. If they're having to change all the encounters to account for their high-op party, then it defeats the point.

The problem with this tack is that you're basically defending and tacitly giving your blessing to both laziness and ignorance. We have the tools and people are generally willing to give the aid in order to assist those who are ignorant and do not wish to remain so. If a player or group is OP for the DM, then if they're anything like a reasonable approximation of a reasonable adult human being then they'll be able to act like it and work something out. Otherwise they're "problem players" or the DM is one of those that shouldn't really be DMing anyway and the group was doomed one way or another due to the compromised social dynamic.

Yukitsu

2012-12-24, 07:11 PM

I'm of the personal opinion that a character can only follow specific types, styles and with certain aesthetics with a certain level of optimization. The other option is the DM just lets you do whatever you want for no reason whatsoever other than that you want to do it (rule of cool BS and whatnot.)

I optimize because for example, that all knowing, 10 steps ahead archwizard is impossible to play if I'm going standard blaster wizard. It's impossible to play a sleek, deadly, agile fighter with a standard fighter build, or even a typical rogue build.

Optimization isn't in practice always about shooting for the most mechanically broken build in existence. Sometimes, some optimization is required for the character's basic functioning if you want them to be who you want them to be. The alternative is something I see at my table all the time. Something that is supposed to convey a certain tone in role play, but ends up looking like a bit of a fool when forced into rolling the dice.