To optimize or not to optimize

[Thuphinlok]

That is the question. I've been on these forums (lurking longer than posting) for a while now, and I constantly see peopling building HUGE characters. The question I want to put out there is, do you really use these guys in games? The planar shepherd? The cancer Mage? Do these shenanigans actually see play time? Or are they just a fun past time to see how well you can combine all these different powers to blow stuff up?

[heavyfuel]

That is the question. I've been on these forums (lurking longer than posting) for a while now, and I constantly see peopling building HUGE characters. The question I want to put out there is, do you really use these guys in games? The planar shepherd? The cancer Mage? Do these shenanigans actually see play time? Or are they just a fun past time to see how well you can combine all these different powers to blow stuff up?

It really depends on the power level of your table. If you have one guy playing a Weapon Focus Fighter, the other as a Healer Cleric, and the third is a TWF Rogue. Yeah, a Planar Shepherd won't be very welcome, and is likely to be banned by the DM.

But if you're playing with someone like Tippy, these kinds of builds are pretty expected.

Also, a DM, you can use these builds (with some restriction, of course) against your players. Maybe the Twice Betrayer of Shar is the BBEG of your campaign. So they still see some play.

[ddude987]

Also keep in mind, at least with things like Planar Shepard, the player doesn't have to pick a broken overpowering plane. As a DM I wouldn't ban the PrC outright, but would work with a player if they wanted to take it for flavor reasons, like say they have a pyromaniac druid or whatnot.

[Kazyan]

Some optimization is just for optimization's sake and learning about the game. This is why you see people suggesting TO in PO threads; it's not about the actual game, but the hypothetical game.

[Necroticplague]

That is the question. I've been on these forums (lurking longer than posting) for a while now, and I constantly see peopling building HUGE characters. The question I want to put out there is, do you really use these guys in games? The planar shepherd? The cancer Mage? Do these shenanigans actually see play time? Or are they just a fun past time to see how well you can combine all these different powers to blow stuff up?

It depends, in multiple ways. A lot of the tricks don't see actual play because they eat up enormous amounts of game time that nobody cares to (for example, cancer mage shenanigans take days on end, artificers require months of time to craft, wizards spends a few hours to scry out future enemies). Others, because they require relatively permissive reading of the rules that an actual DM might not use (I've never had a DM who agreed that divine minion->MoMF was a valid option). And a good chunk of actually used builds are simpler, because they require less bookeeping, but are weaker (sorceror instead of wizard, because having to prep spells ahead of time is a pain in the butt). And almost always, builds in actual play are moderated to the power level of the group their played in (I'm not busting out the Rainbow Beguilersnake unless my friend is a Planar Sheperd (reign of dreams)).

[Thuphinlok]

Ok, so then question 1.b. . . Do you LIKE playing these PO builds? Personally I like to make chars that don't really work well, unless they are played right (mostly, the picture in my head). As an example, my most in depth build so far is a monk with a home brew draconic bloodline, with a few lvls of swordsage at the end. I know monk is thought of poorly on this site, but I like them, and this particular guy is my main man.
I guess I am just wondering how often games are played at the PO level as opposed to the 'normal' level.

[Kazudo]

There isn't really a "normal level". There are only varying degrees of optimization. This is evident in that a straight druid is one of the more optimized builds in the game, and all you did was just write "Druid X" on your sheet.

The "zero-degree" level of optimization could almost be referred to as anti-optimization. Picking Monk isn't enough to be totally unoptimized, picking Monk and dumping any of your MAD stats and taking races that give penalties and feat selections that are just not synchronized at all. That would be it.

The point I'm getting at is that it takes almost as much work if not more to build an intentionally unoptimized build as it does to optimize one once you've been in the optimization community. It changes your way of thinking entirely and makes certain things hard to ignore. It's like being an engineer or architect and walking around buildings. You can't help but think about things differently.

There are really just "optimization thresholds" that a group should take into effect when dealing with what's appropriate at a table. As previously mentioned, if you're the only optimizer at the table, you might not roll something up that's horribly optimized. Sure, your build might be a bit more streamlined than others and pretty good at what it does, but it won't break the tier levels.

[ddude987]

Again, it depends on the game, your party and DM. Working well is subjective to what the DM plays against the party. If the average to-hit score in the party is +Y, and the DM wants a X% chance to hit on average for the players against monsters, than he can reverse engineer the monsters saves and AC. Bob the fighter, who has more to-hit than average, will hit more often, and Steve the rogue, who has average, will hit average. Realistically, anything "works" if the power level is similar across the board for players, and the DM crafts encounters to meet and challenge that power level.

edit: swordsaged. Very concise and well put answer Kazudo.

That said, to answer your question, I, as a player, enjoy playing semi-optimal builds. This doesn't always mean I play a tier 1 class, but whatever I feel like playing, I tend to make it as effective as I feel like with whatever constraints I must work under.

[heavyfuel]

Ok, so then question 1.b. . . Do you LIKE playing these PO builds?

Not really. The group I play/DM is on the lower end of the optimization spectrum. Hell, about half of them still thought the monk was the best PHB class until I dared them to duel against a Cleric (Twice Betrayer).

So no, I don't really like these builds because they can break the game if the DM isn't really experienced and rule-savvy, and that just makes the game not fun. If you can end every encounter and challenge the DM throws at you with a single (or ten) round(s), then the "game" just becomes a series of you owning everyone and everything. Not the best of fun in my book.

[torrasque666]

Eh. I just kinda build organically. Take what I want. Does this mean that my build is sub-optimal? Probably. Do I have fun with these builds? Yes, until someone comes in who followed a handbook or other High-Op resource.

[Red Fel]

Ok, so then question 1.b. . . Do you LIKE playing these PO builds? Personally I like to make chars that don't really work well, unless they are played right (mostly, the picture in my head). As an example, my most in depth build so far is a monk with a home brew draconic bloodline, with a few lvls of swordsage at the end. I know monk is thought of poorly on this site, but I like them, and this particular guy is my main man.
I guess I am just wondering how often games are played at the PO level as opposed to the 'normal' level.

Well, here's the thing. A lot of the optimization proposed is either TO (theoretical optimization, technically possible by RAW but highly unlikely to fly in a game) or high-end PO (practical optimization, less RAW-torturous but still highly optimized).

At a low-to-mid optimization table, neither TO nor high-end PO is likely to fly very well, simply because even well-designed PO tends to drive DMs mad running in circles while a highly effective character cracks the plot wide open like an overripe cantaloupe.

But PO isn't just high-end PO. There are, in my experience, strata of optimization. Yes, TO is basically the highest-end optimization you can get (except for Tippy-level optimization, which is to TO what TO is to PO), but PO is more diverse. And there is certainly mid-level PO, if you know how to ask and what you're getting.

Basically, mid-level PO comes into play when someone imposes limits on an idea. For example, in many of my build threads, I would propose rules such as: Limitation on sources No Dark Chaos Shuffle cheese Alignment limits Race, template, and LA limits Limited number of sources/classes Emphasis on no/low cheese
This tells those who participate what your level of optimization is. For example, if I asked for a melee build with secondary casting, Elf race, no templates, using only PHB, DMG, MIC and Completes, I've substantially narrowed the band of optimization. If I say something like "no more than three classes" or "no more than four books used, total," I've narrowed it further.

The end result is still optimized. It's still a character designed to do something well. But by limiting the degree of optimization, you can achieve mid-level PO that is still playable, won't overwhelm the table, and yet manages to do what you want.

And it's fun.

All that said, there are a number of people who play in mid-to-high-optimization games with mid-to-high-optimization players and DMs. For those people, high-level PO is the expected norm. It does happen, often among veterans, and it can be very intense. Those games tend to be more lethal, and less unforgiving, but they also tend to be much higher power. It happens.

For the rest of us, there's mid-level PO.

[Amphetryon]

That is the question. I've been on these forums (lurking longer than posting) for a while now, and I constantly see peopling building HUGE characters. The question I want to put out there is, do you really use these guys in games? The planar shepherd? The cancer Mage? Do these shenanigans actually see play time? Or are they just a fun past time to see how well you can combine all these different powers to blow stuff up?

the above is a far more limiting set of parameters than the "do you optimize" your title would imply. I presume this is because you optimized the title in order to attract additional readers?

[Grod_The_Giant]

Minor note- PO is "practical optimization," roughly defined as "usable in a real game." It's very group-dependent, as has been noted. TO is "total optimization," and is not intended for actual use. It covers things like infinite-strength Cancer Mages and Planar Shepherds with 10 turns/round.

[ElenionAncalima]

The problem is that this isn't a binary question. There is a whole scale of optimization. In a game of inexperienced players a level 1 Barbarian with 18 str and Power Attack probably seems pretty optimized. Throw that same build in with a very experienced power gamers and it could find itself well behind the curve, especially as levels advance.

I think the trick is to figure out what kind of game your group will be playing. If you bring a god build to a group where most of the players still need to be reminded which dice to roll for their longsword...you are probably being a jerk. However, if you are playing in a high op game and the GM is ready for that, you are probably going to want to keep up.

[Brookshw]

It's pretty dependent, and even within the same group for different games you might see different levels of optimization. Last game I ran, high ceiling, many tier 1's, incantrix warweaver running around shapechanged into a Solar most of the time, currently running a core only Expedition to Castle Ravenloft with certain pieces of core thrown out, next might be an E6. Personally I don't see many of the builds on this board show up in actual play but I know there are tables out there do use them. The answer is "varies", but in general I think most of the builds I see posted are above the power curve of most games I've been in. YMMV.

[ddude987]

The problem is that this isn't a binary question. There is a whole scale of optimization. In a game of inexperienced players a level 1 Barbarian with 18 str and Power Attack probably seems pretty optimized. Throw that same build in with a very experienced power gamers and it could find itself well behind the curve, especially as levels advance.

Replace a level 1 power attack with animal devotion and inexperienced players will say its the most powerful thing since storm crow (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Discussion.aspx?multiverseid=83282)

[Gabrosin]

That is the question. I've been on these forums (lurking longer than posting) for a while now, and I constantly see peopling building HUGE characters. The question I want to put out there is, do you really use these guys in games? The planar shepherd? The cancer Mage? Do these shenanigans actually see play time? Or are they just a fun past time to see how well you can combine all these different powers to blow stuff up?

My pet peeve on these boards is that almost all optimization is presented in terms of level 20 chars.

Are that many people playing in level 20 parties?

I think there's an art to practical optimization at the middle levels. No one expects to see Pun Pun allowed by any sane DM, but you could play a tier 1 caster at levels 5-11 and not break a game wide open, even at a high degree of optimization. Eventually, of course, that same character will become too ridiculous to continue playing, unless the entire party is like that.

The only real balance that matters is the balance between party members, such that everyone feels useful and continues having fun. Get to know your group and determine what level of optimization they're at, then strive to match it.

[Somensjev]

but you could play a tier 1 caster at levels 5-11 and not break a game wide open, even at a high degree of optimization. E

*cough*scrollofshapechange*cough* :smalltongue:

[Bloodgruve]

I will always partially optimize. Favorites have been lower tier optimized characters, there is something rewarding about pulling your weight with classes that are t3 or lower. I like pushing the underdogs to their limits.

Played DMM clerics, Druids, IF Factotum and other super optimized classes but my current Clawlock is more fun to me then any of the others. Too many options, spells and the ability to snap your finger and negate entire encounters gets a bit old IMHO. My current group runs a wizard and cleric, they've chosen strong paths but haven't optimized to a broken level and we're meshing very well. I chose not to run a t1 so I could push a higher level of optimization and not overshadow others in the group.

I feel that the group as a whole, including the DM, should agree on a level of power or optimization.

Blood~

[Thuphinlok]

Amphetryon, I do believe you are poking fun at me 😜 as for the title, I am a theatre major, so theatrics and play-on-word type of things tend to come naturally. I made up the title in about 2.5 seconds after deciding to post.
It is actually very heartening to hear that not as many people play the PO builds as write about them. I am indeed a mid range optimizer, and sometimes it is daunting to see a Mailman build, or a rainbow servant. It often made me wonder if I just for lucky with my friends in the OP dept. we all play at about the same level, and only have 1 'Mage' in the 10+ people group we have. We have a few bard dippers, but we are mostly melee guys who like unconventional solutions to the flying demon with soul eater lvls. . . We used a barrel of gunpowder to blow out a support beam on a building to crush the Baubau that we couldn't touch.

[Talya]

That is the question. I've been on these forums (lurking longer than posting) for a while now, and I constantly see peopling building HUGE characters. The question I want to put out there is, do you really use these guys in games? The planar shepherd? The cancer Mage? Do these shenanigans actually see play time? Or are they just a fun past time to see how well you can combine all these different powers to blow stuff up?

(1) Planar Shepherd and Cancer Mages are not "shenanigans." They are single PrCs. That they can be used for other shenanigans is another point entirely.
(2) Unless you generate your character entirely randomly, you always optimize. Assigning your point buy (or even assigning your rolled stats) in a way that prioritizes the ability scores you plan to make the most use of is optimizing. Picking feats that synergize with your character concept is optimizing. Everything you ever do to make your character mechanically representative of your mental concept is optimizing.
(3) The last bit you're describing is the difference between regular (or "practical") optimizing, and "Theoretical Optimizing." Even within T.O. there's different levels... the d2 Crusader can do infinite damage on a melee attack, but Pun-pun is a ridiculous concept in theoretical rules abuse to make an infinitely powerful character in every possible area. T.O. ideas are not intended to see use in games, they're just thought excersizes.

[Amphetryon]

Amphetryon, I do believe you are poking fun at me 😜 as for the title, I am a theatre major, so theatrics and play-on-word type of things tend to come naturally. I made up the title in about 2.5 seconds after deciding to post.
It is actually very heartening to hear that not as many people play the PO builds as write about them. I am indeed a mid range optimizer, and sometimes it is daunting to see a Mailman build, or a rainbow servant. It often made me wonder if I just for lucky with my friends in the OP dept. we all play at about the same level, and only have 1 'Mage' in the 10+ people group we have. We have a few bard dippers, but we are mostly melee guys who like unconventional solutions to the flying demon with soul eater lvls. . . We used a barrel of gunpowder to blow out a support beam on a building to crush the Baubau that we couldn't touch.

If you optimize, then you already answered your absolutist question in the affirmative. Have you ever met anyone who did not optimize, in any way whatsoever?

[Talya]

Amphetryon, I do believe you are poking fun at me 😜 as for the title, I am a theatre major, so theatrics and play-on-word type of things tend to come naturally. I made up the title in about 2.5 seconds after deciding to post.
It is actually very heartening to hear that not as many people play the PO builds as write about them. I am indeed a mid range optimizer, and sometimes it is daunting to see a Mailman build, or a rainbow servant.

I think you meant "T.O." builds...since they are not meant to see actual gameplay.

The Mailman is definitely "practical," not "Theoretical." It's not over the top, it's just a design concept for a spellcaster focused on delivering damage (of various kinds) in combat.

The Rainbow Servant is, again, just a PrC, not a build. The fact that it is a bit overpowered at very high levels that nobody plays at is kindof irrelevant. It's just a PrC.

[Hecuba]

If you optimize, then you already answered your absolutist question in the affirmative. Have you ever met anyone who did not optimize, in any way whatsoever?

You could roll your build from a table I suppose.
We can call it super-Gygaxian character generation.

In all seriousness, though, Amphetryon is spot on here.
Outside of absurd cases, this is not binary question: any time you have some goal with a mechanical implications for a character build, pursuing that goal with the mechanical system elements mean you are optimizing.

The question you should be asking is: to what extent do you do so?
In most cases, this is effectively the same question as: how much system mastery do you leverage in doing so?

In general, the correct answer to this is: the amount that puts you in line with the other players at your table.

[Thuphinlok]

Tayla, you are correct I did indeed mean T.O. And I am also aware that some of the 'builds' I cited are actually just PrC's. I was just using them as examples of things that are typically used in over powered builds. I think I simplified some text a bit too much because I am on my phone at work.

[Urpriest]

It really varies. For example, if I wanted to play an archer, chances are I'd play a Swift Hunter. That's very much a PO build: a specific number of levels in each class, feat orders determined to maximize damage and versatility. I probably wouldn't play Tippy's mind-arrow shooting Eagle sniper. That build is arguably PO too, but it's PO for a Tippy game.

Some optimization makes for more consistent characters with more interesting capabilities. PO helps make life more consistent. It's just important to know roughly where you're balancing things.

[ddude987]

Is there a PO build of swift hunter? I thought it was more a build archetype. huh...the more you know.

[Coidzor]

Optimization is a spectrum. :smallsmile:

[Urpriest]

Is there a PO build of swift hunter? I thought it was more a build archetype. huh...the more you know.


Optimization is a spectrum. :smallsmile:

This. Taking Scout 4/Ranger 16 is itself PO. Switching in a Cloistered Cleric 1 dip for Travel Devotion is slightly higher PO. Both involve thinking through the character, maximizing BAB while achieving all of the relevant milestones. They're something someone had to figure out once.

[Curmudgeon]

I love to optimize. I've spent way more money and time than is reasonable buying and reading D&D sourcebooks, and I'm pretty good at remembering what I've read. So if I were to start with some sort of Tier 1 character I'd likely dominate the game because I'd have a magical answer ready for most situations, relegating the other PCs into being my Greek chorus. That's only fun once or twice.

I mostly play Rogue characters. They provide both a low starting power level (Tier 4), and lots of options if you don't mind using a couple dozen books to build your character (I don't, obviously). I can keep up with the party even if everyone else is playing Tier 1 and Tier 2 classes. And I can just let my optimization skills loose without worry of overshadowing the other players. (If everyone else decides on Tier 3 and weaker characters, I'll play a Monk instead. Again, everyone has fun.)

If you want to optimize, just adjust your power level down first. It's an approach that works for me, and I recommend it.