Let's Talk about Optimization

[strider24seven]

I have seen a lot of vitriol for 'powergamers' over the years, particularly on message boards. I have read various threads exhibiting this phenomenon, but I have never been able to understand it... which is what I am attempting to do now.

Let me explain my background before I go any further, so that everyone in the Playground can understand my confusion:
I have been playing D&D since AD&D, and switched to 3rd and 3.5 when they were released - not out of preference at first, but because my DM's had switched. I have played other systems too - nWoD, GURPS, and the later incarnations of D&D, but have since come to enjoy 3.5, moreso than the other systems, because its variety and flexibility. And also because it's what a lot of my friends still play. I have had a plethora of experiences, from the lowly Monk to the mighty Wizard, from both sides of the DM screen, at the table or over the Internet. I have played in low-magic games with mundane characters only, and I have played in games with Circle Magic, Incantatrices, and Shadowcraft Magi. Some of the groups I have played with were less than perfect, but I have enjoyed my experiences, even with the troubled groups. Most of the trouble, however, came from Fighters and Rogues playing alongside Wizards and Clerics and feeling... small in the pants. When JaronK posted the Tier System, my gaming groups were quick to pick up on it and utilize it to help the players and the DM work together within the system of rules we had all agreed aupon to create an enjoyable experience for everyone involved. We still have Fighters and Rogues in some of our parties with Wizards and Clerics, but everyone is clear on their capabilities and role in the party, and the DMs have been able to adjust the style and pace of their campaign to the party with that knowledge in hand.

When I come to message boards where people discuss their experiences and ask for advice, and I see causticity towards optimization, applying such labels as 'powergaming,' or 'munchkinry,' I have to wonder why so many people have a negative attitude toward it - I see it as a cycle of continuous improvement, not as trying to 'Win D&D,' as I have seen it put.

I realize that there are no consistent definitions for these terms, but I would like to ask the Playground their opinions and experiences on optimization and powergaming, so that I can better understand the attitudes that people hold toward them.

JaronK's Tier System (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=266559) is a fairly contested topic from what I have seen, so if people are lacking a focus for discussion, we can use that, though I would like to avoid having the thread degenerate into another "Why is X class in Y Tier?" argument.

[SciChronic]

Not everyone plays to powergame
its very easy to break the game with tier 1-2 classes
not everyone realizes the above
not everyone realizes that the tier system is based on flexibility not the ability to just hurt things (though tier 1 can do both in the extreme)


That being said, everyone does some form of optimization, just not everyone takes it as far as others.

[Fax Celestis]

When people say 'powergamer' or 'munchkin' in that derogatory tone, they mean it in the same way someone says 'grognard' or any number of racial slurs that aren't allowable on this forum. It's prejudicial.

[VariSami]

Well, my biggest problem with it is bottom-up design taken to the max. Essentially, many seem to make characters with its mechanical capabilities in mind first and then justifying them later with a story. I have even done so myself before. Another thing is homogeneousness - everything starts looking the same when people make "the best" choices.

Here is an example. I am currently running a Warforged only campaign, and the players themselves wanted it to be such. One of them was making a melee fighter, and he asked me whether I would allow him to be Dragonborn. I reminded him that the "template" comes with a lot of fluff baggage, and he was genuinely surprised. Thing is, the player seemed to have read min/max boards and seen that this thing called "Dragonborn" basically makes any melee Warforged better. He wanted to make such an extreme modification simply for +2 Con (at the price of 2 Dex). Of course he would have probably made the character's fluff match that of the template - and it would probably have been very superficial in this case. As I said, bottom-up.

When he took a two level dip of Lion Totem (CC) / Wold Totem (UA) Barbarian, I asked him to provide me with a totem animal that combines the pouncing strategy of the Lion and the tripping strategy of a wolf (he got Pounce and Improved Trip from the dip). He came up with a "Leolupus" which is a lion-wolf. No description beyond that. Really, I was almost ready to tell him to pike it. Such is the superficiality I am referring to.

[Fax Celestis]

Well, my biggest problem with it is bottom-up design taken to the max. Essentially, many seem to make characters with its mechanical capabilities in mind first and then justifying them later with a story. I have even done so myself before. Another thing is homogeneousness - everything starts looking the same when people make "the best" choices.

Here is an example. I am currently running a Warforged only campaign, and the players themselves wanted it to be such. One of them was making a melee fighter, and he asked me whether I would allow him to be Dragonborn. I reminded him that the "template" comes with a lot of fluff baggage, and he was genuinely surprised. Thing is, the player seemed to have read min/max boards and seen that this thing called "Dragonborn" basically makes any melee Warforged better. He wanted to make such an extreme modification simply for +2 Con (at the price of 2 Dex). Of course he would have probably made the character's fluff match that of the template - and it would probably have been very superficial in this case. As I said, bottom-up.

When he took a two level dip of Lion Totem (CC) / Wold Totem (UA) Barbarian, I asked him to provide me with a totem animal that combines the pouncing strategy of the Lion and the tripping strategy of a wolf (he got Pounce and Improved Trip from the dip). He came up with a "Leolupus" which is a lion-wolf. No description beyond that. Really, I was almost ready to tell him to pike it. Such is the superficiality I am referring to.

Sounds like you have an unimaginative player who you should be helping, honestly.

[big teej]

Not everyone plays to powergame
its very easy to break the game with tier 1-2 classes
not everyone realizes the above
not everyone realizes that the tier system is based on flexibility not the ability to just hurt things (though tier 1 can do both in the extreme)


That being said, everyone does some form of optimization, just not everyone takes it as far as others.

in a similar vein

not everyone finds optimization fun.
players that do should respect that.

my group, for instance, has a "play down" rule. the group's 'op level' is limited to the lowest in the group. (or 2nd lowest in the instance of brand new players)

[strider24seven]

Thank you everyone for your responses so far.

Just some things I'd like to address/clarify/discuss further:


[LIST=1]
Not everyone plays to powergame


Can you clarify this further? From my understanding of the word 'powergame,' I, as well as the others with whom I play, think of it as a means to an end, to assist in the playing of a game, not as the object of a game. Maybe we're radical like that.


When people say 'powergamer' or 'munchkin' in that derogatory tone, they mean it in the same way someone says 'grognard' or any number of racial slurs that aren't allowable on this forum. It's prejudicial.

But what is the source/instigation of this prejudice? Is the RollPlay vs Roleplay and Bottom-Up Design issues that VariSami touched upon? Or is there another reason?

[RFLS]

Well, my biggest problem with it is bottom-up design taken to the max. Essentially, many seem to make characters with its mechanical capabilities in mind first and then justifying them later with a story. I have even done so myself before. Another thing is homogeneousness - everything starts looking the same when people make "the best" choices.

-example-

I mean...those people are going to exist no matter what. A player that's unwilling to put the character first isn't going to magically change if it's harder to make a character with bigger numbers and better abilities. He's just going to put more effort into getting the bigger numbers and better abilities that he can get.

The way I see it, optimization is a tool. It's a means to an end. The end for some people is bigger numbers. That's on them. That is their problem. For other people (the relatively mature ones), the end is representing a character mechanically as well as possible. These are the people that only care about big numbers if they're big numbers the character would be able to generate. The diplomatic warlock, for instance, is going to pick Beguiling Influence over See the Unseen. That's optimization, but he's doing it to represent a character.


But what is the source/instigation of this prejudice? Is the RollPlay vs Roleplay and Bottom-Up Design issues that VariSami touched upon? Or is there another reason?

The reasons are varied, but the most common one I see is "I had this one real jerk of a player that munchkined his way through a game, so I hate it when people optimize," which is...silly.

[SciChronic]

personally, i optimize based on a theme for my character. i.e.: creating captain america. Then i optimize to get as much oomf as i can out of that idea.

[strider24seven]

The reasons are varied, but the most common one I see is "I had this one real jerk of a player that munchkined his way through a game, so I hate it when people optimize," which is...silly.

This is an example of what I referred to in the OP... I didn't want to single anyone out by quoting. I have also seen other variations, such as "My DM is a real jerk who hates optimization, so help me slip something past him," which only propagates the issue.

[Gigas Breaker]

I tend to build bottom up characters. My current charcter is a swordsage focused on stealth and shadow hand because I wanted to try one. But that didn't get in the way of creating a cold mercenary/assassin with a backstory and personality. Imagination has more to do with that than anything.

[SciChronic]

This is an example of what I referred to in the OP... I didn't want to single anyone out by quoting. I have also seen other variations, such as "My DM is a real jerk who hates optimization, so help me slip something past him," which only propagates the issue.

the issue of that is "what qualifies as optimization"

taking precise shot on a ranged character could be considered optimization, and there are no real set in stone boundaries of was qualifies as low-op, mid-op, and high-op.

[Fax Celestis]

But what is the source/instigation of this prejudice? Is the RollPlay vs Roleplay and Bottom-Up Design issues that VariSami touched upon? Or is there another reason?

In my experience, it's a control thing generally demonstrated by DMs who are terrified of running a 'broken game' and instead of trying to work with the player just do blanket bans because "it's easier" when honestly it generally creates more problems than it fixes.

These days, I equate calling someone a "roll-player" about the same as calling something disparaging based on their sexuality or race. It's offensive and dismissive rather than trying to address the real problem--if one even exists.

[aleucard]

The main problem is that when we come to all this optimization and dipping and picking from an entire library and all that comes with all these things, we forget that we're making a character, not a combatant. This is a ROLE-playing game, we have to be able to reconcile all these insane things with what that person would do were it real life. It's not just a massively more complex game of Chess we're playing here. This sort of thing is actually why I avoid dips like the plague, despite liking optimization as much as the next guy.

[RFLS]

The main problem is that when we come to all this optimization and dipping and picking from an entire library and all that comes with all these things, we forget that we're making a character, not a combatant. This is a ROLE-playing game, we have to be able to reconcile all these insane things with what that person would do were it real life. It's not just a massively more complex game of Chess we're playing here. This sort of thing is actually why I avoid dips like the plague, despite liking optimization as much as the next guy.

I think you've rather missed what a few of us have been saying. Optimization is a tool. You're conflating the people that misuse the tool being bad for the game with the tool being bad for the game.

[eggynack]

I think you've rather missed what a few of us have been saying. Optimization is a tool. You're conflating the people that misuse the tool being bad for the game with the tool being bad for the game.
I dunno if it's necessarily that bad for the game anyways. I kinda like the idea of 3.5 as a massively more complicated game of chess. Chess is a pretty sweet game. I'm absolutely not saying that it's the only way to play the game, or even the best way to play the game, but it's certainly a way to play the game, and I refuse to see it as actively detrimental. There's a certain happiness that can only come from pitting the tactical part of your brain against a particularly difficult problem.

[Fax Celestis]

The main problem is that when we come to all this optimization and dipping and picking from an entire library and all that comes with all these things, we forget that we're making a character, not a combatant. This is a ROLE-playing game, we have to be able to reconcile all these insane things with what that person would do were it real life. It's not just a massively more complex game of Chess we're playing here. This sort of thing is actually why I avoid dips like the plague, despite liking optimization as much as the next guy.

And how, pray tell, does your character know what it says on his character sheet? All he knows is that he knows how to Smite Evil.

[Hunter Noventa]

the issue of that is "what qualifies as optimization"

taking precise shot on a ranged character could be considered optimization, and there are no real set in stone boundaries of was qualifies as low-op, mid-op, and high-op.

I divide Optimization into two categories myself.

There's Practical Optimization, where you start with your character concept, and make the most mechanically effective character you can without breaking that concept. You can take a Noble Sword and Board fighter and apply Practical Optimization, and you'll be effective, but still be that Noble Sword and Board fighter you wanted to be all along.

Conversely, there's the Theoretical Optimization that's so popular that produces things like Pun-Pun. it' just the seeking of power for power's sake, and not something you could really do in an actual game without getting books thrown at you.

I'm not saying the idea of Practical optimization is perfect, if your concept is 'Super Powerful Wizard' you'll just be doing TO anyway.

Besides, the goal of the game isn't to beat everyone else, it's to have fun, an dhelp everyone else have fun. If a player doesn't understand that, it's not really the game for them now is it?

[Vaz]

Well, my biggest problem with it is bottom-up design taken to the max. Essentially, many seem to make characters with its mechanical capabilities in mind first and then justifying them later with a story. I have even done so myself before. Another thing is homogeneousness - everything starts looking the same when people make "the best" choices.
Pop into the Iron Chef on occasion. That is pretty much my work ethic.


Here is an example. I am currently running a Warforged only campaign, and the players themselves wanted it to be such. One of them was making a melee fighter, and he asked me whether I would allow him to be Dragonborn. I reminded him that the "template" comes with a lot of fluff baggage, and he was genuinely surprised. Thing is, the player seemed to have read min/max boards and seen that this thing called "Dragonborn" basically makes any melee Warforged better. He wanted to make such an extreme modification simply for +2 Con (at the price of 2 Dex). Of course he would have probably made the character's fluff match that of the template - and it would probably have been very superficial in this case. As I said, bottom-up.
It might come with fluff baggage, but most of it is alignment based. I've allowed Dragonborn of Tiamat, and have played Dragonborn of Chronepsis. Simply for the mechanical benefit. However to keep that I've had to play along with the non-crunch aspect, or else risk losing it.


When he took a two level dip of Lion Totem (CC) / Wold Totem (UA) Barbarian, I asked him to provide me with a totem animal that combines the pouncing strategy of the Lion and the tripping strategy of a wolf (he got Pounce and Improved Trip from the dip). He came up with a "Leolupus" which is a lion-wolf. No description beyond that. Really, I was almost ready to tell him to pike it. Such is the superficiality I am referring to.
It is a warforged ability right? He might have been programmed as such (Weapon X, say). Alternatively he might well be worshipping a Leolupus. Fluff is what you make it to be, and religiously sticking to it is a fairly terrible (as WotC's fluff wroting IS fairly terrible) decision.

While it doesn't have Pounce and Improved Trip, a Phynxkin is fairly similar, with Pounce and Rake, replacing Rake with Improved Trip to represent the weight of the Phynxkin on the target.

Imagination is needed for all parts, but then again, everyone is there to have fun, and if someone is having fun with a character that can suddenly fly and have more HP, more power to him. After all, he is ONLY a melee, and if he was truly 'rollplaying' he'd take a Neraph Wu Jen/Incantatrix/Archmage and properlu outclass the Barbarian without any issue regarding fluff legalities.

[White_Drake]

The main problem is that when we come to all this optimization and dipping and picking from an entire library and all that comes with all these things, we forget that we're making a character, not a combatant. This is a ROLE-playing game, we have to be able to reconcile all these insane things with what that person would do were it real life. It's not just a massively more complex game of Chess we're playing here. This sort of thing is actually why I avoid dips like the plague, despite liking optimization as much as the next guy.

Classes are metagame constructs. There is very little strange about having, for instance, a Warblade that dips spirit lion barbarian for some extra oomph, because fluff is mutable. He's not a Warblade/Barbarian, or even a barbaric warblade, but a student of the sword that can fight with an incredible single-mindedness and focus due to extreme discipline.

Edit: Mostly ninja'd by Fax.

[Gigas Breaker]

Martial dips seem to me to be especially hard to argue against. Swashbuckler 1 for example is pretty much just the same as taking weapon finesse.

[strider24seven]

Imagination is needed for all parts, but then again, everyone is there to have fun, and if someone is having fun with a character that can suddenly fly and have more HP, more power to him. After all, he is ONLY a melee, and if he was truly 'rollplaying' he'd take a Neraph Wu Jen/Incantatrix/Archmage and properlu outclass the Barbarian without any issue regarding fluff legalities.

I have noticed in many of my games that certain players (myself included), are better at making builds and playing chess than they are at roleplaying characters. This has been an issue, but I have been able to go to other members of the group for help, usually the DM.

[CigarPete]

I think Optimization is best utilized when it facilitates the character concept. That concept doesn't always have to come first, but the two must work with each other. If you don't understand why your character would do something, or work to learn something, you're missing most of the fun of the game.

My last two characters have been fairly mechanically powerful, but both were rooted in solid concepts.

The first was a gish, originally conceived as a weapon and armor smith who spent time in creation and infusing those creations with magic and using them in combat. Lots of classes were involved, fighter, wizard, spellsword, abjurant champ and a custom PRC, but all in service to a single concept. Straight Eldritch Knight would have served the concept, but would have been less effective, so I went a different road, using optimization to make my character more powerful within the chosen concept.

Current character is an oracle, battle mystery. I wanted a mercenary who brings the wrath of his god to his enemies. I built him conceptually as a cleric and an oracle and liked the flavor of the oracle more. Here, optimization is limited to choices of spells, revelations and feats, but still wind up with a powerful character who fits within the concept.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

In-character you have a party of adventurers who are facing terrible dangers and risking their lives on a daily basis. They have to depend on each other for survival, so each of them should want to team up with the most capable heroes they can find. They're not going to bring along a Fighter who can't fight, or a Wizard who's bad at magic, etc. just because one of the players thinks that playing a weak character will make him RP better. Optimization makes the most sense in-character.

[Vaz]

So a BSF is taking the limelight by smashing out 500 damage charge attacks, while the Rapier wielding Bard is not able to utilise his Fascinate or Suggestion ability properly?

As you say, ask the DM to vary the encounters so the BSF can't just go 'rargh hulk smash' without being hit by the 100 guardsmen armed with enchanted crossbows targetting it after the king was threatened, or the Aboleth Mage hidden under the water targeting it with Dominate after seeing its Puppet Killed.

[Fax Celestis]

In-character you have a party of adventurers who are facing terrible dangers and risking their lives on a daily basis. They have to depend on each other for survival, so each of them should want to team up with the most capable heroes they can find. They're not going to bring along a Fighter who can't fight, or a Wizard who's bad at magic, etc. just because one of the players thinks that playing a weak character will make him RP better. Optimization makes the most sense in-character.

QFT

This isn't a hard concept to grasp, either.

[Beleron]

I actually think that quite often, an unlikely seeming combination of classes can act as a spur to the imagination where backstory is concerned.

[SethoMarkus]

For me, optimization is just a tool, as others have stated. Optimizing a character isn't the issue, it is the manner in which the player goes about it. Optimizing is just making logical choices to be as effective (as possible) at a given task; when a player decides that they want to be effective at everything is when it can fall into the realms of munchkining and powergaming.

As long as the players are focusing on their character being the best (at a task) in the game world, optimization isn't an issue.

When players are focusing on (their characters) being the best in the gaming group/party, optimization has gone too far.

Everyone likes to feel useful when they play a game. A powergamer or munchkin can very easily steel that usefulness away from other players.

[LordBlades]

From my experience there's absolutely 0 connection between the power level of a char the quality of the backstory. I've seen Pun-Puns with awesome fluff and plain fighters with crappy ba kgrounds.

And the 'think of your character as a real person' is kind of moot in regard to optimization. Most people would't take fighter level if their lives depended on cpmbat effectiveness.

[VariSami]

There is a lot of good elaboration here, honestly. To answer the first critique: whatever makes you think that I am not trying to educate the player about the possibilities? For example, his brother just admitted to me that abusing Synchronicity with Linked Power would be too OP even though I would have allowed with but added a warning about how challenge-based RPGs like D&D work: to keep it interesting, I must try to keep a certain level of challenge up. Power is only relative as a result.

I think the philosophy I have encountered on EDH boards (MtG) seems to do justice to top-down optimization: Choose guidelines and attempt to be the best you can within them. Of course, these may be mechanical as well as story-based. And I suppose my example player also did this to some degree but in the end, he came home with a few pre-generated tricks that needed justification of their own. It is actually quite funny: all official material besides Dragon magazine is allowed, and even some 3rd party material. However, almost everything they want is something they feel they need to ask permission for because it is either more or less broken or relies on shaky rules interpretations.

Admittedly, this is also a question of what a person happens to enjoy. Indeed, D&D may be played as tactical grid chess with customized pieces. And even when it is played like that, it may be deep and enthralling.

Actually, I think that the main problem with optimization is the idea that there is a standard you must overcome (to "win"). I have also lead games in which the characters are absolutely wimpy and useless or overtly specialized so that I may only challenge their strong points or the story goes nowhere. This is another extreme, of course. The golden line I try to have my players follow is being capable in at least two regards, preferably both in-combat and somewhere outside of it.

But about the "set standard" delusion. It may well be that in some cases this is the case. For example, premade official adventures are more or less set to stone and as such, require at least a certain amount of capabilities. However, I think that the better way is to attempt setting the standard afterwards to a suitably challenging level. This is where optimization breaks down: no matter how much you may optimize, you may never overcome the standard since it rises to always present comparably as challenging encounters as without optimizing. I think this is also called an arms race between players and the DM but that is a wrong analogy. If the players were to make weaker characters, the bar should be lowered equally.

[Ekul]

Our group has had multiple evolutions of player types.

Me:
When I started playing, I just picked a class at random and just picked related character things with no optimization in mind at all. Although I would hardly call myself useless as a paladin, there were times I just twiddled my thumbs, and I hated that. I then evolved into the kind of player that picks one class and then does a lot of research for some nifty ways to single class that one all the way to 20 (Or level as a means to get a cool PrC), then I come up with that character's ancestry and how it made that person who they are. With that method I usually ended up as the overpowered one in the party, so since then I've lightened up. Having realized that it's not really all that much fun to play or GM a campaign with characters who can just beat everything that comes against them with little effort, I've decided to turn my efforts towards playing fun, RP characters. As a general note, I really like roleplaying, but sometimes I do poorly at it because my character's personality often doesn't fit in well with the rest of the group's.
Also, I might as well tell you our general playing personalities: Mine's NG/LG and I usually try to have my characters care about the setting and the people within. DMs typically give me a lot of sadistic choices, but reward me with lots of tools to use for my resourcefulness.

Our usual DM, occasional player:
At first he picked everything based on fluff, but as that got him nowhere, he became proficient in Creative Homebrew. After that, now he generally makes the story, then builds the character using a class that can approximate what he wants. When he found out about the shenanigans of druids and cleric, he banned the Complete Divine in full, except for the Favored soul and a limited amount of other things. (So no DMM allowed!) That made things easier on the players, but it really annoyed the group powergamer. Hilariously, he's the only one in our group who's made a decent wizard, after which wizards were pretty much implicitly banned. (I was such a bad GM in that scenario, I let my players take a trait that gave +10 to one ability score, -2 to all others. You do the math.) He noted how boring it was to play a well played wizard, because he solved most encounters without even trying even when I sent the usual anticaster tricks against him. Just for fun, he even built his wizard with the specs for Locate City Bomb.
Playing personality: Good Is Not Nice. His characters generally try to help people while being the biggest a-hole possible along the way. He's also a paranoid lunatic. But he'll usually help save the day.

[Telonius]

A good optimizer is like a good stage manager: if he's doing it right, you don't notice him. But if there's a big power disparity among the players that somebody isn't happy about, but nobody wants to fix; if a player is better at optimizing than the DM (who then has to scramble to put together appropriate challenges); if there's some miscommunication in trying to get people to tone down or ramp up the power... that's the sort of thing that gives optimization a bad name.

It's not so much the fact that Pun-Pun is possible that annoys people (though that is definitely a problem with game design), but the fact that some jerk decides to try to build one. When one person tries to hog the spotlight, either by being too strong or too weak, it's as much of a "being a jerk" issue as it is a game design issue. Game design issues can be fixed, but jerk issues are a lot harder.

[Curmudgeon]

Actually, I think that the main problem with optimization is the idea that there is a standard you must overcome (to "win").
I like optimization, quite a lot; I'm also quite knowledgeable about the rules so I'm pretty good at putting the pieces together effectively. However, I'm not trying to "win" D&D to the extent that I'll make all other characters irrelevant.

The way I reconcile these two statements is by starting with a base that's of only moderate power. Typically, that's a Rogue. With average Tier 1 & Tier 2 spellcasting characters in the group I can pull out all the (RAW legal) stops on my Rogue and have fun making a character that's as effective as possible given that platform. If the other characters aim at Tier 3, I may play a Monk instead; again, I'll have fun building and playing the character and (usually) won't overshadow the other PCs.

You don't have to "win" D&D. If you remove that from the player's mindset, optimization can be quite an enjoyable part of the D&D player experience: you get to start the fun before you ever get to the gaming table.

[Nerd-o-rama]

I have some problems with particular optimizers, but I only have an issue when someone is told that they are "playing wrong" for choosing to make a suboptimal character (i.e. anything but a Wizard, Cleric, or Druid) or for not abusing the rules to their utmost advantage. These people are rare, but very vocal on the internet.

It also annoys me when people declare that Rules As Written (and interpreted in whatever insane manner is needed for their optimization strategy) are the only meaningful ways of discussing any character or optimization strategy, to the point where I call the philosophy "death of the DM" in the hope that I can one day sound as pretentious as the person who invented the phrase "death of the author". That's a separate but related bit of irritation.

Powergaming I have no problem with. Optimize your character as much or as little as you want and as much or as little as your DM will allow, just play your character and don't tell me how to play mine. Especially if I didn't ask.

[Qwertystop]

It also annoys me when people declare that Rules As Written (and interpreted in whatever insane manner is needed for their optimization strategy) are the only meaningful ways of discussing any character or optimization strategy, to the point where I call the philosophy "death of the DM" in the hope that I can one day sound as pretentious as the person who invented the phrase "death of the author". That's a separate but related bit of irritation.

Thing is, if there's any disagreement over what a rule is "supposed" to do in a case where it doesn't make sense, what's actually written on the page is really all that can be agreed on as a baseline.

Of course, sometimes you run into problems where even what what is written means is unclear, but that's a bit rarer than differing interpreted intentions of a rule that is clear but just doesn't fit/make sense in context.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Thing is, if there's any disagreement over what a rule is "supposed" to do in a case where it doesn't make sense, what's actually written on the page is really all that can be agreed on as a baseline.

Of course, sometimes you run into problems where even what what is written means is unclear, but that's a bit rarer than differing interpreted intentions of a rule that is clear but just doesn't fit/make sense in context.

Given the "editing" used in the vast majority of roleplaying sourcebooks, I'd actually say the latter is more common simply because there are so many vague or ambiguously-written rules.

I also don't personally happen to care what's written on the page if it's something obviously at odds with the rest of the rules or the concept of having fun. Yes, there's some fancy "fallacy" name for this, but D&D rules aren't a physics textbook or holy scripture. They're a set of ideas for structuring your games of make-believe, and it irritates me.

Alternatively, go read that Lore Sjoberg article (http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/commentary/alttext/2008/06/alttext_0618), that's really all I'm trying to say here.

[Fax Celestis]

Alternatively, go read that Lore Sjoberg article (http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/commentary/alttext/2008/06/alttext_0618), that's really all I'm trying to say here.

Lore Sjöberg for President. I love that man.

[137beth]

I feel like 98% of criticism of the tier system is by people who grossly misunderstand it. They decry it as "only for optimizers". It isn't--in fact, almost every class can break up one or more tiers with optimization.
What the tier system does measure is mechanical potential only. In 3.0/3.5/PF, there are some rules somewhere for most situations. Most people don't use all the rules in all the books. A lot of people who don't use certain rules (like the diplomacy skill/other interaction rules) and roleplay it instead will find the tier system not apply in those circumstances, since it was designed to measure only the mechanical abilities of the classes.

Somehow, the word "optimizer" has come to mean "using all or most of the Rules as Written rather than roleplaying". People say "oh, you resolve social interactions with a die roll, and succeed because of your diplomacy modifier. You're an optimizer/munchkin!"
Well no, that person would not necessarily be an optimizer, just rollplaying. Somehow, continued miscommunication has spread the idea that the tier system only applies to high optimization levels, when it really is meant for mid-optimization.


On the other hand, some people, when they say they have a "character concept" mean a really cool backstory and personality. Other people mean a potent mechanical build. This is purely a mechanics vs roleplaying debate, but somehow the roleplayers frequently end up accusing all non-roleplayers of being "optimizers".
Even in a mechanics heavy game, I still usually try to build around a character's personality and story, and then optimize within that framework. It's sort of a compromise between building fluff around crunch and building crunch around fluff. Does that make me "an optimizer"? No idea.

[Calimehter]

Classes are metagame constructs. There is very little strange about having, for instance, a Warblade that dips spirit lion barbarian for some extra oomph, because fluff is mutable. He's not a Warblade/Barbarian, or even a barbaric warblade, but a student of the sword that can fight with an incredible single-mindedness and focus due to extreme discipline.

The question begged by the bit that I highlighted is: Are they?? Or at least, are they always so??

Its pretty easy to envision a campaign world where they are just mishmashes of numbers for players to choose from ala carte. Its equally easy to envision a campaign world where characters must actually join guilds, pick totem animals, get special training, or otherwise pay homage to the fluff (whether it be the book author's or the campaign world designer's) for a given class/ACF/feat before acquiring it.

There is, after all, an awful lot of space in both the the main rulebook and in all the supplements that is devoted to the fluff descriptions for each class, and sometimes for other character options too (some feats and ACFs, etc.). Fluff is mutable, of course, but what is the *default* assumption regarding the fluff? The answer will vary from person to person and campaign to campaign.

I wonder if mismatched ideas on how "meta" to get during character creation are as much a problem with the perception of optimization as mismatched power levels are.

[LordBlades]

Given the "editing" used in the vast majority of roleplaying sourcebooks, I'd actually say the latter is more common simply because there are so many vague or ambiguously-written rules.

I also don't personally happen to care what's written on the page if it's something obviously at odds with the rest of the rules or the concept of having fun. Yes, there's some fancy "fallacy" name for this, but D&D rules aren't a physics textbook or holy scripture. They're a set of ideas for structuring your games of make-believe, and it irritates me.

Nobody (sane) is (hopefully) saying that. Thing is in an internet discussion the only common base people have is the rulebook. So it makes sense for the discussion to revolve around the rulebook.



The question begged by the bit that I highlighted is: Are they?? Or at least, are they always so??

Its pretty easy to envision a campaign world where they are just mishmashes of numbers for players to choose from ala carte. Its equally easy to envision a campaign world where characters must actually join guilds, pick totem animals, get special training, or otherwise pay homage to the fluff (whether it be the book author's or the campaign world designer's) for a given class/ACF/feat before acquiring it.

There is, after all, an awful lot of space in both the the main rulebook and in all the supplements that is devoted to the fluff descriptions for each class, and sometimes for other character options too (some feats and ACFs, etc.). Fluff is mutable, of course, but what is the *default* assumption regarding the fluff? The answer will vary from person to person and campaign to campaign.

I wonder if mismatched ideas on how "meta" to get during character creation are as much a problem with the perception of optimization as mismatched power levels are.

Classes are metagame constructs gives players absolute creative freedom. Classes are in-game constructs has the tendency to kill some concepts. For me, the former is clearly superior to the latter.

[PersonMan]

Classes are metagame constructs gives players absolute creative freedom. Classes are in-game constructs has the tendency to kill some concepts. For me, the former is clearly superior to the latter.

This. Plus

-as written fluff is sometimes (some say often, other say almost always) just bad and/or makes no sense
-needing to do specific things to get class abilities can take the focus away from the story and onto 'ok, we leveled, now we need to do 5 quests to get access'. Some people like this kind of story. I don't. Which is also why I prefer 'you find a guy selling your Item of +2 Whatever and buy it for book price' to 'magic items are rare and special! Go on a quest for your +1 sword!'

It also smells of railroading to me (or a DM who doesn't want to say no normally and/or limits players by forcing them to jump through hoops for classes/feats/etc.).

[SciChronic]

Nobody (sane) is (hopefully) saying that. Thing is in an internet discussion the only common base people have is the rulebook. So it makes sense for the discussion to revolve around the rulebook.

However, the DM always has the final say. The DM can change any rule he wants, and the optimizer/powergamer/munchkin can gripe and complain, but if you're gonna be like that you should probably just find a new group to play with.

As i said earlier i'm a concept optimizer, which imo (and only my opinion) is the most fun to do. Sure its possible to just DMM or Wizard 20 or Druid 20 or whatever and just outdo my party in everything, but that detracts from the rest of the group, and makes the game boring, like putting the old gameshark and running around with invincibility and bottomless clip. It's fun... for about 5 minutes. Its much more entertaining, and fulfilling to optimize a concept. I don't outclass my party, yet get the enjoyment of knowing i took the concept and matched it as best as i could and i excel in the areas i wanted to excel in.

[Fax Celestis]

optimizer/powergamer/munchkin

Two of these are offensive or derogatory. Are you sure you want to lump the third in with it?

[Nerd-o-rama]

Two of these are offensive or derogatory. Are you sure you want to lump the third in with it?

Personally I'd say that in practice, it's all in how you say the first two. "Munchkin" is always derogatory, and should be reserved for outright cheaters and recalcitrant people who disrupt the game for their own personal amusement.

[SethoMarkus]

I think another point to emphasize is that optimization only becomes a problem when there are vastly different levels of optimization occurring within the same group. A group full of Pun-Puns is just as balanced as a group full of out-of-the-box Monks. It's when you have the Monk-in-a-box and Pun-Pun in the same group that the optimizer becomes villainized, de facto.

The tier system, in theory, helps minimize this sort of disparity when all of the players are playing nice, but it is still important to indicate whether a game will be High or Low OP (or somewhere in the middle).

A well optimized and well played Fighter can routinely steel the show from an under-optimized and averagely/poorly played Cleric or Wizard. It is uncommon, but it can (and does) happen.

[ZamielVanWeber]

For me optimization is about making your character the best for its target power level. Power gaming is about "winning" DnD. Power gamers optimize by necessity, optimizers need not power game at all.

[LordBlades]

However, the DM always has the final say.
Of course, but as long as you're posting in a D&D 3.5 forum people are going to assume, unless otherwise stated, that you're talking about D&D 3.5 and not D&D My Houserules.


optimizer/powergamer/munchkin



Completely agree with Fax Celestis. Some of us are trying to have a civilized discussion here.

[strider24seven]

It's when you have the Monk-in-a-box and Pun-Pun in the same group that the optimizer becomes villainized, de facto.


I have seen the converse of this, as well. Although the monk wasn't villainized, so much as that we had to take special considerations because he couldn't keep up in all situations that the party faced. Like with anything that flew. Or burrowed. Or teleported. Or...well... didn't stand still for him to full attack. Which he was quite skilled at, to be fair. He could pile on the damage; he just struggled with the more magical foes we faced.

[LordBlades]

I have seen the converse of this, as well. Although the monk wasn't villainized, so much as that we had to take special considerations because he couldn't keep up in all situations that the party faced. Like with anything that flew. Or burrowed. Or teleported. Or...well... didn't stand still for him to full attack. Which he was quite skilled at, to be fair. He could pile on the damage; he just struggled with the more magical foes we faced.

From my experience. the villain is usually the odd one out. If you have a group of 3 monks and a pun-pun, it's the player of the pun-pun that gets called a munchkin. If you have a group of 3 pun-puns and a monk, it's the monk that gets called useless and waste of treasure and/or xp.

[SethoMarkus]

I have seen the converse of this, as well. Although the monk wasn't villainized, so much as that we had to take special considerations because he couldn't keep up in all situations that the party faced. Like with anything that flew. Or burrowed. Or teleported. Or...well... didn't stand still for him to full attack. Which he was quite skilled at, to be fair. He could pile on the damage; he just struggled with the more magical foes we faced.


From my experience. the villain is usually the odd one out. If you have a group of 3 monks and a pun-pun, it's the player of the pun-pun that gets called a munchkin. If you have a group of 3 pun-puns and a monk, it's the monk that gets called useless and waste of treasure and/or xp.

:smalltongue: The point is, it's the difference in power/utility/OP that creates the problem when everyone is trying to play nice, not the optimization itself (since Low optimization is still optimization). Behavior is the issue, not tools.

[JanusJones]

I really want to join in, but I spent a bunch of time saying it somewhere else and am too lazy to copy:

The Everything Goes Gospels (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19863926/OPTIMIZATION_TREATISE:_The_34;Everything_Goes34;_G ospels)

It comes down to a few rules, in my practical experience, to help everyone get the experience they want:


Share info - help everybody else optimize, too (including, should he need it, the DM!)
Decide where you want to play and make sure everybody communicates well - if you're gaming with people who have vastly different opinions of how things should work, make sure you can compromise BEFORE you start playing
Optimization, and a variety of sources, tends to help non-casters more than anyone else (try not to optimize spellcasters - nobody needs to study a kung-fu style based on bazookas because it's just plain no-fair)


My two cents. Hopefully useful - hi all! Been a while!

[Karoht]

Everyone talks about Optimization.

Lets invert this for a moment and talk about inoptimization.
Warning, the following has trace amounts of Stormwind Fallacy, please take with a grain of salt for now.
We had a player recently, who seemed to make the worst decisions possible in any situation possible. When asked why he made such a decision he answered always the same way.
"*shrug* it's what my character would do."
And so I asked him, WHY would his character do that?
He had no idea.

He made no choices regarding his survivability (particularly odd given the harsh environment the campaign was set in, and the hostile people his character was constantly encountering), no choices regarding social skills, no choices regarding combat.
So I then asked him, "What do you actually plan on doing every session? What does your character want to be good at? When presented with an environment and people trying to kill your character, what would your character do?"
He had no idea.

So I asked him "your character randomly flipped off the king while he was giving us our reward, with no provocation to do so, and your reasoning then was that 'it's what my character would do' but you don't have any ability to roleplay your character making decisions towards survival? So you don't die or constantly end up hurt."

This same player constantly watched the rest of the party be effective, called a bunch of us munchins and Roll players rather than Role players.

Now, while this is a flagrant example of the Stormwind Fallacy (or it's inverse) some people think that unoptimizing = roleplaying, that making poor decisions = roleplaying, that picking things for their character exclusively for fluff reasons is automatically somehow considered roleplaying.

I've met countless monks with less personality than a doorstop, but that was actually their character being roleplayed well. I've met people who pick chaotic neutral alignment thinking they can do just about anything they want (the more random the better) and call that roleplaying.

Mind you I've also met optimizers who wanted to solve puzzles with dice rolls, play out a political intrigue conversation with dice rolls, and expected all the bad guys to be faceless featureless motivationless statblocks for the purpose of having the party roll dice against them. I've watched entire parties COMPLAIN when a villian actually demonstrates some motivation, some forethought towards having to defend themselves against adventurers, or even dare to use LESS optimized tricks that the party uses agains the party. I watched a party of players, angry at a party member for going off the rails, vote kick him out of the party for playing on the rails as was demanded of him.

At the heart of the matter, DnD centers most of it's gameplay around combat. As such, players are going to design their characters for either surviving, or dominating that environment. The game is not nearly as centered on roleplaying unless you have talented DM's that nudge things in that direction.
And even if the mechanics were focused around socialization/roleplaying, you will see people optimize around that.

/rant_off

[SowZ]

I usually build characters from the bottom up in D&D. There is so much variety in D&D with feats and such I can't help it. I will intentionally pick sub-optimal concepts that are fun or silly and then optimize within that concept, though. I'm making an E6 drunken master right now. But feats and skills are all about being as strong as I can and I have to do after the fact fluff justification frequently.

This comes from not taking D&D very seriously, I think. I am far more story oriented in most games.

[JusticeZero]

I've been on the receiving end of the "munchkin" label before and it is very irritating. Here is how things play out.
1: We make characters. I know a fair amount about how the system works, so I build around a mechanically effective combo or three, baking in flexibility. Other people make characters too - I offer help in a blanket sort of way. Maybe one person takes me up on it, others do not. The others show up on game day with their characters. They are.. uhh.. spoony? If I comment and offer help, I anger people.
2: We play. I enjoy the game, because my character is fun and so is the rest of the party. We get in fun fights. The other party members are challenged and come out of their battles battered. My character is a bit better designed, and is not so challenged - that's OK, I didn't go there to be challenged. My challenge happenned in chargen, now i'm here to group with cool people and enjoy my time hanging with my friends.
3: The GM sees that my character isn't being "challenged". Maybe the party tossed a bunch of monsters my way that I dispatched handily or something. Or maybe the GM went straight to #4 accidentally...
4: The GM throws an extra-tough monster at us. Holy heck, that thing is a TPK in a can. You know, having ones character die kind've bites, and then I won't get to hang out with my friends and game. Well then..
5: I kill the tough monster. Seriously, you think i'm going to stand by and let the rest of the party get wiped? I pulled off my glasses, pulled my shirt open to show the letter underneath, summonned a horde of angelic superbeings, and stomped that thing flat before it could ruin my friends' day.
6: The party goes "What." Seriously, I just saved their lives. I'm okay if they're not thankful for that, but the outrage that I didn't stand back and let them all die is a bit hurtful.
7: The GM wants to "challenge" or "punish" me. For whatever reason, they do so by going back to #4.

Here's the thing though - #5 wasn't much fun for any of the other people in the group, so #6 just keeps building up. I don't even want the tough fights! I'm here to have fun with my friends and play my character. I'm not the one who is raining huge boss fights down on everybody and threatening to kill the whole party. The people in the party are mildly happy that they are getting powerleveled, but combats can't be much fun for them.

Somehow, people think that the solution to this is that I should concentrate on making things like wizards with 11 Int, Toughness, and TWF so that I won't Bergeron the rest of the party. That's like asking a chef to not only confine himself to making a grilled cheese sandwich, plain, but make sure to use cheap cheddar cheese, make sure to mess it up so that the cheese seperates into a greasy and disgusting mess, and burn it too. It's actively unpleasant to botch things up that badly or to play a character that I know is built badly and force myself to continue to mess up even worse at every level. I wanted to make an effective character, and I did, and now the entire party is being punished for it and ruining the entire reason I came to the game.

[Segev]

If the party is generally okay with how you played before you stepped into that phone booth in the face of the overpowered foe, the solution tends to be to talk to everybody - DM included - OOC about it. I've found that, if I'm optimizing my heart out, as long as I don't swoop in to dominate the game and instead concentrate on backing up everybody else, nobody really minds. Players get upset when they're upstaged consistently or made to feel impotent and unable to contribute.

If you're content with not being "challenged" and can avoid curb-stomping things in ways that invalidate the other PCs, talk to your DM and the other players about leaving things geared for the others, and play so you don't overshadow. If you're still overshadowing, then you probably do need to take further steps to pull it back. Otherwise, go back to having the fun you were having before #4.


Regarding RAW-discussions, I think at least this board tends to be pretty good about happily ditching them for whatever house rule set a given DM is running if somebody has a game-specific question. The reason we debate the RAW so endlessly and stick to it so strictly - even when it's pretty silly - is because it's got to be where we start from if we don't have a definitive alternative (such as a specific DM for a specific game). We can laugh in TO about what the RAW mean, and we can discuss RAI and rules-that-we-think-might-work-better, and explore the implications of those, but in the end, we have to start every discussion back at the RAW unless we have a different premise clearly spelled out as the baseline, or we can't have meaningful discussions at all.

[Talakeal]

Classes are metagame constructs. There is very little strange about having, for instance, a Warblade that dips spirit lion barbarian for some extra oomph, because fluff is mutable. He's not a Warblade/Barbarian, or even a barbaric warblade, but a student of the sword that can fight with an incredible single-mindedness and focus due to extreme discipline.

Edit: Mostly ninja'd by Fax.

Once you get to this point I have to wonder why you are still playing D&D. At that point you go from playing a true lass and level based game to a really bad point buy game with all sorts of arbitrary restrictions and unwanted fluff associations.


I personally wish that the "prestige classes" were instead handled like ACFs at level one, and that dips and multi classing was instead handled through the feat system, but that is neither here nor there.

[Fax Celestis]

Once you get to this point I have to wonder why you are still playing D&D. At that point you go from playing a true lass and level based game to a really bad point buy game with all sorts of arbitrary restrictions and unwanted fluff associations.

Because it is a game that one is familiar with, and which teasing new concepts out of the existing structure is both fun and satisfying? Because I like playing with my friends, and it's what they play? Because I like it?

[eggynack]

Once you get to this point I have to wonder why you are still playing D&D. At that point you go from playing a true lass and level based game to a really bad point buy game with all sorts of arbitrary restrictions and unwanted fluff associations.


I personally wish that the "prestige classes" were instead handled like ACFs at level one, and that dips and multi classing was instead handled through the feat system, but that is neither here nor there.
Why do you need to consider all of your classes and feats on an individual level in terms of flavor in order to like D&D? I feel like I can be perfectly happy playing as "Balthazar: who summons mighty creatures from beyond the veil, but has a dead younger sister who was murdered by Torkon, the Jerkiest Face, and now he seeks vengeance, and maybe some friendship adventures." I don't have to justify the fact that he took cloudy conjuration at first level, because he was being chased by gnolls as a child, and was saved by a passing fog. I can just say that he's taking this feat because it seems nifty. You can just play a cool wizard guy with diverse abilities, and not have a crazy story reason for every one. The same goes for prestige classes and ACF's. You're just a guy who can do some stuff, and that stuff is sometimes cool. The important thing is the character, not the flavor reasons behind every single component of that character.

[RFLS]

Once you get to this point I have to wonder why you are still playing D&D. At that point you go from playing a true lass and level based game to a really bad point buy game with all sorts of arbitrary restrictions and unwanted fluff associations.


I personally wish that the "prestige classes" were instead handled like ACFs at level one, and that dips and multi classing was instead handled through the feat system, but that is neither here nor there.

Because it is a game that one is familiar with, and which teasing new concepts out of the existing structure is both fun and satisfying? Because I like playing with my friends, and it's what they play? Because I like it?

Adding on to that...because it works, and fluff is mutable?

[Quorothorn]

I have some problems with particular optimizers, but I only have an issue when someone is told that they are "playing wrong" for choosing to make a suboptimal character (i.e. anything but a Wizard, Cleric, or Druid) or for not abusing the rules to their utmost advantage. These people are rare, but very vocal on the internet.

This is pretty much my basic opinion, as well. As is almost always the case, there is a sub-section of People on the Internet who simply take the concept of optimization wayyyy too far. It doesn't mean "optimization" as a concept is itself bad, it just means some people mess it up/misapply the concept, rather annoyingly at times.

[Talakeal]

Because it is a game that one is familiar with, and which teasing new concepts out of the existing structure is both fun and satisfying? Because I like playing with my friends, and it's what they play? Because I like it?

I agree with that. As I have said in many many posts when someone said "If you don't like how D&D does it just play something else," D&D is usually the only game in town and the one that most people I know already play.

I was just pointing out that the ideas seem somehow at odds. Wanting to play a class based game and treating it like a point buy game that is. IMO one of the big downfalls of 3.0 was that it tried to create a more flexible system than any other edition of D&D before or since, but didn't go far enough and thus we what is essentially a point buy system that fights us every step of the way.


Adding on to that...because it works, and fluff is mutable?

Well, it kind of works. Kind of. For example the character I am currently playing is a skilled swordswoman, a talented doctor, and has a will of iron. That character archetype is almost impossible to pull off as there is no class I know of that has good will saves, heal as a class skill, and a good BaB without all sorts of magical shenanigans added on.


Why do you need to consider all of your classes and feats on an individual level in terms of flavor in order to like D&D? I feel like I can be perfectly happy playing as "Balthazar: who summons mighty creatures from beyond the veil, but has a dead younger sister who was murdered by Torkon, the Jerkiest Face, and now he seeks vengeance, and maybe some friendship adventures." I don't have to justify the fact that he took cloudy conjuration at first level, because he was being chased by gnolls as a child, and was saved by a passing fog. I can just say that he's taking this feat because it seems nifty. You can just play a cool wizard guy with diverse abilities, and not have a crazy story reason for every one. The same goes for prestige classes and ACF's. You're just a guy who can do some stuff, and that stuff is sometimes cool. The important thing is the character, not the flavor reasons behind every single component of that character.

I agree with everything you said here. I just wish D&D actually embraced this philosophy instead of sticking with the rigid class and level structure and forcing people to make convoluted dips and builds instead of just letting people take the abilities they actually want for their character without all the baggage that is tied to it. I think feats or even ACFs would have been a great opportunity to do this, but they kind of flubbed those systems.

[Segev]

I only have an issue when someone is told that they are "playing wrong" for choosing to make a suboptimal character (i.e. anything but a Wizard, Cleric, or Druid) or for not abusing the rules to their utmost advantage. These people are rare, but very vocal on the internet.

The only time I would really push somebody to do something "more optimal" than they want is when I am concerned that they are going to become actively frustrated with how weak their character is compared to what they think it should be. A game I'm in has a half-orc barbarian who put her high stat in Dex and only a 12 or 14 in Str. I did try to talk her into swapping those, but she really wanted the high Dex for untrained skill usage and AC (and didn't listen or didn't care that it really is a minimal impact on AC given a Barbarian's rage).

I didn't push her after she made it clear she was sticking to her guns on it. I do worry occasionally that she is frustrated with how hard a time she has hitting and doing damage; we're only level 2. But it's her choice. And for the most part, she lets it go after the fight's over despite being clearly annoyed in the moment.

If she were to whine and moan about how unfair the fights are or something, though, I would feel obliged to point out that she deliberately chose a sub-optimal build and that she could be hitting about 20% more often for half again the average damage (or so), and winning fights far more easily. Since she doesn't do this, for the most part, it's her choice how to play her character. I simply felt that I should offer advice and full reasons why, since I do know the system better.

[bekeleven]

I was just pointing out that the ideas seem somehow at odds. Wanting to play a class based game and treating it like a point buy game that is. IMO one of the big downfalls of 3.0 was that it tried to create a more flexible system than any other edition of D&D before or since, but didn't go far enough and thus we what is essentially a point buy system that fights us every step of the way.

A Rogue is a better ninja than a ninja.

A Swordsage is a better ninja than a rogue.

If I want to play a silent stalker of the night, I can't play a swordsage, because I would be "a blade wizard whose knowledge of the Sublime Way lets him unlock potent abilities"? Come on.

I'm also very surprised that this thread reached level 3 without anybody mentioning the stormwind fallacy (http://www.loremaster.org/content.php/146-The-Stormwind-Fallacy):


Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.

[Karoht]

I've been on the receiving end of the "munchkin" label before and it is very irritating. Here is how things play out.
1: We make characters. I know a fair amount about how the system works, so I build around a mechanically effective combo or three, baking in flexibility. Other people make characters too - I offer help in a blanket sort of way. Maybe one person takes me up on it, others do not. The others show up on game day with their characters. They are.. uhh.. spoony? If I comment and offer help, I anger people.This. So much.
The amount of times I've said "yeah, or you could do it this way, stomp them completely, and have more fun being awesome" only to have people be offended?
Some people ego's are WAY too sensitive.


2: We play. I enjoy the game, because my character is fun and so is the rest of the party. We get in fun fights. The other party members are challenged and come out of their battles battered. My character is a bit better designed, and is not so challenged - that's OK, I didn't go there to be challenged. My challenge happenned in chargen, now i'm here to group with cool people and enjoy my time hanging with my friends.
3: The GM sees that my character isn't being "challenged". Maybe the party tossed a bunch of monsters my way that I dispatched handily or something. Or maybe the GM went straight to #4 accidentally...
4: The GM throws an extra-tough monster at us. Holy heck, that thing is a TPK in a can. You know, having ones character die kind've bites, and then I won't get to hang out with my friends and game. Well then..
5: I kill the tough monster. Seriously, you think i'm going to stand by and let the rest of the party get wiped? I pulled off my glasses, pulled my shirt open to show the letter underneath, summonned a horde of angelic superbeings, and stomped that thing flat before it could ruin my friends' day.
6: The party goes "What." Seriously, I just saved their lives. I'm okay if they're not thankful for that, but the outrage that I didn't stand back and let them all die is a bit hurtful.The awkward looks/silence that follows is the worst. And the attitude of 'how dare you save us from our stupidity' is the pits too.


7: The GM wants to "challenge" or "punish" me. For whatever reason, they do so by going back to #4.Or worse, gives up right in the middle of a decent story.


That's like asking a chef to not only confine himself to making a grilled cheese sandwich, plain, but make sure to use cheap cheddar cheese, make sure to mess it up so that the cheese seperates into a greasy and disgusting mess, and burn it too. It's actively unpleasant to botch things up that badly or to play a character that I know is built badly and force myself to continue to mess up even worse at every level. I wanted to make an effective character, and I did, and now the entire party is being punished for it and ruining the entire reason I came to the game.What's more, the game is based on teamwork. Not only is it annoying to have to 'lift' for your whole team, only for them to smack talk you for optimizing, but they somehow turn roleplaying as some kind of excuse for being a drag.

You there! Play poorly or I shall nag you for playing well. But, play just poorly enough that I don't nag you and well enough that you somehow keep me and the rest of us alive.
Also, DM, continue with piling on the epic encounters above our CR so that we continue to feel epic, while our friend struggles to not outshine us yet somehow keep us alive.

The above is an extremely selfish and entitled attitude, and tends to be justified with the excuse of "but I'm roleplaying" or "you're just a munchin" or the one that really burns my bacon, "I'm just here to have fun not to be serious."
I get that someone is there to have fun. So is the rest of the party. Dieing isn't fun. Losing combats isn't fun. Having to shoulder the load for the rest of the party, tends not to be fun.



I'm also very surprised that this thread reached level 3 without anybody mentioning the stormwind fallacy (http://www.loremaster.org/content.php/146-The-Stormwind-Fallacy):
Actually, you missed me saying that on the previous page as a preface to an anecdote, but mine was more of an example of inverse stormwind fallacy, so it's cool.

[Fax Celestis]

The only time I would really push somebody to do something "more optimal" than they want is when I am concerned that they are going to become actively frustrated with how weak their character is compared to what they think it should be. A game I'm in has a half-orc barbarian who put her high stat in Dex and only a 12 or 14 in Str. I did try to talk her into swapping those, but she really wanted the high Dex for untrained skill usage and AC (and didn't listen or didn't care that it really is a minimal impact on AC given a Barbarian's rage).

I didn't push her after she made it clear she was sticking to her guns on it. I do worry occasionally that she is frustrated with how hard a time she has hitting and doing damage; we're only level 2. But it's her choice. And for the most part, she lets it go after the fight's over despite being clearly annoyed in the moment.

If she were to whine and moan about how unfair the fights are or something, though, I would feel obliged to point out that she deliberately chose a sub-optimal build and that she could be hitting about 20% more often for half again the average damage (or so), and winning fights far more easily. Since she doesn't do this, for the most part, it's her choice how to play her character. I simply felt that I should offer advice and full reasons why, since I do know the system better.

...have you shown her Whirling Frenzy (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/classFeatureVariants.htm#rageVariantWhirlingFrenzy ) or Ferocity (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20070228a)?

[Talakeal]

A Rogue is a better ninja than a ninja.

A Swordsage is a better ninja than a rogue.

If I want to play a silent stalker of the night, I can't play a swordsage, because I would be "a blade wizard whose knowledge of the Sublime Way lets him unlock potent abilities"? Come on.

I'm also very surprised that this thread reached level 3 without anybody mentioning the stormwind fallacy (http://www.loremaster.org/content.php/146-The-Stormwind-Fallacy):


Stormwind is indeed a fallacy. But so is saying "the players are free to modify fluff to match their desired character but crunch is immutable". I don't see the logic behind saying I can give my sword sage ninja fluff if I want, but not I can give my ninja better powers. IMO both would have to be a house ruled compromise between the DM and player. AFAIK there is no RAW which states that the fluff is any more or less concrete than the crunch.

Also, if you want to be a ninja, doesn't being a sword sage come with a bunch of crunch powers that are inappropriate to a ninja? Do you just ignore these abilities entirely? Still use them and ignore the contradictory fluff? Refluff them into something else entirely?

If you had abilities, but never used them, would the other PCs yell at you?

I tried playing 4E, but all of the classes have crazy supernatural abilities that I didn't want, and so I just crossed them off my character sheet and ignored them. The other PCs went nuts and passive aggressively killed off my character to punish me for gimping the group.

[Fax Celestis]

AFAIK there is no RAW which states that the fluff is any more or less concrete than the crunch.
Read the DMG.


I tried playing 4E, but all of the classes have crazy supernatural abilities that I didn't want, and so I just crossed them off my character sheet and ignored them. The other PCs went nuts and passive aggressively killed off my character to punish me for gimping the group.
Why not? Because it's not realistic?

[Segev]

...have you shown her Whirling Frenzy (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/classFeatureVariants.htm#rageVariantWhirlingFrenzy ) or Ferocity (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20070228a)?

She, as a player, doesn't really want to mess with non-core books. She's not above optimizing, but she tends to optimize through in-setting action (like getting the most out of everything she can gather, setting up the landscape to her advantage through Craft and other skills and the cooperation of NPCs, etc.).

In all, she can have plenty of fun. She doesn't enjoy book-diving or having to have more books around to dig through to look up her abilities. I don't share her mindset and don't entirely understand it, but as long as she's having fun...her choice.



Edit: Still, I'll point these options out to her and see if she likes them better than Rage.

[Flickerdart]

I don't find numbers optimization to be particularly compelling beyond a certain party-wide baseline, for obvious reasons. However, optimization is so much more than that - it allows you to make much more efficient use of your available resources, which has some very concrete and tangible effects on the amount of fun you can have.

Consider two characters. Let's call them Alice and Bob. Their 1st level party includes an archer rogue, a healbot cleric, and a beguiler, so they both decide to play melee types to occupy the front line.

Alice doesn't really know or care about optimization. She takes human fighter, and picks a bunch of things that help her deal and handle damage. At level 1, she has Weapon Focus, Toughness, and Improved Initiative, with cross-class ranks in Spot and Listen to detect threats. In battle, she rushes forward as quickly as she can and stands there, trading blows with enemies. It's not the most varied character, and these abilities don't really impart many roleplay hooks or opportunities to do stuff outside of her one role.

Bob optimizes. In a party of fairly underpowered characters, Bob doesn't want to outshine them, but wants to do a little more than just attack, so he picks a human warblade. He takes Charging Minotaur, Stone Bones, Wolf Fang Strike, and Hunter's Sense. For his feats, he takes Improved Bull Rush and Stone Power. He picks Diplomacy, Intimidate, Tumble, Knowledge (local) and Craft (weaponsmithing). His options are many - he can push enemies away from his squishies, he can tank with DR and THP, he can move and make two attack rolls, tumbling past enemies. Outside of combat, he is well-spoken, knows quite a bit about his surroundings, and is a respectable blacksmith, plus he can track down even invisible foes with his keen nose. He doesn't deal measurably more damage than Alice, but he can contribute effectively to a wider range of situations both in battle and outside of it. Bob's character is a blast to play for the player and easy for the DM to run a game for, since the DM can throw a variety of situations at the party without worrying that Bob will have nothing to do, as well as use Bob's various competences to generate plot hooks and reveal additional information.

As these characters grow, Bob's warblade becomes more of a master in his chosen schools, and can climb the feat tree to Shock Trooper for an even more flexible character. Meanwhile, Alice is stuck with the WF feat line, which is all small flat numerical bonuses until level 12, and doesn't really have any direction for organic character growth because there's not much of a character there.

[eggynack]

Stormwind is indeed a fallacy. But so is saying "the players are free to modify fluff to match their desired character but crunch is immutable". I don't see the logic behind saying I can give my sword sage ninja fluff if I want, but not I can give my ninja better powers. IMO both would have to be a house ruled compromise between the DM and player. AFAIK there is no RAW which states that the fluff is any more or less concrete than the crunch.
Can't you just say, "I am playing a ninja, with its fancy fluff words, but every single class ability is the abilities of a swordsage,"? It seems a lot easier than modifying the crunch. Changing crunch means inventing your own game, which isn't a goal of the game we're playing. Changing fluff means inventing your own story, which is exactly the goal of the game we're playing. Fluff is always mutable, because I'm playing Rasputin the mighty beguiler, not the exact text of the beguiler's fluff text. It's just a matter of degree.



Also, if you want to be a ninja, doesn't being a sword sage come with a bunch of crunch powers that are inappropriate to a ninja? Do you just ignore these abilities entirely? Still use them and ignore the contradictory fluff? Refluff them into something else entirely?
Which ones? They all seem rather ninja like to me. Besides, swordsages have a lot of options, and I'm sure you could build one entirely made up of ninja appropriate choices.

[Qwertystop]

Also, if you want to be a ninja, doesn't being a sword sage come with a bunch of crunch powers that are inappropriate to a ninja? Do you just ignore these abilities entirely? Still use them and ignore the contradictory fluff? Refluff them into something else entirely?

If you had abilities, but never used them, would the other PCs yell at you?

There are a bunch of maneuvers that don't fit being a ninja.

Swordsages don't actually get all maneuvers, or even a large portion of them.

Just don't take the ones that let you shoot fire and you're still left with a massive amount of options compared to what you can get, nearly all of which can fit being a ninja.

[Yukitsu]

For me, optimization and preparation time are interesting challenges. The actual unfolding of combat is to me as interesting as watching paint dry. I have a better time playing a strong character that can coast through a well orchestrated combat as compared to anything that is going to have an "epic struggle." during combat where I'm only hanging on by the skin of my teeth. That latter variety of play seems to me the kind that should get the party killed more often than not, while the former seems more reasonable from a success stand point, and is on the whole, much more exciting.

[Calimehter]

Classes are metagame constructs gives players absolute creative freedom. Classes are in-game constructs has the tendency to kill some concepts. For me, the former is clearly superior to the latter.

For pure creative freedom (of character generation at least), the former is clearly superior.

As Talakael has pointed out, though, not everyone will approach the game this way. The fluff *is* there in each book, and while "mileage may vary" for how much everyone likes or appreciates it, some people do like it and would find their enjoyment of the game and immersion in the total game experience to be diminished by ignoring and/or changing it.

There is even an element of creative freedom opened up when one treats classes as in-game constructs, though this element is in world building and not character creation. Having classes as in-game constructs allows one to build regional variations or interesting organizations based off of different classes/ACFs/etc. being common or available only to certain segments of the game world. There's lots of examples of this sort of thing in classic fantasy literature (to say nothing of real life), so some people will get a lot of enjoyment out of participating in a world built this way.

-------------

Just for the record, I'm not trying to advocate either position or impose anything on anyone. I'm just pointing out that a likely 'default' assumption that a heavy optimizer might use isn't a default assumption that everyone wants or cares to have, and that (as much as any "big numbers" it generates) might be a reason why heavy optimization gets more of a cold shoulder than it might otherwise expect.

[Fax Celestis]

There is even an element of creative freedom opened up when one treats classes as in-game constructs, though this element is in world building and not character creation. Having classes as in-game constructs allows one to build regional variations or interesting organizations based off of different classes/ACFs/etc. being common or available only to certain segments of the game world. There's lots of examples of this sort of thing in classic fantasy literature (to say nothing of real life), so some people will get a lot of enjoyment out of participating in a world built this way.


Serious question: doesn't the absurdity of someone differentiating his fighting style from his compatriot by saying, "I can't do that, I'm a Barbarian, not a Crusader," totally ruin any semblance of immersion for you?

[Talakeal]

Read the DMG.


Why not? Because it's not realistic?


I have read the whole dmg, but it was a while ago. Mind being a bit more specific?

It wasnt a realism issue. It happened twice. One time i wanted to play a pacifist crowd control / buff based bard and found that some levels had nothing but direct damage powers. Another time i wanted to play a swordsman but the party needed a striker so i played a barbarian and ignore all the mystical totem spirit stuff and just concentrated on the conan style big sword guy.

[Togo]

There are several problems associated with optimisation, and they tend to come up when the level of optimisation varies within the group.

1) Optimised (or underoptimised) character dominates particular scenes (typically combat, but not always), to the detriment of other players
2) It becomes impossible to challenge the group without killing them, because abilities are so varied
3) Certain teamwork strategies don't work between different levels of optimisation.
4) Optimisation considerations can lead people to make mechanical choices which strain game immersion.
5) High standards of optimisation can reduce the number of viable character build choices, viable strategies, leading to a less varied game
6) High standards of optimisations can reduce the number of viable challenges, thus leading to a less varied game.
7) Low standards of optimisation can make some characters mechanically ineffective at their perceived role, leading to frustration and lack of immersion
8) Because optimisation is seen as a skill, it can be used to add a veneer of respectability to bad behaviour, such as bullying other players about their game choices, or hogging the spotlight.

I'm sure people can think of more.

A sucessful game is one in which a group of player characters work well together in overcoming obstacles, develop as personalities within a shared world, and have interesting and memorable interactions. Making a character notably more or less capable than the rest of the group gets in the way of this.

[RFLS]

There are several problems associated with optimisation, and they tend to come up when the level of optimisation varies within the group.

1) Optimised (or underoptimised) character dominates particular scenes (typically combat, but not always), to the detriment of other players
2) It becomes impossible to challenge the group without killing them, because abilities are so varied
3) Certain teamwork strategies don't work between different levels of optimisation.
4) Optimisation considerations can lead people to make mechanical choices which strain game immersion.
5) High standards of optimisation can reduce the number of viable character build choices, viable strategies, leading to a less varied game
6) High standards of optimisations can reduce the number of viable challenges, thus leading to a less varied game.
7) Low standards of optimisation can make some characters mechanically ineffective at their perceived role, leading to frustration and lack of immersion
8) Because optimisation is seen as a skill, it can be used to add a veneer of respectability to bad behaviour, such as bullying other players about their game choices, or hogging the spotlight.

I'm sure people can think of more.

A sucessful game is one in which a group of player characters work well together in overcoming obstacles, develop as personalities within a shared world, and have interesting and memorable interactions. Making a character notably more or less capable than the rest of the group gets in the way of this.


That...would be an OoC problem, and can be solved by talking to the player(s) in question.
It becomes impossible if:

You haven't talked to them, and
You are incapable of optimizing at their level.

See number 1.
See....number 1.
Go ahead and guess what the answer here is.
Wow, it's a really applicable answer.
Holy cow, the same answer again!


It seems as though every problem you've mentioned can be solved by just having an honest, OoC discussion about the comfort level for optimization of the table.

[JusticeZero]

2) It becomes impossible to challenge the group without killing them, because abilities are so variedThis is what makes the GM ruin their own game. I as a person who can make a decently competent character build am not responsible for the destructive actions of the GM.
3) Certain teamwork strategies don't work between different levels of optimisation. Certain teamwork choices are specific. That's nothing new.
7) Low standards of optimisation can make some characters mechanically ineffective at their perceived role, leading to frustration and lack of immersionAnd yet people get angry if I try to offer help to step their game up. Fascinating. Since I do in fact try to be helpful to the point of making builds for people, sometimes even multiple builds (Choose the one you like most) to attempt to follow their concept as truely as possible on request, I can't see that this is my fault.
8) Because optimisation is seen as a skill, it can be used to add a veneer of respectability to bad behaviour, such as bullying other players about their game choices, or hogging the spotlight.Again, this isn't my fault. I'm not trying to get the spotlight. But i'm not going to act like a complete idiot and cripple myself, either, just so that YOU can feel like you are awesomely powerful playing your crossbow barbarian or whatever. I have no responsibility to awkwardly hobble myself just to feed your ego when i'm not making any attempt to be disruptive. You guys get that neat looking group over there, i'll take these ones here. No really, i'll be fine.
Again, this works best when you, as the GM, says "Oh, he's playing this optimized high powered character. He put a personality on it and is RPing it though, so as long as I don't throw a dragon or something at him, he isn't DOING anything to cause problems."

This is especially important because if you DO start throwing huge fights at me, the rest of the party will learn the outliers to my ability and start expecting me to use it all the time. Gosh darn it, just because my wizard can arrange to melee and tank better than Gomen the Barbarian next to me doesn't mean i'm itching to run out into melee and put the fighters out of a job.

Seriously, I think it's pretty awesome watching the barbarian run out and flip out like a ninja on those orcs. He has such cool lines! And he's, like, the Chosen One of the Third MacGuffin Shrine, how cool is that? It just means I have that combo of abilities in my back pocket if I ever need to save everyone from a TPK, because it's just so easy for me to arrange to have that it would bug me to spend it on something insipid.
A sucessful game is one in which a group of player characters work well together in overcoming obstacles, develop as personalities within a shared world, and have interesting and memorable interactions.
Making a character notably more or less capable than the rest of the group gets in the way of this.Your statement does not follow.

I want to work together and overcome obstacles. I want to develop my personality and history. I want to experience your awesome world and story. I want to interact with interesting characters.

It's just that if the BBEG spontaneously decides to sic an overpowered, over-leveled enemy on us, probably because the GM thinks i'm not being "challenged", my choices are to either stand back and watch the campaign go up in smoke with the PCs I love to be around dying left and right, or to step up to the plate and unleash what is actually going to be a quite anticlimactic ubercombo of abilities and stomp the enemy flat.

If I stomp the enemy flat, everyone will suddenly get moralistic on me, call me a powergamer, a horrible team member, and wreck the game.

If I do nothing, then I get to watch the whole party die in front of me, destroying the whole campaign... then either I just commit suicide while people ask "Why don't you use the abilities we know you have?", or I fight back in self defense at the end and everyone calls me a powergamer, and since the rest of the party is TPK, I don't get to do any of that anyways because the game is over.

So seriously, what do you want me to do? What do you expect from me? Ban everyone from gaming once they know how to make an effective character?

[bekeleven]

So seriously, what do you want me to do? What do you expect from me? Ban everyone from gaming once they know how to make an effective character?

Make sure that the party is all roughly at a similar level of power. If you do this by going up to your party members and saying "hey, your class choice is stupid, play a spell-to-power erudite" then they probably won't listen. So you trade down.

And there's nothing wrong with having flexibility! Don't play a fighter charger just because your party is centered around tier 4-5. Feel free to play a rogue or a ranger. Not significantly more powerful, but never without things to do.

In my current campaign, I'm probably the largest optimizer - the party is a werebear paladin (straight from the book, although I'm thinking of talking with him and the GM to get a paladin class upgrade), a warforged melee warlock, an anthropomorphic cat unarmed swordsage, a goliath crusader, and me. I could've played a summoner build I've been working on, but instead I played a shapeshifter. In combat I turn into a giant ant and eat people, or maybe a fleshraker. Out of combat I can serve as a mount, burn holes in walls as a thoqqua, scout as an eagle, ferry people through the air as a giant owl, disguise as other people I know, and I serve as the party face too. I can do a lot - but I can't solve encounters. Like the master of many forms bible says:


Don't overkill. Choose forms that fit to your groups power level. If you have a group that plays high-power, with other players being wizards using only the best spells and other characters being optimized race-class-feat combos, you can use the best forms available to you. However, when your group rather consists of a bard, a normal ranger and an average monk, taking a powerful form like cryohydra early on and killing all opponents by yourself before your fellow characters have much time to do any damage will make your DM ban you. I found it best to use middling forms and only pull out the big guns once the tide of battle has seriously turned against you. If you play powerful forms, the DM will send more powerful monstres, and you less optimized comrades may not be able to keep up with this escalation. In short: De-escalate and avoid the problem.

If your response after finding the party's average tier and optimization level is significantly below yours is "well I gave them a chance, I guess they would prefer to watch me win at D&D", then the problem is not them.

And if you're playing nice within your group's power level, maybe swapping your mailman sorcerer to a buffer, letting the melees have their moment in the sun - haste is higher damage than fireball, after all - and the GM is STILL sending overpowering encounters at you, then the problem isn't you either.

[JungleChicken]

I've never cared for optimization.
The players are usually "That Guy"
People who map out a career of 5 classes over 15-20 levels aren't playing a character they are generating numbers.
Not to mention they usually want to enter into esoteric classes that have conflicting ideologies or just ignore entry requirements like finding that group of secretive occult clerics or devoting your life to X, or being invited by someone willing to vouch for you and train you. It usually goes something like Oh I'm lvl 6 now. Time to take a 2 level dip into X.

[bekeleven]

I've never cared for optimization.
The players are usually "That Guy"
People who map out a career of 5 classes over 15-20 levels aren't playing a character they are generating numbers.
Not to mention they usually want to enter into esoteric classes that have conflicting ideologies or just ignore entry requirements like finding that group of secretive occult clerics or devoting your life to X, or being invited by someone willing to vouch for you and train you. It usually goes something like Oh I'm lvl 6 now. Time to take a 2 level dip into X.

This was linked earlier in the thread. (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/26203097/The_Stormwind_Fallacy_%28repost%29)

[Flickerdart]

I've never cared for optimization.
The players are usually "That Guy"
People who map out a career of 5 classes over 15-20 levels aren't playing a character they are generating numbers.
Not to mention they usually want to enter into esoteric classes that have conflicting ideologies or just ignore entry requirements like finding that group of secretive occult clerics or devoting your life to X, or being invited by someone willing to vouch for you and train you. It usually goes something like Oh I'm lvl 6 now. Time to take a 2 level dip into X.
Optimization is not just about numbers. I invite you to read my post above if you haven't already, and respond to the points I have made there.

In the case of dips, a Wizard 20 is miles beyond what any number of esoteric multiclass combinations are going to accomplish for a mundane type.

Also, why do you find a character aiming to join an organization ahead of time to be so distasteful? Before applying for my master's degree program, I planned my undergraduate courses so I would be qualified to enter it. Before entering undergrad, I picked out the high school electives that would get me there. After I got into the master's, I picked courses that would help me get the job I wanted.

"Oh, I'm a Bachelor of Design now, time to take a 1-year degree in Human-Computer Interaction so I can get a job at Google" is exactly the same as "Oh, I'm a 6th level Fighter now, time to take a 1-level dip into Paladin so I can join the Divine Crusaders".

Given that only one of these career paths involves putting your life on the line four times every day, I would think that a D&D character would be even more inclined to optimize themselves.

[JungleChicken]

Optimization is not just about numbers. I invite you to read my post above if you haven't already, and respond to the points I have made there.

In the case of dips, a Wizard 20 is miles beyond what any number of esoteric multiclass combinations are going to accomplish for a mundane type.

Also, why do you find a character aiming to join an organization ahead of time to be so distasteful? Before applying for my master's degree program, I planned my undergraduate courses so I would be qualified to enter it. Before entering undergrad, I picked out the high school electives that would get me there. After I got into the master's, I picked courses that would help me get the job I wanted.

"Oh, I'm a Bachelor of Design now, time to take a 1-year degree in Human-Computer Interaction so I can get a job at Google" is exactly the same as "Oh, I'm a 6th level Fighter now, time to take a 1-level dip into Paladin so I can join the Divine Crusaders".

Given that only one of these career paths involves putting your life on the line four times every day, I would think that a D&D character would be even more inclined to optimize themselves.

Why the 4 levels of fighter and not straight paladin?

[LordBlades]

For pure creative freedom (of character generation at least), the former is clearly superior.

As Talakael has pointed out, though, not everyone will approach the game this way. The fluff *is* there in each book, and while "mileage may vary" for how much everyone likes or appreciates it, some people do like it and would find their enjoyment of the game and immersion in the total game experience to be diminished by ignoring and/or changing it.

There is even an element of creative freedom opened up when one treats classes as in-game constructs, though this element is in world building and not character creation. Having classes as in-game constructs allows one to build regional variations or interesting organizations based off of different classes/ACFs/etc. being common or available only to certain segments of the game world. There's lots of examples of this sort of thing in classic fantasy literature (to say nothing of real life), so some people will get a lot of enjoyment out of participating in a world built this way.

-------------

Just for the record, I'm not trying to advocate either position or impose anything on anyone. I'm just pointing out that a likely 'default' assumption that a heavy optimizer might use isn't a default assumption that everyone wants or cares to have, and that (as much as any "big numbers" it generates) might be a reason why heavy optimization gets more of a cold shoulder than it might otherwise expect.

I'm not trying to tell anyone what to do. It's just that a game where the DM tells me 'no, you can't call yourself a ninja because you don't have Ninja levels despite being better at all the ninja stuff than a single class Ninja' is not a game I'd consider playing in.

As for fluff being more mutable than crunch....fluff rarely breaks games. There's a lot more 'OMG this guy optimized his wizard and broke the game' than 'OMG this guy refluffed his wizard and broke my game'.

Also, in regard to mapping out character progression over several levels, the very nature of prerequisites for both prestige classes and feats pretty much forces you to do that.

[Flickerdart]

Why the 4 levels of fighter and not straight paladin?
Because the character's fighting style is more firmly rooted in traditional warrior training? Because the player doesn't want the character to have divine resilience and a magic horse?

The paladin dip is not even necessary (it's there just to avoid taking CC Knowedge Religion ranks, mechanically) but it demonstrates a more organic discovery of divine potential than just "oh look, I qualify for this thing now". Divine Crusader is super easy to qualify for with basically any full BAB class.

[Mithril Leaf]

As a bit of different perspective, let me just say, I do enjoy the numbers game. I like to make characters that can do things well. And that's okay. Other people like to make characters that pursue long quest chains that lead to some big backstory began conflict. And that's also okay. We can even go ahead and exist in the same party. I could be a Lloth Touched Draconic Incarnate Warforged with an absurdly eleborate backstory just to justify how on earth that happened. As long as the other memebers of the party aren't trying to be melee beatsticks, there probably won't be many issues, assuming the DM adjusts combat encounters accordingly.
One of my favorite character archtypes is the Demon Summoner who believes that the power is worth the unsavory company. The extraplanar equivalent to the horde necromancer. Now in D&D, this concept is really strong. And there are games where this is a reasonable concept. Just because it's strong, doesn't mean I should be punished for picking it. It satisfies my desire to see those numbers go up, and it can boost the party as well.
I now realize I lost where I was going with this, but optimization is overall not a bad thing is the point I was trying to make.

[Togo]

That...would be an OoC problem, and can be solved by talking to the player(s) in question.

Not necessarily. While I'm a great believer in talking problems through, the problem is game-mechanical one. Either the characters change, or the game changes, or the the problem remains.

Let's take an example. You have a game set in a monestry, full of monks. One person plays an optimised wizard. Sooner or later you're going to get into one of the situations on the list. Yes, you can talk to people about it, but there is still a game mechanical gap to deal with, and it causes problems.


This is what makes the GM ruin their own game. I as a person who can make a decently competent character build am not responsible for the destructive actions of the GM.

Sure you are. The DM is trying to set the challenge at a level that will challenge but not kill off the PCs. In order to challenge your character, the encounter has to be lethal to everyone else.


Certain teamwork choices are specific. That's nothing new.And yet people get angry if I try to offer help to step their game up. Fascinating.

Maybe I missed the point where you offered to step your game down?


Since I do in fact try to be helpful to the point of making builds for people, sometimes even multiple builds (Choose the one you like most) to attempt to follow their concept as truely as possible on request, I can't see that this is my fault.Again, this isn't my fault. I'm not trying to get the spotlight. But i'm not going to act like a complete idiot and cripple myself, either, just so that YOU can feel like you are awesomely powerful playing your crossbow barbarian or whatever. I have no responsibility to awkwardly hobble myself just to feed your ego when i'm not making any attempt to be disruptive.

Of course it's your fault. Running a game with characters with violently different capabilities causes problems. If you're playing an outlier, too high or too low, and this is causing problems, this is your fault.


Again, this works best when you, as the GM, says "Oh, he's playing this optimized high powered character. He put a personality on it and is RPing it though, so as long as I don't throw a dragon or something at him, he isn't DOING anything to cause problems."

Sure, and that can work, but that isn't the kind of game that everyone wants to run, or to play. Some games rely on the player characters actually being in danger now and then, and having a demigod in disguise who will step in to smite the game whenever he feels like it, gets in the way, even if it's a very responsible and polite demigod who humours the amusing little mortals most of the time.


This is especially important because if you DO start throwing huge fights at me, the rest of the party will learn the outliers to my ability and start expecting me to use it all the time. Gosh darn it, just because my wizard can arrange to melee and tank better than Gomen the Barbarian next to me doesn't mean i'm itching to run out into melee and put the fighters out of a job.

No, but it may not matter if you do or not. Your presence means the party are never really in trouble - they're just playing around.

Have you ever played in one of those games where the DM dreams up a uber-powerful NPC who turns up every so often to drag the party out of trouble and take credit for their efforts? Was it fun? Because you're playing that guy.


I want to work together and overcome obstacles. I want to develop my personality and history. I want to experience your awesome world and story. I want to interact with interesting characters.

But you also want to play an optimised PC, and that seems to be the priority for you. How do you manage to work together to overcome obstacles when you don't really the need the other characters?


It's just that if the BBEG spontaneously decides to sic an overpowered, over-leveled enemy on us, probably because the GM thinks i'm not being "challenged", my choices are to either stand back and watch the campaign go up in smoke with the PCs I love to be around dying left and right, or to step up to the plate and unleash what is actually going to be a quite anticlimactic ubercombo of abilities and stomp the enemy flat.

If I stomp the enemy flat, everyone will suddenly get moralistic on me, call me a powergamer, a horrible team member, and wreck the game.

If I do nothing, then I get to watch the whole party die in front of me, destroying the whole campaign... then either I just commit suicide while people ask "Why don't you use the abilities we know you have?", or I fight back in self defense at the end and everyone calls me a powergamer, and since the rest of the party is TPK, I don't get to do any of that anyways because the game is over.

Yeah the game is pretty much toast no matter what you do. And you say this came about because the DM couldn't challenge you any other way? Surely there is an obvious solution here.


So seriously, what do you want me to do? What do you expect from me? Ban everyone from gaming once they know how to make an effective character?

No, just don't make a character that's significantly more powerful than everyone else's. It's a challenge, it's actually harder to do than optimisation. Anyone with a half-decent knoweldge of the game system and access to the internet can come up with an optimised character, but designing a character whose abilities mesh well with others is much harder, and requires a broader knowledge of the system to do well. You sound like you know what you're doing, and could probably manage it, with a bit of practice.

A more basic problem may be trust. At the moment you're stepping in the stop the DM ruining the game and offering to redesign other people's characters. It sounds like you don't trust them to make the right choices. If you can't work with them on their terms, as well as yours, you're going run into problems no matter what you do. Why not try trusting the DM, trusting the other characters, and making a character that fits in with what they want to do, and see if the game still goes horribly wrong?

[JusticeZero]

How about the GM recognize that i'm not there to be "challenged", i'm there to hang out with my friends, interact with the cool world, and the story? I don't give a damn about being "challenged". I want to RP, and I don't want to be actively punished just because I have some awareness that clerics aren't just heal-bots, wizards aren't just blasters, and so on.

And how about recognizing that I like to make something other than a gnomish monk now and then? Like, say, when I show up and everyone asks, nay, begs for someone to play "the healer"? For most games, that's the cleric. That's tier one! And has a lot of RP potential. It's a class I enjoy playing just because they have a lot of interesting fiddly bits in their characterization, and it's a class that people regularly tell me they desperately need and oh please make a healer. By the way, these same people probably wouldn't go for any of the other options for "healers" since those are pretty arcane 3P things. Gee, I could play a Vitalist? Oh, no no, that's psionic and we read once that that's overpowered, so we can't be having you play a T3. You need to be playing a T1 out of the CRB instead!

And what do I do? Buff up the party, carry a couple wands of CLW in my pocket, then walk around bonking things on the head while talking about the will of Insertgodhere. That's not particularly disruptive. At least, not unless the GM is trying to destroy his own game by doing me in.

Actively making my character ineffective and dysfunctional isn't "a challenge", it's a travesty. It's a Bergeron-esque bit of egomaniacal harrassment which is absolutely the same thing as if I started abusing you and yelling at you for making your character wrong for not optimizing yourself to Pun-Pun levels. There is zero difference.

You are abusing me for not making MY character the way YOU want my character to be, then YOU are blaming ME for something that YOU did. Isn't that one of the main things that was being complained about? Particularly when my character isn't some unique snowflake and fits in with the setting just fine?

Seriously, "Now I had to go kill the rest of the party off with a Balor, see what you made me do? You're such a horrible person that hates your party! I like the party, and now I had to kill them all to punish you!" doesn't come off as a bit messed up to you?

[Gigas Breaker]

Nobody is telling you to run a commoner. You may just need to adjust the dial.

[Calimehter]

Serious question: doesn't the absurdity of someone differentiating his fighting style from his compatriot by saying, "I can't do that, I'm a Barbarian, not a Crusader," totally ruin any semblance of immersion for you?

If the guy standing right next to him is actually a Crusader and is also his longtime adventuring bud, then yes it would.

However, if the Barbarian hailed from a region where the training was unavailable and hadn't met any Crusaders (or at least not known them long enough to train with them or observe them fighting long enough to gain any benefits), then no it wouldn't.

[Gigas Breaker]

If the guy standing right next to him is actually a Crusader and is also his longtime adventuring bud, then yes it would.

However, if the Barbarian hailed from a region where the training was unavailable and hadn't met any Crusaders (or at least not known them long enough to train with them or observe them fighting long enough to gain any benefits), then no it wouldn't.

Would he really refer to himself as barbarian instead of a mighy warrior from the Ape Tribe or whatever? Being called a barbarian or savage is insulting.

And if he met someone who introduced himself as a fighter would it be odd for him to say, "Me too! I love to fight!"

[eggynack]

If the guy standing right next to him is actually a Crusader and is also his longtime adventuring bud, then yes it would.

However, if the Barbarian hailed from a region where the training was unavailable and hadn't met any Crusaders (or at least not known them long enough to train with them or observe them fighting long enough to gain any benefits), then no it wouldn't.
I think he's referring to the idea of classes as non-metagame constructs, rather than to the idea of different characters having different abilities. When you're asked who you are in game, it's the difference between saying, "I am Surkor, who has fought as the hand of Wee Jas for nary on a decade," and saying, "I am Surkor, the cleric 4/crusader 1/RKV 2."

[Calimehter]

What eggynack said. A 'Mighty warrior from the Ape Tribe' (i.e. Barbarian) wouldn't have access to the same skills as a 'Holy Knight of the Soldarian Templars' (i.e. Crusader) if he had never been to Soldaria or had never heard of the their templars.

[Gigas Breaker]

What eggynack said. A 'Mighty warrior from the Ape Tribe' (i.e. Barbarian) wouldn't have access to the same skills as a 'Holy Knight of the Soldarian Templars' (i.e. Crusader) if he had never been to Soldaria or had never heard of the their templars.

Oh, ok I gotcha.

[ericp65]

My gaming experience has been at least 90% the same as what the OP described. Every player I've observed in every game system I've played has always begun with a character concept, and then built the character to represent the concept based on available gaming materials. In my 35 years of playing rpgs, only one person I've known was into "min/maxing," and everyone else viewed this practice with disdain, to put it mildly. The more I played, the more I noticed that players who focused on character concepts and role-play had more fun, and were more favorably received by the others in a given group, than the guy who was always looking to squeeze every last advantage out of his characters, while minimizing a character's drawbacks.

Perhaps unfortunately, no one with whom I've played has given guidance on how to take the best advantage of options for optimizing without going to extremes (the way the min/max player usually did). However, the best and most enjoyable DM and fellow player had a good handle on advising/suggesting the most advantageous way to build/advance a character while maintaining focus on character concept. This approach appeals to me most; I always begin with a basic concept, adding flavor details and interests to make the character feel more like a real "person" and less like a cold stat block. Then, I go through the process of selecting class(es) and rolling dice as needed, outfitting the character, adding whatever additional flavor/background details that pop into my head, and make whatever final fine-tuning I feel is needed to best represent the character before deciding he/she/it is ready for play.

I guess some of us view extreme min/maxing as "cheating without really cheating," if that makes sense. It's been only recently that I've discovered these forums, and related sites that address character optimization and the various insightful and helpful on-line handbooks. I have no familiarity with the so-called Tier System, and for now I'm deliberately avoiding looking into it. I see the various forums as invaluable in helping me to identify and correct drawbacks I inadvertently build into my characters, and I think I'm starting to get a handle on how to build better (more potentially successful) characters than I used to.

So, my experience has been that interesting and advantageous character design is encouraged, and helps to make playing more fun, while min/maxing and adding thick layers of cheese is seen as not so much fun as trying to over-exploit rules and create overpowered characters.

[Fax Celestis]

If the guy standing right next to him is actually a Crusader and is also his longtime adventuring bud, then yes it would.

However, if the Barbarian hailed from a region where the training was unavailable and hadn't met any Crusaders (or at least not known them long enough to train with them or observe them fighting long enough to gain any benefits), then no it wouldn't.

What you have just described are classes as a metagame, not in-game, concept.

[galan]

whenever i read anti-optimization posts ('its cheating' 'they rollplay not roleplay' etc.) all i can think about is 'hey! you don't play d&d like me! stop having fun!'. i understant people who don't like when one character is much more powerfull then the others/what the dm intended. thats the only good reason out there. playing pun pun is just as 'roleplaying' as playing any other character, no matter if the player have good background or not at all. there is no right and wrong in ways to play the game, as long as your way don't ruin the other players fun.

edit: fixed typing mistakes

[JusticeZero]

I have no familiarity with the so-called Tier System, and for now I'm deliberately avoiding looking into it.
Tiers really mainly just measure how flexible a class is. As it turns out, the best predictor of raw power is found in how wide a selection of abilities a character has access to, and how easily those abilities can be shuffled around.

A Wizard is on top because they have a huge variety of powers to choose from, and they can completely redesign their loadout given a night of sleep. A Monk is way down at the bottom because in most situations, all they can really do is try to hit things in melee while naked, they don't have a lot of options to customize with, and they can't even swap out their weapons and armor as easily as a fighter can.

This is particularly meaningful because using some synergies, wizards are actually able to, at moderate levels, out-punch the Monk just by picking and casting a couple of spells; indeed, once you've seen how to do it, doing this is trivially easy and doesn't require the wizard to spend any permanent character resources; it's just a couple of spell slots. And by mid-level, you have a lot of spell slots.

I kind've like playing Wizards. It's not because I am some munchkin powergamer whose ego needs to be fed by being all powerful. It's because i'm working on my dissertation, I spend all my time at work poring through books in what amounts to an apprenticeship, and I don't have to worry about people looking at me oddly and asking "Uhh.. I don't think George the Peasant Soldier would use the word "disambiguation".." If I was in a DnD world, I would almost certainly have a pointy hat and a spellbook, and the 'what character are you?' tests always peg me at an Int 20 Wizard.

Plus, I think it's fun being the wise old gandalf guy who stands back tossing out buffs, illusions, and information spells to help the party leader solve puzzles while the fighters and rogues go through marvelous feats of daring. Really, that's what I see as my role, and it's what I prefer to be doing.

Nonetheless, it gets really awkward if some huge demon walks up, I have to say "You shall not pass!" they discover that I wasn't bluffing, and then the next five encounters are all huge demons intended to "challenge" me instead of the orcs our party was in the middle of fighting before. Even if those demons are a "challenge", they aren't a fun challenge. I don't enjoy them and neither does anyone else. I was feeling challenged by solving the mysteries of the plot.

The Cleric - which most groups consider to be the "healer" that nobody wants to play - is also in the top tier for the exact same reason. I'm good at playing the cleric and healing people and being this awesome support character, but again, I always have that potential to suddenly go stomping through Tokyo if the GM throws an unbeatable fight in my face. I like playing Clerics too, and many groups are crying desperately for one.

[LordBlades]

So, my experience has been that interesting and advantageous character design is encouraged, and helps to make playing more fun, while min/maxing and adding thick layers of cheese is seen as not so much fun as trying to over-exploit rules and create overpowered characters.

Many min-maxers don't create powerful characters because they want 'ultimate power' but rather due to wanting interesting characters. A prevalent feature of 3.5 is that, with very rare exceptions, versatility=power. The more things you can do above and beyond 5 ft. step and full attack, the more powerful you are.

Take for example, a plain single-class fighter. From my point of view that character is weak and uninteresting. 2+int skill points, int being a low-priority stat and poor skill list means the character gets sidelined (or if he doesn't does more harm than good) in any type of encounter that does not involve stabbing things. Even in encounters that DO involve stabbing things (you can make a fighter a reasonably competent stabber of things), the character is usually a one-trick pony (charger, tripper, lockdown etc.), which gets boring quickly IMO.

Now take a druid. When it comes to stabbing things he can: stab them in melee together with his animal companion, stand back and bury them under whatever kind of animal stampede he feels like that day, stand back and blast them with thunder and lightning, use battlefield control or anything in between. When it comes to not stabbing things, a druid has a decent skill list and number of sp, as well as a large amount and utility spells. All in all, for me the druid is a character that a)is less boring as it has access to much more variety of tactics and b) gets to meaningfully interact with more of the campaign, as it can be good at more than one kind of encounter.

The fact that druid is vastly more powerful than the fighter is a side-effect I don't care that much about. Even if the druid was as strong as, or slightly weaker than the fighter, I'd still pick it any day.

[Talakeal]

A bit of a ramble incoming. It boils down to everyone has their own idea of what "challenge" and "optimization" mean, and how it is really hard to run a game for people who have different definitions.

While I accept that hating challenge is a valid play style, it is one I just can't wrap my head around. It seems really weird to me how some people really like to make the most powerful character they can, but never want to be put in a situation where that power is necessary. To me it seems like building a souped up hot rod and then never taking it above 65.

I have one player in my group who is a huge power gamer, but he actually hates every aspect of an RPG except for showing off his incredible power. He hates RPing, he hates puzzle solving, he hates exploration, he even hates combat. The only thing he enjoys is building the most powerful character he can and then "solving" every encounter with a single standard action while everyone else gapes at him in awe. I have seen it in practice, I just can't wrap my head around it.

Personally I hate "going easy". I don't like it when GMs fudge dice, or when they play dumb to let the PCs win. I also don't like having to hold back my own optimization. Maybe I enjoy the challenge a bit too much, but I really wish D&D had a narrower range of character power so that you could both optimize and be challenged.

In my own group I am running with the expectation that the PCs will optimize and I have told them such. It doesn't end well, as they are mostly the type of people who play video games on easy or with the cheat codes on, and most of them literally break down crying or throw a temper tantrum when they lose a fight (or even when their character is temporarily incapacitated during a fight the party wins). Sometimes they just wont RP, for example the party desperately needs someone to fulfill the scout / rogue roll, and the monk has the highest dex in the party, lowest armor penalty, and tons of unspent skill points, but she refuses to put any points into stealth or disable device because they are "innately evil skills" and "ruin her character concept".

[Gigas Breaker]

A bit of a ramble incoming. It boils down to everyone has their own idea of what "challenge" and "optimization" mean, and how it is really hard to run a game for people who have different definitions.

While I accept that hating challenge is a valid play style, it is one I just can't wrap my head around. It seems really weird to me how some people really like to make the most powerful character they can, but never want to be put in a situation where that power is necessary. To me it seems like building a souped up hot rod and then never taking it above 65.

I have one player in my group who is a huge power gamer, but he actually hates every aspect of an RPG except for showing off his incredible power. He hates RPing, he hates puzzle solving, he hates exploration, he even hates combat. The only thing he enjoys is building the most powerful character he can and then "solving" every encounter with a single standard action while everyone else gapes at him in awe. I have seen it in practice, I just can't wrap my head around it.

Personally I hate "going easy". I don't like it when GMs fudge dice, or when they play dumb to let the PCs win. I also don't like having to hold back my own optimization. Maybe I enjoy the challenge a bit too much, but I really wish D&D had a narrower range of character power so that you could both optimize and be challenged.

In my own group I am running with the expectation that the PCs will optimize and I have told them such. It doesn't end well, as they are mostly the type of people who play video games on easy or with the cheat codes on, and most of them literally break down crying or throw a temper tantrum when they lose a fight (or even when their character is temporarily incapacitated during a fight the party wins). Sometimes they just wont RP, for example the party desperately needs someone to fulfill the scout / rogue roll, and the monk has the highest dex in the party, lowest armor penalty, and tons of unspent skill points, but she refuses to put any points into stealth or disable device because they are "innately evil skills" and "ruin her character concept".
Whoa, they literally break down crying over D&D? I can't even imagine playing with people that do that.

[AuraTwilight]

I think we've established years ago that Talakeal just really, REALLY needs a new group. He does nothing but complain about them.

[Silvanoshei]

I have seen a lot of vitriol for 'powergamers' over the years, particularly on message boards. I have read various threads exhibiting this phenomenon, but I have never been able to understand it... which is what I am attempting to do now.

Let me explain my background before I go any further, so that everyone in the Playground can understand my confusion:
I have been playing D&D since AD&D, and switched to 3rd and 3.5 when they were released - not out of preference at first, but because my DM's had switched. I have played other systems too - nWoD, GURPS, and the later incarnations of D&D, but have since come to enjoy 3.5, moreso than the other systems, because its variety and flexibility. And also because it's what a lot of my friends still play. I have had a plethora of experiences, from the lowly Monk to the mighty Wizard, from both sides of the DM screen, at the table or over the Internet. I have played in low-magic games with mundane characters only, and I have played in games with Circle Magic, Incantatrices, and Shadowcraft Magi. Some of the groups I have played with were less than perfect, but I have enjoyed my experiences, even with the troubled groups. Most of the trouble, however, came from Fighters and Rogues playing alongside Wizards and Clerics and feeling... small in the pants. When JaronK posted the Tier System, my gaming groups were quick to pick up on it and utilize it to help the players and the DM work together within the system of rules we had all agreed aupon to create an enjoyable experience for everyone involved. We still have Fighters and Rogues in some of our parties with Wizards and Clerics, but everyone is clear on their capabilities and role in the party, and the DMs have been able to adjust the style and pace of their campaign to the party with that knowledge in hand.

When I come to message boards where people discuss their experiences and ask for advice, and I see causticity towards optimization, applying such labels as 'powergaming,' or 'munchkinry,' I have to wonder why so many people have a negative attitude toward it - I see it as a cycle of continuous improvement, not as trying to 'Win D&D,' as I have seen it put.

I realize that there are no consistent definitions for these terms, but I would like to ask the Playground their opinions and experiences on optimization and powergaming, so that I can better understand the attitudes that people hold toward them.

JaronK's Tier System (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=266559) is a fairly contested topic from what I have seen, so if people are lacking a focus for discussion, we can use that, though I would like to avoid having the thread degenerate into another "Why is X class in Y Tier?" argument.

I think you need a comparison outside of D&D to really look outside the box to reflect why gamer's go to the classical tier system.

I play D&D, but also play Street Fighter 4 with friends and competitively online. The characters all have different hit points and damage outputs with different special moves. Naturally, such a system over time will produce a tier system for those characters. I never even knew about the tier system till I watched some EVO final videos and heard the commentators referring to it. Why was this even brought up when it's not even in the game?

Because high level play brings along with it all the scrutiny of analyzing "highest damage output" and "most versatility" for destroying your opponents. How does this translate into a D&D comparison? Easy, it systematically does the exact same thing. In SF4, Akuma is regarded as the best character in the game because of his special moves/versitality and DPS, what he doesn't have is health. in D&D, the Wizard is regarded as the best character class to use because of his overpowering spells, and to that end doesn't have much health (naturally, without spell help).

What does this all mean? It means players seek out the most efficient way to beat his/her opponent. Why? You go to work everyday, you have 4 choices, a 4 mile way, a 3 mile way, a 2 mile way, and a 1 mile route. Would you ever go the 4 mile way over the 1 mile route (bar seeing naked women along the way), I think not, or your just wasting your time/gas/money. It's the most logically thing to do, when talking about human nature.

To wrap up, I would really like to add that I had a fight with a monk in one of my games with my wizard, which a Tier 5 vs a Tier 1, and he got the initiative and decided to grapple. A unique situation, where it was towards the end of the adventure and I had few spells left, and so I used one of my last spells with no somatic components, suggestion. Rolling a 1 on concentration, the spell fails lol... the monk literally tore my wizard apart like a rag doll. It happens in SF4 too, Akuma can get beat by the lowest tier characters. Tier systems really don't matter when you're all having fun. My friends know about the tier system and still play those crappy "low tier" characters and still win.

Case in point, it doesn't matter! :smallsmile:

[Talakeal]

I think we've established years ago that Talakeal just really, REALLY needs a new group. He does nothing but complain about them.

I was just going to say the samething :) Still looking unfortunately.

[JusticeZero]

Yeah, they just predict typical situations in a rough way that tends to generally agree with typical game play. They aren't worth obsessing over; it's just that the underlying Flexibility Theory that backs the tiers is topical here. All that is is the tested theory that power is a function of flexibility as defined by variety of options times how easy and fast the character can be changed over to meet different situations.

Also, I don't see D&D as competitive. I recognize that if I know how to "win D&D" during the first session, and indeed cannot easily avoid it purely because what has been seen cannot be unseen, then it is silly to then expect to compete with the GM and party. If a highly rated chess master shows up at a small chess club, it isn't because they want an epic chess competition. It's because they want to hang out with fellow chess players who will get their geeky chess jokes and admire the fresh new game styles there. They don't want to get chased away because "OMG we can't beat you go away loser", because they didn't go there to win anything.

[Samalpetey]

I was just going to say the samething :) Still looking unfortunately.

I feel your pain...

[Calimehter]

What you have just described are classes as a metagame, not in-game, concept.

I may be using the terminology incorrectly. It was my understanding that "classes as metagame" was the situation where classes were just numbers packages to pick and choose from with no restrictions, while "classes as an in-game concept" referred to games or worlds were choices were restricted based on background or regional availability due to the classes having been written into the setting.

Sorry if I caused any confusion!

[Flickerdart]

I may be using the terminology incorrectly. It was my understanding that "classes as metagame" was the situation where classes were just numbers packages to pick and choose from with no restrictions, while "classes as an in-game concept" referred to games or worlds were choices were restricted based on background or regional availability due to the classes having been written into the setting.

Sorry if I caused any confusion!
Classes as a metagame concept means that the characters don't know what a "barbarian" or "crusader" or "fighter" are. A fighter 20 and a warblade 4/Paladin 2/Duskblade 13/Rogue 1 might both be known to their peers as powerful samurai or knights, even though neither has levels in samurai or knight.

Classes as in-game concepts would require that all the knights of the Round Table actually have levels in the knight class, though whether they need to be straight knight or merely need to have a single level of it can vary.

Order of the Stick has examples of both - characters are known by their actual class levels, but Miko makes a point of saying she doesn't have samurai levels despite being called a samurai.

[ericp65]

I was just going to say the samething :) Still looking unfortunately.

It's good when a group has some players coming and going, over time, until you get a core group of players who think along the same lines in style of play, and in what interests them most in adventuring. When someone gets handed the DM stick, he or she will keep player interest and preference in mind when designing scenarios, and a sort of in-game balance will result.

I just had a visual of players crying and throwing tantrums due to things that happen during play, and I nearly fell off my chair laughing :D If I was DM, though, I wouldn't laugh. There are positive ways of addressing such things, as it's the DM's responsibility to provide the highest potential for an enjoyable game for all players (and yes, without making things too easy. As a player, the only time I became upset and left a play session was when one of the other players deliberately did something to offend me personally, after I'd already stated my issue and made a request related to behavior, but that's beside the point. I've had no problems having my own characters die, be incapacitated, or otherwise find themselves in unfavorable situations. For me, it's always about the story, first and foremost, and about well-developed and enjoyable characters.

[Kalmageddon]

These days, I equate calling someone a "roll-player" about the same as calling something disparaging based on their sexuality or race. It's offensive and dismissive rather than trying to address the real problem--if one even exists.

You can't be serious.
No one has ever been killed because he was a powerplayer. There is no historical persecution of "roll- players".
It's grossly offensive that you put this on the same level as heinous crimes as racism and homophobia, not to mention manipulative. You'd go there just to prove your point? Seriously?:smallannoyed:

We are just talking about gaming attitudes...

[ryu]

I actually agree with him. It IS offensive and dismissive just like the things he equated it to. No one has ever been killed over it, but he wasn't talking about killing. If someone was killed for how they played dnd I'd hope we all considered it a tragedy and an outrage.

[AuraTwilight]

Yea, their point is that it's basically just writing someone off as a problem person entirely who just needs to disappear and doesn't contribute anything to solving the problem brought up. It's blameshifting. It is equivalent to responding to an economic crisis by blaming immigrants or something.

[strider24seven]

I think you need a comparison outside of D&D to really look outside the box to reflect why gamer's go to the classical tier system.

I play D&D, but also play Street Fighter 4 with friends and competitively online. The characters all have different hit points and damage outputs with different special moves. Naturally, such a system over time will produce a tier system for those characters. I never even knew about the tier system till I watched some EVO final videos and heard the commentators referring to it. Why was this even brought up when it's not even in the game?

Because high level play brings along with it all the scrutiny of analyzing "highest damage output" and "most versatility" for destroying your opponents. How does this translate into a D&D comparison? Easy, it systematically does the exact same thing. In SF4, Akuma is regarded as the best character in the game because of his special moves/versitality and DPS, what he doesn't have is health. in D&D, the Wizard is regarded as the best character class to use because of his overpowering spells, and to that end doesn't have much health (naturally, without spell help).

What does this all mean? It means players seek out the most efficient way to beat his/her opponent. Why? You go to work everyday, you have 4 choices, a 4 mile way, a 3 mile way, a 2 mile way, and a 1 mile route. Would you ever go the 4 mile way over the 1 mile route (bar seeing naked women along the way), I think not, or your just wasting your time/gas/money. It's the most logically thing to do, when talking about human nature.

To wrap up, I would really like to add that I had a fight with a monk in one of my games with my wizard, which a Tier 5 vs a Tier 1, and he got the initiative and decided to grapple. A unique situation, where it was towards the end of the adventure and I had few spells left, and so I used one of my last spells with no somatic components, suggestion. Rolling a 1 on concentration, the spell fails lol... the monk literally tore my wizard apart like a rag doll. It happens in SF4 too, Akuma can get beat by the lowest tier characters. Tier systems really don't matter when you're all having fun. My friends know about the tier system and still play those crappy "low tier" characters and still win.

Case in point, it doesn't matter! :smallsmile:

I play SF occasionally, but only casually with friends. I played SSB for a while with competitive players, and from what the others have posted here, I liken the phenomenon noted in the OP to a situation I experienced before. Warning, pointless anecdote to follow:

One of the top Brawl players in the US came to our campus a few years ago, and pretty much trashed everyone there from our school. Thing is, he was known for using Ike almost exclusively. And this was back when everyone was playing Snake, Falco, and Diddy. And he trashed all of us. We all felt a little humbled after that, but it was all in good fun.

While it's not perfectly translatable from the Wii to the tabletop, I suppose it's my roundabout way of saying that I understand what you are saying.

[Fax Celestis]

You can't be serious.
No one has ever been killed because he was a powerplayer. There is no historical persecution of "roll- players".
It's grossly offensive that you put this on the same level as heinous crimes as racism and homophobia, not to mention manipulative. You'd go there just to prove your point? Seriously?:smallannoyed:

We are just talking about gaming attitudes...

I am entirely serious, and for exactly the reasons the posters below you pointed out.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Yea, their point is that it's basically just writing someone off as a problem person entirely who just needs to disappear and doesn't contribute anything to solving the problem brought up. It's blameshifting. It is equivalent to responding to an economic crisis by blaming immigrants or something.Equivalent in kind of logical fallacy, maybe. It's not equivalent in terms of scale or backwardness.

A player who dogmatically only cares about optimization can be just as frustrating to deal with as a player who dogmatically only cares about being their (ineffective) character.

[Greenish]

When he took a two level dip of Lion Totem (CC) / Wold Totem (UA) Barbarian, I asked him to provide me with a totem animal that combines the pouncing strategy of the Lion and the tripping strategy of a wolf (he got Pounce and Improved Trip from the dip).Someone has probably already pointed it out, but Fleshraker is a good fit (bonus points for including Poison and Grapple). That is, if you bother to use the "imitating an animal totem" fluff in the first place.

[Flickerdart]

Tabletop is a collaborative hobby, first and foremost. Refusing to take actions that benefit the party because "that's what my character would do" is not roleplaying any more than trading away your ability to rhyme on purpose for a bonus feat is. Your character is meaningless without the context of his party, which is necessarily also the meta-context of the game itself. Bad optimization and bad roleplaying are not only both disruptive of this fundamental, they are also not mutually exclusive in the same way that good optimization and good roleplaying are not mutually exclusive. A powerful character played by a prima donna who refuses to help the party with their quest is exactly as awful as a complicit character played by an intentionally poor optimizer that gets in the way.

[eggynack]

Someone has probably already pointed it out, but Fleshraker is a good fit (bonus points for including Poison and Grapple). That is, if you bother to use the "imitating an animal totem" fluff in the first place.
Better yet, you could just use the actual ACF names rather than these shortened versions. It's not lion totem; it's spirit lion totem. You can just be a guy who worships the wolf in its physical nature, and worships the lion for its spirit. Ya don't really need to be some ridiculous lion/wolf crossbreed. You can just be a guy who likes wolves, and also happens to like lions (particularly their spirit). I've heard, from a semi-reliable source, that people are capable of being interested in two things. A mystic theurge takes their power from arcane and divine magic at the same time. They don't take their power from arcvine magic, because that'd just be dumb. However, now I want to make a character who does study arcvine magic, which is some kinda magic based on arcing vines, or maybe shooting arc of lightning at shambling mounds. Yeah, that sounds cool.

[Flickerdart]

In animist and polytheistic belief systems, it was very rare for one person to only ever ask for favours from one deity. In martial arts, learning multiple styles is common. There's nothing unusual about counting both the lion's mighty leap and the wolf's ability to bring down its prey among your techniques from either an ideological or practical perspective.

Besides which, anyone who's ever seen a totem (http://wonkyfresh.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/rubyyot-totem-pole.jpg) can testify that they often have many animals built in.

[Fax Celestis]

Equivalent in kind of logical fallacy, maybe. It's not equivalent in terms of scale or backwardness.

Absolutely not, no. But it is the same mentality: "I'm being right, everyone else is being wrong."

[tiercel]

Some of the attitude toward optimization you might see at times on discussion forums is that, at least for some folks, the op level for discussing things online is higher than what they'd use in an actual campaign (many folks might look at character class handbooks to get a feel for what their options are, but might not necessarily pick every single "most powerful" option just to min-max their character's general utility).

Some of the attitude toward optimization is that, in actual play, it's easier for a high-op DM to "downshift" a little to compensate for players who are lower op than him, than for a low-op DM to "upshift" to challenge players at a higher optimization level. (In both cases, a DM is faced with players who have perhaps a different temperament and preferred playstyle and the challenge of dealing with that, but in the second case the DM just may not have the rules mastery toolbox to be able to keep up, at least at first.)

And while some folks may grumble about some higher-than-they're-used-to op being "min/max cheese," there are others who respond to "help me" threads by immediately suggesting up-tiering a character concept especially if it's a "low tier" (e.g. "play a factotum or beguiler or swordsage, not a rogue; play a ToB class, not a fighter; play a swordsage or anything else, not a monk" etc); I'm not really convinced that there is much room for proponents of a given playstyle to really play the victim.

Optimization is a group play choice like campaign theme. I don't rag on people because they prefer Ravenloft or Planescape or Spelljammer or whatever, and I don't bring a Fighter 3/Monk 3/Wizard 1 drama queen into a high-op "Tier 1" game any more than I'd bring a ruthlessly optimized Clericzilla with armor fashioned entirely out of nightsticks into a "Bob the Paladin" beer-and-pretzels style game or any more than I'd bring a tinker gnome into Ravenloft (unless it was just that kind of campaign).

[TuggyNE]

However, now I want to make a character who does study arcvine magic, which is some kinda magic based on arcing vines, or maybe shooting arc of lightning at shambling mounds. Yeah, that sounds cool.

Best of all: a character who takes on the nature of the noble shambling mound in order to fight, and charges themselves with holy electrical power. You could call it the "Arcvinmitator".

:smallwink:

[Greenish]

"Bob the Paladin" beer-and-pretzels style gameIn context of beer and pretzels, "Bob the Paladin" sounds like a party game of dubious morality.

[JusticeZero]

Refusing to take actions that benefit the party because "that's what my character would do" is not roleplaying...A powerful character played by a prima donna who refuses to help the party with their quest is exactly as awful as a complicit character played by an intentionally poor optimizer that gets in the way.
So now you are saying that it is morally required for someone who knows how to build characters well to take actions that ruin the fun of the others at the table? Are you actually saying this? Because it doesn't sound morally defensible to hear "People who have potentially powerful characters should always dominate the spotlight, because it is morally wrong for them to let other players enjoy their role if they have the capability to outdo them".

[Squirrel_Dude]

So now you are saying that it is morally required for someone who knows how to build characters well to take actions that ruin the fun of the others at the table? Are you actually saying this? Because it doesn't sound morally defensible to hear "People who have potentially powerful characters should always dominate the spotlight, because it is morally wrong for them to let other players enjoy their role if they have the capability to outdo them".You're reading something different than what I am. What I read was that purposefully making your character a worse team player, or not helping a another party member because that's "what your character would do" is not a defensible in a team game.

E.G. Having your rogue get really interested in multiclassing as a necromancer when there is a LG crusader in the party is not a cool thing to do.

[LordotheMorning]

I support the banning of things like Lion Totem and Incantatrix because when you get into those extremes of power, it becomes very difficult for even a skilled DM to keep encounters fun. You end up in a world where everyone can kill everyone else in a single turn, and the dice end up having too much say over what happens. A simple initiative roll decides your fate. This is not fun for me. It's stressful. I dislike losing characters.

I can optimize with the best of them, but I frequently encourage my DMs to tell me "no". My inner drive is to create the best character I can possibly make, to be extremely compelling in roleplay and extremely effective in combat. If things like Incantatrix, Lion Totem, Imperious Command, Darkstalker, and various dragon magazine things (i.e. crescent blade) are allowed, and I'm playing a character that might feasibly make use of one of those things, how can I justify not taking it? I just feel like I'm cheating myself otherwise. That's why it's the DMs responsibility to know the game well enough to not allow these things in his game if he doesn't want ridiculously high-power PCs. I'm quite happy with a lower level power scale provided that the DM has provided reasons for there to be a low power scale.

The only time roleplay and optimization should be mutually exclusive or impede one another is when making conscious choices about your character's theme or personality. If you're playing a hot-headed character then obviously you can't get caught up over-prepping or over-thinking. Similarly, if you want to play a spellcaster whose theme is mastery over the element of fire, then you're going to take something like Wu Jen, Jade Phoenix Mage, or Elemental Savant before you think about Incantatrix.

[LordBlades]

I support the banning of things like Lion Totem and Incantatrix because when you get into those extremes of power, it becomes very difficult for even a skilled DM to keep encounters fun. You end up in a world where everyone can kill everyone else in a single turn, and the dice end up having too much say over what happens. A simple initiative roll decides your fate. This is not fun for me. It's stressful. I dislike losing characters.

I can optimize with the best of them, but I frequently encourage my DMs to tell me "no". My inner drive is to create the best character I can possibly make, to be extremely compelling in roleplay and extremely effective in combat. If things like Incantatrix, Lion Totem, Imperious Command, Darkstalker, and various dragon magazine things (i.e. crescent blade) are allowed, and I'm playing a character that might feasibly make use of one of those things, how can I justify not taking it? I just feel like I'm cheating myself otherwise. That's why it's the DMs responsibility to know the game well enough to not allow these things in his game if he doesn't want ridiculously high-power PCs. I'm quite happy with a lower level power scale provided that the DM has provided reasons for there to be a low power scale.

The only time roleplay and optimization should be mutually exclusive or impede one another is when making conscious choices about your character's theme or personality. If you're playing a hot-headed character then obviously you can't get caught up over-prepping or over-thinking. Similarly, if you want to play a spellcaster whose theme is mastery over the element of fire, then you're going to take something like Wu Jen, Jade Phoenix Mage, or Elemental Savant before you think about Incantatrix.

The fact that you're lobbing together Incantatrix, Lion Totem, Imperious Command and Darkstalker makes me think you know way less about optimization than you try to give the impression.

Incantatrix is one of the strongest PrCs ever printed, if you make full use of all it's features.

Imperious Command is also quite strong, but the amount of investment required to make it work does make you somewhat of a one-trick pony (a very strong trick, given), which on the D&D power scale is bad.

Darkstalker and Spirit Lion Totem are just taxes for stealth and melee respectively to work properly. Not even the strongest builds using them gets powerful enough to be considered worthy of carrying the bags (of holding) of a single class, core only Wizard or CoDzilla.

Darkstalker: without it, you're limited to sneaking around creatures that don't have any kind of senses beyond regular sight and hearing. What you're probably dedicated a build to, a wizard can achieve better with a pair of 2nd level spell slots from the PHB: Invisibility and Silence. At least with Darkstalker you can really be stealthy around pretty much anything apart Lifesense and Mindsight.

Spirit Lion Totem (and Pounce in general): literally every other character type than basic melee (casters, warlocks, DFA, ToB, everything in ToM) can usually perform their shtick as a standard action, often also from range therefore being able to remain mobile. Requiring to remain basically immobile (move 5 ft. max) and in melee with the enemy in order to do yours is a monumental handicap.

[LordotheMorning]

The fact that you're lobbing together Incantatrix, Lion Totem, Imperious Command and Darkstalker makes me think you know way less about optimization than you try to give the impression.

Incantatrix is one of the strongest PrCs ever printed, if you make full use of all it's features.

Imperious Command is also quite strong, but the amount of investment required to make it work does make you somewhat of a one-trick pony (a very strong trick, given), which on the D&D power scale is bad.

Darkstalker and Spirit Lion Totem are just taxes for stealth and melee respectively to work properly. Not even the strongest builds using them gets powerful enough to be considered worthy of carrying the bags (of holding) of a single class, core only Wizard or CoDzilla.

Darkstalker: without it, you're limited to sneaking around creatures that don't have any kind of senses beyond regular sight and hearing. What you're probably dedicated a build to, a wizard can achieve better with a pair of 2nd level spell slots from the PHB: Invisibility and Silence. At least with Darkstalker you can really be stealthy around pretty much anything apart Lifesense and Mindsight.

Spirit Lion Totem (and Pounce in general): literally every other character type than basic melee (casters, warlocks, DFA, ToB, everything in ToM) can usually perform their shtick as a standard action, often also from range therefore being able to remain mobile. Requiring to remain basically immobile (move 5 ft. max) and in melee with the enemy in order to do yours is a monumental handicap.

So did you compose this post just to take a piss on me? Because I don't see how pointing out that the examples I mentioned are not all equal in power furthers the discussion.

But to indulge, I've played a character who got his hide check up to +104 with Darkstalker. I know what it does to a game. You can't beat it with true sight, you can't beat it with see invisibility, and you can't beat it with dispel magic. Invisibility doesn't even come close. You act with total impunity. Unless your DM wants to pull a complete and total hamfist and say "It just so happens that all the relevant antagonists of my campaign have lifesense or mindsight", there's no contest. It's not that hard to get your hide check through the roof.

The point is this: When you start forcing a DM to tailor encounters to your character specifically or else provide absolutely no challenge, that's when things start getting unhealthy, and the examples I mentioned are ways to produce such characters.

[Abaddona]

But the problem here was not the Darkstalker feat being " broken" but rather that it is rather easy to buff your skill checks to reach very high values. Also - simple things like water arguably would make all your epic hiding skills complicated (probably you would be forced to spend some resources to obtain reliable means of walking on walls/ceiling etc. nothing difficult to obtain but at the same time being stealthy becomes more complicated than just "i go here").

[Qwertystop]

Also, no matter how well you can hide, that doesn't make you able to do anything active.

[JusticeZero]

simple things like water arguably would make all your epic hiding skills complicated..
I'm not sure why they would. I mean, you can already breakdance right in front of someone's face while hiding two ogres behind you without being seen at that point, how much of a penalty is some water really going to cause that you can't just throw in the closet with all the other insufficient modifiers? Also worth note - this is hiding, not turning invisible, that we're talking here. You are going un-noticed, not transparent.

[eggynack]

So did you compose this post just to take a piss on me? Because I don't see how pointing out that the examples I mentioned are not all equal in power furthers the discussion.
Well, you said that all of these things are at the extremes of power, which is somewhat inaccurate. Power, at least as I understand it, is a rather absolute measurement in game. In other words, it doesn't matter if your character has a monk or wizard base, as long as they can handle the same challenges. In this fashion, what you were claiming wasn't so much a set of power extremes, but rather a set of optimization extremes.

I would still argue that you're wrong, because I don't even think that spirit lion totem and imperious command get the barbarian out of tier four, but to describe an incantarix and a spirit lion totem barbarian as hanging out at the same extreme power level is wrong on a whole different level. Banning spirit lion totem in a game with a wizard is utterly ridiculous, because reasonably played wizards are just naturally more powerful than even the most powerful barbarian. You're discussing relative increases in power level as if they represented an absolute position in power level, and that's not the right way to look at things.

[Abaddona]

JusticeZero - because simply standing in the water causes ripples on the water surface. And these ripples are rather easy to notice. So monster may not be able to locate you - cause you are essentialy using some sort of mundane perception filter, but it may be able to discover that something is nearby. Of course it's strange logic but it is effect of how the hide and move silently skills works - you essentialy have a choice of: "it's not possible to hide in that way" thus basically making whole skill set useless or to avoid that you must describe every corner with frustrating amount of details thus providing your scout/rogue means to use his hiding skills (for example high grass or bushes so he can sneak by crawling in them etc.) and this is too much work, considering that we are talking about universe in which making somebody invisible is rather easy.

[Fax Celestis]

JusticeZero - because simply standing in the water causes ripples on the water surface. And these ripples are rather easy to notice. So monster may not be able to locate you - cause you are essentialy using some sort of mundane perception filter, but it may be able to discover that something is nearby. Of course it's strange logic but it is effect of how the hide and move silently skills works - you essentialy have a choice of: "it's not possible to hide in that way" thus basically making whole skill set useless or to avoid that you must describe every corner with frustrating amount of details thus providing your scout/rogue means to use his hiding skills (for example high grass or bushes so he can sneak by crawling in them etc.) and this is too much work, considering that we are talking about universe in which making somebody invisible is rather easy.

Please point me to a rule that states this is how this works.

[eggynack]

I really don't see why a guy with darkstalker would be able to stop his movements from creating tremors in the ground, yet wouldn't be able to stop himself from creating visible ripples in water. The mechanism behind the former seems like it'd inform the mechanism behind the latter.

[Vaz]

Depends how intelligent a momster would be. An animal might see water rippling and begin to take a sniff around. You have Darkstalker so it is reliant on its spot and doesn't recognise you aren't there (like how a baby thinks you've genuinely disappeared behind your hamds when playing "Where's the baby") and will wander off uninterested especially when its "Scent" ability is telling it that there is nothing there.

An ultraparanoid arch Devil wizard with 50+ Intelligence would probably recognise it and Blast it. On the other hand it may just send its blastiest spell at anything that looks out of place (there's no wind to cause that, Must be an invisible Mindraped Ice Assassin sent from an Astral Plane'd rival Devil.

[Qwertystop]

One important thing about hiding: attacking someone else will reveal you for a moment. You can then hide afterwards, but even if they didn't see you or you made the roll to attack from stealth instead of re-hiding, the enemy still knows they were attacked, and still can come up with a rough direction the arrow or knife or whatever came from unless they were spinning really fast in place at the time or something. They can't see you, but they know which way to search. Without HiPS, you'll be behind something, and that something isn't invisible so they will probably check behind it. With HiPS, it's a lot harder but they could still get lucky and run into you if you can't move as fast as them.

Hiding doesn't make enemies nonsapient.

[Flickerdart]

So now you are saying that it is morally required for someone who knows how to build characters well to take actions that ruin the fun of the others at the table? Are you actually saying this? Because it doesn't sound morally defensible to hear "People who have potentially powerful characters should always dominate the spotlight, because it is morally wrong for them to let other players enjoy their role if they have the capability to outdo them".
I am reasonably certain that's actually the opposite of what I am saying. The DC to jump to conclusions from "playing a weak character is just like playing a strong character that refuses to contribute" to "you must hate fun" is way past Epic.

things like Lion Totem and Incantatrix
In what way is "persist a whole bunch of spells for free" even in the same league as "full attack after moving"?

[eggynack]

Depends how intelligent a momster would be. An animal might see water rippling and begin to take a sniff around. You have Darkstalker so it is reliant on its spot and doesn't recognise you aren't there (like how a baby thinks you've genuinely disappeared behind your hamds when playing "Where's the baby") and will wander off uninterested especially when its "Scent" ability is telling it that there is nothing there.

An ultraparanoid arch Devil wizard with 50+ Intelligence would probably recognise it and Blast it. On the other hand it may just send its blastiest spell at anything that looks out of place (there's no wind to cause that, Must be an invisible Mindraped Ice Assassin sent from an Astral Plane'd rival Devil.
I'm implying that there aren't water ripples at all. Our hero is treading lightly enough that he's not creating visible water ripples. In fact, being able to sense creatures moving through water is a function of tremorsense, so it's logical that darkstalker would stop you from affecting the water at all. This has absolutely nothing to do with paranoia. It's about the paranoid wizard having nothing to use his paranoia against, because the character is hiding, and the wizard can't see him.

[Abaddona]

Ok - first thing: in the Hide skill description you see that this skill is used when you are "sinking back in the shadows to proceed unseen" or "approaching wizard's tower under the cover of brush" - of course it's just fluff but later we may read "you need cover or concealnment in order to attempt hide check" - which means that - unless you have some sort of cover - standing before your enemy is equal to autofailing this skill checks or rather - being unable to make it. Of course then we have "hide in plain sight" ability but this only means that you can use hide skill when being observed (Dark template version) - some sort of cover or shadow is still needed (but still nothing complicated - simple magical item will be enough to solve this problem) .
Then we have simple thing: even immobile objects are causing ripples on the water surface and spotting such ripples is, I don't know - DC10, 15? (noticing something large in plain sight is 0 after all, ripples in the lake tend to be quite notice'able but underground it may vary). Of course if you describe me how you are exactly moving through the water without touching it then no problem, no ripples no worry :-)

[eggynack]

If you can explain to me how you're walking over land without creating the tremors required for tremorsense, then I'll be willing to reevaluate my stance. As is, I'm willing to just chalk it up to you walking lightly enough not to affect the water.

[Fax Celestis]

ven immobile objects are causing ripples on the water surface

...so does the various nonthreatening wildlife that presumably also lives there. The Hide skill isn't for being rendered invisible, it is to render you unnoticed. "That's just a fish/bit of falling rock."

[Turion]

In what way is "persist a whole bunch of spells for free" even in the same league as "full attack after moving"?

...you can use Incantatrix to persist Lion's Charge? :smalltongue:

[Quorothorn]

Absolutely not, no. But it is the same mentality: "I'm being right, everyone else is being wrong."

......no. It's really not. Someone who is racist (or a misogynist, or homophobic) does not have simply the attitude of "I'm right and you're wrong", but rather "you are less of a human being than I am because of an accident of birth". It's a bad analogy: please please please stop using it.

We can say that using the term "roll-player" in a a dismissive manner is non-productive and frankly kind of annoying WITHOUT comparing it to such things. Please.

[Abaddona]

Eggynack -> I don't know how foiling tremorsense exactly works because this may not be as much "moving lightly" as "moving in a way that creature can't differentiate yours steps from background noise" (for example 30 ft tremorsense may actually mean that only in 30 ft creature can sense things accurately and from greater distances it senses only indistinguishable vibrations and you are moving in a way that you are blending with them).

Fax Celestis - ekhm... "i hide and move silently and take all furnitures from inside the room... i roll: 114", "hmmm, strange, all my possesions just disappeared, certainly they were enchanted and walked away. I've been scammed". Hide etc. let's you be more stealthy and certainly does not make your enemies dumber. Of course you can try to say that you are mimicking natural noises but after few tries intelligent opponent will react and use this simple and cheap detect magic item which will quickly reveal that there are few new magical auras in the room (and again - it's easy to mask this if you thought about it before).

[eggynack]

Eggynack -> I don't know how foiling tremorsense exactly works because this may not be as much "moving lightly" as "moving in a way that creature can't differentiate yours steps from background noise" (for example 30 ft tremorsense may actually mean that only in 30 ft creature can sense things accurately and from greater distances it senses only indistinguishable vibrations and you are moving in a way that you are blending with them).
.
Let's go with that then. You're moving in a way such that creatures can't differentiate the ripples created by your motion from the ripples created by the wind. Fooshwa, all inconsistencies are solved. You can really just copy and paste just about any mechanism from tremorsense over to water motion.

[Segev]

The Hide skill gives DCs for hiding while doing various things and under various circumstances. Having a triple-digit bonus to your Hide check makes most of these DCs and penalties for unfavorable circumstances trivial.

Complaining that Darkstalker is broken because it makes you able to avoid abilities that bypass your Hide check without you having a means of even trying is foolish. It is, to an extent, those abilities which negate any effort, no matter how spectacular, with a simple binary heck to see if they have said ability, which are broken.

If your Hide check is so huh that the DM can't do anything about it, that is the problem. It's no different than a character who has an AC in the 60s in a peaty where the average AC is 20.

Reducing it to a binary "does the monster have X ability?" isn't good. Darkstalker just reduces this list of binary checks. The problem is your build, if your DM is unable to cope with it.

Also, while you can engage in many activities and manage to remain hidden thanks to your Hide bonus being so high, the DM is quite within his rights to insist that you actually be hiding. That is, breakdancing in front of somebody while hiding two ogres behind you only works if you are doing something to hide.

Simply declaring you are rolling a d20 and adding your Hide bonus won't work if you go on to refuse to allow that your character is taking actions to hide his breakdancing.

It's not invisibility. It's not magic. It's very remarkable, and it's incredible skill, but it does require that you DO it.

Just as you can't attack somebody while refusing to have your character do aught but sip a coke.

you have to allow that your character actually does make the attack; you have to allow that your character actually is somehow hiding. He's not invisible and he's not using mind-magic. He's doing something to HIDE.

[Fax Celestis]

Fax Celestis - ekhm... "i hide and move silently and take all furnitures from inside the room... i roll: 114", "hmmm, strange, all my possesions just disappeared, certainly they were enchanted and walked away. I've been scammed". Hide etc. let's you be more stealthy and certainly does not make your enemies dumber. Of course you can try to say that you are mimicking natural noises but after few tries intelligent opponent will react and use this simple and cheap detect magic item which will quickly reveal that there are few new magical auras in the room (and again - it's easy to mask this if you thought about it before).

...that is not what the hide skill does.

A successful hide check, regardless of your opponent's intelligence (and in fact should be measured against your opponent's wisdom considering the contesting skill would be spot) does not make you invisible. It makes you unnoticed.

If there is a high level rogue with a ridiculous hide check inside of a room with a high level wizard (bear with me here a second), and the rogue makes his hide check, the wizard does not have any reason to suspect that he should check his surroundings. He may do so out of habit, but there's no little light that pops up on his dashboard that says, "Failed Spot Check".


We can say that using the term "roll-player" in a a dismissive manner is non-productive and frankly kind of annoying WITHOUT comparing it to such things. Please.

I in no way said it was on the same scale, merely that it was the same prejudicial thought process. But fine.

[Feilith]

If there is a high level rogue with a ridiculous hide check inside of a room with a high level wizard (bear with me here a second), and the rogue makes his hide check, the wizard does not have any reason to suspect that he should check his surroundings. He may do so out of habit, but there's no little light that pops up on his dashboard that says, "Failed Spot Check".
.

I though my dashboard would pick up on that sort of thing

[Abaddona]

Eggynack - of course, but again this doesn't mean that enemies are stupid. Enemies may not be able to differentiate your ripples from the ones created by the wind but may be able to realize that wind hasn't gotten stronger but there are more ripples than before (DC 15 Wisdom check maybe?). Heck - guards might be instructed to commence alarm even at the slightiest stimuli - because Big Bad may think that it's better for him to check every corner of his stronghold every time one of his guards hears little kitten, than risking that some kind of hero infiltrates his stronghold polimorphed into said kitten. Of course PC may use this to further theirs goals by creating multiple alarms.

Fax Celestis - if said rogue player will describe how he is hiding in said room then no problem. If he can't then he lets me to make assumptions. For example: he gets concealnment due to his Continuous blur magical item (remember that to make hide check you must have cover or some kind of concealnment) and is so arrogant that he simply walks among the wizards. Upps - one of them was kinda paranoid and had true seeing cast on him, blur effect doesn't work against that wizard and as a result rogue cannot make hide checks against that wizard. Of course if rogue will say that he uses his climb skill or some sort of magical item (spider climb) to walk on the ceiling then ok - wizard might cast true seeing on himself but rarely anyone is looking up.

[Vaz]

...you can use Incantatrix to persist Lion's Charge? :smalltongue:

Just get the Psionic Version, it is Instantaneous. Enjoy.

[eggynack]

Eggynack - of course, but again this doesn't mean that enemies are stupid. Enemies may not be able to differentiate your ripples from the ones created by the wind but may be able to realize that wind hasn't gotten stronger but there are more ripples than before (DC 15 Wisdom check maybe?). Heck - guards might be instructed to commence alarm even at the slightiest stimuli - because Big Bad may think that it's better for him to check every corner of his stronghold every time one of his guards hears little kitten, than risking that some kind of hero infiltrates his stronghold polimorphed into said kitten. Of course PC may use this to further theirs goals by creating multiple alarms.
Actually, there would be a "wisdom check." In this case, it would be a spot check, taken against your hide check. That's how the game's skill system works. If your opponent wants to be smart enough to see you, they need to have higher skills than you do. Acting outside of the game's established rule system on the basis of the enemy being too smart to hide from makes no sense. You might as well say, "Well, the wizard would know that the blade was going to hit there, so there should be a DC 15 intelligence check for him to dodge it."

Edit: Note that there are effects like that one, like the factotum's cunning defense ability, but they need to be explicit rather than fiated in.

[Flickerdart]

Skills might be extraordinary abilities, but that doesn't make them limited to real-life feats. It's not really that hard to imagine a rogue who can dodge out of the way of a fireball while standing inside of it simply not causing tremors in water due to how skilled they are at hiding.

[Qwertystop]

And again, even if it's fine to hide doing nothing unnoticed, the moment you attack someone, or steal something, or do anything else with visible effects not covered by your hide-boosting feats or spells or whatever, that thing can be noticed. You shoot someone from hiding, and keep hiding? They'll notice the arrow and go and check the rough direction it came from.

[Abaddona]

Eggynack - actually the guard isn't making his check to spot you (to be precise: to know where you are standing) but to realize that something is not right in the room (to realize that you changed something etc.) - so it's rather should be separate check.

And hey - it still would be rather cheap to throw in the water continous electricity trap. Just to be able to visualize some super-rogue capable of making reflex rolls to evade electric currents and not making any waves while doing so :-)

[eggynack]

Eggynack - actually the guard isn't making his check to spot you (to be precise: to know where you are standing) but to realize that something is not right in the room (to realize that you changed something etc.) - so it's rather should be separate check.
You're not changing something in the room. You're just walking around. When you steal stuff from people without them seeing it, that is a separate check, and it's called sleight of hand. We're talking about hide here, which covers everything hide based, and nothing not-hide based. More specifically, we're talking about the ability to walk across water while remaining hidden, which fairly remains in the purview of hide. there's no separate check involved.

[Karoht]

Just because a player doesn't optimize, or takes poor options for 'fluff' reasons, doesn't mean they are roleplaying either. I've seen many bad players hide behind roleplaying as an excuse for behavior ranging from "being dead weight that the rest of us have to carry" to "getting self or others killed, every session, for X number of sessions."

"But guys, I was just doing what my character would do!!!"

Nope.

[Abaddona]

Eggynack -> yup, but hide skill doesn't make you invisible. So tell me exactly how are you hiding? Because if you simply say I was here, rolled 100, now I'm here and nobody saw me then this is simply rollplaying. Of course you can hide in different ways - maybe you have taken some old blanket and crawled when wearing this - guards doesn't saw you but may be surprised some time later where this old blanket disappeared. Maybe you are cabable of walking in the water in such a way that you are not making waves - but even then you are not capable of stopping water level from rising (and guards might be instructed to observe this and will start alarm if they see water level rising without reason). Maybe you have constant concealnment effectively making yourself a ghost but some tiles in the floor might be just illusions and you will fall down if you step on them (well, step on them and fail reflex save).

[eggynack]

That's what hide in plain sight is for. It means that you can hide while being observed, so you can hide while being observed. No need for a blanket of any kind. If there's some area in which the particular HiPS version is lacking, it will be lacking in an explicit way, and you can say, "Oh, the rules say so and so," and I'll be all like, "Truly, I have been felled by my hubris." However, it will generally have nothing to do with affecting puddles of water.

[JusticeZero]

That's the gym rat fallacy though. "I can accept people who can wave their arms and instantly create pocket dimensions, steel walls, and reality warps. But I cannot accept that their equally incredible allies can achieve physical feats that I haven't seen anyone at my local gym do." This is why people are constantly trying to nerf the fighters and rogues but leaving the wizard alone.

[Vaz]

Gym rat fallacy? I understand the concept, but why that name for it?

[JusticeZero]

Because I can't remember it having another name and that's what I heard it called. Probably because of an incident involving a weightlifting jock player who had suspension of disbelief issues of that type. If you have a better name..

[Fax Celestis]

Fax Celestis - if said rogue player will describe how he is hiding in said room then no problem. If he can't then he lets me to make assumptions. For example: he gets concealnment due to his Continuous blur magical item (remember that to make hide check you must have cover or some kind of concealnment) and is so arrogant that he simply walks among the wizards. Upps - one of them was kinda paranoid and had true seeing cast on him, blur effect doesn't work against that wizard and as a result rogue cannot make hide checks against that wizard. Of course if rogue will say that he uses his climb skill or some sort of magical item (spider climb) to walk on the ceiling then ok - wizard might cast true seeing on himself but rarely anyone is looking up.

That is...not a failing of the hide skill.

[Quorothorn]

I in no way said it was on the same scale, merely that it was the same prejudicial thought process. But fine.

Thank you.


Skills might be extraordinary abilities, but that doesn't make them limited to real-life feats. It's not really that hard to imagine a rogue who can dodge out of the way of a fireball while standing inside of it simply not causing tremors in water due to how skilled they are at hiding.

Quite so: after all, the SRD states, "Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical, though they may break the laws of physics. They are not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training."


Because I can't remember it having another name and that's what I heard it called. Probably because of an incident involving a weightlifting jock player who had suspension of disbelief issues of that type. If you have a better name..

"But Not Too Extraordinary"? "Mundanes Can't Have Nice Things (Because 'Realism)"? Those certainly seem overcomplicated to me in comparison to "gym rat fallacy".

[Greenish]

"But Not Too Extraordinary"? "Mundanes Can't Have Nice Things (Because 'Realism)"? Those certainly seem overcomplicated to me in comparison to "gym rat fallacy".How about "Mundane Fallacy"? The idea seems to be that the characters who don't have overt Supernatural abilities or magic must be mundane (when PCs should be everything but).

[nedz]

That's what hide in plain sight is for. It means that you can hide while being observed, so you can hide while being observed. No need for a blanket of any kind. If there's some area in which the particular HiPS version is lacking, it will be lacking in an explicit way, and you can say, "Oh, the rules say so and so," and I'll be all like, "Truly, I have been felled by my hubris." However, it will generally have nothing to do with affecting puddles of water.

Well there are different versions of HiPS but the ones I'm familiar with still require that you have some sort of concealment to do the actual hiding within. (This is why you see class features such as Camouflage)
Which version of HiPS were you referring to ?

[PersonMan]

Well there are different versions of HiPS but the ones I'm familiar with still require that you have some sort of concealment to do the actual hiding within. (This is why you see class features such as Camouflage)
Which version of HiPS were you referring to ?

Isn't the entire point of Hide in Plain Sight hiding in plain sight?

Where have you seen a version of Hide in Plain Sight that doesn't allow this?

[Greenish]

Isn't the entire point of Hide in Plain Sight hiding in plain sight?

Where have you seen a version of Hide in Plain Sight that doesn't allow this?Ranger/Scout/Wilderness Rogue/Etc. version merely allows hiding while observed (necessitating Camouflage). They also tend to be Ex.

Shadowdancer/Assassin/Etc. version allows hiding while observed and without concealment (though they may have other requirements). These tend to be Su.

[eggynack]

Well there are different versions of HiPS but the ones I'm familiar with still require that you have some sort of concealment to do the actual hiding within. (This is why you see class features such as Camouflage)
Which version of HiPS were you referring to ?
The assassin version definitely allows hiding without concealment. "At 8th level, an assassin can use the Hide skill even while being observed. As long as he is within 10 feet of some sort of shadow, an assassin can hide himself from view in the open without having anything to actually hide behind. He cannot, however, hide in his own shadow." That's pretty explicit.

[Abaddona]

Eggynack -> last time I checked to make a hide check you must have some sort o cover or concealnment and cannot be observed. Hide in plain sight makes you able to hide when observed but you still need cover. For example - you may hide behind a tree, but only if no one looks at you at the time. So no, you still must be creative :-)

JusticeZero - actually what stops you from being mean to spellcasters also? Dreaded destruction of the spellbook for example? If high level rogue must be creative when sneaking around, then high level wizard should have some way of defense from getting his spellbook or spell components pouch destroyed. Thing is - it's way harder to make life difficult for a wizard than for a mundane. But still: "-You are surrounded by bandits
- I cast charm on them
- they attack you immediately
- wait, wait - how did they knew I was up to something, they don't have spellcraft?
- true, but they also don't exactly like when people in robes are making funny noises and gestures".
It's quite simple - players are getting stronger so DM uses more means to make their lifes difficult. After all higher levels guards are not only stronger but also more competent.

Fax Celestis -> that's losing ability to make hide checks thus autofailing them. Again - hide is not "i'm standing here behind this big stone, and now i can run whole day in the desert as long as someone does'nt beat my hide check" it's "i have constant means of making hide checks (standing in the shadows or by using illusion) so I can run around as long as I have those means and if I don't have those means then better for me if no one is looking in my direction at the moment".

EDIT:
yup, but Dark template HiPS let's you only hide under observation - you still need some sort of concealment or cover (and not in the daylight). And even Assasin's HiPS have requirements which might be denied.

[Fax Celestis]

Fax Celestis -> that's losing ability to make hide checks thus autofailing them. Again - hide is not "i'm standing here behind this big stone, and now i can run whole day in the desert as long as someone does'nt beat my hide check" it's "i have constant means of making hide checks (standing in the shadows or by using illusion) so I can run around as long as I have those means and if I don't have those means then better for me if no one is looking in my direction at the moment".

Which is totally different from the pool of water example you were tossing about earlier.

[Abaddona]

Fax Celestis -> probably because this was specific response to your specific example?

And again - requiring mundanes (considering that casters should also roleplay their casting ability - for example if one wants to turn into cryohydra then better he hunts one down and conduct autopsy) to actually roleplay their skill usage is not "OMG mundanes cannot have nice things" and it's actually kinda grotesque for me that someone may think so :-|

[Fax Celestis]

...

Okay, I'm done here. Anything further I can comment here is either going to be a reiteration of what I've already said or is going to rack up some warnings I don't want.

[JusticeZero]

last time I checked to make a hide check you must have some sort o cover or concealnment and cannot be observed. Hide in plain sight makes you able to hide when observed but you still need cover.However, the amount of cover or concealment that you need is described as being pretty silly, and I can see higher skill levels that even further blow out the E6 boundaries getting truly ridiculous - "I toss my ridiculous female drow ranger stereotype's spare bikini in the air and take cover behind it long enough to hide!" I have no problem with this, given that the person next to them just appearified a huge walking rock out of nowhere, which was in turn sliced apart with a penknife.
JusticeZero - actually what stops you from being mean to spellcasters also?Because that's not what people do, and is completely different in any case from having people "reality check"ing and realism-nerfing characters who were comparable to Heracles a few levels ago and who would no longer get XP for beating up Legolas, who are allied with people who are basically Q from Star Trek - whose power feats go unremarked on.

[Segev]

No, seriously. The powers do what they say they do, and no more. Also, no less.

This includes skills.

Yes, you can hide in plain sight from something with tremorsense if you have the right feats and class features and a good enough Hide bonus. No, this doesn't mean that you can insist that you're not, in fact, doing anything IC to hide yourself other than rolling the dice OOC. If you're hiding, you're doing something to hide. If you've got a cool idea for how you're doing it and describe it that way, that's awesome. That's role-playing along with your roll-playing. If you don't know how your character is doing it, but can spell out the mechanical set of actions you wish to take that includes a hide check, the DM may insert some fluff if it works, or can just let it go.

However, if you actively start insisting that, no, the only difference between your breakdancing with ogre backup dancers and that of the bardbarian who did it 10 min. ago is that you rolled a hide check, but you're otherwise doing exactly what the bardbarian did... no, you're not hiding, so you don't get to make the roll.

To actually make the roll, you have to be taking a hide action. This means you're doing whatever you're doing along with it differently than somebody who isn't hiding (or even somebody who isn't hiding as well as you can hide). If you weren't doing something differently, you wouldn't be hiding any better.

[nedz]

Hide in Plain Sight (Ex)

While in any sort of natural terrain, a ranger of 17th level or higher can use the Hide skill even while being observed.



Hide in Plain Sight (Su)

At 8th level, an assassin can use the Hide skill even while being observed. As long as he is within 10 feet of some sort of shadow, an assassin can hide himself from view in the open without having anything to actually hide behind. He cannot, however, hide in his own shadow.



Hide in Plain Sight (Su)

A shadowdancer can use the Hide skill even while being observed. As long as she is within 10 feet of some sort of shadow, a shadowdancer can hide herself from view in the open without anything to actually hide behind. She cannot, however, hide in her own shadow.

It is annoying that we have two three different features with the same name.

Ed: fixed minor error

[Abaddona]

JusticeZero -> actually that looks to me rather like a bluff check to attemp hide check under observation... oh, wait... that was spare bikini... nevermind then :-) Anyway - you need cover not only to start hide action but also to attempt the check - so if you try to run before someone eyes he gets spot check and well - if you don't have another bikini readied then sorry, but no hide check. Of course I don't mean to be some strick ruthless bloodthirsty DM who seeks blood of his players but hey - altough I can let someone sneak in plain view (running from tree to tree) for some time because guard "was looking in opposite direction at the time" I won't permit actions such as "hiding while breakdancing with two ogres" - player simply must attempt to hide and standing one foot before guard is definetely not hiding.
Also simply think about such obstacles as some form of "traps" which you must overcome.

Being Heracles doesn't make you capable of breaking adamantium bars with your teeth at least not by simple "I make strenght check... passed".

[eggynack]

It is annoying that we have two three different features with the same name.

Ed: fixed minor error
There doesn't seem to be a functional difference between assassins and shadowdancers in terms of HiPS. Shadow template creatures seem different though. It's, "Hide in Plain Sight (Ex): Use the Hide skill even while being observed (except in natural daylight, the area of a daylight spell, or a similar effect)." In any case, there ya go. Hiding without any kind of cover. You can stand directly in front of the enemy, and hide just as well as you could behind a wall. You can also hide while standing in a puddle, though you may need darkstalker to do so.

I don't see why we keep talking about weird flavor actions. We're talking about mechanics here, because saying, "I hide based upon the nearby existence of shadows," costs nothing aside from some enjoyment derived from saying that you're breakdancing. It's certainly a loss, but it has zero impact on whether this ability is powerful or not. The shadow blend ability might also be relevant for the purposes of this discussion.

[Greenish]

Shadow template creatures seem different though. It's, "Hide in Plain Sight (Ex): Use the Hide skill even while being observed (except in natural daylight, the area of a daylight spell, or a similar effect)." In any case, there ya go. Hiding without any kind of cover. Using Hide normally has two conditions: not being observed and having concealment or cover. That version of HiPS only seems to remove the former, without obviating the need for the latter.


Of course, lest it get too simple to figure HiPS out, the version of Dark template in Anauroch, the Empire of Shade has a different HiPS, or so I hear.


[Edit]: The other version of Dark template is actually from Cormyr - The Tearing of the Weave.

[Fax Celestis]

Being Heracles doesn't make you capable of breaking adamantium bars with your teeth at least not by simple "I make strenght check... passed".

Yes, it does. That is why there are rules for breaking adamantium bars with naught but your Strength score right in the DMG (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm#breakingItems).

[eggynack]

Using Hide normally has two conditions: not being observed and having concealment or cover. That version of HiPS only seems to remove the former, without obviating the need for the latter.

I was largely pointing out the fact that it's basically ranger HiPS, except it doesn't work in natural light, unlike the ranger's which only works in natural environments. It's a subtle difference, but it's there, so we get yet another ability that has the same name but a different set of conditions.

[Abaddona]

Eggynack - yup, but if you start playing with lights the shadows will disappear and reappear again - and so Assasin/Shadowdancer will periodicaly loose means to attempt hide checks. Of course he can also start playing with lights etc. to create additional shadows.

Fax Celestis -> any rule saying something about what happens when you try to break something using more fragile object (AFAIR some objects after being used as a weapon are destroyed... by such ruling such check when failed should result in breaked teeths and need for regeneration cast)? Or whatever - if you want to be "awesome" then DM can apply circumstance penalties to your checks.

[Greenish]

I was largely pointing out the fact that it's basically ranger HiPS, except it doesn't work in natural light, unlike the ranger's which only works in natural environments. It's a subtle difference, but it's there, so we get yet another ability that has the same name but a different set of conditions.Ah, I see. Consistency is not one of the great strengths of the system, but even so, HiPS has unusual amount of variation.

[Yukitsu]

Fax Celestis -> any rule saying something about what happens when you try to break something using more fragile object (AFAIR some objects after being used as a weapon are destroyed... by such ruling such check when failed should result in breaked teeths and need for regeneration cast)? Or whatever - if you want to be "awesome" then DM can apply circumstance penalties to your checks.

Nope, you can sunder an adamantium great hammer's head with an egg shell in D&D.

Edit: And more commonly, a break check is assumed to be bare handed, with a hardness of 0 on your hands.

[Fax Celestis]

Fax Celestis -> any rule saying something about what happens when you try to break something using more fragile object (AFAIR some objects after being used as a weapon are destroyed... by such ruling such check when failed should result in breaked teeths and need for regeneration cast)? Or whatever - if you want to be "awesome" then DM can apply circumstance penalties to your checks.

There are no rules for such because it's absurd. There are rules in place for breaking an object: how you describe breaking that object doesn't matter. The game doesn't care, nor should it.

[eggynack]

Eggynack - yup, but if you start playing with lights the shadows will disappear and reappear again - and so Assasin/Shadowdancer will periodicaly loose means to attempt hide checks. Of course he can also start playing with lights etc. to create additional shadows.

If that were true, then that would just be a standard mechanical issue with the ability, but it doesn't even seem true. You can't really play with lights to remove shadows within ten feet of a given character, and if you can it's not a thing that would come easily. Turning all the lights on is the best way I can think of to create more shadows.

[eggynack]

Ah, I see. Consistency is not one of the great strengths of the system, but even so, HiPS has unusual amount of variation.
It is pretty crazy. There are almost as many versions of HiPS as there are things that have the ability. I'm pretty sure that if you picked any two HiPS's, you'd be highly statistically likely to get two different abilities, which is dumb.

[Greenish]

It is pretty crazy. There are almost as many versions of HiPS as there are things that have the ability. I'm pretty sure that if you picked any two HiPS's, you'd be highly statistically likely to get two different abilities, which is dumb.Well, some of them directly refer others. For example, Scouts explicitly get the same HiPS as Rangers… without getting Camouflage.

[Qwertystop]

Yeah. There's really no way to get rid of all shadows unless every non-transparent object is glowing. Or on fire, I guess, but you've still got to be pretty extensive.

Also, technically, you could carry a sealed leather pouch like a waterskin or something on you - inside that bag there is no light, thus it is a shadow, thus you can hide. That's cheesy though, at about the same level as using Whirlwind Attack, Great Cleave, and a bag of rats to get a ridiculous amount of extra attacks.

[Abaddona]

Eggynack - actually if you light enough strong lights then shadows will simply disappear (and I don't mean few lights but rather constant strong illumination from every side, also maked in such a way that exact same number of photons will strike the object from all sides). Of course it's rather hard (by hard I mean here: extremely hard and every mistake can result in failure) but then again - it's universum in which people can blend with shadows, so making rooms with dozens strong light sources seems like rather reasonable precaution. Or light sources in the floor - so all the shadows will be on the ceiling.

Fax Celestis -> ekhm... you are saying that giving penalties for attempting actions such as "breaking adamantium bars with teeth (or any other object rather... not suitable for breaking adamantium bars)" is absurd. Let's just say that your and mine definitions of "absurd" are very different and drop the subject :-)

[Yukitsu]

Fax Celestis -> ekhm... you are saying that giving penalties for attempting actions such as "breaking adamantium bars with teeth (or any other object rather... not suitable for breaking adamantium bars)" is absurd. Let's just say that your and mine definitions of "absurd" are very different and drop the subject :-)

Given you'd have to be as strong as an elder great wyrm dragon to do so regularly, it'd be absurd if you couldn't.

[eggynack]

Eggynack - actually if you light enough strong lights then shadows will simply disappear (and I don't mean few lights but rather constant strong illumination from every side, also maked in such a way that exact same number of photons will strike the object from all sides). Of course it's rather hard (by hard I mean here: extremely hard and every mistake can result in failure) but then again - it's universum in which people can blend with shadows, so making rooms with dozens strong light sources seems like rather reasonable precaution. Or light sources in the floor - so all the shadows will be on the ceiling.

Sure, I guess. It's not really a thing that's generally going to happen in game though. These aren't perfect defenses. They're just good enough defenses. I'd generally be more scared of folks rocking lifesense or mindsight than people mechanically rigging an entire room to render HiPS largely useless. You generally try to have good senses on a scout anyway, so that you can plan against rooms which are designed to perfectly stop you unless anything about them is changed.

[LordotheMorning]

Lion Totem and Incantatrix are similar in that they are overcentralizing options, which if you recall, was the original context of my post. I don't like these options because I feel obligated to take them if they are allowed. If you're playing a melee character, then there's next to no reason not to take Lion Totem. If you're playing a spellcaster, then playing anything but Incantatrix is like shooting yourself in the foot. The same logic applies to tier 1 classes in general, which is why I usually have some system to compensate for that as well (such as partial gestalt).

Also, if you use a reach weapon while hiding, then the enemy cannot pinpoint your location. Same thing with a ranged weapon. As long as you have high mobility, and a good reflex save (which you will), very few things close to your CR are going to have a prayer of touching you.

[Abaddona]

Eggynack -> yup, but my whole point is not about making scout's life a nighmare by simply saying "no" to his abilities but rather about forcing him to think a little outside of box or at least be more creative than "I roll 100, lol, nobody can see me". And after all more "mundane" ways of challenging (or entertaining) him may be a nice change after ten dungeons guarded by undeads.

EDIT:
Considering that options here for melee guys are roughly: get pounce or suck at your job and lion totem is the easiest way to obtain pounce? I would say that the problem lies rather in general melee rules rather than in this class.

[ryu]

Eh why bother thinking outside the box? I find it's much easier to think inside the box. The cardboard box that is. If you disallow cardboard boxes I'll just have to fashion a box of thin lead. Bonus points for blocking a lot of magic effects, providing constant shadows, concealment, and being iconic in its silliness.

[SciChronic]

Fax Celestis -> ekhm... you are saying that giving penalties for attempting actions such as "breaking adamantium bars with teeth (or any other object rather... not suitable for breaking adamantium bars)" is absurd. Let's just say that your and mine definitions of "absurd" are very different and drop the subject :-)

"oh no, WotC didn't provide tables for every single possible situation, and instead provided blanket tables that should be followed so it would be less complicated! i guess we should just ignore all the tables then and invent my own." is all i hear from you tbh. if a person decided to attempt to bend a bar of adamantine with their teeth, at most it would just incur a penalty on the check if the DM decides there should be one. It seems your definition of a strength check is extremely rigid to the point where it might as well be "you can only use this strength check under the full moon on a summer solstice. you must stand straight, feet shoulder-width apart pointed forward, the object must be held in your hands, in front of you, elbows bent at 90 degree angles. You cannot be wearing gloves, or shoes, or socks, and your shirt cannot have sleeves. Armor cannot be heavier than 30lbs and cannot be done in medium or larger armor. Your character must be of medium size, and must be a height of 6 feet, and must weigh 202.56 lbs"

Hide doesn't allow you to take anything, all it allows is for you to go unnoticed, not invisible, not flying, not walking on the ceiling, not with a constant blur effect, ONLY to go unnoticed visually. How high you roll on this check (other factors may increase or decrease how high you roll) represents how well you do this. If someone happens to roll 112 on their hide, that means they hid exceptionally well, meaning they would have factored in things such as causing ripples on water, or that the room they are hiding in is made of mirrors, or any other corner case that you seem to be pulling out of your brain. Darkstalker means that said hiding person also knows how to move in a way that makes scent and tremorsense to nothing. which would be more in the realm of Move Silently for tremorsense. you can't assume that X would see Y cause of Z, thats what your Spot check is for.

So can we now bring this thread back on topic and talk about why optimization is looked down upon by some people for some reason?

[Abaddona]

Possibly because some people are capable of boosting their skill checks and then happily ignore all roleplaying because "I'm so awesome that I can stand before a guard and breakdance with two ogres and he can't see me (and don't ask me how i did this - i rolled high enough so I did it somehow)"?

And as for the previous part concerning strength check - it' basically argumentum ad absurdum on your part so don't mind if I ignore this :-)

[ryu]

No he's pointing out that tables exist for situations where penalties would apply and general descriptors of where and the individual tiers of penalties and bonuses apply. Anything outside these general tables is a straight house rule.

[Yukitsu]

And as for the previous part concerning strength check - it' basically argumentum ad absurdum on your part so don't mind if I ignore this :-)

Those words. I don't think they mean what you think they mean. For one, that doesn't exist, it's reductio ad absurdum, and if someone is using it, and have done so correctly, it's a valid proof of something. And even then, that wasn't used there. Though if it were actually a reductio ad absurdum, you'd basically be telling them that they're right.

[nedz]

Well, some of them directly refer others. For example, Scouts explicitly get the same HiPS as Rangers… without getting Camouflage.

Yes they do — Scout level 8

The Ranger (et al) version always follows Camouflage, which allows them to find cover in any natural terrain. The Assassin / Shadowdancer version bundles these two things together with different terrain requirements.

[Abaddona]

Yukitsu -> what I meant basically means "don't assume that other people are idiots". In my case I simply said that if someone wants to show off and is using mechanics to do absurdal things then he should expect penalties or give me some sort of roleplay justification why something he tries to do isn't so stupid as it looks (for example maybe he lost his natural teeth and uses adamantium dentures). Of course those penalties would be applied only in the serious sessions (also to be honest in DMG there is clearly said that circumstances like using "improvised tools" hamper performance and results in higher DC) and if session is lighthearted and consist basically of jokes, parodies etc. (for example: "your sword clearly severs dragons head and from inside fall sweets") then of course such things are even encouraged. As a response to this SciChronic tried to be ironic. That's why one more time: "don't assume other people are idiots" especially if you implying that they meant something they didn't explicitly said.

And back to topic - when you boost your checks to the point that you simply may deny reality and thus you feel safe to do various absurd things like "i steal his pants" then you should remember that such behavior is funny only first time. After few more examples of such acts others (especially DM) might feel offended simply because they try to actually roleplay, and you are simply destroying session by showing off.
Optimizing is not rollplaying - it's true and cannot be more true. But this reputation of "optimizers are rollplayers" wasn't effect of some sort of mass hallucinations. Many players probably met someone who used his knowledge about mechanics to basically destroy their sessions and now as a result they feel resentment toward more advanced options of the game.

[Yukitsu]

That's literally what extraordinary means though. It means accomplishing something that cannot physically be done. If it were something that could be physically done, it'd be entirely ordinary.

Edit: I kind of suspect you'd be happiest playing E6.

[memnarch]

Yukitsu -> what I meant basically means "don't assume that other people are idiots". In my case I simply said that if someone wants to show off and is using mechanics to do absurdal things then he should expect penalties or give me some sort of roleplay justification why something he tries to do isn't so stupid as it looks (for example maybe he lost his natural teeth and uses adamantium dentures). Of course those penalties would be applied only in the serious sessions (also to be honest in DMG there is clearly said that circumstances like using "improvised tools" hamper performance and results in higher DC) and if session is lighthearted and consist basically of jokes, parodies etc. (for example: "your sword clearly severs dragons head and from inside fall sweets") then of course such things are even encouraged. As a response to this SciChronic tried to be ironic. That's why one more time: "don't assume other people are idiots" especially if you implying that they meant something they didn't explicitly said.All of this can be summed up into a single phrase; "The GM is adding houserules".


And back to topic - when you boost your checks to the point that you simply may deny reality and thus you feel safe to do various absurd things like "i steal his pants" then you should remember that such behavior is funny only first time. After few more examples of such acts others (especially DM) might feel offended simply because they try to actually roleplay, and you are simply destroying session by showing off.
Optimizing is not rollplaying - it's true and cannot be more true. But this reputation of "optimizers are rollplayers" wasn't effect of some sort of mass hallucinations. Many players probably met someone who used his knowledge about mechanics to basically destroy their sessions and now as a result they feel resentment toward more advanced options of the game.
And this can be summed up to; "Optimizers are horrible because they cause unfun(opinion) situations".




Pretty much all of the arguments people are having here it seems are related to whether the player provides the description/justification of the attempted action or the GM provides the description/justification.

[eggynack]

All of this can be summed up into a single phrase; "The GM is adding houserules".

Yeah, that's the impression I've been getting too. If you want to make a point, do it with the rules that exist. When you find a resource that tells me about the exact way I need to break adamantine, tell me about that then. As is, arguments using something as distant from the game as real world logic is pointless, especially when it's not even clear that the logic works out. I don't even quite know how we got to this point with the whole darkstalker issue. It's an invaluable ability on anyone who's relying on their ability to hide in order to not die.

[strider24seven]

So did you compose this post just to take a piss on me? Because I don't see how pointing out that the examples I mentioned are not all equal in power furthers the discussion.

But to indulge, I've played a character who got his hide check up to +104 with Darkstalker. I know what it does to a game. You can't beat it with true sight, you can't beat it with see invisibility, and you can't beat it with dispel magic. Invisibility doesn't even come close. You act with total impunity. Unless your DM wants to pull a complete and total hamfist and say "It just so happens that all the relevant antagonists of my campaign have lifesense or mindsight", there's no contest. It's not that hard to get your hide check through the roof.

The point is this: When you start forcing a DM to tailor encounters to your character specifically or else provide absolutely no challenge, that's when things start getting unhealthy, and the examples I mentioned are ways to produce such characters.

I'd just like to point out that Darkstalker is not the foolproof nondetection ability that people make it out to be... it only allows stealth to work against 4 extraordinary/supernatural senses. It does not foil senses not included in that list, such as Mindsight (from the same book no less), or Touchsight. Creative uses of certain spells such as Detect Magic allow for the detection, but not pinpointing, of a Darkstalker-using creature. Alarm alerts to the presence of creatures of certain sizes (but not necessarily the location), allowing the villains the use of area spells on the Darkstalker.

Between Alarm-type spells, Touchsight (read: many Psions with >5 HD), Mindsight (read: anything with Telepathy and a feat to spare), you should have no problem dealing with a Darkstalker without the situation becoming unhealthy.

And some more anecdotal evidence in case anyone cares:
Under a game I was DM'ing a while ago, one of the characters was playing a Whisper Gnome Darkstalker Rogue, able to muster an astounding +34 Hide/MS at level 4, handing him first strike capability, and rendering him undetectable to most creatures. Except for the Barbazu that they were hunting, who had taken the Mindsight feat. Who pointed him out to the wizard, whose Cloud of Bewilderment left him... bewildered... alone in a room of a Wizard, his Barbazu master, and thirty-two fiendish housecats (that's what the party gets for insisting I use the Huge Table of Randomness). The party managed to bail him out, of course, but getting mobbed by housecats is not something he will soon forget.

(In case anyone is concerned over that encounter, I rolled "Malconvoker," "Crazy Cat Lady," and "Inverted Encounter," on the Huge Table of Randomness... so I'm not quite sure how else I could have done it.)

[LordBlades]

I'd just like to point out that Darkstalker is not the foolproof nondetection ability that people make it out to be... it only allows stealth to work against 4 extraordinary/supernatural senses. It does not foil senses not included in that list, such as Mindsight (from the same book no less), or Touchsight. Creative uses of certain spells such as Detect Magic allow for the detection, but not pinpointing, of a Darkstalker-using creature. Alarm alerts to the presence of creatures of certain sizes (but not necessarily the location), allowing the villains the use of area spells on the Darkstalker.

Between Alarm-type spells, Touchsight (read: many Psions with >5 HD), Mindsight (read: anything with Telepathy and a feat to spare), you should have no problem dealing with a Darkstalker without the situation becoming unhealthy.

And some more anecdotal evidence in case anyone cares:
Under a game I was DM'ing a while ago, one of the characters was playing a Whisper Gnome Darkstalker Rogue, able to muster an astounding +34 Hide/MS at level 4, handing him first strike capability, and rendering him undetectable to most creatures. Except for the Barbazu that they were hunting, who had taken the Mindsight feat. Who pointed him out to the wizard, whose Cloud of Bewilderment left him... bewildered... alone in a room of a Wizard, his Barbazu master, and thirty-two fiendish housecats (that's what the party gets for insisting I use the Huge Table of Randomness). The party managed to bail him out, of course, but getting mobbed by housecats is not something he will soon forget.

(In case anyone is concerned over that encounter, I rolled "Malconvoker," "Crazy Cat Lady," and "Inverted Encounter," on the Huge Table of Randomness... so I'm not quite sure how else I could have done it.)

My thoughts exactly. If you can't handle Darkstalker in your games, then you're going to have infinitely more trouble with any full caster played even halfway decently.

Also, most DMs I know rarely complain if the BBEG needs to have around a couple of caster minions (if BBEG isn't a caster himself) to provide all sorts of caster-only stuff. Why would it be any different with a Darkstalker detection minion. I'd imagine vampire spawns with lifesense for example would be fetching quite a hefty price at Evil Overlord Supermarket.

[strider24seven]

My thoughts exactly. If you can't handle Darkstalker in your games, then you're going to have infinitely more trouble with any full caster played even halfway decently.

I'd just like to point out the Superior Invisibility spell, and then compare it to Darkstalker.


I'd imagine vampire spawns with lifesense for example would be fetching quite a hefty price at Evil Overlord Supermarket.

This actually sounds like a campaign idea... I might have to scribble this down for later.....

[Gigas Breaker]

Hahaha Evil Overlord Supermarket is just ripe with possibilities. It would be like how Taskmaster is the drill instructor for all of the henchman in Marvel.

[tiercel]

So can we now bring this thread back on topic and talk about why optimization is looked down upon by some people for some reason?

People have different playstyles, and tend to not appreciate when Person E wants to bring one playstyle to a game when Persons A-D have a different playstyle.

That can be because Person E wants to play a tinker gnome in Persons A-D's Ravenloft campaign, it can be because Person E wants to play a Fighter 5 in a Persons A-D's high-op full-caster adventuring group, or it can be because Person E wants to play full-blown Druidzilla dripping in wilding clasps and surrounded by greenbound summons in a group where the next most optimized character is Fighter 2/Monk4.

In the first case, Person E might have to accept that his wacky character concept either doesn't fit the gothic tone, or be persuaded to play along with a "stranger in a strange land" motif and/or to tone down full-bore wackiness and instead head toward the Victorian mad-scientist motif to more fit with the setting.

In the third case, either Person E can find out if Persons A-D actually want to learn to be more optimized, or else just either set himself the challenge of optimizing something normally weak to make it work in the group ("well, let me see if I can actually make Truenamer work, even if I can no longer taste ice cream (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=214115)") or optimize a buffer that will make everyone else stronger, instead of making the rest of the group irrelevant with his character's summons, much less his own PC.

In the second case, Person E has a steep learning curve just to be able to play with Persons A-D at all without being "that useless encumbrance who doesn't know how to optimize / is playing Tier Stupid".

Never mind if Person E is actually the DM. (The first case is significant if the DM wants to set one tone and the players have another in mind; the third case means that the DM will just have to scale back his optimization and/or use optimized "lower CR/EL" challenges, the second case will just yield an exasperated DM who doesn't know how to challenge his players.)

[Hecuba]

Those words. I don't think they mean what you think they mean. For one, that doesn't exist, it's reductio ad absurdum

This may be the most banal thing to chime in on this conversation for, but "argumentum ad absurdum" is a valid and acceptable name for this argumentative form and has been since the classical period.

"Reductio ad absurdum" is a more common name for it in English, but the other name is not wrong.

[Yukitsu]

This may be the most banal thing to chime in on this conversation for, but "argumentum ad absurdum" is a valid and acceptable name for this argumentative form and has been since the classical period.

"Reductio ad absurdum" is a more common name for it in English, but the other name is not wrong.

I have never seen a phil professor not mark someone down for mixing up the "argumentum" and "reductio" terms as they mean very distinct things. Can you provide a text that uses argumentum? Because everything that's coming to memory that uses argumentum is a fallacy, while a reductio is valid.

[Captnq]

Nope, you can sunder an adamantium great hammer's head with an egg shell in D&D.

Nope. Eggshells do no damage. OA's rules on eggshells are quite clear in this regard. They can blind, stun, or poison, but they cannot do 1 point of damage. If you can't do one point of damage, you can't sunder with it.

[Yukitsu]

Nope. Eggshells do no damage. OA's rules on eggshells are quite clear in this regard. They can blind, stun, or poison, but they cannot do 1 point of damage. If you can't do one point of damage, you can't sunder with it.

I think that's an egg shell with pepper in it. Adding the pepper changes them from an improvised tiny weapon into a whatever the heck that is.

[eggynack]

I think that's an egg shell with pepper in it. Adding the pepper changes them from an improvised tiny weapon into a whatever the heck that is.
That's the greatest logic I've ever heard in the history of forever.

[Captnq]

Yeah. There's really no way to get rid of all shadows unless every non-transparent object is glowing. Or on fire, I guess, but you've still got to be pretty extensive.
Also, technically, you could carry a sealed leather pouch like a waterskin or something on you - inside that bag there is no light, thus it is a shadow, thus you can hide.


You've obviously never been to central New York.

Come here on an overcast day, I challenge you to find a "shadow".

If one wants to be a pain in the ass, there is no definition for Shadow. However, we can use the rules on shadowy illumination, which means that in order for some area to qualify as a shadow, you must have some sort of concealment from being within said shadow.

Also, it would not allow total darkness, because such an area is different from shadowy illumination. Your bag would not work because it is in darkness, not shadowy illumination.

So, unless there is an area where you can gain concealment, but are not completely in the dark, because of lighting conditions, you don't have shadows. In orther words, "Is it so dark I can make a hide check, but not so dark an un-aided human eye would be blind?

Now, by that definition, the outdoors around here is qualified to be "Shadowy Illumination" quite often.

[Fax Celestis]

That's the greatest logic I've ever heard in the history of forever.

And, since it's not an unarmed strike, you can dual-wield them!

[Hecuba]

Can you provide a text that uses argumentum? Because everything that's coming to memory that uses argumentum is a fallacy, while a reductio is valid.

Argumentum sees more use in legal texts on the topic than philosophy text to my understanding. By way of example, Google provides a preview of this textbook (http://books.google.com/books?id=FqnJFmjAkiEC&pg=PA27&lpg=PA27&dq=%22argumentum+ad+absurdum%22+legal&source=bl&ots=iquuc0PUm1&sig=MIM_r2t2hn1iWd5slF5NguNyneY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SeoTUo-FEafXyAGb7oGoBA&ved=0CGgQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=%22argumentum%20ad%20absurdum%22%20legal&f=false) on Legal Argumentative theory.

I think Heath also used it in his History of Greek Mathematics (my History of Math professor was also uncomfortable when that form was used, and I think it was that text that used it), but it's been over a decade since I last read it as more than reference. I'd have to dig it out of storage, as I cannot readily find a copy online.

If you want something more authoritative, we'd probably need to break out comparative translations of Analytica Priora, which would be tedious even my by standards.

[Captnq]

I think that's an egg shell with pepper in it. Adding the pepper changes them from an improvised tiny weapon into a whatever the heck that is.

Improvised weapons are not weapons.

They are house rules, each and every one of them. Therefore, as a DM, you have the choice of stating an eggshell does no damage and you would be correct because improvised weapons are all made up anyways.

[Fax Celestis]

Improvised weapons are not weapons.

They are house rules, each and every one of them. Therefore, as a DM, you have the choice of stating an eggshell does no damage and you would be correct because improvised weapons are all made up anyways.


Improvised Weapons
Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses one in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a -4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object. To determine the size category and appropriate damage for an improvised weapon, compare its relative size and damage potential to the weapon list to find a reasonable match. An improvised weapon scores a threat on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. An improvised thrown weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#improvisedWeapons

[Captnq]

Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons... blah blah blah


See. NOT WEAPONS.

I take a toilet seat. A masterwork toilet seat. I sharpen it until my DM says it does slashing. Can I make it +1 Vorpal?

No. Weapon Special Abilities are for Weapons. Improvised weapons are IMPROVISED weapons. They are a different category. They have weapon-like qualities, but since not a single one has a set amount of damage and the DM is told to make it up on the spot, not a single Improvised weapon is RAW. I can, as a DM state that a telephone pole does 1d4, and then turn around and state your eggshell does 4d20 and I'd be correct both times because I'm allowed to give it any value I think is correct. (the PCs will think I've been eating too many cheez doodles, But I'm still correct.)

I take a Greataxe. I turn it upside down and start using the hilt. In effect, it's an improvised weapon. Does it use the EB and WSA of the greataxe? No. Its an Improvised weapon, not a Weapon. Weapons have stats. Weapons can be enchanted. Improvised weapons are wiggle room for the DM to do whatever he wants when the player does something unexpected.

Or is there someone who Believes I can make a +3 Whirling Extension Ladder?

[Yukitsu]

Argumentum sees more use in legal texts on the topic than philosophy text to my understanding. By way of example, Google provides a preview of this textbook (http://books.google.com/books?id=FqnJFmjAkiEC&pg=PA27&lpg=PA27&dq=%22argumentum+ad+absurdum%22+legal&source=bl&ots=iquuc0PUm1&sig=MIM_r2t2hn1iWd5slF5NguNyneY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SeoTUo-FEafXyAGb7oGoBA&ved=0CGgQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=%22argumentum%20ad%20absurdum%22%20legal&f=false) on Legal Argumentative theory.

I think Heath also used it in his History of Greek Mathematics (my History of Math professor was also uncomfortable when that form was used, and I think it was that text that used it), but it's been over a decade since I last read it as more than reference. I'd have to dig it out of storage, as I cannot readily find a copy online.

If you want something more authoritative, we'd probably need to break out comparative translations of Analytica Priora, which would be tedious even my by standards.

That'd make sense. Law to be honest, very rarely is using the older form when compared to the field that created the term. Sometimes, especially in psychology, the courts are making their own definitions that no one else at all use. In this case, philosophers (or apparently mathematicians) wouldn't ever use argumentum because a reductio ad absurdum isn't an appeal, and doesn't really conform to a proper argument in its own right, and because for clarity, philosophers categorize all of the argumentums as fallacies.

I somehow suspect that prior analytics doesn't have anything about reductio ad absurdum, because it's not a syllogism. It might be easier to find in Plato's work, as it's more a Socratic thing rather than Aristotles.

[Hecuba]

I somehow suspect that prior analytics doesn't have anything about reductio ad absurdum, because it's not a syllogism. It might be easier to find in Plato's work, as it's more a Socratic thing rather than Aristotles.

Actually, it is in there. It's not the source of the term nor a central focus, but it's probably the most heavily translated early work to use the original Greek term (he eis atopon apagoge, translating to something like "leading back to an unnatural thing").

[memnarch]

See. NOT WEAPONS.

I take a toilet seat. A masterwork toilet seat. I sharpen it until my DM says it does slashing. Can I make it +1 Vorpal?

No. Weapon Special Abilities are for Weapons. Improvised weapons are IMPROVISED weapons. They are a different category. They have weapon-like qualities, but since not a single one has a set amount of damage and the DM is told to make it up on the spot, not a single Improvised weapon is RAW. I can, as a DM state that a telephone pole does 1d4, and then turn around and state your eggshell does 4d20 and I'd be correct both times because I'm allowed to give it any value I think is correct. (the PCs will think I've been eating too many cheez doodles, But I'm still correct.) You'd be technically correct (the best kind), but you'd be mostly wrong because those are not reasonable assumptions of damage.


I take a Greataxe. I turn it upside down and start using the hilt. In effect, it's an improvised weapon. Does it use the EB and WSA of the greataxe? No. Its an Improvised weapon, not a Weapon. Weapons have stats. Weapons can be enchanted. Improvised weapons are wiggle room for the DM to do whatever he wants when the player does something unexpected.The greataxe will still do normal greataxe things, even if you "hold it by the blades" and hit things with it. This is because d&d does not care about how you hold items.


Or is there someone who Believes I can make a +3 Whirling Extension Ladder?
You could, you just need a friendly DM. And maybe a drunken master to go with it in case it's still an improvised weapon. :smalltongue:

[Flickerdart]

See. NOT WEAPONS.

I take a toilet seat. A masterwork toilet seat. I sharpen it until my DM says it does slashing. Can I make it +1 Vorpal?

No. Weapon Special Abilities are for Weapons. Improvised weapons are IMPROVISED weapons. They are a different category. They have weapon-like qualities, but since not a single one has a set amount of damage and the DM is told to make it up on the spot, not a single Improvised weapon is RAW. I can, as a DM state that a telephone pole does 1d4, and then turn around and state your eggshell does 4d20 and I'd be correct both times because I'm allowed to give it any value I think is correct. (the PCs will think I've been eating too many cheez doodles, But I'm still correct.)

I take a Greataxe. I turn it upside down and start using the hilt. In effect, it's an improvised weapon. Does it use the EB and WSA of the greataxe? No. Its an Improvised weapon, not a Weapon. Weapons have stats. Weapons can be enchanted. Improvised weapons are wiggle room for the DM to do whatever he wants when the player does something unexpected.

Or is there someone who Believes I can make a +3 Whirling Extension Ladder?
This is circular logic: "improvised weapons aren't weapons because they can't be enchanted because they aren't weapons".

[NEO|Phyte]

This is circular logic: "improvised weapons aren't weapons because they can't be enchanted because they aren't weapons".

In addition to being circular, it is incorrect. They can't be enchanted because they aren't MASTERWORK weapons.

[nedz]

I think that's an egg shell with pepper in it. Adding the pepper changes them from an improvised tiny weapon into a whatever the heck that is.

No, no — not pepper, Salt !
And it has to be an egg from a chicken which has been reared intensively.
This makes a salt and battery egg.

[Yukitsu]

Actually, it is in there. It's not the source of the term nor a central focus, but it's probably the most heavily translated early work to use the original Greek term (he eis atopon apagoge, translating to something like "leading back to an unnatural thing").

I stick to the Latin, as the rest is all Greek to me, but what was the Greek translation for the Argumentum terms? Looking at the translation, I kind of am betting that the reductios are kept separate.

[Captnq]

Technically correct is what RAW is about. When PCs start to do stupid things, the rules usually do cover it, if you look hard enough.

Improvised weapons are objects not crafted to be weapons. Ergo they are not weapons. No bootstrapping involved. Just like an Egg is different from an Eggplant. They both have the word 'Egg', but they are quite different things.

If you have a statement that shows that an improvised weapon is a weapon, please show me. I have written the definitive Weapon Handbook and I looked far and wide for such a statement. By RAW, I cannot find anything that indicated that Improvised weapons are weapons. Weapon-Like? Yes. Weapons? No.

Also, anything can be masterwork, so that isn't a limitation. I can have a masterwork dress, if I so choose. It does nothing, but it's masterwork all the same.

Now, here is why I would love for improvised weapons to be weapons.

I'm going to make a masterwork hot tub. (310 gp)
My Hot tub only does 1d4 damage. Why? Improvised.
Plus it makes the next thing cost cheaper.

I'm going to make it out of ferroplasm so it comes with a +1 Enhancement Bonus and don't have to waste money on buying that useless +1 EB. Objects made out of ferroplasm that only do 1d4 damage cost 2,500 gp. (2,810 gp)
I'm going to buy Flying (+1 Bonus) so now my hot tub has a fly speed of 30 feet, is an animate object, and follows my commands like a skeleton. (4,810 gp)

A giant could pick it up and throw it, so it's an improvised weapon. Since it could only be thrown once, it's ammunition. Ammunition is divides by 50. (97 gp a hot tub)

Now, because I might need to use up a few hot tubs, I'm going to by them with sizing (+1 bonus) (10,810/50=217 gp) and keep a dozen in my pocket.

When I get up in level, I'm going to buy an Icechucker (A weapon that shoots whatever you can load into it.) and I'm going to buy it with quick-loading so it has an extra-dimensional storage space for my ammunition. I'm going to load it up with hot tubs. One Hundred Hot Tubs to be exact.

Me? I'm a psychic Aquatic Elf.
They Call Me...
Lord Prunehands.

I wander the land with my cloud of floating hot tubs that change size. Yea, verily, you know you have offended the deep dwelling fair-folk when a cloud of Colossal Hot Tubs fills your SKY and blots out the SUN.


Yes yes yes, Drop the ferroplasm Cheese, Drop the icechucker cheese, it's still do able. We're only talking about how much it will cost, not if it's possible...

IF you think that improvised weapons are weapons.

[Yukitsu]

I'm not at all certain as to why any of us cares that an egg shell is a weapon. We really don't. They simply can be used to make attack rolls which allow an attack of opportunity against you, and which impose a -4 penalty. None of us really cares if that makes it a weapon or not.

Edit: They already have a flying cauldron that you can fill with bath water.

[Snowbluff]

In addition to being circular, it is incorrect. They can't be enchanted because they aren't MASTERWORK weapons.

Master Work Thieves Tools. :smalltongue:

Imma shank a !@#$%.

[ryu]

Masterwork tools for thieves tend to mean lockpicks. Lockpicks are metal and easily sharpened. Congrats you now can shank someone.

[GlorinSteampike]

The problem with optimization is that it often makes unoptimized characters feel useless. Especially when they aren't a tier 1 or 2 class with magical flexibilities.

I often play Martial Adepts for my fighters for the added versatility, or I play Gish the hard way(ie not Duskblade) and often times someone does some raging pouncing LA+1 leaping Martial Adept Druid shifting and or grappling monk dip that cranks can crank out 8d8+80 around levels 10-15 or something similiar. And at the point the fights are either how long it takes him to one shot everything, or the wizard to land a save or suck, where my 2d6+4d6+15 Greatsword maneuvers don't mean anything.

[Flickerdart]

Technically correct is what RAW is about. When PCs start to do stupid things, the rules usually do cover it, if you look hard enough.

Improvised weapons are objects not crafted to be weapons. Ergo they are not weapons. No bootstrapping involved. Just like an Egg is different from an Eggplant. They both have the word 'Egg', but they are quite different things.

If you have a statement that shows that an improvised weapon is a weapon, please show me. I have written the definitive Weapon Handbook and I looked far and wide for such a statement. By RAW, I cannot find anything that indicated that Improvised weapons are weapons. Weapon-Like? Yes. Weapons? No.

Also, anything can be masterwork, so that isn't a limitation. I can have a masterwork dress, if I so choose. It does nothing, but it's masterwork all the same.

Now, here is why I would love for improvised weapons to be weapons.

I'm going to make a masterwork hot tub. (310 gp)
My Hot tub only does 1d4 damage. Why? Improvised.
Plus it makes the next thing cost cheaper.

I'm going to make it out of ferroplasm so it comes with a +1 Enhancement Bonus and don't have to waste money on buying that useless +1 EB. Objects made out of ferroplasm that only do 1d4 damage cost 2,500 gp. (2,810 gp)
I'm going to buy Flying (+1 Bonus) so now my hot tub has a fly speed of 30 feet, is an animate object, and follows my commands like a skeleton. (4,810 gp)

A giant could pick it up and throw it, so it's an improvised weapon. Since it could only be thrown once, it's ammunition. Ammunition is divides by 50. (97 gp a hot tub)

Now, because I might need to use up a few hot tubs, I'm going to by them with sizing (+1 bonus) (10,810/50=217 gp) and keep a dozen in my pocket.

When I get up in level, I'm going to buy an Icechucker (A weapon that shoots whatever you can load into it.) and I'm going to buy it with quick-loading so it has an extra-dimensional storage space for my ammunition. I'm going to load it up with hot tubs. One Hundred Hot Tubs to be exact.

Me? I'm a psychic Aquatic Elf.
They Call Me...
Lord Prunehands.

I wander the land with my cloud of floating hot tubs that change size. Yea, verily, you know you have offended the deep dwelling fair-folk when a cloud of Colossal Hot Tubs fills your SKY and blots out the SUN.


Yes yes yes, Drop the ferroplasm Cheese, Drop the icechucker cheese, it's still do able. We're only talking about how much it will cost, not if it's possible...

IF you think that improvised weapons are weapons.
You can do the same thing with shuriken.

[russdm]

In my own experience, I see powergaming as an issue, whereas Optimizing is not. Powergaming is usually about trying to win the game, then actually have fun playing it. When you optimize, you are making your character better at what they are trying to do. I really don't get people that call optimizing "roll-playing" and claim that you should only get stuff that reflects what happened in game or whatever because its "role-playing".

I have run games for powergamers before. It sucks, because you are constantly frustrated, they are frustrated despite it being their fault (They have a tendency to blame the DM/GM), and so you decide to quit before you start. Also, you want to murder the players (really). One of my players, who makes characters to win, usually will complain about stuff. Like we are playing Saga Edition and he took Skill Focus Use the Force and he mentioned stuff about how its not "broken". I gave the defense about it, but after his complaints, I just decided to just let him have it.

I usually optimize(min-max, powergame) but to a lesser degree than the others in my playing group. Its really unfun to play with or for powergamers to a degree. But when its the only people you can, because pbp is annoying, is just have to grin and bear it.

[eggynack]

Improvised weapons are objects not crafted to be weapons. Ergo they are not weapons. No bootstrapping involved. Just like an Egg is different from an Eggplant. They both have the word 'Egg', but they are quite different things.
Since when is the definition of weapon, objects crafted to be weapons? None of the definitions I've seen have anything to do with why the thing is made. A weapon is anything you use to beat face with.



If you have a statement that shows that an improvised weapon is a weapon, please show me. I have written the definitive Weapon Handbook and I looked far and wide for such a statement. By RAW, I cannot find anything that indicated that Improvised weapons are weapons. Weapon-Like? Yes. Weapons? No. The statement is right there in the name: improvised weapons. It's categorized right there under weapons, in the subcategory of weapon categories. Weapons, weapons, weapons. For an external citation, see page 28 of Complete Warrior where it says, "When a drunken master rolls a natural 1 on an attack roll while using an improvised weapon, that weapon breaks apart and becomes useless." (bolded for emphasis)

[georgie_leech]

Since when is the definition of weapon, objects crafted to be weapons? None of the definitions I've seen have anything to do with why the thing is made. A weapon is anything you use to beat face with.


I'm not even sure what difference it makes, as I can't remember the original point. Something about the Hardness rules and breaking adamantine with eggshells, and whether or not it can be done without weapons?

[eggynack]

I'm not even sure what difference it makes, as I can't remember the original point. Something about the Hardness rules and breaking adamantine with eggshells, and whether or not it can be done without weapons?
It was rather odd. Even if the definition for weapons were "things built to be weapons," the definition of hardness is not, "Something that can only be hit through with weapons."

[bekeleven]

The problem with optimization is that it often makes unoptimized characters feel useless. Especially when they aren't a tier 1 or 2 class with magical flexibilities.

I often play Martial Adepts for my fighters for the added versatility, or I play Gish the hard way(ie not Duskblade) and often times someone does some raging pouncing LA+1 leaping Martial Adept Druid shifting and or grappling monk dip that cranks can crank out 8d8+80 around levels 10-15 or something similiar. And at the point the fights are either how long it takes him to one shot everything, or the wizard to land a save or suck, where my 2d6+4d6+15 Greatsword maneuvers don't mean anything.

This is a party problem. The entire party should be similar in power (and ideally, versatility). If a party includes a martial adept, it breaks the gentleman's agreement for another party member to play a human cloistered cleric with divine metamagic:Persist or a venerable dragonwrought kobold sorc.

This is not a problem with optimization itself, because optimization can be used to make lower-tier classes equal in power (and versatility) to higher-tier classes that were not as well optimized.

[LordBlades]

In my own experience, I see powergaming as an issue, whereas Optimizing is not. Powergaming is usually about trying to win the game, then actually have fun playing it. When you optimize, you are making your character better at what they are trying to do. I really don't get people that call optimizing "roll-playing" and claim that you should only get stuff that reflects what happened in game or whatever because its "role-playing".


Personally I find the opposite equally of an issue: playing to 'lose' the game, either on purpose or through inaction (not trying to win). Many books/movies/etc. include unlikely heroes, people with either glaring weaknesses or terribly under-qualified for whatever task they're trying to undertake, but which succeed due to plot armor. So, based on this, many people either come with purposefully weak characters or don't worry too much about how strong their characters are, and expect the GM to make sure they get to succeed when it's dramatically appropriate.

[molten_dragon]

in a similar vein

not everyone finds optimization fun.
players that do should respect that.

my group, for instance, has a "play down" rule. the group's 'op level' is limited to the lowest in the group. (or 2nd lowest in the instance of brand new players)

To other people though, not optimizing their characters isn't fun. Why doesn't anyone have to respect that?

It seems like a lot of DMs go this route to fix the problem of having a mixed group of optimizer and non-optimizer players. Why should it always be the optimizers that have to change the way they play to 'respect' the playstyle of someone else?

[molten_dragon]

Well, my biggest problem with it is bottom-up design taken to the max. Essentially, many seem to make characters with its mechanical capabilities in mind first and then justifying them later with a story. I have even done so myself before. Another thing is homogeneousness - everything starts looking the same when people make "the best" choices.

Here is an example. I am currently running a Warforged only campaign, and the players themselves wanted it to be such. One of them was making a melee fighter, and he asked me whether I would allow him to be Dragonborn. I reminded him that the "template" comes with a lot of fluff baggage, and he was genuinely surprised. Thing is, the player seemed to have read min/max boards and seen that this thing called "Dragonborn" basically makes any melee Warforged better. He wanted to make such an extreme modification simply for +2 Con (at the price of 2 Dex). Of course he would have probably made the character's fluff match that of the template - and it would probably have been very superficial in this case. As I said, bottom-up.

When he took a two level dip of Lion Totem (CC) / Wold Totem (UA) Barbarian, I asked him to provide me with a totem animal that combines the pouncing strategy of the Lion and the tripping strategy of a wolf (he got Pounce and Improved Trip from the dip). He came up with a "Leolupus" which is a lion-wolf. No description beyond that. Really, I was almost ready to tell him to pike it. Such is the superficiality I am referring to.

That's not really so much a problem with bottom up design as with an unimaginative player. You can make complex characters with good backstories from the bottom up. It might take a bit more effort, but it can be done.

And the totem animal is the fleshraker of course.

[georgie_leech]

To other people though, not optimizing their characters isn't fun. Why doesn't anyone have to respect that?

It seems like a lot of DMs go this route to fix the problem of having a mixed group of optimizer and non-optimizer players. Why should it always be the optimizers that have to change the way they play to 'respect' the playstyle of someone else?

For the same reason you'd expect the NFL players to dumb it down when they're playing with their friends? It's a lot harder to play above your level than it is to play at a lower one.

[Hecuba]

I stick to the Latin, as the rest is all Greek to me, but what was the Greek translation for the Argumentum terms? Looking at the translation, I kind of am betting that the reductios are kept separate.

I'm sure modern translation has established a pattern, but I'm not sure there is one in the classical context: the Greek terms tend not to include words meaning argument or anything similar.
Argumentum ad Hominem, is pros ton anthropon -- "against the man".
Argumentum ad lapidem, in contrast, is merely apodiokein -- "to drive away."

*I should mention that I'm being lazy and not properly accenting my transliterations.

[Lord Raziere]

heh, I've created a sorcerer with more intelligence than charisma, and thus optimization sacrilege. and I don't care. because you build characters to build characters, not to win. it shouldn't matter what build you make after all, the DM should be making challenges appropriate to the character, and therefore it shouldn't matter how optimized or unoptimized you make them, because there is no actual objective standard for the challenges your character will face.

therefore, optimization doesn't matter. make an intentionally weak character and the DM will come up with a challenge so that the character will win somehow anyways. make a strong character, and the challenges will just be upped to match so that they are just as hard. your not actually making yourself better than the challenges around you, your just telling the DM to up the challenge temperature to match your own.

therefore make whatever character you want, regardless of optimization. why bother? it will change nothing.

[LordBlades]

therefore make whatever character you want, regardless of optimization. why bother? it will change nothing.

Maybe because it's fun?

Or maybe because some people want some semblance of verisimilitude where the world isn't suddenly filled with incompetents just because the protagonist is incompetent?

[Greenish]

it shouldn't matter what build you make after all, the DM should be making challenges appropriate to the character, and therefore it shouldn't matter how optimized or unoptimized you make them, because there is no actual objective standard for the challenges your character will face.Not everyone plays only single-player campaigns, though.

[123456789blaaa]

heh, I've created a sorcerer with more intelligence than charisma, and thus optimization sacrilege. and I don't care. because you build characters to build characters, not to win. it shouldn't matter what build you make after all, the DM should be making challenges appropriate to the character, and therefore it shouldn't matter how optimized or unoptimized you make them, because there is no actual objective standard for the challenges your character will face.

therefore, optimization doesn't matter. make an intentionally weak character and the DM will come up with a challenge so that the character will win somehow anyways. make a strong character, and the challenges will just be upped to match so that they are just as hard. your not actually making yourself better than the challenges around you, your just telling the DM to up the challenge temperature to match your own.

therefore make whatever character you want, regardless of optimization. why bother? it will change nothing.

For me-and I think most people who optimize- I don't optimize because I want something after I do so. I optimize because the act of optimizing- of searching though books, finding out combinations, seeing how different pieces fit together and so on - is fun. Optimization might have side benefits like making combat more tactically interesting but those are just that: side benefits. I think there would be far less optimizers around if nobody optimized for fun.

[Talderas]

personally, i optimize based on a theme for my character. i.e.: creating captain america. Then i optimize to get as much oomf as i can out of that idea.

This is pretty much the point of optimizing in D&D. The built in chassis for doing anything in D&D other than what a class is directly designed for is pretty terrible and sometimes the class itself is terrible at what it's designed to do. Any time someone throws out the term "roll-player", usually with the word "role-player" hovering around nearby, it's a prime indication to me that the individual has a very weak grasp of the system along with the respective floors and ceilings for a given class.

--


It's actively unpleasant to botch things up that badly or to play a character that I know is built badly and force myself to continue to mess up even worse at every level. I wanted to make an effective character, and I did, and now the entire party is being punished for it and ruining the entire reason I came to the game.

If it's any consolation, if I was playing with you as one of those players I would have a hard time stopping myself from giggling maniacly at that.

My group will sometimes call me quick too quick on changing characters but in general you can see how well a character will work very quickly. I made a totemist once, under the erroneous mindset that what was great about them was the ability to switch up everything every day. Well we got into a narrow environment where one of the players decided to use grease and my character was pretty much entirely useless. Everyone else was able to tumble past the grease. A melee character wearing half plate with no tumble skill and a 10ft section of grease between the enemy and him. I played no useful part to that encounter. I ditched that character at the soonest convenience for an archer.

I built this totemist under the assumption that I would and could change soulmelds every day. Yes, I could have focused on a manticore belt and had a vastly different outcome for that battle but the problem was always a matter of not knowing what would be faced for the day when selecting soulmelds. My choice, I had quickly realized, created an absurd situation that made it pointlessly difficult for the DM to effectively build encounters that would permit all party members to contribute.

Now, in another game that hasn't yet seen an encounter (play by post board and the GM did not start us off in a group so we'll see how that goes) I went threw a couple revisions that ultimately landed with me dual-wielding whips. I was permitted to use Whip master from PF and there's some house rules in place that make this more viable. Anyway, in this case I know my potential is seeing up to 7 foes tripped and disarmed in a single combat round meaning a rather large zone of control but not necessarilily a high damage output. I have yet to see this character perform in combat.

--


i'm not going to act like a complete idiot and cripple myself, either, just so that YOU can feel like you are awesomely powerful playing your crossbow barbarian or whatever.

Can I siggy this?

--


I've never cared for optimization.
The players are usually "That Guy"
People who map out a career of 5 classes over 15-20 levels aren't playing a character they are generating numbers.
Not to mention they usually want to enter into esoteric classes that have conflicting ideologies or just ignore entry requirements like finding that group of secretive occult clerics or devoting your life to X, or being invited by someone willing to vouch for you and train you. It usually goes something like Oh I'm lvl 6 now. Time to take a 2 level dip into X.

I'm just going to point to a point I made earlier and reiterate. D&D has a poor chassis for performing certain ideas and the lower your starting character level the more likely you're going to need to run about making class dips to get all the pieces need to just be passable at your idea.

--


And back to topic - when you boost your checks to the point that you simply may deny reality and thus you feel safe to do various absurd things like "i steal his pants" then you should remember that such behavior is funny only first time. After few more examples of such acts others (especially DM) might feel offended simply because they try to actually roleplay, and you are simply destroying session by showing off.

That's why the next time you steal his pants AND his underwear. Then the third time you steal his pants, his underwear, and his wife.

[Snowbluff]

3.5 is a system that works best with character building. You must be lost if you think this is not a system where optimization belongs. I think I can help. I would try going here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=60) or here. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=58)

[Firechanter]

I haven't read the entire thread, just skimmed through it here and there. But I am familiar with the typical problems.

First off, for me, "optimization" is not a bad thing, it's a fun thing. I refuse to think of "powergamer / powergaming" as bad words. A powergamer, to me, is someone who wants to be _good_ at a game. And there's nothing wrong with that. I like to call myself a powergamer (albeit not an extremely skilled optimizer, compared to many people on these boards).

Not to be confused with "Munchkin", mind you. It's not hard to break 3.5. So I ask everyone not to do it.

I am also an avid proponent of the Tier system, as it has helped me a lot in understanding what's going on. Whereas earlier, I could only stand by helplessly and wonder how it could be that a Cleric kicks my Rangers ass into the middle of next week.

Nowadays, I consider T3 to be the sweet spot that I want to play (or DM). Really good at one or two things, but not totally helpless when these things are momentarily not available. And not able to break the game in stride.
Ideally, each character should have a niche in combat, and also be able to do something outside combat.

I want all characters to have roughly the same powerlevel. And no, "I am super-powerful but voluntarily hold back until my Win Button is really needed" does NOT cut the mustard for me!
There was an example of this stated on page 2 or 3 of this thread, the respective players acting all surprised when people were not happy about this behaviour. What these players fail to acknowledge is that they can press their I Win button ANYTIME and thus take over the game ANYTIME, effectively reducing their fellow players to water-carriers, because it makes no frigging difference whether they are even there or not.

On the other hand, I also don't like to consciously make less-than-optimal characters. This is where it gets difficult, striking the right balance. I don't want to take a T1 class and have to gimp it until it's T3, I want a class that is T3 to begin with, so I can have fun _optimizing_ it. Not silly-optimizing, mind you, but in a way that's coherent with the setting and theme of the campaign.