How necessary is optimization? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Matticussama

2013-01-31, 07:40 PM

Generally speaking, most creatures in the Monster Manuals are relatively unoptimized unless you change out their feat choices. The only enemies that are really a major threat for their level are the classic "big bad" monsters of D&D; dragons, beholders, aboleths, etc.

Except for those few specific monsters, even an unoptimized party of at least 4 players should be able to handle threats of CR equal to their level. And don't forget that tactics are very important to CR as well; there is a huge difference between running a Dragon intelligently and just having it fight like a mindless beast. An intelligent dragon played to its CR will use spells to buff itself outside of combat, use the magic items in its hoard to their full capacity, etc. Dragons that just mindlessly attack without buffing or using the items from their hoard aren't as much of a threat.

The same is true for weaker monsters; you can take lesser CR monsters, but with strong tactics and some basic feat changes make them much more of a threat without necessarily boosting their HP, weapons, etc.

Answerer

2013-01-31, 07:41 PM

Optimization is unavoidable, in the sense that unless you literally are randomly generating your character, you are applying thought to the choices that you make, with the goal of "optimizing" some aspect of the character.

Everything from there is a continuum, a question of how much?

For most premade modules, the answer is "extremely little."

For a DM who uses a lot of Animals, Magical Beasts, Vermin, and low-op Humanoids (Monstrous or otherwise), the answer is still generally pretty low.

Aberrations, Constructs, and Undead can kind of go either way. Some of them are brutal for their CR. Plenty are laughable, though they may require special preparation.

Dragons and Outsiders, though, can be brutal. They can be extremely difficult for low-op groups to take on.

But mostly it's important that everyone in the group (the DM included) is using the same amount of optimization.

strider24seven

2013-01-31, 07:58 PM

In my experience, the answer is:
Irrelevant.

The CR system is so borked that if your DM uses it and takes it seriously, your group might as well be using a dartboard.

See Allip, Ephemeral Swarm, Adamantine Clockwork Horror, anything from the MM II and MMIV, anything with spellcasting from the Wiz/Sorc or Cleric list, etc.

Honestly it comes down to how well your DM can ballpark a critter's strengths and weaknesses.

Carth

2013-01-31, 08:11 PM

Optimization is necessary to the extent that it opens up options for your DM. A horribly optimized party or an overly optimized party takes options off the table for a DM. A horribly optimized party will simply be unable to overcome many obstacles, and therefore limit what the DM can throw at them. An overly optimized party limits what the DM can throw at them by virtue only only being challenged by a small number of things.

nedz

2013-01-31, 08:15 PM

Consider the situation where one of them chooses to play a Druid, and the other a Fighter. For the first few levels everything is fine; but after about level six the Druid will be several times more capable. Thus the Druid player has made a more optimal choice without really realizing it.

Actually, in the case above, it's probably impossible to optimise the Fighter to be balanced with the Druid: but that's moot — the die was cast at level 1.

Dimers

2013-01-31, 08:31 PM

TL;DR -- depends on your class and your party.

Many players have the most fun running characters who are decently powerful. It's the sweet spot between "can't affect the world" and "have no real challenges". Becoming decently powerful may or may not require optimization. A player would have an easier time becoming decently powerful if they happen to want to play a barbarian rather than a monk, and an easier time still if they want to play an intelligent melee warrior and somebody points them at the warblade. If the player chooses a bad class, they'll need some optimization to get to that sweet spot.

That entire reason is invalidated if the characters aren't supposed to be impressive. In that case, some DISoptimization may be necessary. I would present that as optimization with a negative vector. :smalltongue:

Optimization is also useful to get different characters in a group to be sufficiently even with each other that the DM doesn't have difficulty making encounters.

NichG

2013-01-31, 08:49 PM

The main thing the DM needs in this situation is to be a little better at knowing what the party and monsters can pull off than the players themselves. It doesn't matter if its a low-op game overall, but if the players are struggling then the DM needs to recognize that and be able to move past the listed CRs to judge how hard something will actually be. In a very high-op game, a DM without that talent will just generally throw things at the party that are way too easy - the game will be tactically dull, but not a TPK.

For the low-op game, the DM needs to be a little bit more careful at times to avoid accidentally throwing something strong-for-its-CR (Ogres, for example) or something that has a tendency to have wild swings in damage output (greataxe wielders, for example) at the group.

searlefm

2013-01-31, 09:57 PM

but optimized characters are fun,
if you optimized in a pure non combat, non item creation, non caster way.
so super skill monkeys, the tiberius kirk, and macgyver, or any other build that allows you freedom beyond reason and a unique take on situations where post player would use a sword.

and yes optimization (at least in its basic principle) is necessary regardless, as an archer wont work with out at least point blank shot and good DEX,
or a fighter with cleave, power attack, and cleaving finish,
or a paladin with heavy armor and empowered smiting.
but moving on to the other end of the spectrum of optimization as a Warlock 4/ Binder 1/ Ur-Priest 2/ Eldritch Disciple 10/ Hellfire Warlock 3
and becoming an abomination onto your DM and will brake all parties, games, and possibly DM's unless the entire party are doing such ridiculous monstrosities and are only appropriate if the whole party are of a same silly level where you are spamming elder gravity or chrome elements fighting enemies that have a pun in the name, killing gods, and solving your wizard duels by killing the opponent at birth, wile cloning armies or yourself and farming wishes.

so in one word: yes
in slightly more: yes as long as you stay within reasonable range of what you should be on your level, unless your a caster them try not to step on your allies feet in there own field of expertise as that's just rude.

Jack_Simth

2013-01-31, 10:13 PM

But mostly it's important that everyone in the group (the DM included) is using the same amount of optimization.
Seconded. One of the biggest things (that aren't directly social, anyway) that cause problems at the gaming table is a wide difference in optimization levels. At a table with a Cleric-Zilla, a Druid-Zilla, and a Batman Wizard, the Monk is a serious problem. At a table with a Monk, a Fighter, a Rogue, and a Batman Wizard, the Batman Wizard is a problem. Most DM's will be able to turn the CR up or down to match the optimization level of the party without too much trouble... but when you've got a wide discrepancy on optimization between PC's, the DM is faced with the rather annoying choice of throwing things at the party that either the high optimization player character will walk over but will challenge the low optimization player character, or throwing things at the party that will challenge the high optimization player character and paste the low optimization player character. It takes a exceptionally skilled DM to handle both in the same party effectively.

lsfreak

2013-01-31, 10:26 PM

As a corollary of everyone having equal optimization, ideally everyone knows the basics of optimization. If the players naturally tend to be low-op but they don't really have an understanding of what that means, they may accidentally stumble upon something gamebreaking. A group of players that knows what optimization is is more likely to be able to consistently match each other's optimization.

But as a side note, it's more important the players are at the same level of optimization than the DM, provided the DM knows what they're doing. I've run very high-op monsters with a low-op group, but they were significantly lower level than the PC's (a level 12 PC party facing off against several level 8 optimized NPC's, for example).

doc neon

2013-01-31, 10:37 PM

Spuddles

2013-01-31, 10:38 PM

Necessary optimization also depends on encounters. It requires very little optimization to reliably defeat an equally CRd giant or animal straight out of the monster manual.

But if your party has one caster and banned transmutation or abjuration because evocation is so much cooler, you may have some problems status effects.

Dealing with incorporeal undead, things that poison, cause disease, fly, or do weird **** like mummy rot or petrify require a lot more than a +3 axe and having picked up weapon focus.

Qc Storm

2013-02-01, 01:13 AM

Wow! Thanks for all the quick replies. That's essentially what I was expecting, since the players have been doing pretty well so far.

I actually used a randomly generated dungeon one week when I didn't have enough prep time, and I was wondering why the Allip seemed so powerful for it's CR. :smallwink: And that's a really good note about the wild damage swings; the only player death I've had so far was from a CR 1/2 monster with a 1d10 damage harpoon.

That aside, one more question;

Are there any good resources for determining a monster's power level beyond CR, or is that more of a DM thing? Like any lists of over/under CR'd monsters?

CR is more like a suggestion, I think. Once you play with your party for a while, you will learn their strengths and weaknesses, how they usually act. You can run a simulated battle in your head, then adapt it so it is roughly balanced.

In my game, I know the wizard is optimized. While the CR would suggest having 3 beatstick monsters, I can safely add twice as much because the wizard will reliably disable half of them. The party can then proceed to deal with the remaining monsters.

If I get lucky with saving throws, they will face a greater threat and will need to think of a new strategy, but I know the Knight can contain the incoming horde for a few rounds. It will simply make a more exciting encounter.

Aharon

2013-02-01, 01:24 AM

Seconded. One of the biggest things (that aren't directly social, anyway) that cause problems at the gaming table is a wide difference in optimization levels. At a table with a Cleric-Zilla, a Druid-Zilla, and a Batman Wizard, the Monk is a serious problem. At a table with a Monk, a Fighter, a Rogue, and a Batman Wizard, the Batman Wizard is a problem. Most DM's will be able to turn the CR up or down to match the optimization level of the party without too much trouble... but when you've got a wide discrepancy on optimization between PC's, the DM is faced with the rather annoying choice of throwing things at the party that either the high optimization player character will walk over but will challenge the low optimization player character, or throwing things at the party that will challenge the high optimization player character and paste the low optimization player character. It takes a exceptionally skilled DM to handle both in the same party effectively.

Interestingly, at the intended optimization level, the differences between classes blur. Case in point: The group I currently DM for

Sorcerer (Feat: Thematic Spell, Spell selection: force damage spells like manyjaws)
Wizard/Psion going for Psychic Theurge without early entry
Cleric
VoP Monk with Golden Ice

They are currently at 6th level, and while there are differences in effectiveness, they are not big enough for any player to feel overshadowed despite the theoretical power differential.

Slipperychicken

2013-02-01, 01:42 AM

They are currently at 6th level, and while there are differences in effectiveness, they are not big enough for any player to feel overshadowed despite the theoretical power differential.

Bear in mind 6th level is widely considered the "sweet spot" of D&D, partly because it's where the Linear Fighter and Quadratic Wizard functions intersect, being roughly the same power level.

Ravenica

2013-02-01, 01:49 AM

I DM for two different groups. One couldn't optomise their way out of a paperbag
I've got a strix wizard who keeps holding touch spells and punching the enemies to get unarmed damage as well as having taken a level of monk and elemental fist...:smalleek:
sometimes I have to gimp the bestiary enemies but not often

the other group... well I pretty much have to use custom enemies and optomised npc builds to challenge them. They were capable of killing an out of the box CR 5 encounter at 1st level with only 3 players

Aharon

2013-02-01, 03:11 PM

Bear in mind 6th level is widely considered the "sweet spot" of D&D, partly because it's where the Linear Fighter and Quadratic Wizard functions intersect, being roughly the same power level.

True, but I'm confident it will work out because they don't optimize and don't intend to start to optimize. I admit that it will be a nightmare if they do - instead of healbot cleric and frontline monk, I get Clericzilla and BMX Bandit and will have to balance encounters for them :smalleek:

randomhero00

2013-02-01, 03:16 PM

I can only reply to my own experiences, not the OP. But with every single DM I've encountered, I had to optimize or fall woefully, WOEFULLY, (lol) behind.

Kuulvheysoon

2013-02-01, 03:25 PM

But mostly it's important that everyone in the group (the DM included) is using the same amount of optimization.

Third'd.

And be careful of using a good half of the monsters from the MM2 - they can be woefully under/over CR'd. (Take the Adamantine Clockwork Horror as one of the worst offenders)

Azoth

2013-02-01, 03:26 PM

I agree on the same level of optimization at the table. Though do be wary of lateral thinking players regardless of optimization level.

On more than one occasion my players have wrecked an encounter designed to be challenging with out the box thinking.

I have seen players use my descriptions of rooms to turn the terrain in ways I hadn't thought. Including cutting chandeliers from the ceiling to drop on enemies, destroying statues and kicking them down stair cases after pursuers, doubling back to bypassed traps and having them get pursuing forces, and much much more.

Eldariel

2013-02-01, 04:38 PM

You should understand enough to understand what is too powerful and why; this way those things can be avoided. In our first campaign, we all were unoptimized but in the teens, two characters became basically as important as the 5 others combined; the group Wizard and the group Cleric. And this with most of the wealth focused on the other characters too (Fighter/Wizard/Arcane Archer, Fighter/Dwarven Defender, Ranger, Rogue & Bard).

See, while they weren't optimizing, they kinda accidentally began to destroy encounters. We all got more or less wrecked by a Ragewalker but a single Finger of Death and Destruction later it died (they have bad Fort-saves and it failed the latter). There were Forcecages and Reverse Gravities and so on; not all the best spells but good enough to get the job done.

God forbid someone wanted to play a Druid with a combatant animal companion and combatant forms. So in this sense, at least the DM should know what the problems in the system are and relay this information to the players in case it would appear problems are to be expected. These problems can then be dealt with through any number of ways.

Person_Man

2013-02-01, 05:18 PM

It's also worth mentioning that the more you play a game, the more people tend to crave variety within that game. This is especially true if you end up playing low Tier builds with few options - if all you do every round of every combat is basically the same action ("I make a full attack action") you will probably get bored after four or five combats. Optimization can give you more options.

ericgrau

2013-02-01, 09:01 PM

It is important that the party be roughly equal so under-optimization can be as bad as over-optimization. Low optimization does tend to work out quite well for keeping everyone equal, as long as that doesn't mean that someone in the party isn't even trying. Everyone should at least try to be ok.

Based on the way you described it nobody is doing that poorly and it should work out splendidly. Better than most groups in fact. You're lucky.

The CR system doesn't expect much optimization. As long as you aren't shafting people on treasure or on knowledge check info they should still be able to handle fights up to EL = party level + 2. You shouldn't need to adjust WBL or EL. If things get bad then limit fights to EL = party level + 1 or some such but I wouldn't change WBL.

Alienist

2013-02-02, 08:20 AM

Based on what I've seen, low op characters do fine on encounters that are at their level. Optimization actually degrades from some aspects of the game in my opinion. I would rather make something awesome than ridiculously strong.

There are different kinds of optimisation.

Often optimising for something, e.g. "ridiculously strong" makes you vulnerable in other areas, or leads to certain kinds of improbable groupthink, e.g. everybody in the group has a healing belt, and everyone is short-sighted and shaky - even the archer.

I like to put a lot of effort into background stories, so I tend to optimise for characters that are stupidly hard to kill - think adamantium peashooter instead of glass cannon. However, some DMs are okay with glass cannons, but consider adamantium peashooters to be a challenge to their manhood.

Optimisation is often self-defeating. Oh, you curb stomped the kobolds? Have some bugbears. Oh, you trashed them? Have some Ogre-Magi. (Rinse and repeat until TPK)

There is, however, one area of optimisation that I consider absolutely MANDATORY for the purpose of awesome: optimising the requirements to enter that really cool prestige class that you want.

NOTHING sucks the awesome out of 3.5 faster than suddenly realising that your cool concept is going to be delayed another 6 levels because at levels 1 and 3 you chose "the wrong feats", or something similar. But it's not just feats, it's also skills, having to waste a couple of levels to pick up 8 points of some weird-ass skill that does nothing for you either before or after you enter the cool prestige class... blech.

I've had DMs criticise me for trying to plan a character out to 20. I simply say to them "well, if at level N I discover a really cool prestige class that meshes perfectly with my character concept, will you let me respec to be able to enter it at level N+1, assuming that N+1 is a legit level to enter that prestige class at?". Invariably they say "no". So I then tell them to sod off.

Slipperychicken

2013-02-02, 10:21 AM

I've had DMs criticise me for trying to plan a character out to 20. I simply say to them "well, if at level N I discover a really cool prestige class that meshes perfectly with my character concept, will you let me respec to be able to enter it at level N+1, assuming that N+1 is a legit level to enter that prestige class at?". Invariably they say "no". So I then tell them to sod off.

Easier to just not tell them about the full build plans, and let them keep the illusion that your character build is developing "organically". Chances are you weren't doing the level-up process at the table anyway, so it's not like they need to know.

Story

2013-02-02, 01:36 PM

Easier to just not tell them about the full build plans, and let them keep the illusion that your character build is developing "organically". Chances are you weren't doing the level-up process at the table anyway, so it's not like they need to know.

The problem is when the DM suddenly starts banning everything halfway through and you're stuck with something even worse.

Deaxsa

2013-02-02, 01:42 PM

Need_A_Life

2013-02-02, 02:59 PM

I see the topic of optimization as a social agreement of mutually assured destruction. :smallwink:

If the players aren't doing anything more than "Hey, Weapon Focus gives me +1 to hit!" I would go by the Monster Manual (except the "D" section; demons, devils, dinosaurs, dragons) without a worry.

If they're making good use of the action economy and battlefield control, I'll probably switch out a few feats here and there, tweak some spell lists and consider some tactics.

If they're routinely killing stuff that CR system insists should be able to easily TPK them, then I'm certainly going to rise to their level.

I'm a powergamer at heart, though, so keeping up with player optimization is second nature anyway.

Story

2013-02-02, 03:37 PM

In other words, optimization means you can fight more interesting enemies.

Flickerdart

2013-02-02, 03:40 PM

Well, you can still fight interesting enemies if you don't optimize. It's just that those interesting enemies will be interesting because they find new and interesting ways to kill you.

ericgrau

2013-02-02, 03:44 PM

CR works out well enough, at least in MM I vs low-mid op PHB builds. Some other MMs get kinda borked.

Don't forget hydras.
I analyzed this once before since hydras, and not much else, seem to be the classic go-to monster. Hydras seem to suffer from vampire syndrome. If you sunder and burn stumps as instructed (and revealed by a knowledge check) I found that they are in fact over-CR'd instead of under CR'd. The hydra's attack power diminshes so rapidly that before he is even slain he doesn't pose much threat anymore. Even without improved sunder and the attack of opportunity. Though I have seen the wonky interpretation that they get 5 attacks per attack of opportunity and 5 attacks of opportunity, which doesn't seem like the intent at all. It's based on combat reflexes, not some brand new mechanic that exists nowhere else in all of 3.5

Story

2013-02-02, 03:50 PM

I thought the goto examples of under CRed enemies are That Damn Crab and the Adamantine Horror?

Anyway, Hydras are trivial with Ray of Stupidity.

Flickerdart

2013-02-02, 03:54 PM

If you sunder and burn stumps as instructed (and revealed by a knowledge check) I found that they are in fact over-CR'd instead of under CR'd.
Your typical 4th level melee bruiser will have about 20 AC (10, +1 full plate, +1 Dex), which means they have a 30% chance of being hit by a hydra of their CR. If they don't have Improved Sunder, they eat about 20 damage when they even to sunder a head, and the hydra gets a +8 bonus to the sunder check due to its size. Assuming that the bruiser has a two-hander, that advantage goes down to +4, which can probably be compensated for with better to-hit (+5 from Strength, Weapon Focus, and +4 BAB gives a +10 vs the hydra's +6) but even then that's a 50% chance of doing anything at all. It's definitely a workable strategy, but I wouldn't say it makes the hydra easy.

Eldariel

2013-02-02, 03:55 PM

Though I have seen the wonky interpretation that they get 5 attacks per attack of opportunity and 5 attacks of opportunity, which doesn't seem like the intent at all. It's based on combat reflexes, not some brand new mechanic that exists nowhere else in all of 3.5

It's this:
"Feats: A hydra’s Combat Reflexes feat allows it to use all its heads for attacks of opportunity."

Hydras are weird anyways; this is no ability, just a part of their descriptive Combat text:
"Hydras can attack with all their heads at no penalty, even if they move or charge during the round."

It's a natural ability but it's never listed as an ability. Overall, hydras just break all the rules.

EDIT: A Half-Air Elemental Hydra with Spring Attack/Flyby Attack could be quite scary; kinda like a Shadow Pouncer.

ericgrau

2013-02-02, 04:17 PM

That seems like something separate though, for their standard action attacks. A quick google said 85% of people go with 1 head per opportunity, which averages to 3-4 damage. I mean if you want to interpret it liberally in such a way that all hydras from 5-12 heads are way beyond broken, fine. But it's so obvious it can't be an oversight, especially with a monster who is given so much extra attention in the monster manual. It's incredibly unlikely that this is intent, and an argument from RAW is at best ambiguous.

Not to mention a "Behind the Curtain" that says quite explicitly that they're supposed to be hard if you fight them the normal way.

And if everyone didn't know something was funky, 75% of "CR is broken" comments wouldn't fall onto hydra. It would be more evenly distributed onto multiple monsters. Solution: If you think the hydra rules follow the broken way, "houserule" it into the way that was probably intended to begin with. Bam, way less CR worries.

The level 2 fighter without improved sunder has a modifier of +12 vs. the CR 4 hydra's +9, since natural weapons are always considered light weapons. Other classes may have a little less, but they have other advantages.

nedz

2013-02-02, 09:02 PM

A Half-Air Elemental Hydra with Spring Attack/Flyby Attack could be quite scary; kinda like a Shadow Pouncer.

Giving them caster levels is tricky because their stats are poor, but giving them Warlock levels would be quite tasty — especial with some debuffing essence. This assumes one invocation per head.

Eldariel

2013-02-02, 09:19 PM

Honestly tho, all that aside, default Hydras are very...hit'n'miss, shall we say. They make decent closet trolls if they get the drop on the party and get to full attack against a flat-footed guy but:
- They have ****ty AC, Touch AC & Will-save for their CR.
- They have approximately negative Move Speed.
- They can only walk and swim (no flight, burrowing, etc.).
- Their only sense is sight.
- Their attack bonus is relatively terrible for their CR.
- They have quite low HP for their CR.
- They're dumb as bricks.

This makes them stupidly vulnerable to anything; they're not a real threat if you get to act. Like a CR 4 Hydra has attack bonus of +6; a Fighter with Plate, 12 Dex and a Tower Shield in the backpack can have AC 23.

Fight defensively or go to total defense and it'll only hit on 20s while your party kills it. It might not work against almost anything but a hydra is just dumb, big and slow enough that it probably will.

They're vulnerable to any spell ever, large amounts of damage, all elements, kiting, whatever. They have like no relevant defenses beyond their Combat Reflexes and full attack. Fast Healing is cool but it only works against sustained damage which is really rare in D&D.

They're kinda like the Tarrasque without all those silly defenses.

Flickerdart

2013-02-02, 10:37 PM

TuggyNE

2013-02-02, 11:09 PM

"A hydra’s Combat Reflexes feat allows it to use all its heads for attacks of opportunity." Seems pretty clear to me - on attacks of opportunity, the hydra uses all of its heads.

Although, depending on how you read it, this might replace the usual benefit of Combat Reflexes, such that it only gets one AoO chance per round (instead of two).

strider24seven

2013-02-05, 12:57 AM

Don't forget hydras.

I was actually listing things that were woefully under-CR'd.

Although hydra's definitely fall into the ballpark of 'borked' CR in that they are trivially easy by the time they become "appropriate" to fight.

Newoblivion

2013-02-05, 01:14 AM

The game is about fun. The group should make characters that they think are awesome and the DM should make sure the story can support this.

If your group doesn't have a rogue then your DM shouldn't give you 10k locked doors and crazy@ss traps.

The same goes for uber builds. If the group is a collection of cool concepts which are not so great on the paper the DM should adjust the challenges so that this group will stand a chance.

My rule as a DM is that every player should have his five minutes of glory. So I build the story around my players rather than putting my rogues and beguilers in a dungeon full of oozes and undeads.

Squirrel_Dude

2013-02-05, 04:25 AM

Hey all,
I guess my question is, how much optimization is necessary to keep up with the CR system?Very little, especially if you're using a high point-buy or something equivalent to that with dice.

Have any of you played with a low-op party? My first campaign was as a player with a bunch of other new players, so we were low-op. The party was a Fighter, Paladin, Bard, and Monk.

Did the DM lower monster stats, use lower-than-level-appropriate CRs, or hand out higher wealth than WBL? I know that he handed out higher wealth (I had a +2 vorpal longsword and mithral armor of speed by level 8), but he often threw really tough stuff at us (I think).

Do high-op parties (in which I've never played) fight higher CR monsters than recommended for their level?Yes. I often threw CR +1/+2 at my party of 5 that was pretty well optimized and organized and watched them kill it with some nice scars to show for it. It was hard and threatening, but not overwhelming.

tiercel

2013-02-05, 06:06 AM

Re: hydras. Even if you have a party of unoptimized newbs, none of whom have any Knowledge: Arcana, and no "I win" stat-damage buttons, they can generally, you know, walk away:

Speed: 20 ft.

and try again later.

----------

As for general optimization, as others have noted, it's more a relative matter -- amongst the PCs, and between you as the DM and the PCs. A "low-op" PC group will do just fine against most Core monsters; "big gun" monsters like Dragons and Outsiders should just be set up as Boss encounters rather than random fight #3 for the day.

If you're going to throw Monster Manual MMDCXVII: Scourge of the World monsters (or just tweaked or optimized monsters) at your PCs, you just might want to dial in a little lower "CR" than the party level, keeping in mind what your PCs can actually do (e.g. most undead CRs assume the presence of a cleric with at least a moderate chance of Turning undead of CR around his level); otherwise you'll just want to ask yourself when setting up an encounter, can this encounter reasonably one-hit-kill or -incapacitate party members?

Eldariel

2013-02-05, 08:03 AM

The game is about fun. The group should make characters that they think are awesome and the DM should make sure the story can support this.

So you're saying anyone who wants to play e.g. premade module or live campaign is having wrong fun? I think you need to reformulate your arguments or admit that it's not very encompassing.

Jack_Simth

2013-02-05, 08:18 AM

So you're saying anyone who wants to play e.g. premade module or live campaign is having wrong fun? I think you need to reformulate your arguments or admit that it's not very encompassing.
...

OK, I'll bite: How do you get that from Newoblivion's statement? In what sense is the goal of the game not to have fun? In what sense does using a premade module relieve the DM of the onus of making the story work?

Eldariel

2013-02-05, 08:33 AM

...

OK, I'll bite: How do you get that from Newoblivion's statement? In what sense is the goal of the game not to have fun? In what sense does using a premade module relieve the DM of the onus of making the story work?

"Fun" is an ephemeral statement that heavily varies from person to person and thus the term is utterly useless for discussions on what should or should not be done. Now, the actual problem with the statement:
If you run a module and players e.g. don't have any spellcasters, they will probably die. His statement is that the DM (or worse, the convention game master) should start changing the module to fit the party.

For a DM this might be possible though if he's using a module because he doesn't have that much time to prepare, it might not be feasible. Also, there's no guarantee much of the point of the module isn't lost in order to ease it in; imagine RHoD with the Dragons all just landing to fight you for instance.

For a live campaign GM it's not even possible; you're not really allowed to alter the modules. If you get a game group that's like to TPK, well, they will probably TPK.

All that doesn't preclude the players having fun of course; Paranoia is fun as hell precisely because you're probably going to die horrible deaths in the most absurd scenarios.

Getting roasted in dragonfire during a desperate fight can certainly be an enjoyable experience too, as can trying to get through the trapped dungeon without anybody capable of trapfinding; at that point you get to be creative which can certainly be enjoyable for some players too.

The assumption "The players should do X, DM should do Y and this, and only this, would lead to fun for the players and the DM" is fundamentally flawed. As such I object to treating it as a fact.

LordBlades

2013-02-05, 08:36 AM

Often optimising for something, e.g. "ridiculously strong" makes you vulnerable in other areas, or leads to certain kinds of improbable groupthink, e.g. everybody in the group has a healing belt, and everyone is short-sighted and shaky - even the archer.

I disagree, in a group of optimized people (who have, through various means realized what's effective and what's not), I can see it completely feasible that they know combat offense and defense are useless to practice at a basic level; you either specialize in it or don't bother, and as such they're all Shaky and Vulnerable, because they didn't train to fight as much. Same for items; good items become popular fast.

Saying that everybody being Shaky&Vulnerable and having a healing belt in a world where these things are effective is 'unklikely group thinking' is a bit like saying that everybody being a college graduate and owning a car in the modern world is 'unklikely group thinking'.

strider24seven

2013-02-05, 08:42 AM

Re: hydras.
Pretty much spot on. Also low DEX, INT, WIS, and CHA makes them -really- vulnerable to ability damage. Shivering Touch and Ego Whip make hydras trivially easy.

"Dies to Removal- Y/N?" is a pretty common indicator of how good a creature is in MtG, and the same pretty much applies to D&D... Shivering Touch is pretty much the Doom Blade of D&D.

Newoblivion

2013-02-05, 10:57 AM

So you're saying anyone who wants to play e.g. premade module or live campaign is having wrong fun? I think you need to reformulate your arguments or admit that it's not very encompassing.

I ran many modules. And as a DM I don't have to follow everything. I don't mind change some encounters so that my cleric will be able to use his turn undead once in a while or that my paladin will be able to summon his mount, or change the evil master mind so it will be somehow connected to one of the character's story.

Also, I am not saying it's the wrong fun. I, as a player love to optimize. All I'm saying is that my players don't have to in order to survive the story. It won't be a walk in the park though. I will build or change the adventure in a way that they will have to use their abilities to the best. And if in the end of, for example, Cormyr: the tearing of the weave I will realize that there's no chance in hell that my group can take down the dragon, then I will change the encounter to something else. Or, I will give them extra magic items. Or, I will make sure that they will get to him with an extra level.

I never encountered a player who asked to play a weak character. But I had and still have players who play characters which are not that great. I never felt that they are too weak for the modules I ran.

Edit: I do agree with you that there should be some responsibility on the players. I won't just allow them to play anything. I will try to create a balanced group, and I will make sure that they have most of the roles covered. If for example I am making an undead heavy campaign and one of my players want to play a beguiler I won't change the entire plot so he will have fun. I will explain to him before we start that it might not be a good choice. Most of my players are experienced enough to realize those things on their own. So I never had a group of five fighters, for example.

tiercel

2013-02-05, 11:14 PM

Pretty much spot on. Also low DEX, INT, WIS, and CHA makes them -really- vulnerable to ability damage. Shivering Touch and Ego Whip make hydras trivially easy.

"Dies to Removal- Y/N?" is a pretty common indicator of how good a creature is in MtG, and the same pretty much applies to D&D... Shivering Touch is pretty much the Doom Blade of D&D.

This is the flip side of optimization -- if you actually want to use MM I monsters in an all-supplements-allowed environment with even moderate optimization on the part of PCs, you have to either alter some of the monsters or lower their CRs.

For instance, in pure Core it's not that easy to sling around actual ability damage. The most straightforward way is poison, which (A) is often expensive for its usability (B) is generally illegal (C) has a chance of affecting you unless (in Core) you're an assassin or have made yourself poison-immune and (D) target Fort saves, which are generally strong on monsters. So Core monsters that had one or more pathetic scores weren't in particular danger because it wasn't that easy to exploit it with ability damage. Add supplemental materials, and some monsters (even dragons) can get easier to just "solve."

Ditto with SR as a defense; there are a lot more spells with "SR: No" (about which I will not start yet another rant here) as well as assay spell resistance and the Arcane Mastery feat, making SR significantly less of a formidable defense than it might be in Core. For instance, golems have the CR are they do probably in part because it is assumed that they are actually immune to magic other than their special vulnerabilities.

There's nothing wrong with being a DM who loves to optimize to challenge his group that loves to optimize. But just as a low-op group might mean there are certain monsters that the DM might have to be careful about throwing at them, a mid-to-high-op group might mean there are certain monsters that the DM might have to tweak/adjust CR to make them relevantly challenging.

Jack_Simth

2013-02-06, 08:06 PM

"Fun" is an ephemeral statement that heavily varies from person to person and thus the term is utterly useless for discussions on what should or should not be done.
It is, however, the fundamental goal of the game, which was his statement as far as that aspect goes. It's actually in the rules that fun is the point - seriously; Player's Handbook, page 5. It goes into a bit more detail in the Dungeon Master's Guide, page 4.

Or do you play the game specifically to have a bad time?

Now, the actual problem with the statement:
If you run a module and players e.g. don't have any spellcasters, they will probably die. His statement is that the DM (or worse, the convention game master) should start changing the module to fit the party.
It's not just his statement. See the Dungeon Master's Guide, page 5, section labeled "Using Purchased Adventures".

The assumption "The players should do X, DM should do Y and this, and only this, would lead to fun for the players and the DM" is fundamentally flawed. As such I object to treating it as a fact.
And... where exactly did make such as an assumption rather than put up a reasonable explanation of why for his specific example?

Eldariel

2013-02-06, 08:32 PM

It is, however, the fundamental goal of the game, which was his statement as far as that aspect goes. It's actually in the rules that fun is the point - seriously; Player's Handbook, page 5. It goes into a bit more detail in the Dungeon Master's Guide, page 4.

Doesn't matter. You can't tell anyone how to have fun. That's not how "fun" works which is the whole point. There are as many different concepts of "fun" as there are people on this planet so any attempt to tell others how to have fun is bound to fail.

So now, follow me on this: if the purpose of the game is to have fun but in a table of 5 people there are 5 different concepts of "fun", how can you say "We must do X, Y and Z for this game to be fun"?

Or let's put it in more practical terms: Why do people play RPGs?

Answer "Because it is fun" is a useless answer. It doesn't tell us what we really want to know; what's fun about it? How do these people derive their fun? We don't know how or why people have fun.

Now, how this relates to the earlier point? Story crafted around the PCs might certainly be fun to a group of players. It might be tasteless to others and unbelievable to a third.

Some people want to play to hear a story. Others want to play to do something awesome. Some want to experience and explore a fantastical world that can't exist outside the game. A certain group of players might just want to see the most interesting character deaths. A few players might want to pit their intelligence against the DM's and see if they can outwit the deathtraps the DM has created.

None of those are playing the game wrong. Now, a player-focused story-driven game, however, will only work for the first, maybe the second and the third categories (it might not be the main point but it can create a believable framework if done right). What kind of a campaign and what kinds of preparations are necessary for it are going to vary greatly regardless. That's, of course, only the tip of the iceberg of the kinds of "fun" you can have with D&D alone, let alone delving into different tabletop RPGs or god forbid, leaving tabletop world alone.

Any kind of assumption on what somebody finds fun or how somebody should play the game without focusing only on a specific individual or group as a case study fails by default. Statement "The game is about fun. The group should make characters that they think are awesome and the DM should make sure the story can support this." is therefore invalid.

Players can make characters they think are awesome. DM can mold a story around the characters. These things can work for some groups but they should not be treated as universal rules for crafting an enjoyable D&D experience because, naturally, such rules cannot by definition exist. Which is, of course, the overarching point I'm trying to make which, I believe, is a point that is true, unless the hypotheses "fun is incredibly subjective" and "people have vastly differing concepts of fun and thus have fun through different means" can be challenged. Otherwise, said statement derives straight from the idea "Players should play the game to have fun".

Jack_Simth

2013-02-06, 08:56 PM

Doesn't matter. You can't tell anyone how to have fun. That's not how "fun" works which is the whole point. There are as many different concepts of "fun" as there are people on this planet so any attempt to tell others how to have fun is bound to fail.
He never posted a specific definition of fun, nearly as I can tell. Would you point me to where he did?

"We must do X, Y and Z for this game to be fun"?
Not something he said, nearly as I can tell. Who are you quoting? Granted, he did use "should" in a few spots, but he very definitely didn't do the "...and only this, would lead to fun for the players and the DM" that you tossed into post 49, and I don't remember seeing him use the word "must" anywhere. Point me to a post where he did, please. Where are you getting these extremes you're arguing against?

Now, how this relates to the earlier point? Story crafted around the PCs might certainly be fun to a group of players. It might be tasteless to others and unbelievable to a third.He didn't say "craft the story around the PCs", he said "the DM should make sure the story can support this" in in post 44 in reference to PC builds. Again: Where are you getting these apparent extremes that you're arguing against?

Some people want to play to hear a story. Others want to play to do something awesome. Some want to experience and explore a fantastical world that can't exist outside the game. A certain group of players might just want to see the most interesting character deaths. A few players might want to pit their intelligence against the DM's and see if they can outwit the deathtraps the DM has created.

None of those are playing the game wrong.
Never said they were. Near as I can tell, neither did Newoblivion. If I'm wrong, please point me to the post.

Now, a player-focused story-driven game, however, will only work for the first, maybe the second and the third categories (it might not be the main point but it can create a believable framework if done right). What kind of a campaign and what kinds of preparations are necessary for it are going to vary greatly regardless. That's, of course, only the tip of the iceberg of the kinds of "fun" you can have with D&D alone, let alone delving into different tabletop RPGs or god forbid, leaving tabletop world alone.And... again: Where are you getting the things you're arguing against from? How does the story supporting the builds necessitate "a player-focused story-driven game," exactly?

Any kind of assumption on what somebody finds fun or how somebody should play the game without focusing only on a specific individual or group as a case study fails by default. Statement "The game is about fun. The group should make characters that they think are awesome and the DM should make sure the story can support this." is therefore invalid.
I'm sorry; I don't see how your arguments support your conclusions. Are we using English differently? If someone wants their character to die gloriously, then that's awsome for them, and the story should support that. Oh, hey... that's basically what he said. If someone wants to pit their wits against the DM, then the story should support that. Oh... no, no contradiction yet. Let's see.... Ah, there we go: Someone wants to explore a fantasy world! Then an explorer is awsome for them and the story should support... oh, no, that version of fun doesn't contradict what NewOblivion said either!

Clearly, I'm missing something. Seriously: Where are you getting these extremes that you're arguing against?

Players can make characters they think are awesome. DM can mold a story around the characters. These things can work for some groups but they should not be treated as universal rules for crafting an enjoyable D&D experience because, naturally, such rules cannot by definition exist. Which is, of course, the overarching point I'm trying to make which, I believe, is a point that is true, unless the hypotheses "fun is incredibly subjective" and "people have vastly differing concepts of fun and thus have fun through different means" can be challenged. Otherwise, said statement derives straight from the idea "Players should play the game to have fun".
I don't know... I think as far as NewOblivion's statements went, they pretty much do work with only very minor bending.

Squirrel_Dude

2013-02-06, 08:59 PM

Doesn't matter. You can't tell anyone how to have fun. That's not how "fun" works which is the whole point. There are as many different concepts of "fun" as there are people on this planet so any attempt to tell others how to have fun is bound to fail.

So now, follow me on this: if the purpose of the game is to have fun but in a table of 5 people there are 5 different concepts of "fun", how can you say "We must do X, Y and Z for this game to be fun"?Well, that's kind of what a DM has to do. That's why it's a hard job.

Eldariel

2013-02-06, 09:08 PM

He never posted a specific definition of fun, nearly as I can tell. Would you point me to where he did?

Do your characters have to be awesome for players to have fun? Does the story have to even account for them for the players to have fun? Is e.g. sandbox game unfun? Is it wrong for a player to want to play a character that he doesn't consider especially awesome? Is it truly terrible if the player can't come up with an awesome concept and throws together something run-of-the-mill instead? Does that preclude him from enjoying the game? Is the DM horrible if he has a world and only reacts to the characters with regards to how the world would, instead of crafting the game around them? Does there even need to be a story? Is the storytelling aspect more important than e.g. the dramatic acting aspect the game also offers?

He made a statement with about a bazillion holes.

Clearly, I'm missing something. Seriously: Where are you getting these extremes that you're arguing against?

Arguing against? What? I'm presenting an argument; of course I need to outline exactly what the argument consists of. I can't just drop an argument and expect people to read my mind. Therefore I'm instead spending few paragraphs explaining what the problems I'm talking about are.

I don't know... I think as far as NewOblivion's statements went, they pretty much do work with only very minor bending.

I think it's a statement that can never stand close scrutiny without removing meaning from it. "DM and players should play in a way that they have fun" is of course a true statement, but also a self-evident and meaningless one and on the other hand, any kind of definition of what is fun automatically makes the statement false for certain type of a campaign or players.

Well, that's kind of what a DM has to do. That's why it's a hard job.

It's equally the DM and the players' job to find out what all of them would enjoy, what kind of common ground they have and work from there. Sometimes irreconcilable differences appear but usually something can be found that works and the DM and the players can work from there.

In conventions, the DMs explain their games in announcements and players find the ones that interest them. Either way, there's the selection process where both the DM and the players participate in deciding what kind of a game it will be to ensure it caters to their particular appetite for "fun".

That does not, however, vindicate trying to define what "fun" is in a grand scale.

Jack_Simth

2013-02-06, 09:18 PM

Do your characters have to be awesome for players to have fun? Does the story have to even account for them for the players to have fun? Is e.g. sandbox game unfun? Is it wrong for a player to want to play a character that he doesn't consider especially awesome?
Ah, that's probably the trouble; we appear to be operating under different definitions of "awesome character". To me, an "awesome character" is one I expect to have fun playing. Sometimes, that may be a kobold commoner-1. Sometimes, that may be a 20th level gestalt character who found enough resources to literally have the "Invulnerability" special quality as an Ex ability that can't be dispelled in the traditional manner. So... yeah; if the player can't come up with an awesome character, at least by my definition of that phrase, then the player can reasonably expect not to have fun when playing that character. Under my definition of an awesome character, if the DM can't build a story that supports said character built by the player, then the player can reasonably expect to not have fun.

So... we appear to be using English differently. What's your definition of an "awesome character" such that you can carry it across all genres of games?

Newoblivion

2013-02-06, 09:26 PM

I am not even sure what we are talking about.

All I was saying is that it might be good idea to tune down (or up) the game's difficulty if the DM notices that his group is too weak or too strong. And that as a DM one should be liberal enough as to allow a player to play a character that the player wishes to play even though said character is not a super uber build of darkness.

I mean. If a player comes to me and tells me he wishes to play a dwarf ranger with a crossbow, I won't just tell him "naaah.. Rangers are weak; here take a look at the Swordsage". No. I will work with him on the concept he wishes to play and with him I will try to make the best out of his idea, even if I will have to create for him a crossbow that act exactly like a comp. long bow.

And by making sure the story / module support the group I mean that the DM can review the classes he have in the group and take notes:

"Hmm.. one of my characters have a mount, I should make some encounters in open spaces". (If you are running a module and there're no open spaces, and you don't wish to change anything, then just tell the player that he won't have much use for his mount and that he should think about something else, no problem here).

"I have a cleric; I should make sure he uses his turn undead or turn water elementals once in a while".

"I have a character with skill X; I should make sure he uses it from time to time".

If your adventure doesn't support a certain class, just tell it to the players beforehand if you don't wish to make the adjustments.

EDIT: And yeah. By "awesome" I mean a character that the player think he will have fun with. Sorry for the confusion here.

Das Platyvark

2013-02-06, 09:27 PM

My last game had not a single player vs. dm. encounter. They tend to end up like that; everyone pitted against each other, with contingency plans out to here :smallbiggrin:
We don't really optimize at all. I always find that I prefer my characters to be awesome in game than to have ridiculous cheese that detracts from my ability to be as awesome as I intended. Basically, I optimize as hard as I can to make something that doesn't actually look that powerful, but fits the image I had in mind. The rest of the group ranges from 'never played before' to 'Druid cheese', and it works well enough, given the way our alliances tend to play out.

Jack_Simth

2013-02-06, 09:32 PM

I am not even sure what we are talking about.Myself, I'm just in an argumentative mood and found someone else who apparently is as well, so picked the opposite side as that person. It can be fun when I'm in the mood for it.

Eldariel

2013-02-06, 09:40 PM

Ah, that's probably the trouble; we appear to be operating under different definitions of "awesome character". To me, an "awesome character" is one I expect to have fun playing. Sometimes, that may be a kobold commoner-1. Sometimes, that may be a 20th level gestalt character who found enough resources to literally have the "Invulnerability" special quality as an Ex ability that can't be dispelled in the traditional manner. So... yeah; if the player can't come up with an awesome character, at least by my definition of that phrase, then the player can reasonably expect not to have fun when playing that character. Under my definition of an awesome character, if the DM can't build a story that supports said character built by the player, then the player can reasonably expect to not have fun.

So... we appear to be using English differently. What's your definition of an "awesome character"?

For me, an "awesome character" is a combination of the following factors:
- When creating the character, I'm feeling inspired. I have a clear concept that I want to execute in my mind.
- The concept I have fits the world the game is set for.
- I can bring that concept to life perfectly with the mechanics the game offers.

Take for instance a character I'm playing right now: Illyvion (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=450192)
I had a concept I wanted to realize when the game started; an Illusionist who scoffs at other schools of magic as unnecessary waste of power and believes that with illusions and enough creativity, anything is possible.

I found out the game was gestalt so I felt the second side would naturally enough be a conman of some kind. I thought of Rogue but I rolled the stats and you see what the dice gave me; therefore my hand was pretty much forced but not in a way I minded to picking Factotum instead.

All these factors combined and some knowledge of the game (basically, monsters decided humanoids are weak and have no business ruling the world, united, and we scorched the skies) allowed me to carve out Illyvion Calmorie, firstborn of Curufin, the lorekeeper and master craftsman of a shelter "village".

Intelligent warrior-out-of-necessity, he's taken after his father and studies his enemies relying on outthinking them in combat. As a "hunter" he's one of the few who dare leave the shelter to uncover what they can in the hostile world outside. He's quite grim but determined, shaped by the times, carrying the pendant of sun signifying the small hope that one day there will be no need for these shelter villages anymore.
In this case, it happened that I had a concept that I was able to mold so I was able to bring it to life and thus, to me, this is an awesome character; a character that matches the idea I started with, has a solid mechanical framework (for the game's expected power level) and has plenty of mechanical options in-game to ensure the ability to contribute. In other words, when everything goes "right" at the onset of the game, I have the tendency to find the character "awesome". It's not a word I lightly use, however.

Newoblivion

2013-02-06, 09:43 PM

For me, an "awesome character" is a combination of the following factors:
- When creating the character, I'm feeling inspired. I have a clear concept that I want to execute in my mind.
- The concept I have fits the world the game is set for.
- I can bring that concept to life perfectly with the mechanics the game offers.

Take for instance a character I'm playing right now: Illyvion (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=450192)
I had a concept I wanted to realize when the game started; an Illusionist who scoffs at other schools of magic as unnecessary waste of power and believes that with illusions and enough creativity, anything is possible.

I found out the game was gestalt so I felt the second side would naturally enough be a conman of some kind. I thought of Rogue but I rolled the stats and you see what the dice gave me; therefore my hand was pretty much forced but not in a way I minded to picking Factotum instead.

All these factors combined and some knowledge of the game (basically, monsters decided humanoids are weak and have no business ruling the world, united, and we scorched the skies) allowed me to carve out Illyvion Calmorie, firstborn of Curufin, the lorekeeper and master craftsman of a shelter "village".

Intelligent warrior-out-of-necessity, he's taken after his father and studies his enemies relying on outthinking them in combat. As a "hunter" he's one of the few who dare leave the shelter to uncover what they can in the hostile world outside. He's quite grim but determined, shaped by the times, carrying the pendant of sun signifying the small hope that one day there will be no need for these shelter villages anymore.
In this case, it happened that I had a concept that I was able to mold so I was able to bring it to life and thus, to me, this is an awesome character; a character that matches the idea I started with, has a solid mechanical framework (for the game's expected power level) and has plenty of mechanical options in-game to ensure the ability to contribute. In other words, when everything goes "right" at the onset of the game, I have the tendency to find the character "awesome". It's not a word I lightly use, however.

This is exactly what I mean by "awesome" :)