[PF] What are the accepted definitions of low-mid-high op?

[soulsabre345]

This is a problem I'm coming into with a friend who's both a DM and player at times. In regards to optimization levels of the group he both plays with at times and DMs for, he has both players using high-op characters with exceedingly high defenses or using diplomancy/ intimimancy, and characters using premade characters given by pathfinder. I want to try and get him a good analysis of what the various optimization levels are so he can submit it to his group, and put in a restriction that everyone must play at a specific op level. The problem is that I have no clue how to define the levels. What's the exact difference between a high op and mid op character? How much damage should a low,mid,or high op damage dealer be capable of?

My personal ideas were that damage-wise the barriers are roughly 4 dmg per round per level is low-op, 8ish is mid op, and anything higher is high-op, but my optimization-fu is not particullary strong and I don't know how best to help him.

I know of the tier lists, but that's not quite what I'm seeking. I know for example that a caster who focuses on control spells and save or dies mostly falls into mid to high op, whereas a caster focusing on damage is typically low-op. For melee, I'm fairly clueless on what's good damage and what isn't. Case in point, is a summoner's Eidolon who spends half it's evo points on offense and half on miscellaneous or utility abilites mid or low-op in regards to damage? Is a Eidolon who has 12 evo points at level 6 and spends all their evo points on damage and no defense high-op, or is it still mid-op because it's easy to shut down?

[rockdeworld]

Although this isn't for PF, it may help:

Here's the ToS Tier System as I remember it:

Tier -2: Pun Pun

Tier -1: An unbeatable build.

Tier 0: An effectively unbeatable build, though it can actually be beaten by the higher Tiers.

Tier .5: A build that can probably only be beaten if you have specifically prepared for it. Example: Sofawall's Cube build.

Tier 1: A build that has many effective tricks, insanely high defenses, and can end most encounters in a round. Example: A very effectively played Batman wizard.

Tier 2: Multiple great tricks and great defenses. Where I usually build for. Example: A CoDzilla or a Warmarked.

Tier 3: A build that either has one great trick or a lot of moderately good ones, while still having stellar defenses. Example: A well made Warblade, a good tripper, or a buff focused Sorcerer.

Tier 4: A build that, while still having a trick or two, has fallen very short on the defensive side of the line or has great defenses without being able to defeat an opponent on its own very easily. Example: A Charging Fighter or a VoP Monkadin.

Tier 5: A build that, while attempting to be optimized, still has neither good defenses nor a worthwile trick. Example: A typical fighter.

Tier 6: A build that *twitch* chooses feats for flavor reasons *twitch*
In that list, "high op" would probably be above tier 1. Tiers 1-3 would be mid-op, and tiers 4- are low op.

Edit for clarity:
High-op usually means pushing the game to its absolute limits, to where it would be difficult, if not impossible, to find a more effective way to do that that build does, and usually can't be used in play because the High-op character is Angel Summoner and everyone else is BMX Bandit.

Mid-op usually means min-maxing and making your character as great as it can be, though not to the point of perfection, either due to lack of source material, effort, or something else.

Low-op can be pretty much summed up by the tier-6 statement :smallamused:

The point is that neither classes nor spells nor even tactics are what define low/mid/high op, it's specific builds. Dealing 50 damage per round for a fighter is probably low-op at level 20, but high op at level 1. Without reference to specifically what builds you're talking about, I couldn't classify any of them, but it sounds to me like you're dealing with mid-op, not high-op.

[Keneth]

There are no strict lines between levels of optimization. But more to the point, there should never be any enforced rules that limit you to a specific level of optimization. It's ok to say "no wish spell in my games," but when that turns to "core only, 15 point buy, no stats over 15 or under 9, no unusual races, etc." things start to get really frustrating for many people. If your players are playing on vastly different degrees of optimization, just talk to them, and convince them to play nice. Or just focus more on the role playing aspect, than on crunch.

[soulsabre345]

I know about the tier system already though, and I'm mostly looking for numbers to a degree. I'm also looking for what is a average damage per level per round for each of the op levels. For example, is 8 damage per level per round (a level 10 fighter doing 80 damage per round, level 5 doing 40, etc.) high, mid, or low op? I don't need exact, but I just want a general idea of what's massive, and what's laughable.

@Keneth
The main problem is mostly that he doesn't want to enforce arbitrary rules that just make it harder on those who aren't a problem. He wants to have a general guideline he can impose. We've discussed that lowering point buy doesn't really fix anything for example, he wants a idea of what's a good fair way to limit the higher op people yet still allow those who are lower to raise up easily. I've even had discussions with him on 3.5 that the most unbalanced part of 3.5 is in fact the core books, and if you only use core for the rules and nothing more the system works much better.

[rockdeworld]

I know about the tier system already though, and I'm mostly looking for numbers to a degree. I'm also looking for what is a average damage per level per round for each of the op levels. For example, is 8 damage per level per round (a level 10 fighter doing 80 damage per round, level 5 doing 40, etc.) high, mid, or low op? I don't need exact, but I just want a general idea of what's massive, and what's laughable.
Check again, as that may not be the same as the tier system you're familiar with, and I've added comments on the side.

If you want specific numbers per level, you'll have to give a specific example of what you're looking for, because there's way too many numbers to list, and more importantly different levels of optimization can't be classified by numbers alone.

Edit: Looking back on that statement, I can't help but feel there's something wrong with it. I think it's clearer to say something can be classified as high-op if it has crazy numbers, but high-op isn't only due to high numbers.

Example: The Twice Betrayer of Shar is high-op, but doesn't have much in the way of numbers. Instead, it has immunities (to death from damage, for one)

Example 2: The builds in the 100^10 Optimization Contest deal 100 damage per round (the ones that hit only the minimum anyway), which is pretty low for level 20. But they're high-op because they also withstand 100 damage per round, move 100' per round, have 100 AC, have +100 on a save, etc.

Example of damage: At level 1, 1 damage per round is laughable. 50 is massive.

[soulsabre345]

Ok, then to give it more form, to the group that he plays with normally numbers matter, so let's say going up against a megaraptor-type monster, where it mostly attempts to full attack and is full attacked in turn, what is high,mid,and low levels of damage to deal to it at say level 5, 10, and 15? I'm roughly just trying to get a idea of numbers. I know of course that at level 1 50 is massive, but at level 6 is it good? Against a opponent that's roughly just a target dummy, what is low,mid,or high op damage per round against a opponent at say 5, 10, or 15? I can extrapolate out from there, but I just need something to start with.

Also, keep in mind this is mostly a question about pathfinder where there won't be much 3.5 crossover, if at all.

[Keneth]

@Keneth
The main problem is mostly that he doesn't want to enforce arbitrary rules that just make it harder on those who aren't a problem. He wants to have a general guideline he can impose. We've discussed that lowering point buy doesn't really fix anything for example, he wants a idea of what's a good fair way to limit the higher op people yet still allow those who are lower to raise up easily. I've even had discussions with him on 3.5 that the most unbalanced part of 3.5 is in fact the core books, and if you only use core for the rules and nothing more the system works much better.

Like I said, imposing limits doesn't solve anything. If you cap the damage, they can always just abuse a different mechanic. Arbitrary limits like the ones I've listed in the example don't really solve anything, they just frustrate the players. If some of the players like to optimize, let them optimize. The GM should talk to the players directly and they can help the low-op players improve their characters and assume a more low-key style of gameplay so the weaker characters aren't outshined in every situation. Or, as I've noted before, introduce situations where optimization doesn't matter.

In essence, trying to bring high-op players down the same level as others is a fool's errand. They'll either hate the GM for it, or just quit (I did the same myself in several situations). The solution is to help the weaker players instead and to have the high-op players play nice so that everyone enjoys the game.

Edit: You also seem to be talking only about damage optimization. While that's a big part, beatsticks are just one character archetype and even those come in various shapes and sizes.

[soulsabre345]

Like I said, imposing limits doesn't solve anything. If you cap the damage, they can always just abuse a different mechanic. Arbitrary limits like the ones I've listed in the example don't really solve anything, they just frustrate the players. If some of the players like to optimize, let them optimize. The GM should talk to the players directly and they can help the low-op players improve their characters and assume a more low-key style of gameplay so the weaker characters aren't outshined in every situation. Or, as I've noted before, introduce situations where optimization doesn't matter.

In essence, trying to bring high-op players down the same level as others is a fool's errand. They'll either hate the GM for it, or just quit (I did the same myself in several situations). The solution is to help the weaker players instead and to have the high-op players play nice so that everyone enjoys the game.

What about if the high-op player asks how exactly he wants his level to be brought down? And in this case, he doesn't really want to kick out this player because it's a RL group and it would be very hard to replace him. Said friend is very bad at arguing or thinking on his feet, so if he doesn't come in with some set idea or perspective he gets steamrolled by said optimiser in the argument and can't really win any arguments against him.

Edit: The beatstick argument is because his entire group is fixated on it, and seeing a character deal 100 dmg per round with no defenses at all at level 6 is ridiculous and op, but shutting down a entire squad with a single web or sleeping the enemy group and taking them on one by one is fine.

[Keneth]

What is he doing 100 damage with? That seems a bit excessive, even for reasonably optimized barbarians.

[soulsabre345]

It was mostly for sake of example, the builds he's made are closer to 40-60 per round or so, but his group would look at that and cry op.

[Keneth]

Well 40-60 is pretty mid-op. I guess if I were to sum it up: 0-5/level is pretty low op, 6-10 is about mid-op, and 11-15 is high op. These numbers start falling apart at around level 10 or so however, and at lvl20 (and beyond), well oiled damage machines can dish out in excess of 500 damage each round (to multiple targets).

[rockdeworld]

Ok, then to give it more form, to the group that he plays with normally numbers matter, so let's say going up against a megaraptor-type monster, where it mostly attempts to full attack and is full attacked in turn
Your group might need some education.

A megaraptor is dealing about 36 damage per round out of the box and has 50 HP at CR 5.

A 6-headed hydra deals 45 damage per round, has 57 HP, fast healing 5, and becomes stronger if you try to cut off its heads, and is also CR 5.

A basilisk is also CR 5, but packs the equivalent of a 6th level SoD that's used against everyone, every turn.

Now how does the non-fast-healing, non-gaze attack fighter stand out?


Well 40-60 is pretty mid-op.
Exactly this. Every fighter/barbarian with spirited charge is dealing this damage at level 5.

But I digress. Let me answer your question about damage as well as I can.
"What is high,mid,and low levels of damage to deal to it at say level 5, 10, and 15?"
AFAIK there's no PF update to Savage Species, so the 3.5 version is still legal in PF. A tauric creature with no class levels can have 4501 Str at ECL 5, meaning at least 2245 damage per turn without any of his special attacks or qualities. That's high op.
Like Keneth said, 40-60 is mid-op.
Given the stats on the enemies I posted above, probably anything under 30 is low-op, because that's the kill-or-be-killed point.

At ECL 10, that tauric creature is a Fighter 2/Barbarian 1/Hulking Hurler 2, and throws really heavy rocks for 3.879e271 d6+2265 damage. That's high op.
A charger build I threw together a while back did about 100 damage per round at level 10. I didn't look at much PF material, so that's probably near the bottom of mid-op.
Less than 50 at this level is low-op.

At ECL 15, I can't say as I don't know enough about PF.

I hope this helps.

Edit: And as I read your and Keneth's discussion, I agree completely with Keneth. As a DM, I've had to ask a player to tone down the optimization a bit, and it's hard but worthwhile. I offered him something else he liked in exchange for backing off on the high AoE damage, and he was ok with it. I think that's a better way to go than making new rules to kill optimization.

[Keneth]

AFAIK there's no PF update to Savage Species, so the 3.5 version is still legal in PF. A tauric creature with no class levels can have 4501 Str at ECL 5, meaning at least 2245 damage per turn without any of his special attacks or qualities. That's high op.

PF is not really an update to 3.5, even though it started as such. While general OGL rules lacking in PF can often be injected into PF RAW, most resource material is not considered part of the system.

And there's no such thing as 3.5 Savage Species, SS was 3.0 only to my knowledge, so it was barely considered legal even in 3.5. :smallbiggrin:

To be fair though, having arbitrarily high stats or creating infinite loops through rules abuse and loopholes is usually not considered "high-op" in terms of what's playable at a gaming table.

[rockdeworld]

Sure. I would say that high-op is usually not allowed at the gaming table, so same thing.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

As others have said; damage isn't generally the best measuring stick of op level, but I think a stock blaster wizard is the best measuring stick for low-mid op. So, a d6 per level, eventually stepping up a bit with cl boosts and quickened spells.

A low op damage dealer is outdone by a blaster wizard, a mid op one does more damage and high op caster either does significantly higher damage reliably to any target (like mailman) or does so much damage that they can splatter +4 CR encounters in a single round.

If your doing damage as well as something else or can choose between damage and another useful effect that's a higher op level, obviously. If you're trying to get a group balanced try asking the ore experienced character builders help the rest and bring the rest up to their level. Again, multitarget and damage+debuff/cc doesn't need to do as much damage as a pure damage dealer.

[Firechanter]

Comparing to what we are used from 3.5, PF powerlevel is "different", or you might even say "special", like the "special" kid from your school.

Generally, I say that PF powerlevel is lower than 3.5 -- a statement that immediately causes PF fanboys to froth at the mouth. The point is, most of the PF classes' _chassis_ have been upgraded. Not only the weak classes (like Paladin), but also the Super-duper-uber Wizard gets some _more_ sugar blown up his behind (almost twice the Hit Points; "banning" a school doesn't actually mean banning it, etc.).
But, and this is the big difference, PF ACFs and Feats are much weaker, there are practically no Prestige Classes, a lot of powerful spells are missing. And all those are the points that take 3.5's powerlevel sky-high.

That said, I'll try to find some acceptable definitions for Low, Middle and High op:

Low: Fighter-boys fight. Wizards blast. Clerics heal. Bards suck.

Mid: Melee knows some tricks. Wizards control and summon. Clerics buff. Bards rock.

High: No place for Melees. Wizards and CoDzillas do everything. Be a full caster or be a tool. Encounters last one round.

[Keneth]

Generally, I say that PF powerlevel is lower than 3.5 -- a statement that immediately causes PF fanboys to froth at the mouth.

Why would anyone be frothing at the mouth? PF is lacking much of the 3.5 ridiculousness by design, and we're okay with that. :smallconfused:

[Firechanter]

Why would anyone be frothing at the mouth? PF is lacking much of the 3.5 ridiculousness by design, and we're okay with that. :smallconfused:

Well, I don't know why, they just do. Just had a discussion like that a few weeks ago (different forum, different language), when I mentioned all innocently en passant that PF had a lower power level, and immediately some blokes jumped at me (totally ignoring the actual point of my post or the topic, which was about no-brainer options).

[Keneth]

That's odd, must have been a weird bunch of PF enthusiasts. Or just ones who don't know anything about 3.5 shenanigans. Either way, it seems hardly representative of the playerbase as a whole, as most either don't care or are entirely aware of fact that PF power level is toned way down compared to 3.5. Although things are slowly starting to get more and more ridiculous, especially now that Mythic Adventures is about to be released.

[Firechanter]

Yeah, in a spinoff thread where this question was discussed at length, goalposts were moved, and suddenly their point boiled down to "unoptimized PF characters are stronger than unoptimized 3.5 characters".

I came to the conclusion that the perceived power level varies by personal system mastery. If you aren't really into optimzation and just take any feat that has a nice ring to it, you'll feel more powerful in PF. If you like to explore the possibilities and see the sky as the limit, PF will feel weak if you're used to the kind of power 3.5 offers.

[137beth]

A typical person would likely define it as follows:


Low OP: less optimized than me
Mid-OP: As optimized as me
High-OP: more optimized than me

Low and high are very relative terms, so many people just define it around themselves.

[Ruethgar]

PF has a shorter range of power level but a higher minimum and lower maximum. 3.5 has a larger range, lower minimum and astronomical maximum. PF = 3d4. 3.5 = 1d100

I have been basing my characters around a regular warlock 17/hellfire warlock 3 without early entry, glaive, or claws as a medium-low point to gauge damage from. I tend toward higher op builds and using that as a guide I can tone it back to a bit above warlock and add flavor in place of power.

[Psyren]

I think Olo's ToS tier list quote helpfully provided by rockde is exactly the kind of definition needed here. Note that this isn't the actual tier system developed by JaronK - the ToS tier list actually factors in optimization, thus you can see things like "T3" Fighters because they focus on tripping and such. I also agree with rockde's op definitions based on that list.

[Crasical]

Comparing to what we are used from 3.5, PF powerlevel is "different", or you might even say "special", like the "special" kid from your school.

Generally, I say that PF powerlevel is lower than 3.5 -- a statement that immediately causes PF fanboys to froth at the mouth. The point is, most of the PF classes' _chassis_ have been upgraded. Not only the weak classes (like Paladin), but also the Super-duper-uber Wizard gets some _more_ sugar blown up his behind (almost twice the Hit Points; "banning" a school doesn't actually mean banning it, etc.).
But, and this is the big difference, PF ACFs and Feats are much weaker, there are practically no Prestige Classes, a lot of powerful spells are missing. And all those are the points that take 3.5's powerlevel sky-high.
.

So, backhanded insult aside, you'd say that Pathfinder has a higher optimization floor (better chassis) but a lower ceiling? (weaker feats and spells?)

[Psyren]

So, backhanded insult aside, you'd say that Pathfinder has a higher optimization floor (better chassis) but a lower ceiling? (weaker feats and spells?)

Weaker PrCs too - PF has nothing on par with Incantatrix, Dweomerkeeper, Iot7FV, Constructor, Rainbow Servant, Contemplative, MotAO, UM, Planar Shepherd...

[Crasical]

Weaker PrCs too - PF has nothing on par with Incantatrix, Dweomerkeeper, Iot7FV, Constructor, Rainbow Servant, Contemplative, MotAO, UM, Planar Shepherd...

Fair enough.

That is consistent with what seems the general design philosophy in pathfinder, though. Better base classes, fewer and weaker PRCs, and Archetypes for differentiation and 'flavor' changes that PRCs used to offer, without much space for very-powerful PRCs like the ones you listed.

[Firechanter]

So, backhanded insult aside, you'd say that Pathfinder has a higher optimization floor (better chassis) but a lower ceiling? (weaker feats and spells?)

Yeah, exactly. Those were actually my exact words in that discussion.

[Zanos]

Weaker PrCs too - PF has nothing on par with Incantatrix, Dweomerkeeper, Iot7FV, Constructor, Rainbow Servant, Contemplative, MotAO, UM, Planar Shepherd...

I wasn't aware that Ultimate Magus was breakable enough to throw onto the same list as Planar Shepherd and Dweomerkeeper.

[Psyren]

I wasn't aware that Ultimate Magus was breakable enough to throw onto the same list as Planar Shepherd and Dweomerkeeper.

It's not, but it's still more powerful than PF PrCs, which was what I actually said.

In PF, metamagic reducers tend to be restricted to specific spells, rather than being open to your whole list.

[Zanos]

It's not, but it's still more powerful than PF PrCs, which was what I actually said.

In PF, metamagic reducers tend to be restricted to specific spells, rather than being open to your whole list.
I was hoping you knew some trick about UM I didn't was all, sorry if that came off...combative?

I'd certainly agree that PF PrCs are generally weaker.

[Psyren]

No offense taken - and no, I'm not aware of anything trickier than the bog-standard practiced spellcaster and Wiz-Beguiler/Sha'ir-Sorc combinations.

[Firechanter]

There is something trickier for UM, but it's rather convoluted. Let me see if I remember off hand. You can use Nar Demonbinder as your Spont class. But that doesn't give you 3rd level spells (because it starts at 4th), which are prereq for UM. So you have to take some feat that adds lower-level spells to your Demonbinder list. Iirc I took Arcane Disciple, but there may be other ways.
Arcane Discple btw allowed me to take the War Domain, adding Divine Power to my list, which I was able to Persist. Gish-in-a-box.

Benefit: you get a real bunch of high-level spell slots, while maintaining pretty much full caster level with both classes. And a Ring of Wizardry IV really pays off. My character got up to about 70 spells per day with that build. It was a bookeeping nightmare, however.

[aleucard]

Basically, anything that adjusts the character to T3 or 4 is considered mid-op, anything higher is high-op and lower is low-op. Specific things usually don't make things higher or lower tier, unless if they can win encounters on their own. Options, and the strength of those options in comparison to other characters with those options, are what make high-tier characters high-tier. No fighter you could possibly generate is going to stand toe-to-toe with a wizard that has full use of even the Core spellbook past low-level, for example. Hell, on a single-encounter basis, your average Wizard, Cleric, and (to a lesser degree) Druid can generate an entire party on their own, some with even better utility than a pc.

If you're asking for things to do to a class to make them lower-tier, that's a separate question.