What is "WotC-op"?

[Melville's Book]

I've seen the term thrown around a lot, but I have no idea what it means. Is it just optimizing using only stuff published by Wizards of the Coast? Or is it, like, optimizing to the level WotC generally expects you to?

... And while on the topic, what level of optimization does Wizards generally expect? The CR of non-core monsters had to come from some baseline.

[toapat]

its a refference to how basically, no matter what book it was, the Wizard got new material to play with. Even in the books that were supposed to be supporting the mundanes. It suggests that WotC had alot of bias towards wizards.

WotC's balancing is for:

A Fighter primarily using the WF line

A Rogue

A cleric who uses healing spells and doesnt buff

A wizard who throws offensive spells.

[marcielle]

You can check out pre-stated Iconic characters from various DnD books. That's more or less what they expect. Elminster and Drizzt are particularly hilarious.
https://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=fr/fx20010117d
Even his gear is laughable. And note that if anyone had excuse to have access to a magic mart, it would be the guy who had an entire dwarven kingdom, 2 arcane brotherhoods, one of the most powerful clerics in Faerun and a Drow black market leader to call upon.
Can't seem to find Elm again, but let's just say the only reason he could do half the things he did was massive plot armor.

[Big Fau]

Can't seem to find Elm again, but let's just say the only reason he could do half the things he did was massive plot armor.

His stats are in the ELH/FRCS (buried by all of the other NPCs that book spent an entire chapter stating out). And yes, they are terrible.

[Zanos]

You can check out pre-stated Iconic characters from various DnD books. That's more or less what they expect. Elminster and Drizzt are particularly hilarious.
https://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=fr/fx20010117d
Even his gear is laughable. And note that if anyone had excuse to have access to a magic mart, it would be the guy who had an entire dwarven kingdom, 2 arcane brotherhoods, one of the most powerful clerics in Faerun and a Drow black market leader to call upon.
Can't seem to find Elm again, but let's just say the only reason he could do half the things he did was massive plot armor.

Both of those NPCs were stated after they were written, so how bad they are is sort of out of WotC control. Yeah they could have made them better, but big E DID have training has a cleric and a rogue. In any case he still had 20+ levels of wizard, so it's not like it mattered 95% of the time.

[Vhaidara]

His stats are in the ELH/FRCS (buried by all of the other NPCs that book spent an entire chapter stating out). And yes, they are terrible.

Terrible but hilarious. Elminster is Fighter 1/Rogue 2/Cleric 3/Wizard 24/Archmage 5.

Szass Tam, the leader of the Red Wizards, is something like Necromancer 10/Red Wizard 10/Archmage 3/ Epic 7. That's his class line from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting.

[MirddinEmris]

You can check out pre-stated Iconic characters from various DnD books. That's more or less what they expect. Elminster and Drizzt are particularly hilarious.
https://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=fr/fx20010117d
Even his gear is laughable. And note that if anyone had excuse to have access to a magic mart, it would be the guy who had an entire dwarven kingdom, 2 arcane brotherhoods, one of the most powerful clerics in Faerun and a Drow black market leader to call upon.
Can't seem to find Elm again, but let's just say the only reason he could do half the things he did was massive plot armor.

That is more of a "bad conversion" case, than a bad optimisation. In ADnD 2ed he was quite good, it's just that his main fighting style is extremely suboptimal in 3.5

[MirddinEmris]

Terrible but hilarious. Elminster is Fighter 1/Rogue 2/Cleric 3/Wizard 24/Archmage 5.

Szass Tam, the leader of the Red Wizards, is something like Necromancer 10/Red Wizard 10/Archmage 3/ Epic 7. That's his class line from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting.

I can't see how 27 level caster can be terrible, even with a few unreasonable dips. :smallsmile:

[Vhaidara]

I can't see how 27 level caster can be terrible, even with a few unreasonable dips. :smallsmile:

29th level . And he's one of the good ones.

My friends and I decided that Szass Tam's 7 levels in Epic give him the benefit of 7 levels in every base class for the price of 7 levels.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

It basically means WotC's idea of optimization, which means optimizing characters for their intended but suboptimal roles of Healer-Cleric, Toe-To-Toe-Fighter, Blaster-Wizard, and Sneakster-Rogue.

In practical optimization, the Cleric buffs, the Fighter trips and dungeoncrashes, the Wizard crowd controls and solves problems, and the Rogue UMDs and hides in plain sight. In WotC optimization, the Cleric heals during combat, the Fighter stands there trading full attacks with giants and dragons, the Wizard uses spells to deal damage, and the Rogue may fire a few shots but he's really only there because the arbitrary rules make it so only he can find the nonsensical traps which are worth ten times more than the combined loot of the entire dungeon.

[ericgrau]

its a refference to how basically, no matter what book it was, the Wizard got new material to play with. Even in the books that were supposed to be supporting the mundanes. It suggests that WotC had alot of bias towards wizards.

WotC's balancing is for:

A Fighter primarily using the WF line

A Rogue

A cleric who uses healing spells and doesnt buff

A wizard who throws offensive spells.
Though if you read the online guides on the WotC website none of that is true. They tell you how to use special attacks on fighters, battlefield control spells on wizards and encourage unusual spells and tactics in general. I noticed LogicNinja flagrantly stole his examples from WotC guides written a couple years before.

It's a weird stereotype of WotC that keeps escalating in discussions.

[docnessuno]

Yeah, i agree that most WotC NPCs are kinda laughable, but that doesn't prevent DMs to re-build them from scratch.

In MY Faerun Elminster is:

Human Chosen of Mystra
Cloistered cleric 4 / Wizard 4 / Mystic theurge 10 / Dweomerkeeper (Wizard) 10 / Epic theurge 6

[ZeroNumerous]

Though if you read the online guides on the WotC website none of that is true.

And yet the books--the parts we actually care about because they decide the rules by which the game is played--are written as if Heal-Cleric, Damage-Wizard, Big Stupid Fighter, and the Spoony Bard/Rogue/Pick-your-albatross is the gold standard.


Yeah, i agree that most WotC NPCs are kinda laughable, but that doesn't prevent DMs to re-build them from scratch.

In MY Faerun Elminster is:

You have a point.

NPCs should be rebuilt and re-stated.

For example: Elminster should be dead, so that the player characters can actually be important rather than footnotes in Elminster Saves The World... Again By Deekin Scalesinger.

[VoxRationis]

and the Rogue may fire a few shots but he's really only there because the arbitrary rules make it so only he can find the nonsensical traps which are worth ten times more than the combined loot of the entire dungeon.
The traps are only nonsensical if you pay too much attention to the DMG price rules, which probably exist to prevent players from setting traps up everywhere rather than to be an actual in-game representation of crafting prices. It's entirely reasonable that the areas adventurers frequent be filled with traps, in most cases.
1) Monster hideouts/orc lairs/similar things: Trap-light by necessity, since people need to live in these areas, but you can still find places to stick deadly traps that won't endanger the inhabitants.
2) Ancient crypts and vaults: When these places were designed, the traps were generally the majority of the encounters within them. Most people don't mean for their ancient tombs to be filled with undead; the undead just sort of crop up.
3) Natural caverns: Okay, so this area should generally be trap free, but with the things listed as living "Underground," I would have the intelligent inhabitants of such areas put traps around their camps every night (otherwise, you wouldn't be able to apply the word "intelligent" to them).
4) Outdoor environments: Historically, the most common places to find traps, both for hunting and guerilla warfare.

[Vhaidara]

You have a point.

NPCs should be rebuilt and re-stated.

For example: Elminster should be dead, so that the player characters can actually be important rather than footnotes in Elminster Saves The World... Again By Deekin Scalesinger.

I read that one! I love that author, and hope he publishes again.

[Story]

Though if you read the online guides on the WotC website none of that is true. They tell you how to use special attacks on fighters, battlefield control spells on wizards and encourage unusual spells and tactics in general. I noticed LogicNinja flagrantly stole his examples from WotC guides written a couple years before.

It's a weird stereotype of WotC that keeps escalating in discussions.

Sure they pay lip service to it, but it's clear that they didn't consider any of it when "balancing" the classes.

[ericgrau]

They tell you in great detail how to do it and don't really talk much about thwacking, healbotting and blasting...

It would be nice if anyone actually quoted WotC as saying what they think WotC thinks.

Here's the 3.5 archive: https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/archives
Rules of the Game and Tactics and Tips have a lot of it.

It's also pretty easy to make fun of whatever they happen to say, because everyone has different opinions. But to actually find that they say exactly what you think they say is quite a bit harder.

[Starbuck_II]

The traps are only nonsensical if you pay too much attention to the DMG price rules, which probably exist to prevent players from setting traps up everywhere rather than to be an actual in-game representation of crafting prices. It's entirely reasonable that the areas adventurers frequent be filled with traps, in most cases.


What abuse would reasonable price of traps create? I seriously wonder.

[Brookshw]

Yeah, i agree that most WotC NPCs are kinda laughable, but that doesn't prevent DMs to re-build them from scratch.

In MY Faerun Elminster is:

Human Chosen of Mystra
Cloistered cleric 4 / Wizard 4 / Mystic theurge 10 / Dweomerkeeper (Wizard) 10 / Epic theurge 6

I've always felt that the npcs were deliberately unop to reinforce the pcs as the stars, it kinda makes people feel good to say "I could make a much better character", and helps keep npcs sorta relevant and not overshadowing in casual/new player games, which is how a lot of people approach the hobby.

Good El build though to be fair to wotc the fighter/rogue is part of his Canon backstory.

[Story]

It would be nice if anyone actually quoted WotC as saying what they think WotC thinks.


Ok if you want a specific example, how about SKR's feat points article, where he thinks that Natural Spell is a terrible feat and Skill Focus is really awesome?

Or the fact that the books constantly talk about the classes as if they are equal and balanced?

[ericgrau]

Here's an example WotC session I found at random:
https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/tt/20050809a

Spells involved were power word stun, heroes' feast, greater spell immunity (after planning and figuring out enemy SLAs), blasphemy (default balor ability I think), fire storm (default balor ability I think), greater dispel, fly, quickened true-strike-manyshot, unholy aura buff, implosion (default balor ability?), moment of prescience, revivify, greater teleport (deafult balor ability ofcourse), fortunate fate. Tons and tons of buffs, plus strategic spells. Only direct damage spell was a default balor ability. Only heal mentioned triggered off of the fortunate fate buff.

It's not news that every opinion ever made on D&D by anyone has someone in another forum that strongly disagrees, or that by picking through opinions you can find some bad ones. But to say in general that all WotC thought about with spells was blasting and healbotting is pretty ridiculous.

Something more useful and to the point would be to quote or link to a WotC playtesting session. I've seen 1,000 claims about what the playtesting was like but never any references. I'd be genuinely curious to know what it was like.

[Flickerdart]

I don't think it's unfair to say that while WotC eventually came around to recognizing that there are more than the four characters they playtested that can exist in the system, it took them a long time to get around to it. The linked article was published 2 years into the run of the game, for instance.

[BrokenChord]

I don't think it's unfair to say that while WotC eventually came around to recognizing that there are more than the four characters they playtested that can exist in the system, it took them a long time to get around to it. The linked article was published 2 years into the run of the game, for instance.

Basic early WotC logic: These things are both called classes and these things are both called feats, so they must be equal. So any possible party of the same level must be balanced, we don't even need to test multiple parties.

[Magikeeper]

Here's an example WotC session I found at random:
https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/tt/20050809a

That is from 2005 - It's not like WotC never learned from their mistakes. The PHB classes were the ones that suffered the most from what their initial views of what was optimized play. Which in turn was a hold over from 2E, where much of their optimization was actually valid (or so I hear). WotC just didn't notice that their rules changes had severely changed how an optimal caster should act*.

*Much more HP, much higher save DCs, the concentration skill (did not exist at all in 2E), standard action casting times, drawback removal, etc.

[tyckspoon]

It's not news that every opinion ever made on D&D by anyone has someone in another forum that strongly disagrees, or that by picking through opinions you can find some bad ones. But to say in general that all WotC thought about with spells was blasting and healbotting is pretty ridiculous.


On the one hand, the prepwork is pretty good. On the other, the party had a Combat Medic Cleric with Vow of Nonviolence, a Fighter/Elocator, and the main damage output prior to the Barbarian lucking out with two crits in the same round was the Wizard *shooting it with his bow.* The Wizard had Many Shot and was using Quickened True Strike to get hits. That doesn't exactly sound like they figured out how to optimize their game, and their strategy didn't extend beyond "What do we have to do to not get insta-gibbed as soon as we roll initiative?" Without those crits, the Balor probably would have just resorted to physically beating the crud out of the party one by one.

[ericgrau]

Quickened true strike many shot was actually suggested in a recent thread. It's a solid 30-40 damage in a fight where each of 4 characters should expect to put in 25 damage per round. Ideally a level 16 character could expect to do more, but not against the balor's AC, DR, SR and energy resistance. Especially at range without threat of a counter-full-attack instadropping you. The cleric contributed most of the buffs. For 16th & 17th level taking down a balor with no casualties is difficult.

I would like to see more references. All I have are the 3.5 archives and I've only read a few. The one I just linked to I pulled up at random; I hadn't seen it before.

[Urpriest]

Quickened true strike many shot was actually suggested in a recent thread. It's a solid 30-40 damage in a fight where each of 4 characters should expect to put in 25 damage per round. Ideally a level 16 character could expect to do more, but not against the balor's AC, DR, SR and energy resistance. The cleric contributed most of the buffs. For 16th & 17th level taking down a balor with no casualties is difficult.

I would like to see more references. All I have are the 3.5 archives and I've only read a few. The one I just linked to I pulled up at random; I hadn't seen it before.

In terms of references, take a look at the iconic characters at the end of Enemies and Allies. I've been told those were used in the original playtest.

[Karnith]

I would like to see more references. All I have are the 3.5 archives and I've only read a few. The one I just linked to I pulled up at random; I hadn't seen it before.
The Player's Handbook II goes to great lengths to describe the typical/classic adventuring group (i.e. the Fighter, the blasting Wizard, the healing/buffing Cleric, and the skillmonkey Rogue), and also describes how deviating from said group can cause a lot problems. Is that the kind of thing you're looking for?

[ericgrau]

(looks it up) PHB2 seems to be promoting a buffing and fighting cleric specifically telling you how to get around the chore of healbotting, a wizard that both destroys foes and overcomes obstacles, and melee that can overcome a variety of challenges when possible...

[Karnith]

(looks it up) PHB2 seems to be promoting a buffing and fighting cleric specifically telling you how to get around the chore of healbotting, a wizard that both destroys foes and overcomes obstacles, and melee that can overcome a variety of challenges when possible...
I am not taking sides in this debate (though, apparently, you did not come away with the same impression that I did); I am asking if those are the kinds of descriptions that you are looking for in this discussion. I was not sure if you were looking for descriptions of actual WotC play sessions, or if general playstyle advice or expectations were also valid evidence.

[Aharon]

Here's an example WotC session I found at random:
https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/tt/20050809a

Spells involved were power word stun, heroes' feast, greater spell immunity (after planning and figuring out enemy SLAs), blasphemy (default balor ability I think), fire storm (default balor ability I think), greater dispel, fly, quickened true-strike-manyshot, unholy aura buff, implosion (default balor ability?), moment of prescience, revivify, greater teleport (deafult balor ability ofcourse), fortunate fate. Tons and tons of buffs, plus strategic spells. Only direct damage spell was a default balor ability. Only heal mentioned triggered off of the fortunate fate buff.

It's not news that every opinion ever made on D&D by anyone has someone in another forum that strongly disagrees, or that by picking through opinions you can find some bad ones. But to say in general that all WotC thought about with spells was blasting and healbotting is pretty ridiculous.

Something more useful and to the point would be to quote or link to a WotC playtesting session. I've seen 1,000 claims about what the playtesting was like but never any references. I'd be genuinely curious to know what it was like.

From the article you quoted:

Having suffered some damage from a quickened true strike-laced Manyshot of cold iron arrows from the party wizard's holy bow

This sounds pretty low-op. The best action a wizard(!) capable of casting eights level spells can take is using a quickened true strike and then attack for 2d8+4d6 dmg? Hell, to even have manyshot, the wizard must have also taken PBS and Rapid Shot.On a gish, that might be ok, but this isn't a gish, but a pure wizard! Plus, he spent money on (or got as part of the loot) a holy bow - at least 18.000 gp of the wizards 260.000 gp budget.

We don't see much of the cleric's action, but since she has the combat medic PrC, it's likely that it's a healbot. Hammer of Moradin is a PrC that requires 2nd level casting, but doesn't advance it - also not very optimized.

[HaikenEdge]

Seeing that it was a CR appropriate encounter (Balors are CR 20, and the article strictly mentions the characters are level 16 & 17) and not just some lower-level characters chancing upon a Balor, why exactly is the wizard casting quickened True Strike and not casting some no-save, no-SR, no-roll, just suck spell? Why is the wizard even plinking away with a bow?

I mean, these level 16 and 17 characters certainly don't seem to be played like 16th and 17th level characters.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

The traps are only nonsensical if you pay too much attention to the DMG price rules, which probably exist to prevent players from setting traps up everywhere rather than to be an actual in-game representation of crafting prices. It's entirely reasonable that the areas adventurers frequent be filled with traps, in most cases.

The only abuse of traps I've seen is salvaging mechanical trap components to sell, because often it more than doubles the loot value of the dungeon by doing so.

Making mechanical traps expensive (and thus having a lengthy craft time) is just silly, and doesn't affect the prices of truly abusable spell traps.

Plus arbitrarily making it so someone without Trapfinding cannot find or remove traps with a DC above 20, just so that one class will have a purpose for being in the party, is one of the worst ideas I've ever seen in a game system.

[ericgrau]

I am not taking sides in this debate (though, apparently, you did not come away with the same impression that I did); I am asking if those are the kinds of descriptions that you are looking for in this discussion. I was not sure if you were looking for descriptions of actual WotC play sessions, or if general playstyle advice or expectations were also valid evidence.
Sorry, I couldn't tell intent. I'm sure any info is great whether it's spot on or merely related. I think this thread is about what WotC intends people to play. And ya, I think that chapter from the PHB 2 is pretty good info.

Anyway here's the PHB 2 cleric as an example:


Cleric: The cleric is undoubtedly among the most effective characters in the game. With the right spells, he can rival even warriors in combat, and no character is more effective against undead. When you add unique domain abilities and the ability to heal others spontaneously, the cleric easily becomes one of the most important characters in the party.

Even so, playing a cleric can sometimes seem like a chore. Because your companions look to you to fix all their troubles, you might feel more like the party first-aid kit than a fullfledged member of the group. While it’s true that no party would last long without your cures, you’re far more than a simple healing factory. Your ability to fight and cast potent spells coupled with your access to abilities that no other character has ensure that you remain among the more powerful characters in the game.


I suppose the wizard destroying foes and overcoming obstacles might be considered blasting and utility, but it could really be anything offensive plus utility.

[Story]

I don't think it's unfair to say that while WotC eventually came around to recognizing that there are more than the four characters they playtested that can exist in the system, it took them a long time to get around to it. The linked article was published 2 years into the run of the game, for instance.

And some designers never got the message.

But it is clear that they learned over time, given the existence of stuff like ToB.

[Karnith]

Sorry, I couldn't tell intent. I'm sure any info is good whether it's spot on or merely related. I think this thread is about what WotC intends people to play.

Anyway here's the PHB 2 cleric as an example:There is also the section section about what to do when a party doesn't have members of a particular class/role; the section about not having a divine caster is almost entirely about finding other sources of healing, for example (the other Cleric abilities mentioned are turning undead and divinations). Their advice for playing a Druid mostly focuses on making sure that you have healing magic at the ready, though shapechanging and summoning also got a mention.

They did (at least partially) recognize the CoDzilla aspects of primary divine casters. In the section on parties without primary melee types, the book mentions that "clerics and druids are competent warriors in their own right," though it doesn't mention that such characters are often stronger than their mundane counterparts.

I suppose the wizard destroying foes and overcoming obstacles might be considered blasting and utility, but it could really be anything offensive plus utility.I think that they had blasting in mind, given most of their example spells and some other surrounding text. The arcane spells actually mentioned by name are fireball, lightning bolt, magic missile, and charm person (with more general references to summoning spells and spells that "transport your allies past obstructions and obstacles," which I guess means teleportation?). The advice for substituting a Sorcerer for a Wizard, for instance, is to "focus on total offense ... bombard your enemies with a barrage of damaging spells." The section on parties without an arcane caster mentions that a cleric "can at least provide some damage-dealing divine magic."

That said, the advice is for the most part general enough that it could well apply to a lot of things; most of the advice applies about as well to BFC and SoL effects as it does to blasting. In the aforementioned section on parties without an arcane caster, for example, a main downside is that the party will lack "the means to eliminate large numbers of foes," which could apply fairly equally to AoE blasting, BFC, or SoL effects (though the intent was probably blasting, given the choice of the word "eliminate").

[ericgrau]

I see, ya, that's bad for a sorcerer. The wizard does say to go for a good mix of spells but that seems to be referring to utility not BFC.

Missing warrior says its the most disposable since others can melee. Also to consider druid.
Missing expert says use other classes that have some skills and/or utility spells
Missing arcane says the wizard takes on crowds and magical foes, and to try UMD and/or a half-caster.
Missing divine immediately suggests wands of CLW to compensate for the missing healing but says the cost can add up (which is true at mid level but not high level). They suggest half-healers to cut costs. Next they bring up the lack of divination. Buffs and melee don't get mentioned here but they do get mentioned rather strongly in the cleric section. I think that's because other classes have them too, not because clerics don't do them. And this is a section on what you lose not what you get.

I was rather surprised to have a level 5 ranger burn through almost an entire 50 charge CLW wand in a 3 man party in only a single long gaming session. My wand was the only source of healing. So I kinda see the point there. I've never had a wand or staff burn out before or after that, but on those characters I had other spells too.